ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

[Nathon Detroit]

fixed it for you.

Thank you. :up:

 

[Johnny]

At what point does an improbable event become impossible? Knight, stripe, feel free to throw out a specific number.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

At what point does an improbable event become impossible? Knight, stripe, feel free to throw out a specific number.

:doh:

You tell me!

After all.... we are in agreement that the signal was not random and therefore you and I must have a similar feel for the likelihood of such a message being generated randomly.

You appealed to intelligence. Why?

 

[Johnny]

At what point does an improbable event become impossible? Knight, stripe, feel free to throw out a specific number.

:doh:

You tell me!

Tell you what? I've made it explicitly clear that if an event has a non-zero probability it is a possible event. You're the one who said,

Just because there is a mathematical probability that a tennis ball can pass through a brick wall doesn't mean that it is ever going to happen. That's the funny thing about math and probabilities.... they eventually part ways with reality.​

So at what part does probabilities and "math" part ways with reality? At what number does an improbable event become impossible?

After all.... we are in agreement that the signal was not random and therefore you and I must have a similar feel for the likelihood of such a message being generated randomly.

You appealed to intelligence. Why?

Because in my mind it is more probable that there is intelligent life in the universe trying to communicate with us than it is that the message is the result of random noise. It's not that one explanation or the other is eliminated because of it's impossibility.

Judgment, or assent to probability, supplies our want of knowledge. The faculty which God has given man to supply the want of clear and certain knowledge, in cases where that cannot be had, is judgment: whereby the mind takes its ideas to agree or disagree; or, which is the same, any proposition to be true or false, without perceiving a demonstrative evidence in the proofs. - John Locke​

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Because in my mind it is more probable that there is intelligent life in the universe trying to communicate with us than it is that the message is the result of random noise.

I know that already. I asked why.

Why is intelligence more probable than lack of intelligence?

 

[Johnny]

I know that already. I asked why.

Why is intelligence more probable than lack of intelligence?

In my opinion, intelligence is more probable than lack of intelligence in this case because of precedent. We know that there are intelligent beings in the universe, and we know that these intelligent beings frequently create things that are artificial. Given the vast improbability of the message being random and the strong correlation between intelligence and artificiality, I judge it the result of intelligence.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

We know that there are intelligent beings in the universe, and we know that these intelligent beings frequently create things that are artificial.

What do you mean by that? Are the intelligent beings us? And what are the artificial things we create?

 

[SingedWing]

I've unlocked the code in SingedWing's posts. Look closely in this one for a hidden message.

Nice.

 

[SingedWing]

Pekkle,
As a Christian, then I believe you will suffer eternally since you reject God. I'm not being mean, just honest. So ultimately, the reason for my spending any time over here on the atheist threads is to trial and error some ideas that might get an atheist thinking. If I'm doing a poor job of it, so be it. If I'm flat out wrong on anything I post, then so be it. If I look like an idiotic fool, then so be it. But I am trying because I ultimately care. You might not believe that when you see criticisms, sarcasm, or other things like that. But those are part of an overall effort that I am willing to attempt, even though I realize it is likely to fail. I can live with a failed attempt. But I would not like to say that I never tried.

That all being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a Christian coming down very hard on other Christians. It happens all the time around here. And there is nothing wrong with finding commonality with atheists and battling shoulder-to-shoulder against certain ideas. I have no problem with that. My problem with SingedWing is that he is apparently willing to leave atheists completely alone, assuming that your "right" position on evolution will be the door to truth one day for you. He'll go after Christians, criticizing and condemning them, but snuggle up with atheists and just love them to death.

cm :chicken:

I kind of like the little critters. They have open and rebellious minds. Did you see that joke about the Big Bang one of them came up with? Gotta love'm.

 

[SingedWing]

What's it going to take to get a decent response, one that is on topic, from this lot? :sigh:

A topic would help. Watching Knight roll this out is like watching paint dry. I read the whole argument on another site. Maybe Knight wrote it. It is the most intelligent argument I have seen on the internet but it still doesn't work.

Knight's argument. If the dice came up all ones every time would I think someone intelligent loaded the dice. Yes.

Evolution. If the dice were loaded would they all come up the same way nearly every time. Yes.

 

[SingedWing]

A topic would help. Watching Knight roll this out is like watching paint dry. I read the whole argument on another site. Maybe Knight wrote it. It is the most intelligent argument I have seen on the internet but it still doesn't work.

Knight's argument. If the dice came up all ones every time would I think someone intelligent loaded the dice. Yes.

Evolution. If the dice were loaded would they all come up the same way nearly every time. Yes.

The difference between the atheists and I is in what we think loaded the dice.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

A topic would help. Watching Knight roll this out is like watching paint dry.

Unroll what?

Oh I know... I know... you think this is a "gotcha" thread don't you?

What if I told you that you were wrong? What if I told you that I really think about these things and I think other folks think about them as well? What if I told you I simply like exploring issues like these with a wide range of folks who have differing opinions?

Sure, there are some clear analogies to be made regarding the creation of the first living cell and other complex things forming without the help of intelligence but that certainly isn't my only goal in this thread. Believe it or not, I just like discussing these things, heck I have already learned a few things since this thread started and for that I am very grateful.

 

[SingedWing]

Unroll what?

Oh I know... I know... you think this is a "gotcha" thread don't you?

What if I told you that you were wrong? What if I told you that I really think about these things and I think other folks think about them as well? What if I told you I simply like exploring issues like these with a wide range of folks who have differing opinions?

Sure, there are some clear analogies to be made regarding the creation of the first living cell and other complex things forming without the help of intelligence but that certainly isn't my only goal in this thread. Believe it or not, I just like discussing these things, heck I have already learned a few things since this thread started and for that I am very grateful.

Apologies. If you want to talk about improbability did you see my post on the crayon? Have you ever seen something that weird happen?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Apologies. If you want to talk about improbability did you see my post on the crayon? Have you ever seen something that weird happen?

That was a cool story. (I read your post)

Here is mine.
When I was working for US West (large communications company) I was outside talking with some co-workers, there was a guy next to us flirting with a woman, the woman asked the man if he had any change because she wanted to buy a soda from the machine. The man fumbled through his pocket and retrieved a handful of change. The man picked out a quarter and attempted to hand it to her but the quarter slipped through his hand and bounced on to the ground. The quarter landed standing up! It was incredible. The man was in awe and he quickly became disinterested in the girl and more interested in the quarter standing at attention. The girl (oblivious to what had just happened) became annoyed with the man for ignoring her (her mouth had never stopped moving during this entire event). The girl eventually walked away and the man just stood there, staring at the quarter.

Improbable things like that happen all the time. But neither my story, nor your story, deal with the appearance of intelligence within the event, instead these are anecdotal stories about interesting events/accidents.

 

[chickenman]

Since this has come back to probabilities, I'd like to re-state my original point that got obscured (just by the nature of a whole lot of talk and rabbit trails, not someone's intent) throughout the thread.

The main issue I was attempting to deal with was: what are the odds that life can form from non-life, and does probability increase over time.

The question of probability over time is completely irrelevant, and here's why. No human has ever produced life from non-life and no human has ever witnessed life formed from non-life. It's not even come close. For there to be some probability over time, the odds for a single event have to be known. And since no one has seen it happen or even knows theoretically how to make it happen, then the variables that would play into the odds of a single event are completely unknown (and perhaps not even possible). So we can't say, "It's bound to happen given enough time" when we don't have a clue about what "It happening" is. Probabilities can only be said to increase over time if variables are identifiable.

I'm not trying to refresh the whole debate again. Since the subject just came up, though, I wanted to state my initial thought in this thread since it sort of got lost.

 

[Stripe]

Since this has come back to probabilities, I'd like to re-state my original point that got obscured (just by the nature of a whole lot of talk and rabbit trails, not someone's intent) throughout the thread.

The main issue I was attempting to deal with was: what are the odds that life can form from non-life, and does probability increase over time.

The question of probability over time is completely irrelevant, and here's why. No human has ever produced life from non-life and no human has ever witnessed life formed from non-life. It's not even come close. For there to be some probability over time, the odds for a single event have to be known. And since no one has seen it happen or even knows theoretically how to make it happen, then the variables that would play into the odds of a single event are completely unknown (and perhaps not even possible). So we can't say, "It's bound to happen given enough time" when we don't have a clue about what "It happening" is. Probabilities can only be said to increase over time if variables are identifiable.

I'm not trying to refresh the whole debate again. Since the subject just came up, though, I wanted to state my initial thought in this thread since it sort of got lost.

An excellent point! :thumb:

:think:

I wonder if any of the atheists can tell us how to create life? That would provide some of the numbers we'd need...

 

[Pekkle]

My thoughts.

The main issue I was attempting to deal with was: what are the odds that life can form from non-life

We cannot presume to know yet.

and does probability increase over time.

The probability that the event has occured will increase over time, but the probability of it happening in a single event won't increase, of course. If inanimate material had a one in a billion billion chance every second to turn into life it could just as easily form in the first second of the earth in which the conditions existed, or it could take a billion billion seconds, or it could never happen. This is just basic probability though.

And since no one has seen it happen or even knows theoretically how to make it happen, then the variables that would play into the odds of a single event are completely unknown (and perhaps not even possible).

Now why would you think that?

So we can't say, "It's bound to happen given enough time" when we don't have a clue about what "It happening" is. Probabilities can only be said to increase over time if variables are identifiable.

This is to stripes to:

Despite not knowing the probability of life forming we can say that with the amount of time and the amount of planets in the universe that even if the probability of life is extraordinarily low the amount of time and planets makes it extraordinarly likely certain that life will come about in the universe. Other than life on earth of course, which has obviously occured.

(Probability of an outcome in a single "roll of the dice")*(Amount of "rolls") = Probability of it happening.

Therefore

(Probability of life forming in a single instant on a single place in a single planet)*(The average amount of places on a given planet in which life can form)*(The amount of planets)*(The amount of time that has passed) = The approximate number of times life has formed.

Since we can get the last 3 factors either by approximation and/or observation, and we know that they are very large, that means that even if the probability of life forming in a single instant on a single planet in a single place is very very very low then life still has a strong likelihood of forming.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Since this has come back to probabilities, I'd like to re-state my original point that got obscured (just by the nature of a whole lot of talk and rabbit trails, not someone's intent) throughout the thread.

The main issue I was attempting to deal with was: what are the odds that life can form from non-life, and does probability increase over time.

The question of probability over time is completely irrelevant, and here's why. No human has ever produced life from non-life and no human has ever witnessed life formed from non-life. It's not even come close. For there to be some probability over time, the odds for a single event have to be known. And since no one has seen it happen or even knows theoretically how to make it happen, then the variables that would play into the odds of a single event are completely unknown (and perhaps not even possible). So we can't say, "It's bound to happen given enough time" when we don't have a clue about what "It happening" is. Probabilities can only be said to increase over time if variables are identifiable.

I'm not trying to refresh the whole debate again. Since the subject just came up, though, I wanted to state my initial thought in this thread since it sort of got lost.

That is a fantastic point chickenman.

If I get you right what you are saying is... there is a certainly probability that a roll of five dice will produce all ones. Yet there is no probability that all five dice will bounce and then hover one inch above the table.

Determining if life arising from non-life is even possible is necessary if we are to determine the probability of such and event happening by chance.

 

[Stripe]

That is a fantastic point chickenman.

If I get you right what you are saying is... there is a certainly probability that a roll of five dice will produce all ones. Yet there is no probability that all five dice will bounce and then hover one inch above the table.

Determining if life arising from non-life is even possible is necessary if we are to determine the probability of such and event happening by chance.

Exactly. Pekkle has ignored chickenman's valid point that an event that has not yet been shown as possible might well be impossible.

Is it possible that it is impossible to create life without a designer?

 

[chickenman]

That is a fantastic point chickenman.

If I get you right what you are saying is... there is a certainly probability that a roll of five dice will produce all ones. Yet there is no probability that all five dice will bounce and then hover one inch above the table.

Determining if life arising from non-life is even possible is necessary if we are to determine the probability of such and event happening by chance.

That's it. So the non-theistic evolutionist's general position puts the cart before the horse.