If you're comfortable with that sentence, then I'll respectfully leave you to your fantastical world where that which is not impossible is ipso facto likely. But, if you're willing, I'd be interested in your answer to the question I asked JMorris.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you believe in aliens?
- Thread starter Ori
- Start date
That was the first step in the argument, ie, to even be on the road to "likely" you have to be possible. The second sentence was where we make the jump from merely possible (or, unlikely, if you prefer) to likely.
I do not understand why you equate the "likely" position to inevitability. By likely, I mean that I believe that the chances are greater the 50%; conversely, I believe when you say it is unlikely, you are saying that the chances are less than 50%. If I believed it was inevitable, then the chances would be 100%, and I wouldn't be saying things like "There is likely intelligent life out there." I would be saying that there is intelligent life out there.
So, my answer to your question is "no". There is no reason to believe that terrestrial intelligence was inevitable. All we know is that given "earth-like" conditions, intelligent life is possible.
EDIT:
What we speculate is that there are many, many "earth-like" conditions out there.
I agree.
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Carl Sagan on the drake equation.
I think the fact that this planet demonstrates the phenomenon of intelligent life is possible, when combined with the enormity of the universe, would make the word likely very suitable to describe that phenomenon.
I think the fact that this planet demonstrates the phenomenon of intelligent life is possible, when combined with the enormity of the universe, would make the word likely very suitable to describe that phenomenon.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Succinct and well-stated.
And not particularly relevant to the question of sapience.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
In your opinion.
Of course.
Thanks. Succintness tends to be one of my unrealized goals: always desired, rarely achieved.
Why do you think so? The sentences were clearly about intelligent life, given the context and the use of "intelligent life" in the first sentence.Jaywalker Soule said:
To be frank, getting life started in the first place seems to be the challenge to me, not necessarily the road to that life becoming intelligent. (I may be dead wrong on this, but the conditions needed for life to arise seem to be narrower than the conditions needed for intelligence to arise.)
I believe you to be dead wrong about this.
Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
It's rather fruitless to continue to attempt to engage in discussion with someone whose argument consists entirely of "I think you're wrong."
Why?
Do you merely believe the opposite, ie, it is easier for life to arise than for intelligence to arise? Or do you believe that both are equally difficult?
If the former, isn't it likely that the more life occurs, the more opportunities it has to become intelligent?
Thanks for the advice. I'll give it a couple more goes.atotalstranger said:
Magic Man
Reaper of Conversation
Well, that was helpful. I don't believe you to be, I know you to be dead wrong in your assessment, but thanks for playing. Scamper off now, please.
rojse
RF Addict
Please explain why life arose over three billion years ago, and it has taken almost as long for intelligent life to arise.
rojse
RF Addict
I think Jay is right on this regard. The earth formed four and a half billion years ago, was bombarded with asteroids and was molten until about 3.7 billion years ago, and life arose dramatically quickly after that, (less than 200 million years) but it has taken more than three billion years since then for intelligent life to arise (us, although I have my doubts at times).
And this leads you to claim that life arises far more easily than life becoming intelligent?
themadhair
Well-Known Member
Given that the latter requires the former, this should be almost tautological surely?
Thank you for providing a rational for your belief. :yes:
I have my doubts, however, if a timeline would prove or disprove my assertion. I could point to Jupiter and say "Look! It's been 4.5 billion years and life still hasn't formed on Jupiter."
I never said that it would take less time for intelligent life to occur than it would for regular old life to occur. I said that the conditions for life to occur seem to be narrower than those needed for intelligent life to occur once life has gotten started.
This really is just speculation on my part. Mball seemed to be more sure of himself, so I'd be interested in his answer.
Sorta. I am talking about conditions. The existence of life would be a pre-condition for the existence of intelligent life.
I only mentioned it because Jay doesn't seem to mind the idea that it is likely life exists elsewhere; it was intelligent life he objected to.
To me, it seems like getting life started in the first place would be the hard part. Once you've got something to work with, the conditions for intelligent life to arise are basically in place. (Please note that I'm not saying that it is inevitable that intelligent life will arise.)
I just thought it was strange that he'd be fine with the former (ie, just life), but all up in arms about the latter (intelligent life).