Prayer and power

[RandFan]

...that you don't think likely exists.

Who does this?

 

[Bri]

No, you simply attributed something to me that I did not do. However, I never said I was in disagreement with them.

I apologize if I attributed something to you that was said by someone else (it's hard to keep up). I may be mistaking you for someone else and I'm too lazy to go back and see who agreed that it was rational and who simply didn't say one way or the other.

Also, your straw man is constantly replacing intelligent life beyond this solar system with intelligent life elsewhere in this galaxy, they are not the same thing. Now, quit arguing as if they were.

It's not a straw man unless you believe that the belief that intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy is irrational. Do you? Yes or no?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Who does this?

You claimed that scientists do:

Ask a scientist if extra-solar intligent life forms are likely listening and they will say NO.

If scientists don't think that extra-solar intelligent life forms are likely listening, then why have they spent a considerable amount of time and money to send out signals and probes specifically to communicate with them? That seems rather irrational to me.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

There is nothing wrong with how it is worded. The discussion is within the realm of science, in which the supernatural is simply dismissed. As far as science is concerned, the supernatural does not exist, in the same manner as the universe beyond the theoretically observable universe doesn’t exist. If you allow the supernatural, all scientific understanding is completely and utterly useless.

I'm sorry, but science has little to say one way or the other about the supernatural. Science does NOT hold that the universe beyond the observable doesn't exist simply because it hasn't been observed (yet). If that were so, then science would hold that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in our galaxy. To assume that something doesn't exist because it hasn't been observed is a fallacy. Likewise, science doesn't assert that the supernatural doesn't exist.

I can only assume you didn’t understand a thing I just said. Nature is the laws of physics, as they truly exist if we had a complete and total understanding of them.

Yes, I did understand what you said, but I believe that the Wikipedia article disagrees. The laws of physics is not nature, but rather scientific generalizations based on empirical observations of nature.

Our observations of nature are descriptive of nature, not prescriptive. Nature isn't restrained to our observations, but the laws of physics are restrained by our (perhaps imperfect or incomplete) observations of nature.

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

I apologize if I attributed something to you that was said by someone else (it's hard to keep up). I may be mistaking you for someone else and I'm too lazy to go back and see who agreed that it was rational and who simply didn't say one way or the other.



It's not a straw man unless you believe that the belief that intelligent life elsewhere in our galaxy is irrational. Do you? Yes or no?

-Bri

There is nothing that makes the belief irrational. However, this galaxy alone is too small of a sample size to make the belief that we are the only intelligent life here irrational. We simply do not have the evidence gathered to gauge how rare intelligent life may be. When it comes to this galaxy alone, it is rational to believe either way. Neither contradicts the evidence we currently have, but remember this galaxy is less then one trillionth the size of the visible universe. When the odds start becoming 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000 to 1:100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 it is most definitely irrational to bet against them.

 

[Bri]

? How are the two even closely similar?

They are similar in that they are both unfalsifiable beliefs held despite a lack of evidence other than that they are possible.

I haven't seen any evidence that it is more than an opinion that one is irrational while the other is rational, or even that one is more rational than the other.

So long as they didn't believe that he is likely listening I would place the irrationality as low.

Again, you didn't answer the question, which assumes that the Christian believes that God is likely listening but that she or he doesn't know for a fact whether God is listening. If a Christian told you that she or he believes that God likely exists and that God likely grants some prayers, but that she or he doesn't know for a fact whether God exists or whether God grants prayers, would that belief be rational?

I know you don't care but while scientists don't have direct evidence of ET's they have much reason to base their belief that ET's are likely whereas those who believe in God have nothing.

I would certainly care if that were true, but of course it isn't. You cannot provide evidence that ET's are likely. You can provide evidence only that ET's are possible. There is a difference.

You got any scientists who believe that aliens are likely listening and likely talking back?

First, I don't know of many Christians who believe that God talks back to them.

However, SETI scientists have apparently performed experiments based on both listening for and communicating to ET's. It would seem irrational to spend money and time on an experiment that something is listening or talking if you didn't believe it likely that something is listening or talking.

So long as they don't sing praises to the aliens or credit the aliens for finding their lost keys or wallets. So long as they don't say "I give all credit and glory to the aliens". That is easily irrational.

So, which attributes is one rationally allowed to assign to a being that one believes exists without evidence? SETI scientists believe that ET's exist and communicate without evidence. Are they irrational?

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

I'm sorry, but science has little to say one way or the other about the supernatural. Science does NOT hold that the universe beyond the observable doesn't exist simply because it hasn't been observed (yet). If that were so, then science would hold that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in our galaxy. To assume that something doesn't exist because it hasn't been observed is a fallacy. Likewise, science doesn't assert that the supernatural doesn't exist.

There is no yet beyond the theoretically observable universe. Your understanding of the science of astronomy seems quite poor. There are parts of the universe that we will never see, ever. Those parts can never interact with anything here, ever. Science simply drops it as completely irrelevant; it does not exist as far as science is concerned. I suggest you read up on the Hubble constant, the expanding universe, and the event horizon (it is more than just a term for black holes).

Yes, I did understand what you said, but I believe that the Wikipedia article disagrees. The laws of physics is not nature, but rather scientific generalizations based on empirical observations of nature.

Our observations of nature are descriptive of nature, not prescriptive. Nature isn't restrained to our observations, but the laws of physics are restrained by our (perhaps imperfect or incomplete) observations of nature.

-Bri

Once again, you’re confusing our descriptions and understanding of the laws of physics for the actual laws of physics themselves, the rules which govern how matter and energy (nature) act.

 

[I less than three logic]

You claimed that scientists do:



If scientists don't think that extra-solar intelligent life forms are likely listening, then why have they spent a considerable amount of time and money to send out signals and probes specifically to communicate with them? That seems rather irrational to me.

-Bri

Yes, SETI has sent out transmissions, but those were generally done as some kind of celebration of some event, and were irrational as most celebrations are. Also, SETI has never sent its own probe anywhere as far as I’m aware of. We have put messages on other probes destined to exit the solar system after their actual mission, but that’s really more [rule8]s and giggles than anything else.

Your false statements will not become true by continuously repeating them. Perhaps there is a phrase to describe that type of argument.

 

[Bri]

Your false statements will not become true by continuously repeating them. Perhaps there is a phrase to describe that type of argument.

You are right, and I am wrong. They have apparently searched for and sent out radio signals, but have not actually sent out probes. Based on the argument that physical space-probes are a superior mode of interstellar communication to radio signals, they have searched for alien probes (and continue to search for radio signals).

It was a committee headed by Carl Sagan that sent the golden record on Voyager 1 and 2.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I misspoke. My appologies. I should have said "is not irrational".

Then your statement is that "forming an opinion as to the likelihood of something is not irrational so far as the belief does not exceed the evidence." Please provide more information about what amount of evidence you feel is necessary to not exceed the evidence of something for which there is little or no evidence.

Give me an example. I act on opinions based on experience and probabilities.

Why would you need an example of the fact that we all act on opinions if you already admitted that you act on opinions?

If there is someone living in the house on the east side of me then there is likely also someone living in the house on the west side. This is called induction and scientist use this all of the time to explore our world. It is something that you completly dismiss and it is unfortunate. There is nothing to base the likelyhood of god on. There is a hell of a lot to base the likelyhood of ET's on. I'm sorry that you can't see the difference.

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) means that the premises of the argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it. Yes, if a pattern exhibits many times in the past, one can induce that the same pattern will probably occur again. The more the pattern has exhibited in the past, the higher the probability that it will occur again. Sure, based on the fact that a large percentage of houses with people living on the east side also have people living on the west, one can induce that any given house will exhibit the same pattern. However, one cannot use induction to calculate the odds of something happening which has only been known to have happened once except perhaps to say that it is greater than 0%.

But this is a serious mischarachterization of what is happening. Scientists have been able to figure out elements in the periodic table of the elements using induction. There was no direct evidence. In your world they were behaving irrationally. However the scientists were using logic and reason. Try as we might we can't get you to see this valuable and powerful tool. For you, any opinion that also lacks direct evidence is the equivelant of hope.

No, I don't think you'll find anywhere in this thread where I have said that inductive reasoning is irrational. I did say that you can't use induction to arrive at a reasonable probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

Thankfuly the scientists don't view the world the way you do.

If you say so. Scientists are usually fairly careful about using words like "irrational" to describe things that don't defy logic.

For the same reason some people are willing to invest money looking for oil. There is no direct evidence of the oil. We must use induction, reason, experience and our understanding of the natural world and drill where we think it is likely.

Of course we can somewhat predict where oil might be located based on the evidence, specifically numerous places where oil has been found in the past and the range of conditions that we know are necessary for oil to be produced. We only know of one place where intelligent life exists, and we have no idea of how close conditions must be to those of earth for intelligent life to emerge.

Often the oil ISN'T there. The speculators waste their money. But because the speculators are willing to risk their money based on indirect evidence and reason we all benifit.

That's right, because based on past patterns, they can induce a probability that oil will be found in a particular location. There is no such pattern from which to draw any conclusions about the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

In your world such methods would be the same as praying.

If scientists viewed such methods as irrational we would never find oil or many other because such efforts often take such a large investment and a reliance on induction in the face of no direct evidence.

Again, no. I didn't say such methods were irrational.

Is there any reason to beleive the leprechaun lives under my bed? See, this is where you go completly off the reservation. Scientists have been using inference and an understanding of the natural world for centuries to locate things that have no direct evidence. Inference is a powerful tool but it requires SOMETHING to base it on other than simply hope and faith.

This last sentence is very important. The "something" to which you are referring is called "evidence." There is no more evidence to base a belief in intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy on than to base a belief in prayer on.

You think that only because you don't know that scientists have used induction to discover so many things. You don't realise that by looking around us we can infer things that we can't see, touch, hear or smell.

Once again, no. Please stick to what I've said rather than what you think I know or don't know.

Those that believe that it is merely coincidence won't be praying for long. Those that believe that it might just be coincidence are less rational than those who shout praise jesus and those who decare that all glory must be given to Jesus.

Really? Those who admit that it might just be coincidence are less rational than those who don't?

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Then your statement is that "forming an opinion as to the likelihood of something is not irrational so far as the belief does not exceed the evidence." Please provide more information about what amount of evidence you feel is necessary to not exceed the evidence of something for which there is little or no evidence.

Fair enough, the degree of irrationally depends on how far the belief exceeds reason.

Why would you need an example of the fact that we all act on opinions if you already admitted that you act on opinions?

Not all opinions are the same.

Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning) means that the premises of the argument support the conclusion but do not ensure it. Yes, if a pattern exhibits many times in the past, one can induce that the same pattern will probably occur again. The more the pattern has exhibited in the past, the higher the probability that it will occur again. Sure, based on the fact that a large percentage of houses with people living on the east side also have people living on the west, one can induce that any given house will exhibit the same pattern. However, one cannot use induction to calculate the odds of something happening which has only been known to have happened once except perhaps to say that it is greater than 0%.

Bingo. And don't forget we have a fairly good guess as to how many galaxies there are, 125 billion. We understand Normal Distribution (see bell curve). We understand that with all of those galaxies and taking into account normal distribution there is a good chance that there are other planets like ours. To think otherwise is to think it is unlikely that there is oil anywhere else on the planet.

Of course we can somewhat predict where oil might be located based on the evidence, specifically numerous places where oil has been found in the past and the range of conditions that we know are necessary for oil to be produced. We only know of one place where intelligent life exists, and we have no idea of how close conditions must be to those of earth for intelligent life to emerge.

Given normal distribution and the sheer number of galaxies is it reasonable to state that there is a reasonable likelihood that there are many other planets like ours with the same conditions?

Take drakes equations. Plug in your own numbers. Now, extrapolate using 125 billion planets.

That's right, because based on past patterns, they can induce a probability that oil will be found in a particular location. There is no such pattern from which to draw any conclusions about the probability of intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

Sure, we know that conditions on earth yielded intelligent life.

This last sentence is very important. The "something" to which you are referring is called "evidence." There is no more evidence to base a belief in intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy on than to base a belief in prayer on.

Not true. There is evidence here on earth. We are evidence. As Carl Sagan said, "we are made of star stuff". Do you really thing that given 125 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars there are nearly zero number of similar planets?

Really? Those who admit that it might just be coincidence are less rational than those who don't?

No, I can't keep my "less rational" separate from my "less irrational". Again, sorry.

 

[Bri]

Fair enough, the degree of irrationally depends on how far the belief exceeds reason.

What amount of evidence do you feel is necessary to not exceed the evidence of something for which there is little or no evidence in order to call it "rational?" It seems to me that the evidence for two things for which there is almost no evidence must be similar -- at least similar enough that one cannot clearly be "rational" while the other is clearly "irrational."

Not all opinions are the same.

I didn't say they were. I said that we all act on opinions.

Bingo. And don't forget we have a fairly good guess as to how many galaxies there are, 125 billion. We understand Normal Distribution (see bell curve). We understand that with all of those galaxies and taking into account normal distribution there is a good chance that there are other planets like ours. To think otherwise is to think it is unlikely that there is oil anywhere else on the planet.

Except that we have many examples of oil on the planet, so we have a pretty good idea of the range of conditions necessary for oil. Not so with intelligent life in the galaxy for which we have exactly one example and no idea what range of conditions are necessary.

Given normal distribution and the sheer number of galaxies is it reasonable to state that there is a reasonable likelihood that there are many other planets like ours with the same conditions?

With exactly the same conditions? Absolutely not. With similar conditions? That would depend on just how similar they must be. Unfortunately, we have no idea how similar they must be.

Take drakes equations. Plug in your own numbers. Now, extrapolate using 125 billion planets.

I put my numbers into Drake's equation and got .0000008 communicating civilizations in the galaxy. Is it or is it not rational to believe that communicating civilizations exist in the galaxy? Yes or no?

Sure, we know that conditions on earth yielded intelligent life.

That isn't in dispute. However, with only one known planet that has yielded intelligent life, we have no idea how close to earth conditions must be to yield intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

Not true. There is evidence here on earth. We are evidence. As Carl Sagan said, "we are made of star stuff". Do you really thing that given 125 billion galaxies with 100 billion stars there are nearly zero number of similar planets?

First, I said "in the galaxy" so the number of galaxies that might exist is irrelevant to my statement. Second, I will repeat once more that 1 example isn't enough data to extrapolate the conditions required for intelligent life to emerge elsewhere.

No, I can't keep my "less rational" separate from my "less irrational". Again, sorry.

No problem. My question was are they rational if they admit that it might just be coincidence even though their opinion is that it's not just coincidence?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

There is no yet beyond the theoretically observable universe.

It wasn't clear to me that you were referring to the event horizon, so please disregard the "yet." However, your statement that "[a]s far as science is concerned, the supernatural does not exist, in the same manner as the universe beyond the theoretically observable universe doesn’t exist" is still false. The universe beyond the event horizon may very well exist, but we'll never be able to observe it. The statement to which I originally commented was:

First, the supernatural doesn’t exist until there is adequate evidence to prove otherwise, so that line of argument is irrelevant.

Science only holds that something doesn't exist when there is adequate evidence that it doesn't exist. Science also only holds that something does exist when there is adequate evidence that it does exist (perhaps that's what you meant).

Your understanding of the science of astronomy seems quite poor. There are parts of the universe that we will never see, ever. Those parts can never interact with anything here, ever. Science simply drops it as completely irrelevant; it does not exist as far as science is concerned. I suggest you read up on the Hubble constant, the expanding universe, and the event horizon (it is more than just a term for black holes).

Emphasis mine. The first half of the sentence in bold is theoretically correct, inasmuch as something that can never be observed is irrelevant; however, the second half of the sentence is incorrect.

Once again, you’re confusing our descriptions and understanding of the laws of physics for the actual laws of physics themselves, the rules which govern how matter and energy (nature) act.

No, you're simply using a different definition of "laws of physics" (one that I've never seen before). See the Wikipedia article:

A physical law, scientific law, or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behavior.

Scientific "laws" are based on our observation of nature. We know of no "rules" which govern how matter and energy act. Nature acts as nature acts, and we come up with observations that we think represent how nature acts.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

What amount of evidence do you feel is necessary to not exceed the evidence of something for which there is little or no evidence in order to call it "rational?" It seems to me that the evidence for two things for which there is almost no evidence must be similar -- at least similar enough that one cannot clearly be "rational" while the other is clearly "irrational."

No, because as I have told you time and again one is borne of observation of the natural world and inference as to the likelihood of what we know existing happening again and the other is borne of nothing.

I didn't say they were. I said that we all act on opinions.

Which tells us nothing.

Except that we have many examples of oil on the planet, so we have a pretty good idea of the range of conditions necessary for oil. Not so with intelligent life in the galaxy for which we have exactly one example and no idea what range of conditions are necessary.

Again you mischarachterize the evidence. "No idea"? We can learn an awful lot from this example.

With exactly the same conditions? Absolutely not. With similar conditions? That would depend on just how similar they must be. Unfortunately, we have no idea how similar they must be.

You speak with an authority that I don't believe you are qualified for, again, "no idea"? What qualifications do you have to say something like that. Scientists clearly disagree.

I put my numbers into Drake's equation and got .0000008 communicating civilizations in the galaxy. Is it or is it not rational to believe that communicating civilizations exist in the galaxy? Yes or no?

I have demonstrated to you many times why this is wrong. Scientists don't claim that anyone is listening. They are conducting scientific experiments in the hopes that they are because they put the number higher than you, now, take your number and multiply it by 125 BILLION.

That isn't in dispute. However, with only one known planet that has yielded intelligent life, we have no idea how close to earth conditions must be to yield intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy.

"No idea"? BS.

First, I said "in the galaxy"...

I don't believe that is true. I've posted links demonstrating that you say outside of our solar system.

No problem. My question was are they rational if they admit that it might just be coincidence even though their opinion is that it's not just coincidence?

So long as they don't act is if it isn't just coincidence. And that's the problem. When you give credit for the good things in your life to an invisible man in the sky admitting that their might not be an invisible man in the sky you are being inconsistent and irrational. The actions belie whatever you might agree to.

 

[Bri]

No, because as I have told you time and again one is borne of observation of the natural world and inference as to the likelihood of what we know existing happening again and the other is borne of nothing.

As many times as you say it, we cannot infer the likelihood of anything for which there is only one example. Therefore, the statement "it is likely that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy" is not based on any observation of the natural world.

Which tells us nothing.

I agree, it tells us nothing. You said that "Christians don't simply hold an opinion, they act on faith." I was simply pointing out that we all act on opinion, and that your statement tells us nothing.

Again you mischarachterize the evidence. "No idea"? We can learn an awful lot from this example.

Of course, we can learn a lot about this example, but only about this example. We cannot infer the probability that similar examples would exist elsewhere since we cannot extrapolate from one example the range of conditions necessary for intelligent life to emerge.

You speak with an authority that I don't believe you are qualified for, again, "no idea"? What qualifications do you have to say something like that. Scientists clearly disagree.

If you prefer the term "little idea" instead then I'll be glad to use it instead. Otherwise, I have seen no evidence that science disagrees. If you can show me a scientific source that claims that we know how similar the conditions on another planet must be to those of earth for intelligent life to emerge, then I'll agree with you. The Wikipedia article and the article you cited concerning Drake's equation provide a wide range of values placed on the variables, which is evidence that we have little evidence to place a probability on the existence of intelligent life in our galaxy, certainly not enough to support a claim that it is likely.

I have demonstrated to you many times why this is wrong. Scientists don't claim that anyone is listening. They are conducting scientific experiments in the hopes that they are because they put the number higher than you, now, take your number and multiply it by 125 BILLION.

Given the amazing size of the universe, perhaps we should be listening for an invisible pink unicorn as well. If scientists don't believe anyone is out there, it would be irrational to spend time and money listening for them.

I don't believe that is true. I've posted links demonstrating that you say outside of our solar system.

Not to the statement which you cited before your comment, in which I said "in the galaxy." If you want to argue against another statement in another post, you might want to actually cite that other statement.

So long as they don't act is if it isn't just coincidence. And that's the problem.

Like the scientists who act on their belief that communicating intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.

When you give credit for the good things in your life to an invisible man in the sky admitting that their might not be an invisible man in the sky you are being inconsistent and irrational. The actions belie whatever you might agree to.

First of all, I imagine that most Christians give God credit for both the good and the bad that happens to them. Second, it is not irrational to credit God if you believe that God exists, even if you admit that he might not. Just as it's not irrational for scientists to listen for ET's that they believe exist, even if they admit that they might not.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

As many times as you say it, we cannot infer the likelihood of anything for which there is only one example.

? Who says?

I agree, it tells us nothing. You said that "Christians don't simply hold an opinion, they act on faith." I was simply pointing out that we all act on opinion, and that your statement tells us nothing.

I said that it depends on what that opinion is. If it is the opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow that is markedly different than God will help me find my glasses if I pray to him.

Of course, we can learn a lot about this example, but only about this example. We cannot infer the probability that similar examples would exist elsewhere since we cannot extrapolate from one example the range of conditions necessary for intelligent life to emerge.

Not true, not true at all. In fact that is just ignorant. We can learn what has led to life and infer that if such conditions existed elsewhere that it could happen again. This opinion of yours is not shared by science I assure you.

If you prefer the term "little idea" instead then I'll be glad to use it instead. Otherwise, I have seen no evidence that science disagrees. If you can show me a scientific source that claims that we know how similar the conditions on another planet must be to those of earth for intelligent life to emerge, then I'll agree with you. The Wikipedia article and the article you cited concerning Drake's equation provide a wide range of values placed on the variables, which is evidence that we have little evidence to place a probability on the existence of intelligent life in our galaxy, certainly not enough to support a claim that it is likely.

Take the number you extrapolated and multiply by 125 billion. Yes.

Given the amazing size of the universe, perhaps we should be listening for an invisible pink unicorn as well. If scientists don't believe anyone is out there, it would be irrational to spend time and money listening for them.

1.) We have no examples of pink unicorns or the conditions necessary for them.

2.) We have an example of intelligent life and the conditions necessary for that life.

Not to the statement which you cited before your comment, in which I said "in the galaxy." If you want to argue against another statement in another post, you might want to actually cite that other statement.

The links I posted were BEFORE.

Like the scientists who act on their belief that communicating intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy.

Only in an attempt to falsify. If they believed that it was working or that it was likely working or if they yelled praise aliens then you would be right. They don't and you aren't.

First of all, I imagine that most Christians give God credit for both the good and the bad that happens to them.

Irrational.

Just as it's not irrational for scientists to listen for ET's that they believe exist...

Believe likely exist. Show me a single scientist that claims the ET's are listening and I'll shut step down from the argument. Having lived my life with Christians I know the degree of their religious fervor and I know most fervently believe in God. I know most have great faith in God. I know of no scientist that behaves the way the religious do and credit ET's with anything. They don't because it is IRRATIONAL.

 

[Bri]

RandFan,

I think we've been back and forth several times concerning most of these points. Unless you've something new to add, I suggest that we agree to disagree at this point.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

RandFan,

I think we've been back and forth several times concerning most of these points. Unless you've something new to add, I suggest that we agree to disagree at this point.

-Bri

Fair enough. Thanks Bri.