Can theists be rational?

[Paulhoff]

So Bri, Are you saying that the laws of physics are not the same all over the universe, and if you do, please show us proof of this.

Paul

 

[fls]

But there is evidence that bones exist and are present there.

Really? It seems to me that there is only evidence that says that it may be a place where bones are present, but no evidence that they are actually present until they are found. If "a good place to look" serves as evidence, that sorta destroys your argument that there is no evidence for extra-terrestrial life, since all anyone is saying is that we may be able to identify "places to look".

No, I'm not. That's my point. Paleontologists don't search randomly, but rather according to where they are likely to be found based on evidence. SETI, not so much (there is no evidence that intelligent life is likely to be found anywhere but on Earth).

You keep bringing up the teapot in orbit around Jupiter, though. That seems to be saying "figure out where something may be and then look in a completely different spot".

That all depends on whether aliens exist. Have we reached the point in our search for gods that we are no longer able to find them?

Well, what gives us the idea that there may be gods somewhere?

That's the very reason why scientists rarely look for things without some evidence of their existence. We know that bones exist, and there is evidence that they exist in the locations in which they are being looked for.

Exactly.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with that. Sure, the hypotheses that no aliens exist, that no dinosaur bones exist, and that no gods exist are all theoretically falsifiable (if not practically so), but none can be shown to be true by observation or experiment either. In other words, they are not only unsupported by evidence, but unsupportable by evidence.

What about "there are no dinosaur bones in Tasmania" or "there is no CPT violation"?

Maybe you're simply demonstrating what many of us have known for a long time - Popper wasn't presenting a fixed principle.

Linda

 

[Bri]

So Bri, Are you saying that the laws of physics are not the same all over the universe, and if you do, please show us proof of this.

No, I haven't said that.

-Bri

 

[Paulhoff]

No, I haven't said that.

-Bri

So Bri, please explain how there can not be any intelligent life on some other world, outside your need, it seems, to not have any. The only way would be that you think there has to be some so-called god, right?

Paul

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

The problem is that we cannot suppose that because something happened only once that it will happen again. We have to know that it happened multiple times, and/or that there is reason to suspect that the conditions by which it happened have not changed.

-Bri

I think your prejudices are showing through. "Only once"? We can certainly suppose that something happening once has a likelihood of happening again in a similar context. What is the problem with that? You never sought out chocolate after tasting it only once?

Once a reality, always a possibility and all that. This is just basic logic.

We must know that something happens multiple times in order to suspect that it can happen again? No, that is what we use for near certainty, not for probable conjecture.

Besides, this neglects the entire thrust of the argument. It is not based on the number of data points demonstrating that life and intelligent life exists, but on the number of possibilities -- the outrageously high number of possibilities all existing under the same laws that resulted in this example right before us.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That's not necessarily true. It depends how low that number is and how high the number of "similar" planets is. There is evidence that the probability of events and circumstances that gave rise to intelligent life on this planet are very low and may have only occurred on this planet.

There is evidence that the probability of events and circumstance that gave rise to life on this planet are very low and may have only occurred on this planet? Really? I'm all ears. I would love to hear this evidence that accounts for what has occurred on all other extrasolar planets.

You cannot claim that we have evidence of life occurring only once so that we cannot conjecture that it is likely for it to occur elsewhere and also claim that we have evidence for how hard it is for life to occur elsewhere based on the same evidence of one occurrence. If we have only the one instance, you cannot possibly know how difficult or easy it might be for life to form elsewhere. Maybe it was hard for life to form on earth. Maybe it is the easiest thing in the world for both life and intelligent life to form on another planet.

True, there is no reason to suspect that the same conditions and events wouldn't result in life somewhere else, but there IS reason to suspect that the same conditions and events haven't occurred anywhere else.

Based on what? No one knows all the conditions that are necessary or that are capable of producing intelligent life. You have fallen into the trap that you are accusing others of doing.

But we are not claiming knowledge. We are claiming probability. Probability based on the huge nubmer of chances. It is a numbers game.

IF the combination of conditions and events that occurred on this planet aren't particularly rare then it may have occurred elsewhere. If they are rare (as is hypothesized by the Rare Earth Hypothesis), it probably didn't occur elsewhere. We don't know the combination of conditions and events by which life emerged here, and we don't know how rare that combination might have been.

Rare, schmare, that doesn't matter. I'm talking about the probability that it happened somewhere, sometime not how common it is. By what logic can you conclude that it is either not possible or highly unlikely for life to have arisen (even intelligent life) at all somewhere and sometime in the vastness of this cosmos?

No, sorry, but they don't lead to any such likelihood. There are no "numbers" to work from. About all we know is that there are a lot of stars. Other important variables are completely unknown.

Fine, they are unknown. It's wrong to do so (because they are not quite as unknown as you suggest), but I will even grant you that. Then you are wrong to argue against the likelihood of intelligent life appearing elsewhere. For all you know there is so much intelligent life in this universe, the variables being unknown, that they are on their way right now.

You cannot argue both sides of the street like this. Either we have some idea of what variables are important and we know that life is unlikely or we have no freakin' clue and it is just as likely as unlikely. Which is it?

It's an issue over lack of evidence for dualism.

No, it is not a lack of evidence. Evidence for dualism would be evidence for dualism and would show that dualism is not impossible. I am not claiming that it is impossible. I am telling you that it works by magic. If a mechanism were explainable, then we wouldn't be dealing with dualism but with monism.

Again, do you have evidence that such interaction is not explainable other than by "magic?" I'll be honest -- I think you made that up.

So, in other words, you are not even going to try to educate yourself and look where I told you to look?

For the last time, this is a much more fundamental issue; it is not an issue of evidence. I did not create the history of philosophy or the central issue in philosophy of mind.

Can you think of an explanation for consciousness? Just because we don't know the mechanism by which something works doesn't mean that there's no possible explanation other than magic.

Sure. I, like many others, have plenty of explanations for consciousness. We simply do not have good ways to test that they are correct yet.

Just as an example, we know of mirror neurons, and we know much of the circuitry involved in emotional and motivational states. Linking emotion/motivation to any other pathway provides both a means of introducing valuation and that esoteric sense of "experience". Link it to a set of mirror neurons that internally mirror the mirror neurons we already know exist for social interaction/empathy, and a crude sense of consciousness would emerge. There are several other systems that play into human consciousness, including attentional/awareness systems; but attention systems have proved relatively easy to build into robots, so that is not going to be the primary stumbling block.

Is this a full explanation? Well, of course not. But that is not the point. Where do you even begin to talk about a mechanism by which mind causes movement or God touches the world?

These problems are not of the same type. If you do not see how they differ, then again I don't see much reason to continue.

That you can't see how any of them work or don't result in magic doesn't equate to "no possible explanation other than magic."

-Bri

For God's sake, this isn't an issue of what I can see or not see; it is an issue of what is explainable in the first place. My ego is not involved in the least.

If we can arrive at an explanation, then what we have explained follows a set of rules. Rule following is the very heart of what we call materialism (can you define energy? I've not met anyone who can explain what "matter/energy" really is without recourse to a circular definition). Explaining things by the way they follow rules is what we mean by rationality/reasoning.

Again, this is not an issue of something that we do not yet know. Things, mechanisms we do not yet know are material. They have material explanations. I am talking about things that cannot be explained. If they follow the rules of the stuff we call matter/energy, they are of the substance that we call matter/energy. For something to be of another substance it cannot follow the rules of the material world. If it did, then it would be part of the material world or it would be an entirely superfluous addition that could not be discovered in any way (so how could you possibly know it existed -- I already mentioned epiphenomenalism, which is a type of this problem). For us to know that something immaterial exists, it must not work by material means. For it to work by an explainable mechanism means that it is actually material and not immaterial. There is a reason why when we speak of divine action we employ words like "miracle".

 

[Paulhoff]

It is funny, (but not really0, how many just can’t and/or wouldn’t get their mind around a very simple idea, and that idea is that their history line is not the only way to intelligence. Now what do I mean by this. Now that is also a simple idea, there is more then one way to do a lot of things. There is more then one way to fly in air, walk on the ground, swim in the water, eat food, etc and I will not list the obvious of those here. There is more then one way to make a plant reach for the sun, has in a tree, a blade of grass, a bush etc. There is more then one way on earth to make and/or evolve an eye, that has been done many times by many way different animals just on the earth alone. And there is most certainly more then one way to make an intelligent being, there are a few examples on earth, even if some will question that dolphins, whales, great apes, and even the octopus and others in its family are intelligent, which also is a group of animals that evolved an eye independent of our line of ancestors.

So it comes down to this, “Only a person who only wants their history to be the only history that is the only right way to do anything will be blind to all other possibilities.”

Paul

 

[articulett]

There are some things it's well worth speculating about. Even before there were space shuttles, we could imagine that such a thing could be invented... and even before the first space shuttle disaster we could imagine such would happen and take all precautions we could foresee... it would be wrong not to imagine in could happen again and do all in our possibility to try and discover what it might and how we can prevent it-- everything about science is extrapolating what could be from what is and was and what more we can know from what we know now.

The discovery of life elsewhere is a teeny step forward... the discovery of "intelligent" life, a tiny step forward from there-- but a god is a giant step out of the frame... a top down designer or planner of all the "life" out there... it seems to me an invisible, unknowable, immeasurable, "hypothesis" that fails at every turn--

It's an unfathomable black hole of ignorance compared to the our current ignorance regarding just any old extra-terresterial (but still material) "intelligent" life form we don't yet (or may never) know about.

 

[Paulhoff]

Get your mind around this Bri.

http://www.pbs.org/lifebeyondearth/listening/lilobsterpop.html

Paul

 

[Bri]

So Bri, please explain how there can not be any intelligent life on some other world, outside your need, it seems, to not have any. The only way would be that you think there has to be some so-called god, right?

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean, or what intelligent life on some other world has to do with whether or not a god exists. Specifically, I never said that there cannot be any intelligent life on some other world.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I think your prejudices are showing through. "Only once"? We can certainly suppose that something happening once has a likelihood of happening again in a similar context. What is the problem with that? You never sought out chocolate after tasting it only once?

That depends on the context. In this case, we don't know the context, and we don't know the probability of that context occurring elsewhere. If an airplane flies into your house on Monday, do you assume that another will strike your house on Tuesday?

Once a reality, always a possibility and all that. This is just basic logic.

A possibility, of course. I never said otherwise. I said you cannot assume that something that happens once is likely to occur again without knowing the conditions by which it happened the first time.

We must know that something happens multiple times in order to suspect that it can happen again? No, that is what we use for near certainty, not for probable conjecture.

Sorry, but that's incorrect. You cannot extrapolate from a single data point.

Besides, this neglects the entire thrust of the argument. It is not based on the number of data points demonstrating that life and intelligent life exists, but on the number of possibilities -- the outrageously high number of possibilities all existing under the same laws that resulted in this example right before us.

Except that we don't know the conditions and events by which it happened here, therefore the probability of the same conditions and events happening elsewhere is entirely unknown. Even if we assume that the number of planets is "outrageously high" (by the way, there is some evidence by which to base an estimate on the number of stars, but little evidence of the average number of planets per star) but there is some evidence that there was an infinitesimally small chance that intelligent life occurred here to begin with, so small that it's highly unlikely that it occurred anywhere else.

-Bri

 

[articulett]

We don't know that we ARE the "first time" intelligent life has happened.

 

[Bri]

There is evidence that the probability of events and circumstance that gave rise to life on this planet are very low and may have only occurred on this planet? Really? I'm all ears. I would love to hear this evidence that accounts for what has occurred on all other extrasolar planets.

I've already posted the link to the Wikipedia article:

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the emergence of complex multicellular life (metazoa) on Earth required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.​

You cannot claim that we have evidence of life occurring only once so that we cannot conjecture that it is likely for it to occur elsewhere and also claim that we have evidence for how hard it is for life to occur elsewhere based on the same evidence of one occurrence. If we have only the one instance, you cannot possibly know how difficult or easy it might be for life to form elsewhere. Maybe it was hard for life to form on earth. Maybe it is the easiest thing in the world for both life and intelligent life to form on another planet.

I didn't say that we cannot conjecture how likely it is to have occurred elsewhere. All I said was that any probability placed on it is just that -- a conjecture (a guess).

We don't know the conditions and events by which life emerged here, but there is some evidence (far from definitive) that those conditions and events were so improbable that they may not have occurred elsewhere.

Based on what? No one knows all the conditions that are necessary or that are capable of producing intelligent life. You have fallen into the trap that you are accusing others of doing.

I've never said that it is unlikely or likely that intelligent life exists elsewhere. I've said that there is some evidence that it may not exist anywhere but here on Earth. But until we know the precise conditions by which intelligent life emerges, it's unlikely that we'll have enough evidence upon which to base any real estimate that's anything beyond a guess.

But we are not claiming knowledge. We are claiming probability. Probability based on the huge nubmer of chances. It is a numbers game.

You have no compelling evidence upon which to base any particular probability on, even a small probability (which is why the Rare Earth Hypothesis is just a hyopthesis and not a theory).

By what logic can you conclude that it is either not possible or highly unlikely for life to have arisen (even intelligent life) at all somewhere and sometime in the vastness of this cosmos?

That seems to be a straw man as I've never made such a conclusion.

Fine, they are unknown. It's wrong to do so (because they are not quite as unknown as you suggest), but I will even grant you that. Then you are wrong to argue against the likelihood of intelligent life appearing elsewhere. For all you know there is so much intelligent life in this universe, the variables being unknown, that they are on their way right now.

Correct. Unfortunately, it's still a straw man as I've not said otherwise. I've only said that the probability of intelligent life elsewhere is unknown due to lack of evidence.

You cannot argue both sides of the street like this. Either we have some idea of what variables are important and we know that life is unlikely or we have no freakin' clue and it is just as likely as unlikely. Which is it?

It's as I've claimed throughout the discussion. We have no freakin' clue and it is just as unlikely as likely.

No, it is not a lack of evidence. Evidence for dualism would be evidence for dualism and would show that dualism is not impossible. I am not claiming that it is impossible. I am telling you that it works by magic. If a mechanism were explainable, then we wouldn't be dealing with dualism but with monism.

Can you provide evidence that it works by magic, and that there is no explainable mechanism? I Googled "dualism interaction problem" and found some references, but none of them said that it was unexplainable other than by magic.

So, in other words, you are not even going to try to educate yourself and look where I told you to look?

No, sorry. Wishful thinking on your part, I guess. Actually, I did look and didn't find anything that supports your claim. Please post a source that supports your claim that a supernatural being interacting with the natural world is unexplainable other than by magic. Otherwise I'll just assume you made it up.

Is this a full explanation? Well, of course not. But that is not the point. Where do you even begin to talk about a mechanism by which mind causes movement or God touches the world?

Of course it is the point. We don't know the mechanism, but that doesn't mean we can never know. And it doesn't mean that the only possible explanation is magic.

If we can arrive at an explanation, then what we have explained follows a set of rules. Rule following is the very heart of what we call materialism (can you define energy? I've not met anyone who can explain what "matter/energy" really is without recourse to a circular definition). Explaining things by the way they follow rules is what we mean by rationality/reasoning.

Can you post a citation where following a set of rules would have to be limited to the material, please? That's a new one to me.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

We don't know that we ARE the "first time" intelligent life has happened.

I stand corrected.

-Bri

 

[yy2bggggs]

I never said that the sun will rise tomorrow.

That's correct, you didn't. I'm not sure why you don't make this claim, but that's fine. I'm not making the analogous claim that there is intelligent life elsewhere either.

I did say that there is evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow. Do you disagree?

That's what I'm trying to figure out--if I disagree. It sounds like I have room for disagreement.

I also assumed that's what he meant, but I'll wait for him to clarify.

Ichneumonwasp was right.

We've already discussed some rather important differences between the two. We know that the sun has risen thousands of times prior and has never not risen. We know the conditions by which the sun has risen, We know that it is likely that those conditions will still apply tomorrow.

Apparently, we didn't discuss it, and you're confusing me with someone else. The highlighted portion of what you think we agreed to, is something you can only get to one way. You need to make an assumption to do so.

Regardless, before we get to that point, let's back up. Is the fact that the sun rose yesterday, evidence that it will rise tomorrow?

(Edit: Still catching up, by the way, so I apologize if this has been addressed already)

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That depends on the context. In this case, we don't know the context, and we don't know the probability of that context occurring elsewhere. If an airplane flies into your house on Monday, do you assume that another will strike your house on Tuesday?

Of course it depends on context. In this case we have the context that life arose once for sure and there are plenty of stars and likely plenty of planets. The chance that one of them has life is pretty likely I believe.

A possibility, of course. I never said otherwise. I said you cannot assume that something that happens once is likely to occur again without knowing the conditions by which it happened the first time.

We can assume anything we like. You cannot assume that it is unlikely to occur because you don't know all the conditions by which it happened the first time, though you seem to think that you can.

This is all opinion. Know one knows, I think we can all agree on that. You honestly think that you have control over others' opinions on this matter?

Sorry, but that's incorrect. You cannot extrapolate from a single data point.

Read what I wrote. I did not say that we extrapolate knowledge from a single data point. I said that we can conjecture from one. We do it all the time based on analogy.

Except that we don't know the conditions and events by which it happened here, therefore the probability of the same conditions and events happening elsewhere is entirely unknown. Even if we assume that the number of planets is "outrageously high" (by the way, there is some evidence by which to base an estimate on the number of stars, but little evidence of the average number of planets per star) but there is some evidence that there was an infinitesimally small chance that intelligent life occurred here to begin with, so small that it's highly unlikely that it occurred anywhere else.

-Bri

Fine. I have no problem with the statement that the conditions are unknown. That leaves us free to conjecture as we please. So what is the problem here?

Again, you cannot use the "evidence that there was an infinitesimally small chance the intelligent life occurred here" to further the same argument in which you say that the conditions are unknown elsewhere.

First, you do not know that there was an infinitesimally small chance for intelligent life to arise on earth. That in itself is bare conjecture based on a set of data designed to arrive at that conclusion. If we don't know the precise conditions here that led to intelligent life (and we don't) and we don't know the conditions that are necessary elsewhere (which may vary widely from what occurred on earth for all we know), then there is no basis on which we can limit the possibility of it occurring elsewhere. Given the huge number of chances for it to occur, I think it is likely that there is life elsewhere.

We see the same thing with the evolution of drug resistance. The chance that a mutation will lead to resistance to drug X is infinitessimally small. But there are so many interations of bacteria constantly turning over that the chance that it will happen eventually is very high.

It really is just a numbers game.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I've already posted the link to the Wikipedia article:

In planetary astronomy and astrobiology, the Rare Earth hypothesis argues that the emergence of complex multicellular life (metazoa) on Earth required an improbable combination of astrophysical and geological events and circumstances.​

That is not the evidence that I asked for. You seem to think that conditions elsewhere would be impossible or nearly impossible. I want the evidnce showing me that there is no earthlike planet elsewhere in the universe.

I didn't say that we cannot conjecture how likely it is to have occurred elsewhere. All I said was that any probability placed on it is just that -- a conjecture (a guess).

We don't know the conditions and events by which life emerged here, but there is some evidence (far from definitive) that those conditions and events were so improbable that they may not have occurred elsewhere.

Bri, we're all saying that it's a guess. Most of us guess that life is likely. So, what is the problem?

I've never said that it is unlikely or likely that intelligent life exists elsewhere. I've said that there is some evidence that it may not exist anywhere but here on Earth. But until we know the precise conditions by which intelligent life emerges, it's unlikely that we'll have enough evidence upon which to base any real estimate that's anything beyond a guess.

That evidence is fairly weak for all the reasons given above. It is one data point and should not be used to extrapolate knowledge. Didn't I hear that someplace?

We can conjecture. We are guessing. We guess that given the huge number of chances that it is likely that life arose elsewhere. We aren't basing this on absolute knowledge or evidence that we can point out other intelligent life. But the basis for the conjecture is sound.

You have no compelling evidence upon which to base any particular probability on, even a small probability (which is why the Rare Earth Hypothesis is just a hyopthesis and not a theory).

So, you have no reason to accept such conjecture. That's fine. But you also have no basis on which to argue against it.

That seems to be a straw man as I've never made such a conclusion.

Then why are you arguing this? This is the lang of conjecture. There is no grounds on which anyone can cut out any of these possibilities and folks can assign whatever probabilities they like. It doesn't mean they are correct. They should provide at least some basis for their conjecture, which most of us have done.

If you are not arguing that life is unilkely elsewhere, then you really don't have a horse in the race. I don't there is any ground on which you can argue that others thinking that life is likely are wrong or misguided. It is just a guess afterall.

Correct. Unfortunately, it's still a straw man as I've not said otherwise. I've only said that the probability of intelligent life elsewhere is unknown due to lack of evidence.

Of course it is unknown. We aren't talking about the known and unknown, but about the possibility and likelihood. I don't know why you think others are speaking as if they know the probability. They are talking about assigning a probability based on the sheer number of stars out there. You know? a guess?

Can you provide evidence that it works by magic, and that there is no explainable mechanism? I Googled "dualism interaction problem" and found some references, but none of them said that it was unexplainable other than by magic.

Bri, for the umpteenth time, if you are asking for evidence, then you don't get it. It is based on the deifnitions of what a fundamental substance means and what we mean by interaction.

So, for the third or fourth time: we speak of four fundamental forces and several different particles, all of which we believe can be accounted for by an underlying theory that explains it all. None of us have seen these forces in and of themselves. They look like they work by magic; and they were thought to do so in the past. But the very idea of causal interaction is based on these forces acting on "particles" in a rule-following system (what it means to be a fundamental force, that it works the same way in the same conditions). Really, materialism is a system that consists of some basic rules. For something to interact, it must have a mechanism for that interaction. Materialism is a system that describes those mechanisms.

If there is a completely other substance, then it does not interact through such mechanisms that we can explain. If it did, then it would be part of the materialistic paradigm.

If you have seen what the interaction problem is, then you have discovered that the problem is that we cannot explain the interaction of differing fundamental substances. That was my whole point. "Magic" is my way of expressing that inability to explain the interaction.

So, once again, I am not arguing that interaction is impossible. Spinoza made that argument, but I don't think we should dismiss the possibility of magic out of hand.

No, sorry. Wishful thinking on your part, I guess. Actually, I did look and didn't find anything that supports your claim. Please post a source that supports your claim that a supernatural being interacting with the natural world is unexplainable other than by magic. Otherwise I'll just assume you made it up.

Fine, when I get a chance later I will give you links to what materialism is. The rest follows. Whether others use the same words I do is beside the point. If you've looked this up, then you know that there is an interaction problem and that it is not explainable. There is nothing more to it. Magic is a word that denotes that the immaterial works through unexplainable ways. I don't know how to be more clear.

Of course it is the point. We don't know the mechanism, but that doesn't mean we can never know. And it doesn't mean that the only possible explanation is magic.

Yes, it does. We don't know because we can't know. If we can know the mechanism, then we aren't talking about an immaterial substance, but a material one. Explainable mechanism is the basis of materialism. The whole idea of an immaterial (other) substance implies that there is no explainable mechanism by which it interacts -- that is the interaction problem. There is no foundation for causality when we speak of incommensurate substances.

 

[Belz...]

Sure.

Compelling evidence: there is plenty of compelling evidence that bones exist.

Uh-huh, but no evidence it exists where it hasn't been found yet, which is basically what you're saying about alien life.


Gee, could someone convince Bri to take me off of ignore ? Otherwise there's little point in me continuing to contribute, here.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Uh-huh, but no evidence it exists where it hasn't been found yet, which is basically what you're saying about alien life.


Gee, could someone convince Bri to take me off of ignore ? Otherwise there's little point in me continuing to contribute, here.

Now she can see it. We're all basically saying the same thing, though.

Bri,

Here is a link to a Stanford article on Holbach, one of the big figures on the materialism side. There are many others if you want more info. There is a huge literature on what materialism is.

When it comes to discussing "mechanisms" though, just ask yourself this question, "What does the word 'mechanism' mean?" That should clear up this whole mess.

Things are either part of the causal chain or they are not. To be part of the causal chain means that the mechanism by which a influences b is describable on a causal account. To speak of a totally different substance is to invoke something that is not part of the causal chain, so not describable. It's a fundamental issue having to do with the types of 'substance' involved.

'Magic' is not intended as a derogatory term, only as a description of the issue -- something that occurs without possible explanation. It denotes the interaction problem.

 

[Paulhoff]

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean, or what intelligent life on some other world has to do with whether or not a god exists. Specifically, I never said that there cannot be any intelligent life on some other world.

-Bri

I'm not surprised.

Again this is simple, if no so-called god in the mix, then please explain how live and then intelligent life would not show up anywhere else in the universe.

Paul