Can theists be rational?

[westprog]

Ignorant and flat out wrong. No scientific supposition of Abiogenesis, evolution or the natural world relies on the existence of ET life.

Do you actually read my posts or just produce generic rebuttals? Nothing I wrote has anything to do with evolution.

The fine tuning issue relates to the surprising balance of the universe that enables life to develop. If it subsequently appears that in the entire universe, life only developed in precisely one place, that, following the same reasoning, would imply that something strange was going on.

The search for ET life is based on the same inductive questions that follow from observations of the natural world that all scientific searching is based on. Like searching for Tiktaalik the search for inteligent life is simply an attempt to understand our natural world. Nothing less nothing more.

 

[westprog]

And this is the source of my frustration. Not only is it not "silly" but it's demonstrably true.

Ok, let's take this one step at a time.

Before Einstein provided the theoretical basis for relativity there was no known theoretical basis for realtivity. True or false?

That did not make rativity theoretically impossible. True or false?

And did that make relativity not theoretically possible? True or false?

 

[westprog]

Saying there is NO evidence doesn't make it so.

You keep leaving out the important few words that make things clear.

There is evidence that there may be ET life. There is no evidence that ET life does exist. Why blur the distinction unless you want to obfuscate?

 

[Belz...]

The interesting thing about the ET issue is that it's in some ways associated with the fine-tuning issue. If there really are no ET's, then that adds to the suspicion that there's something odd going on.

The only reason why it's associated with the fine-tuning issue is that both are creationist horses.

 

[Belz...]

Ah, so it's an opinion, then.



I think you're making my point for me, here. The ability to imagine patterns doesn't make those patterns true. Or significant, for that matter.



All else being equal, yes. I keep repeating those words and you seem to miss them.



No, really ? Who's been cheating about the physical laws ?



Okay. Touché.



Why ? Why wouldn't you find it suspicious if I won playing 12-19-47-30-31-22 ? You're making 1-2-3-4-5-6 more significant than it should.

In short, what you're seemingly doing is expecting that, since there is, say 1 in 14 billion chances of us getting that sequence, it would take 14 million tries to get it. But that's quite a ridiculous opinion.



That makes even less sense.

Westprog, I'm still waiting. I don't think ignoring this helps you at all.

 

[Belz...]

There is evidence that there may be ET life. There is no evidence that ET life does exist. Why blur the distinction unless you want to obfuscate?

Because there is no distinction. What part of "irrelevant" don't you understand ?

There is evidence that person A may have murdered person B. There is no evidence that person A did murder person B. Does that sound OK to you ?

 

[westprog]

Do you think, then, that SETI should stop looking?
If so, may I ask why?

The point is that looking for something for which there is no evidence is not necessarily a foolish thing to do, and people who do such things may be rational.

 

[westprog]

Because there is no distinction. What part of "irrelevant" don't you understand ?

There is evidence that person A may have murdered person B. There is no evidence that person A did murder person B. Does that sound OK to you ?

It sounds like a perfectly reasonable distinction. If there is evidence that A may have murdered B, we can investigate. If there is evidence that A did murder B, we can have a trial. The distinction is not only clear, it's practical and used in real life.

 

[RandFan]

Good, you accept the point.

Yes, I know that.

You seem to be making inductive guesses about my opinions based on imperfect knowledge. I am well aware how science works, and my post above doesn't contradict that.

If you accept the premises then you must accept the conclusion, SETI isn't doing anything different than other scientists like palentologists and archeologists.

 

[RandFan]

Do you actually read my posts or just produce generic rebuttals? Nothing I wrote has anything to do with evolution.

Yes, I do read what you write. You don't realize that your arguments have logical conclusions. The post in question is complete and utter nonsense.

The fine tuning issue relates to the surprising balance of the universe that enables life to develop.

What do you make of the surprising fact that you are here? The improbability of all of the events that had to happen for you to exist are staggering.

If it subsequently appears that in the entire universe, life only developed in precisely one place, that, following the same reasoning, would imply that something strange was going on.

Not necassarily no. More importantly, there's no reason to suspect that it has. So you are making eroneous assumptions based on ignorance (what you don't know).

Now, before you fire of a rebuttal stop and think about whether or not my last statement is true. Do you know for a fact that in the entire universe of 300,000,000,000 galaxies containing roughly each 100,000,000,000 stars that life only devloped in precisely one place?

That's 300 billion (with a "B") multiplied by 100 billion (again with a "B") in an expanse of more than you could possibly comprehend and you presume to know what is likely not there.

"Strange"? What is strange is your presumption that you are drawing conclusions about something you know nothing about. I suppose it would be strange if we find flying mermaids also but why assume that there is?

The question at hand is if there could be life in the universe and if it's scientific and rational to look for that life. The answer to all three questions is a resounding yes.

So, now, as to the op, why is it rational to be a theist?

 

[Herzblut]

If you accept the premises then you must accept the conclusion, SETI isn't doing anything different than other scientists like palentologists and archeologists.

Digging holes in the ground?

You are aware, that you're permanently operating with analogies, aren't you? Invalid analogies, from my standpoint.

 

[RandFan]

And did that make relativity not theoretically possible? True or false?

TRUE! Theoretical possibility isn't a priori. You need to emphasize "theoretical" and not "possibility". Another way to state it is "from what we know is it possible?" Before Einstein the answer was no and looking back we can still state that from what was known at the time the answer is no.

Your question is like asking if an architectural drawing is of a structurally sound building before it's drawn. You are confusing epistemology with ontology. "Theoretical" is an epistemological statement. You are in essence asking if it was known that it was possible before it was known that it was possible. The answer to that question is both no and absurd.

It's epistemological because a theory is a model and only has explanatory power (in this case compelling to suppose that it is true) if it is coherent and all of the facts are true. Until you construct the model there is no way to know (emphasis on "know") if the theory is correct.

So yeah, True.

Same with god. There is no theoretical possibility for god (there is no basis to suppose that it is true, no model with explanatory power). That's not to say it is *theoretically impossible (a model with compelling evidence for why something is NOT true). As for ET intelligent life? Definitely theoretically possible. Look in the mirror and read a book on astrobiology.

*Depends on your definition of god.

 

[RandFan]

You are aware, that you're permanently operating with analogies, aren't you? Invalid analogies, from my standpoint.

Oddly enough, you can't seem to state why they are invalid. No analogy is perfect but until you can provide a reason to dismiss the analogy then there is no reason to dismiss it simply because it is an analogy. That would be to commit a fallacy.

 

[Herzblut]

Oddly enough, you can't seem to state why they are invalid. No analogy is perfect but until you can provide a reason to dismiss the analogy then there is no reason to dismiss it simply because it is an analogy. That would be to commit a fallacy.

The analogy is invalid ie because paleontology delivers results while SETI is a total failure thus far.

 

[RandFan]

The analogy is invalid ie because paleontology delivers results while SETI is a total failure thus far.

Fallacy.

To follow that line of logic would be to suppose that the scientists in search of something akin to Tiktaalik were not engaged in a scientific endeavor until the discovered Tiktaalik.

You are positing that one must have perfect knowledge before one can conduct science. This is false. If SETI were tomorrow to discover ET intelligent life are you suggesting that would suddenly make those who only think they are engaged in a scientific endeavor actually engaged in scientific endeavor?

Nonsense. That's NOT how science works.

 

[Belz...]

It sounds like a perfectly reasonable distinction. If there is evidence that A may have murdered B, we can investigate. If there is evidence that A did murder B, we can have a trial. The distinction is not only clear, it's practical and used in real life.

Westprog, what you seem to fail to understand is that since evidence that A did murder B is not certain then it is evidence that A may have murdered B, and vice-versa. You're just seeing a distinction where there isn't any. There aren't two kinds of evidence. There's just evidence.

 

[fls]

I'm guessing that you have no scientific background. It may interest you to know that gathering data and observation are part of the scientific method even when they are not being used as evidence for or against a falsifiable hypothesis.

Linda

Wrong. Data as such is completely irrelevant if not carrying information. Nobody collects such crap, except maybe blond women.

I must say, this thread has been most interesting, if only to discover that some people have some very strange ideas about just what it is that scientists do.

I have a friend undergoing chemo for breast cancer and last night we were trying on her wigs. I discovered that I look quite attractive as a blonde.

Linda

 

[westprog]

If you accept the premises then you must accept the conclusion, SETI isn't doing anything different than other scientists like palentologists and archeologists.

And I disputed this when?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The analogy is invalid ie because paleontology delivers results while SETI is a total failure thus far.

No it isn't. We now know that nobody in our neighborhood is directing a narrow beam radio signal at us within a given window of time (depending on the distance from us). That definitely is a result.

SETI could not detect a civilization exactly like us (one that uses radio the way we have) even at the nearest stars.

 

[westprog]

Westprog, what you seem to fail to understand is that since evidence that A did murder B is not certain then it is evidence that A may have murdered B,

Yes.

and vice-versa.

No.

You're just seeing a distinction where there isn't any. There aren't two kinds of evidence. There's just evidence.

Mr Smith's wife is stabbed to death. Mr Smith doesn't have an alibi. Is that evidence he did it? No. Mr Smith was known to hit his wife. He has a bad cut on his hand. His blood was found at the scene of the crime. Is that evidence that he did it? Yes.

Call it a spectrum of evidence if you like - but clearly the fact that it's possible for someone to have done a crime is not considered to show that he did do the crime. The first step is to establish possibility. The next, to lead to a belief or certainty.

Tweedledee and Tweedledum are locked in a room with a cake. When we open the door, the cake is gone. Each blames the other for eating it. Do we have evidence that Tweedledee ate the cake? We have very good evidence that Tweedledee or Tweedledum ate it, but so far we can't say we've evidence that leads to either of them. Then we see that Tweedledee has crumbs on his jacket and jam on his fingers. Now we have evidence that points to Tweedledee.

Was it irrational to go looking at Tweedledee and Tweedledum, when we didn't have any evidence to show which of them had done it? Clearly not - you can only get the evidence in the first place by looking for it, and you have to start with nothing.