against intelligent creator?

[Polymath257]

We have an ear on an entire galaxy- and hear nothing but the 'great silence'. We are the only means we know of, by which creation can ponder it's own existence, appreciate itself-
So if it's 'self centered' to appreciate how special we are in creation, what is it to insist we are not special- an insecurity complex?

Given how very little of the universe we have investigated and how recently we have obtained the technology to do so, it is *way* early to conclude we are alone.

There is a nice dynamic between the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox. Unfortunately, given the information we have, the most likely explanation I can see is that 'intelligent' life manages to destroy itself within a few thousand years of getting good technology. If that is the case, then the likelihood that we overlap another technological race in our own galaxy is rather small, even if life is easy to produce.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

How do you know "we're the only" creation to ponder it's own existence? There are many suns and many moons outside our galaxy and the universe is vast. Who is the say we are the center of the universe only because we want to appreciate our own existence.

It's self-centered (centered or focused on ourselves rather than the vastness of things) and this has caused wars thinking "we're the only ones"... and things like "the bible is only written for us." That just bugs the mess out of me. Words that place humans at a superior level is, in nice words, self-centeredness.

You can appreciate life just I don't agree with hierarchy thinking.

I'd assume that a book written in French, is primarily intended for people who speak French- even if it may also be inhabited by millions of bacteria. I don't think a Frenchman who appreciates this is 'self centered' he's just making a logical deduction.

So too with the universe, we are the only species in millions we know of, who even know it exists, and are able to explore, understand, learn about it, what better way to appreciate anything?

Belief in ET is another question, but I don't think it looks promising, I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make another planet like Earth probable...

But what leads you to believe they are out there?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Given how very little of the universe we have investigated and how recently we have obtained the technology to do so, it is *way* early to conclude we are alone.

There is a nice dynamic between the Drake equation and the Fermi paradox. Unfortunately, given the information we have, the most likely explanation I can see is that 'intelligent' life manages to destroy itself within a few thousand years of getting good technology. If that is the case, then the likelihood that we overlap another technological race in our own galaxy is rather small, even if life is easy to produce.

True, I don't think we can ever fully conclude we are alone- but we do have some numbers we can crunch, we know at least from SETI that the galaxy is not teeming with life, and I think the Fermi paradox supports the math; it's not looking promising for ET

Any single civilization with tech. little better than our own could have colonized the galaxy many times over by now (overcoming the self destruction factor) yet apparently this has never happened (ancient alien theories not withstanding!)

It's a fascinating question though, because either answer; alone or not.. is so profound

 

[Polymath257]

True, I don't think we can ever fully conclude we are alone- but we do have some numbers we can crunch, we know at least from SETI that the galaxy is not teeming with life, and I think the Fermi paradox supports the math; it's not looking promising for ET

Correction: it is not teeming with technological life that uses technology that we can detect.

it may well be teeming with life. Remember that there has only been technological life on this planet that could be *potentially* detected for the last 100 years. And there has been life on the Earth for around 3.8 billion years.

Any single civilization with tech. little better than our own could have colonized the galaxy many times over by now (overcoming the self destruction factor) yet apparently this has never happened (ancient alien theories not withstanding!)

Again, that isn't so clear. It assumes colonization is a goal. It also assumes that the economics allows and encourages the development of technology to allow (even robotic) colonization. But I agree, the Fermi paradox is interesting. The idea that we might be the *first* technological civilization is also an intriguing one.

It's a fascinating question though, because either answer; alone or not.. is so profound

In addition to destruction, it is also possible that the technology used isn't detectable by us currently. So, for example, we are *currently* working on ways to allow secure, undetectable communication. Barring the ability to make a Dyson sphere, it isn't clear we *could* detect even a moderately advanced civilization.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd assume that a book written in French, is primarily intended for people who speak French- even if it may also be inhabited by millions of bacteria. I don't think a Frenchman who appreciates this is 'self centered' he's just making a logical deduction.

So too with the universe, we are the only species in millions we know of, who even know it exists, and are able to explore, understand, learn about it, what better way to appreciate anything?

Belief in ET is another question, but I don't think it looks promising, I think the universe would have to be much much larger to make another planet like Earth probable...

But what leads you to believe they are out there?

Given what we know right now, it actually seems *likely* that there are many Earth-like planets in our own galaxy.

My *guess* is that life is fairly common, even very common, but that technological life is very rare. Remember that even on the Earth, we have only had radio for about 100 years, but life has been around at least 3.8 billion years. And how many ways have we already found to destroy ourselves? How long do you think we have before we manage to do so? If less than 10,000 years, and if this is the norm, then simply overlapping with other technological civilizations would be very unlikely, even if technology happens frequently.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

it may well be teeming with life. Remember that there has only been technological life on this planet that could be *potentially* detected for the last 100 years. And there has been life on the Earth for around 3.8 billion years.

yes, I take your point that is an important distinction, and I do think alien 'life' is far less improbable than alien civilizations

But your observation also works against the probability of ET doesn't it?- i.e. we could find a million other planets identical to Earth, and expect to find dinosaurs or any other pre-human life far more readily than any sentient/ technological beings right?

Again, that isn't so clear. It assumes colonization is a goal. It also assumes that the economics allows and encourages the development of technology to allow (even robotic) colonization. But I agree, the Fermi paradox is interesting. The idea that we might be the *first* technological civilization is also an intriguing one.

True, though we are barely a single lifetime after inventing powered flight, and have already walked on the moon, sent probes throughout and beyond our solar system, are studying exo-planets as candidates for further investigation..some like Hawking consider it our destiny to colonize the stars.. we already appear to have the motives and means ourselves. certainly we could come up with many reasons why a civilization may not wish to, or be able to do so... but can we safely assume such excuses for all of them?

In addition to destruction, it is also possible that the technology used isn't detectable by us currently. So, for example, we are *currently* working on ways to allow secure, undetectable communication. Barring the ability to make a Dyson sphere, it isn't clear we *could* detect even a moderately advanced civilization.

Sure, likewise it's not impossible that every single member of the galactic colony is using perfectly disguised communication- and has done for 10's of thousands of years at least, because the time lag allow us to detect old signals..

We start to walk a pretty fine line though, where ET is common enough for the intellectual satisfaction of declaring humanity 'unremarkable', yet rare and discreet enough to hide all traces of it's ever existing anywhere in the galaxy.

Communication aside, Earth has represented a pretty sweet piece of vacant real estate for billions of years. with apparently no showings - maybe the galactic market is in a colossal slump?

 

[Polymath257]

yes, I take your point that is an important distinction, and I do think alien 'life' is far less improbable than alien civilizations

But your observation also works against the probability of ET doesn't it?- i.e. we could find a million other planets identical to Earth, and expect to find dinosaurs or any other pre-human life far more readily than any sentient/ technological beings right?

Definitely.

Again, my personal evaluation is that microbial life is probably common. Multicellular life is likely to be much more uncommon (even on Earth, multicellularity didn't arise until after life had been around almost 3 billion years). And technological life is probably pretty rare.

True, though we are barely a single lifetime after inventing powered flight, and have already walked on the moon, sent probes throughout and beyond our solar system, are studying exo-planets as candidates for further investigation..some like Hawking consider it our destiny to colonize the stars.. we already appear to have the motives and means ourselves. certainly we could come up with many reasons why a civilization may not wish to, or be able to do so... but can we safely assume such excuses for all of them?

The only answer I have is 'I don't know'. Getting outside of our solar system and to another star is *massively* more difficult than going to Mars.

I'll give a quick scale model which I like to use.

If the distance from the Earth to the sun is scaled to be one inch, the distance to the moon is the width of a human hair.

The distance to Mars varies from half and inch to 2 1/2 inches (from Earth).

The distance to Jupiter from the sun is about 5 inches.

The distance to the *nearest* star (other than the sun) is over 4 *miles*.

The distance to the center of *our* galaxy is about 25,000 miles.

Sure, likewise it's not impossible that every single member of the galactic colony is using perfectly disguised communication- and has done for 10's of thousands of years at least, because the time lag allow us to detect old signals..

We start to walk a pretty fine line though, where ET is common enough for the intellectual satisfaction of humanity being 'unremarkable', yet rare and discreet enough to hide all traces of it's ever existing anywhere in the galaxy.

Communication aside, Earth has represented a pretty sweet piece of vacant real estate for billions of years. with apparently no showings - maybe the galactic market is in a colossal slump?

Again, we simply don't have the evidence to know one way or the other. We have barely begun exploring our own solar system for signs of life. We have only recently demonstrated that planets even exist around other stars. Even 20 years ago, we knew of *no* planets around stars like our sun. Now we know of hundreds.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Definitely.

Again, my personal evaluation is that microbial life is probably common. Multicellular life is likely to be much more uncommon (even on Earth, multicellularity didn't arise until after life had been around almost 3 billion years). And technological life is probably pretty rare.



The only answer I have is 'I don't know'. Getting outside of our solar system and to another star is *massively* more difficult than going to Mars.

I'll give a quick scale model which I like to use.

If the distance from the Earth to the sun is scaled to be one inch, the distance to the moon is the width of a human hair.

The distance to Mars varies from half and inch to 2 1/2 inches (from Earth).

The distance to Jupiter from the sun is about 5 inches.

The distance to the *nearest* star (other than the sun) is over 4 *miles*.

The distance to the center of *our* galaxy is about 25,000 miles.


Again, we simply don't have the evidence to know one way or the other. We have barely begun exploring our own solar system for signs of life. We have only recently demonstrated that planets even exist around other stars. Even 20 years ago, we knew of *no* planets around stars like our sun. Now we know of hundreds.

The scales of distance are vast yes, but so is the time scale isn't it? I saw one estimate of 5 million years, with tech little better than our own, for colonizing the entire galaxy- debatable of course

but ET has hypothetically had billions of years to colonize the galaxy, and so any one of them could have done many many times over by now.

So yes there are different explanations, either nobody ever colonized, or they conceal themselves, or they never existed.


As earlier though I think the observation merely supports the math as I see it, there are simply not enough star systems to make another technological civilization probable

You seem pretty savvy so I'm sure you are not taking those click bait reports of 'earth-like' planets as being actually 'earth like' They usually use the term to describe any remotely detected object anywhere near a hypothetically estimated habitable zone of any star... and you know that there is a little more to it than this!

One of the most promising 'earth-like' planets in the Gliese system made fairly big news, lots of lovely artistic impressions of this 'super-earth' which turned out to be a glitch in the data..

 

[Polymath257]

The scales of distance are vast yes, but so is the time scale isn't it? I saw one estimate of 5 million years, with tech little better than our own, for colonizing the entire galaxy- debatable of course

And tending to ignore the economics of the colonization.

but ET has hypothetically had billions of years to colonize the galaxy, and so any one of them could have done many many times over by now.

Well, second generation stars are the *minimum* required for the development of life, so the full 13.8 billion years is not available.

But yes, the time scales are still huge.

So yes there are different explanations, either nobody ever colonized, or they conceal themselves, or they never existed.

And we simply don't have the evidence to select among those possibilities.

As earlier though I think the observation merely supports the math.

You seem pretty savvy so I'm sure you are not taking those click bait reports of 'earth-like' planets as being actually 'earth like' They usually use the term to describe any remotely detected object anywhere near a hypothetically estimated habitable zone of any star... and you know that there is a little more to it than this!

Oh, of course there is! We *might* be able to detect free oxygen in a planet that orbits a nearby star in such a way that we get transits and thereby spectroscopy of the atmosphere. Low likelihood, in my guess, but possible.

But if we *do* find free oxygen, that is almost a certainty that life is active. And that alone would be amazing.

One of the most promising 'earth-like' planets in the Gliese system made fairly big news, lots of lovely artistic impressions of this 'super-earth' which turned out to be a glitch in the data..

Again, we are *very* early in this search. Given that most of the planets we know about are within a hundred lightyears of us, we clearly don't have a 'big picture' as yet.

But, we do know that planets are *common* with an average of at least one planet per star and with 1 in 5 sun-like stars having earth-sized planets in the 'habitable zone' (which only requires liquid water). That is far, far more common than *anyone* thought even 20 years ago.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And tending to ignore the economics of the colonization.



Well, second generation stars are the *minimum* required for the development of life, so the full 13.8 billion years is not available.

But yes, the time scales are still huge.



And we simply don't have the evidence to select among those possibilities.



Oh, of course there is! We *might* be able to detect free oxygen in a planet that orbits a nearby star in such a way that we get transits and thereby spectroscopy of the atmosphere. Low likelihood, in my guess, but possible.

But if we *do* find free oxygen, that is almost a certainty that life is active. And that alone would be amazing.



Again, we are *very* early in this search. Given that most of the planets we know about are within a hundred lightyears of us, we clearly don't have a 'big picture' as yet.

But, we do know that planets are *common* with an average of at least one planet per star and with 1 in 5 sun-like stars having earth-sized planets in the 'habitable zone' (which only requires liquid water). That is far, far more common than *anyone* thought even 20 years ago.

We don't have the big picture but the universe is all made of the same stuff, the same physics, the picture getting clearer and there is a trend here

Back in the days of Verne and Poe, we didn't so much debate whether or not people lived on the moon, as much as what sort of folks we would meet there. Canals were 'seen' on Mars because it was a dry planet, and it would be only logical for the inhabitants to divert water from ice caps. We took for granted that people and life was everywhere as on Earth, we had no idea about the countless hurdles facing the existence of complex life.

Now we'd be very excited with a fossilized microbe on Mars- I.e there are two sides of the equation- 'astronomical' numbers of stars on one side, do not automatically overcome astronomical odds against complex life being able to survive on the other.. while the former is somewhat agreed upon and static, the latter is ever growing and compounding itself.

(And that's generously granting abiogensis/ panspermia on every planet!)


But let me ask you this hypothetical- re. the topic of this thread:

If it turned out that we were utterly alone, the only means by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence, explore and learn about itself..

Would this give you any pause- to reconsider those 'atheist tendencies' ? or do you think you could write this off as yet one more bizarre coincidence?

 

[Polymath257]

But let me ask you this hypothetical- re. the topic of this thread:

If it turned out that we were utterly alone, the only means by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence, explore and learn about itself..

Would this give you any pause- to reconsider those 'atheist tendencies' ? or do you think you could write this off as yet one more bizarre coincidence?

I don't see how it has any bearing on atheism at all. The real question is why we would be so unusual. So, if we explored the galaxy and found *no* other life, then that would be surprising enough that I would consider a 'special creation' for humans and possibly an intelligent designer of humans, as such. The next question would be where those designers came from. The most likely place would be another galaxy.

On the other hand, if we find microbial life in abundance, but few examples of multicellular life, then I would consider that multicellularity was a difficult step. That alone would not push me to a designer of life on Earth.

If, on the other hand, we found multiple examples of multicellular life and no other examples of technological life (even remains of such), then I would say we are likely to be the first in our galaxy and that technological life was hard to get to.

So, in answer to your question, the only case I can see where a designer would be a real option is where life is essentially non-existent except for us. But even in that case, the question of where the designer came from would be open.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't see how it has any bearing on atheism at all. The real question is why we would be so unusual. So, if we explored the galaxy and found *no* other life, then that would be surprising enough that I would consider a 'special creation' for humans and possibly an intelligent designer of humans, as such. The next question would be where those designers came from. The most likely place would be another galaxy.

On the other hand, if we find microbial life in abundance, but few examples of multicellular life, then I would consider that multicellularity was a difficult step. That alone would not push me to a designer of life on Earth.

If, on the other hand, we found multiple examples of multicellular life and no other examples of technological life (even remains of such), then I would say we are likely to be the first in our galaxy and that technological life was hard to get to.

So, in answer to your question, the only case I can see where a designer would be a real option is where life is essentially non-existent except for us. But even in that case, the question of where the designer came from would be open.

Okay, and so if *no* other life existed in the universe, you would consider an intelligent designer that transcends our universe?

also to press the original hypothetical- if we found microbial life and or/multicellular but could establish that we were alone as sentient beings in the entire universe... as the only means the universe has to contemplate itself from within- this you could comfortably write off as a freak coincidence?

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, and so if *no* other life existed in the universe, you would consider an intelligent designer that transcends our universe?

The main thing that would do is make me wonder what is so special about a minor planet around a minor star in an ordinary galaxy. It certainly wouldn't make me default o an intelligent designer. In fact, if we are the *only* life in the universe, I would find that to be evidence *against* a design of the universe for life. Such would be exceedingly poor design, I would think.

also to press the original hypothetical- if we found microbial life and or/multicellular but could establish that we were alone as sentient beings in the entire universe... as the only means the universe has to contemplate itself from within- this you could comfortably write off as a freak coincidence?

Not a coincidence at all. But a curious thing. It certainly wouldn't lead me to default to a creator. Again, we could easily be the *first* technological life if making that transition to technology is a difficult one.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

OK, so you don't believe in a hell?
I've never understood the desire for immortality. Anything past around 100,000 years would quickly get boring.

What I don't believe is that a 'non-biblical hell' which is being taught in the realm of Christendom is biblical hell.
Christendom (so-called-Christian) teaches that biblical hell is a permanent burning place of forever torture.
They wrongly teach No one righteous goes to hell, and No one gets out of hell.
The Bible's hell is simply the grave for the sleeping un-conscious dead as Jesus taught at John 11:11-14.
According to Acts of the Apostles 2:27 the day Jesus died Jesus went to hell, If biblical hell was a permanent place then righteous Jesus would still be in hell.
KJV translated into English the word Gehenna as: hellfire.
Gehenna was just a garbage pit outside of Jerusalem where things were destroyed forever Not burning forever.
Since the dead know nothing, they do Not feel pain in death according to Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 115:17; 146:4.
Also, at Revelation 20:13-14 teaches the dead will be 'delivered up' out of biblical hell(grave) meaning resurrected out of hell because Jesus will use symbolic keys to unlock death and biblical hell for mankind - Revelation 1:18.

It may sound odd to say but there is a difference between 'immortality' and 'everlasting life'.
Adam was Never offered immortality. The immortal are death proof. Adam was always mortal.
Mortal Adam was offered everlasting life on Earth as long as he kept God's Law.
So, if you don't want to live past 100,000 years all you have to do is copy father Adam and break God's Law.
I find that I never tire of seeing my favorite people and never tire of my favorite foods, so I imagine there will be things to choose that will Not bore us. Why Not wait til the end of your 100,000 years to make that decision.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Okay, and so if *no* other life existed in the universe, you would consider an intelligent designer that transcends our universe?

How about transcends universes or multiverses.

I would like to take the liberty to add the words " Not at this time ".
'Not at this time' is there intelligent life on other planets because first the sin issue raised in Eden will first have to settled here on Earth before there will be intelligent life elsewhere.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The main thing that would do is make me wonder what is so special about a minor planet around a minor star in an ordinary galaxy. It certainly wouldn't make me default o an intelligent designer. In fact, if we are the *only* life in the universe, I would find that to be evidence *against* a design of the universe for life. Such would be exceedingly poor design, I would think.

Ever heard of Minecraft?

The 'world' that exists for the benefit of the single 'sentient' player is practically infinite, because it is determined by mathematical algorithms, not finite resources- just like the universe. By your rationale, this in and of itself suggests that the game was not designed by an intelligent designer, but spontaneously wrote itself for no particular reason!

Similarly, whether God or spontaneous mechanism, the creator of this universe was not limited by resources, the size and scope of the universe is ultimately determined by information.

So if for the same 'price' you can have a minimalist, space saver universe, a single solar system.... or a vast, beautiful, awe inspiring cosmos which draws it's inhabitants out and beyond themselves- I'd think the former would be less indicative of a creative intelligence at work...

Also consider, that again some see it as our destiny to colonize the stars, and you yourself argue that we may be the first to be able to do so...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

IMO, because of Jn 6:37, those people were not Christians.
Since we are on wheat and you seem to understand figurative language, let me give you a bone to chew on. When the wheat was harvested, it was threshed then winnowed. Threshing involved running a threshing sledge over the grain. That is is the painful times we have in life. Winnowing involved throwing the crushed grain into the air and the wind (the Holy Spirit) would separate the seeds(God's children) from the chaff, outward body. This was probably done several times. Then one day the good seed will not fall back to the ground. We will meet the Lord in the air and be with Him forever(the rapture).
Agreed. I like your term, "wheat Christians." I am going to try an work that into a lesson the next time I teach.

I don't consider it as 'my' term " wheat Christians" because it comes from Jesus' illustration at Matthew 13:25-30.
The fake 'weed/tares' Christians do what they always do trying to choke the ' wheat' Christians out of existence.
It's kind of like God plants a lawn with quality grass seeds then enemy Satan throws in weed/tares seeds.
So, as Not to pull out, or root out, the grass with the weeds they grow together until they are recognized.
Then, when the weeds become a 'bumper crop of weeds', then at the weeding ' time of separation ' God will use illustrated 'weed-be-gone' to eliminate those pesky weeds. So, genuine Christians (wheat) will be will be set apart from those imitation 'weed/tares ' Christians who are part of the MANY of Matthew 7:21-23.

So, to me Jesus was warning us that the newly planted Christian ' wheat ' field of the first century would be over sown with those pesky ' weed/tares' imitation Christians growing side-by-side with the 'wheat' until the harvest time. The harvest time of the soon coming ' time of separation ' of Matthew 25:31-33,37.
Jesus likened our days to the days of Noah at Matthew 24:37. There was No rapture, but an Ark of Salvation.
Though No literal Ark today, but as Isaiah 26:20 says those hidden (such as being in a ' spiritual ark ') for those humble ' sheep'-like people being protected through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

IMO most atheist don't want to admit the existence of God. If He real, they will have to change their conduct.

Which conduct would I change, and why would God's existence make me change it?

 

[omega2xx]

I don't consider it as 'my' term " wheat Christians" because it comes from Jesus' illustration at Matthew 13:25-30.
The fake 'weed/tares' Christians do what they always do trying to choke the ' wheat' Christians out of existence.
It's kind of like God plants a lawn with quality grass seeds then enemy Satan throws in weed/tares seeds.
So, as Not to pull out, or root out, the grass with the weeds they grow together until they are recognized.
Then, when the weeds become a 'bumper crop of weeds', then at the weeding ' time of separation ' God will use illustrated 'weed-be-gone' to eliminate those pesky weeds. So, genuine Christians (wheat) will be will be set apart from those imitation 'weed/tares ' Christians who are part of the MANY of Matthew 7:21-23.

Agreed

So, to me Jesus was warning us that the newly planted Christian ' wheat ' field of the first century would be over sown with those pesky ' weed/tares' imitation Christians growing side-by-side with the 'wheat' until the harvest time. The harvest time of the soon coming ' time of separation ' of Matthew 25:31-33,37.
Jesus likened our days to the days of Noah at Matthew 24:37. There was No rapture, but an Ark of Salvation.
Though No literal Ark today, but as Isaiah 26:20 says those hidden (such as being in a ' spiritual ark ') for those humble ' sheep'-like people being protected through the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14.[/QUOTE]

Basically the wheat and tares proverb teach that their will be non-believers in our congregation so be aware of it. Don't give new members positions of authority, deacon or elder and don't let them teach, until you have time to evaluated them. In my church it is 1 year.

I basically agree the flood(water symbolizes God word(Eph 5:26) is a picture of God's provision for saving His people.

 

[omega2xx]

Which conduct would I change, and why would God's existence make me change it?

I have no idea what your conduct is. If some of it is a sin according to God, and if you accept there is a penalty for sin, it would be prudent to change that type of conduct.