Thorolf,
"The LIKELIHOOD of those conditions being identically replicated ANYWHERE else in the universe is quite slim."

That's not the point. Of course the conditions elsewhere probably won't be exactly like the conditions on earth.


"As for it being "impossible for there NOT to be life" - talk about faith! I don't think there is a legitimately scientist in the world who would agree with you."

Then tell me how, if all the conditions were exactly the same, life as we know it could have been different. Yes, if some conditions were different then life would be different. if the dinosaurs had not suffered their vast extinction they might still be the dominant life form. But life on earth is the response to the situation on earth, not some supernatural Deity. IMHO


"The LIKELIHOOD of the conditions being perfect are slim enough... but then the LIKELIHOOD of the events that took place are even more of a reach. Consider then the processes required by evolutionary theory to develop INTELLIGENT life, and the chances of there being intelligent life ANYWHERE in the FINITE universe are not great.

I'm sorry if that offends you, but rejecting STATISTICS because they don't conform to your belief system... well. That, my friend, is a much bigger leap of faith than anything I have to offer."

(Sigh) statistics based on what? Tell me the parameters these statistics are based on. Have you never heard the old saw that statistics can be used to "prove" anything?

If you are willing to say that these statistics merely "prove" that life as we know it is "unlikely" then go ahead. But if you, like Creationists do, try to use that as an argument that our life MUST have been created by a supernatural Deity then I invite you to use the science of statistics to give us the probability of a supernatural uncaused causer.

Elluminati,
"Jack obviously has the authority to define what is and what isn't to be considered "observable."  Where does one acquire such authority Jack...Kentucky U?"

Well, I guess you told me!

Actually, I am very aware that most of what I say are mental constructions from my mind. Every now and then I am able to look past my desires and fears and see a little more clearly simply what is but that is mostly an ideal for me.

If I haven't been clear than let me try to be clearer. I am only speaking for myself. What I say here are MY values and insights. I make no claims to speak for God or to understand any of that. What "God wants" is of little meaning to me because it appears to me that what God wants is basically unknowable. I know Christians have their version of what God wants but that's only one version of many and Christians have trouble agreeing on even their version of God. My ideal is not to try and figure out what God wants but to simply see myself and my world as clearly as possible given my limitations. One of my limitations is that I'm not willing to devote my entire life to a meditative life but even dabbling as I do has taught me much.

peace...

"Out of curiousity, do you believe in the Buddhist hells?"

In the literal sense, no. It's my understanding that Buddhist hells reflect unwholesome state of mind and are not literally "places we go when we die". Practically, it's not a matter I give much energy to.

Jacknky


The essence of religion knows that materiality consists of vibrations of relative frequency.  Science agrees.  We know that as materiality becomes more fine, their vibrations increase.  At some point we can neither detect materiality or vibration since their frequency is both beyond our perception and perception enhanced through technology.

When we reach this point at which we no longer detect matter and vibration, is it more logical to admit our limitations and believe vibrations exist beyond them or to disbelieve and demand proof, by definition impossible, in order to be open to the existence and effects of vibration on our being but beyond our external modes of perception?

But you believe that there must be life out there, even though the series and vast number of conditions that allowed for life on this planet are virtually impossible to replicate? On what do you base that belief?


If conditions were EXACTLY the same elsewhere as on Earth when life appeared, it almost certainly STILL would not have happened. The origin of life is not a simple chemical equation that can be duplicated... even the most ardent evolutionists postulate that there had to be some event, other than simple collection of ideal conditions, to have sparked life. But they don't teach that in school, do they? Hmm... I wonder why not??


Are you really sighing at me? Really? The ironic part is that I'm using a pretty rational, downright scientific argument here, and after all this talk about how wonderful science is - you're rejecting it simply because it doesn't agree with you. You know, there is a rolling eyes smiley in the toolbar, if you want to be especially obnoxious about your unwillingness to concede even the smallest tidbit.


Assumptions don't help your case. I believe that I made no argument that the unlikelihood of the conditions that allowed for life on this planet to be replicated anywhere else has JACK to do with a creator or designer.

And for that matter, I'm not sure that I have ever heard of or seen any "Creationist" make such an argument.

Elluminati,
"So, the original point is that since everything we understand to be true and FACTual depends on our ability to mentally construct the concepts through logic and reason, we are not limited to truth consisting of only those things that we can mentally construct as "natural" since we have proven that to be false over and over again through science and philosophy.  The subject of eternity is a FACT that you will never be able to escape, it will never be a "natural" phenomenon, just like a square can never be a circle."

So on one hand we ARE indeed "limited" to logic and reason but on the other hand the FACT of eternity will never be a natural phenomenon. How do you know this if "everything we understand to be true and FACTual depends on our ability to mentally construct the concepts through logic and reason"? Talk about making a square into a circle.


"I would never accuse people like you of being an elitist, I assert that people like you THINK you're an elitist by rejecting traditional logic and reason."

Well, I certainly never would accuse people like you of being elitist because you claim to understand what can't be known. And I don't reject traditional logic and reason. I reject religious belief as being logical and reasonable. Call your belief "faith" and we have no argument. Call it logical and reasonable and we do.


"I submit the FACT of eternity to the scientific community as proof of the supernatural, they cannot test it but it still exists.  So I choose to see eternity for what it is (not natural) and your claim that there will be a time when science will be able to naturally explain eternity might happen, but it will take an eternity."

There is no proof for the supernatural. As soon as there is proof of a phenomena it becomes "natural" by definition.

"Good luck with the square circle."

LOL. That's funny.   

"Modern Science is predicated on the presumption that what religion has taught is wrong. Scientists have grabbed onto that predication and proceeded to make it a veritable personal mission to defeat "religion." Science is far from neutral on the subject... because it assumes theism is incorrect. Therefore, it is anti-theistic in nature. Hardly neutral."

Good grief. maybe you need to read some books on science and the scientific method.


"Boy, he sure could turn a phrase, eh? Anyway, back to anything that matters.... why would the comment above be "so far removed from [your] world?" Science describes the unseeable and as-yet unknowable, and I doubt you'd have much problem accepting what it postulates - that's what we ignorant religious types call "faith."

Because science does NOT "describes the unseeable and as-yet unknowable" as fact. Science clearly labels the theoretical as theoretical. The scientific method calls for the constant testing and revision of scientific theories. Unlike religion, science is not written in stone but rapidly changes and grows as new knowlege is accumulated.


"I understand the scientific method... probably (apparently) better than you."

I'm sorry. you don't. In my humble opinion you are distorting science. I don't understand this impulse theists have to ground their religious faith in science. It can't be done. Faith is not based on scientific knowledge. Why do you try?

I am quite familiar with Stephen Hawking's thoughts... and I am also very familiar with the belief that any life that might be found is almost certainly going to be very different than what we know on Earth. That, however, isn't particularly relevant to what I was saying... the fact remains that it is very unlikely that the conditions and events necessary for life is exceptionally unlikely, even in the vastness of the universe.

Incidentally, you wouldn't be citing Hawking in the way Catholics might cite the Pope, are you? (FWIW, Hawking is not considered one of the top-10 most influential physicists in the world... just an interesting side note)


I don't follow Creationist scientists. I would thank you to avoid that dismissive and disrespectful presumption. You don't get to dismiss what I say based on your own ignorance... I have had a relatively significant amount of scientific education as I went through school, including advanced physics and introduction to quantum theory. So you can take your "but I don't read much Creationist literature" crap and shove it. I don't read ANY Creationist literature.. ANY Evolutionary biologist or honest scientist in general will tell you that, in theory, the proteins required to create life had to be perfectly aligned, and then an energy source likely was required - perhaps an impact or a lightning strike... in any event, the actual beginning of life is utterly UNKNOWN. Although that doesn't stop people from theorizing...


I'm not sure what "assumptions and parameters" you're talking about. I'm not making assumptions, and the parameters are based on the input by various disciplines of science regarding the proteins expected to be necessary for life, the exact order they had to be in for life to start here, and the factors thought to have been critical to its animation. Each of those parameters, not to mention the viability of the planet itself, carries with it statistically calculable odds of occurrence. You're welcome to look it up for yourself if you really care all that much.



My point is, as it has been all along (and I have repeated it quite often), that what we know as "science" has become a faith system in and of itself. Do I think that something like Intelligent Design should be rejected before it even enters the starting gates (which it is)? No... I think scientists who dogmatically preach evolution and feel it necessary to reject any other ideas, like ID, with which they disagree are scientists in name only. If science were REALLY science, they would leave open the possibility that the supernatural MIGHT actually exist... but since science has actually become ANTI-religion, it cannot and will not entertain any such compromise.

Acumen,
"I remember thinking, "how can they know all of this?"  Not once did I hear phrases like "scientists think this", or "science has theorized that."   I really wish I could get my hands on that film  --  it was only like 5 years ago."

I can think of a couple of reasons that happened. One is that the information given was so scientifically basic that they felt no need to label the information as speculative. After enough research science does consider some knowledge as "fact" for all practical purposes. The Theory of Evolution is one of those, I think.

Secondly, the film may have had shoddy producers who decided not to interject many such qualifiers. We producers often, in the interest of brevity, eliminate stuff that perhaps should have been inbcluded.

Thorolf,
YOU:
"I am quite familiar with Stephen Hawking's thoughts... and I am also very familiar with the belief that any life that might be found is almost certainly going to be very different than what we know on Earth. That, however, isn't particularly relevant to what I was saying... the fact remains that it is very unlikely that the conditions and events necessary for life is exceptionally unlikely, even in the vastness of the universe."

ME:
Who knows? I don't. It appears to me that if the Universe is for all practical purposes infinite then it would be unlikely there wouldn't be life elsewhere But who really knows?

YOU:
"Incidentally, you wouldn't be citing Hawking in the way Catholics might cite the Pope, are you? (FWIW, Hawking is not considered one of the top-10 most influential physicists in the world... just an interesting side note)"

Do I think Hawkins speaks infallibly for God? Nah. I mentioned him because I saw a film clip at the TED website where he talked about the possibility of life elsewhere and that was on my mind. BTW, TED.com is a wonderful website full of short talks by smart people, some I agree with, some I don't.


YOU:
"I don't follow Creationist scientists. I would thank you to avoid that dismissive and disrespectful presumption. You don't get to dismiss what I say based on your own ignorance... I have had a relatively significant amount of scientific education as I went through school, including advanced physics and introduction to quantum theory. So you can take your "but I don't read much Creationist literature" crap and shove it. I don't read ANY Creationist literature.. ANY Evolutionary biologist or honest scientist in general will tell you that, in theory, the proteins required to create life had to be perfectly aligned, and then an energy source likely was required - perhaps an impact or a lightning strike... in any event, the actual beginning of life is utterly UNKNOWN. Although that doesn't stop people from theorizing..."

Sorry. If I was arguing that the actual beginning of life is NOT unknown then I apologize. I agree it is indeed unknown at this time. Now... so what? Are you saying there are scientist who claim to KNOW how life began?

YOU:
"I'm not sure what "assumptions and parameters" you're talking about. I'm not making assumptions, and the parameters are based on the input by various disciplines of science regarding the proteins expected to be necessary for life, the exact order they had to be in for life to start here, and the factors thought to have been critical to its animation. Each of those parameters, not to mention the viability of the planet itself, carries with it statistically calculable odds of occurrence. You're welcome to look it up for yourself if you really care all that much."

ME:
I don't understand what this proves. This is a caused Universe. Everything in it is cause-and-effect. Sometimes we may only see the effect and not understand all the myriad of causes. I am saying that if ALL the causes of life on earth were duplicated, all of them, then life as we know it would evolve again the same way. Now if you disagree would you please give me an example of a cause that, if applied uniformly, would have differing effects at different times?

So MY point is that life on earth couldn't be any different than it is, given the way the earth evolved. If the earth didn't have an ozone layer life would either not exist or would be different. If the earth didn't have so much water life would be different or non-existent. Life has to be the way it is here and there's no indication that there was anything supernatural about it.

YOU:
"My point is, as it has been all along (and I have repeated it quite often), that what we know as "science" has become a faith system in and of itself. Do I think that something like Intelligent Design should be rejected before it even enters the starting gates (which it is)? No... I think scientists who dogmatically preach evolution and feel it necessary to reject any other ideas, like ID, with which they disagree are scientists in name only. If science were REALLY science, they would leave open the possibility that the supernatural MIGHT actually exist... but since science has actually become ANTI-religion, it cannot and will not entertain any such compromise."

OK. Now I remember how this got started. Yes, I agree. Scientists can indeed be anti-religion or dogmatic or anything else. There are even a few scientists who are Creationists. being a scientist doesn't remove one from human frailties. But science itself is pretty neutral about religious beliefs. One reason for that, I think, is that religious beliefs are outside the scientific process. You can't test or replicate those beliefs.

True science, IMHO, does not exclude the POSSIBILITY of the supernatural. There just haven't been any supernatural phenomena for science to study. I (almost) guarentee that if a guy comes along and he starts raising the dead, turning water into wine or parting seas science will definitely want to study him. Why, that would make a scientists career if he could "prove" that the supernatural exists.

If you know of someone like that alive today let the scientists know. You may have a little trouble convincing them however since there have been nothing but frauds or deluded folks making supernatural claims since we've had a science to study them.