Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • ThePhy
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Because it will never happen.

    Would you like to return to the points that have led us this far or would you like to respond to the thread at where it's at?
    WHY will it never happen? Unadorned statements from you and Knight that it will never happen are not reasons.

    Can you explain briefly what the number 256640x480 refers to? You used it several times, so tell us what you were referring to when you used it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnny View Post
    You do realize that whatever signal is received, however random, is just as unlikely as the Marylin Monroe picture? We just haven't assigned any meaning to it in advance. Had we done so, you would be sitting there saying "...it will never happen".
    The whole point of this thread is our ability to recognise intelligence. When we turn on a monitor we get a random signal. Before each image is received the likelihood is the same as that of receiving MM's image. If you say you can guess the next signal nobody is going to believe you. You can keep guessing for as long as you like. You are never going to guess correctly. That you can tell me what has happened after the fact means nothing.

    Originally posted by Johnny View Post
    Read again stripe. Quoting chickenman,Both statements are incorrect and I was pointing this out. I have not made his argument out to be anything he didn't say. I'll hit you and Knight's question in the next post.
    And we have clarified that an event must be possible before the odds will increase over time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johnny
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe
    Because it will never happen.
    You do realize that whatever signal is received, however random, is just as unlikely as the Marylin Monroe picture? We just haven't assigned any meaning to it in advance. Had we done so, you would be sitting there saying "...it will never happen".

    Originally posted by Stripe
    You are still arguing where you know you have no opposition. Everyone agrees that if something is possible then the mathematical probability of seeing that event increases with time.
    I'm clarifying a point that was repeatedly misunderstood.

    Originally posted by Stripe
    You've also made chickenman's argument out to be something it isn't. He has not said you cannot claim probability increases with time. He has challenged you to give a reason why we should believe that life from non-life (aka naturalism or materialism) is possible at all.
    Read again stripe. Quoting chickenman,
    Originally posted by chickenman
    For there to be some probability over time, the odds for a single event have to be known...Probabilities can only be said to increase over time if variables are identifiable.
    Both statements are incorrect and I was pointing this out. I have not made his argument out to be anything he didn't say. I'll hit you and Knight's question in the next post.

    chickenman,
    Originally posted by chickenman
    Sorry if it wasn't clear to me. Or maybe it's become muddied at this point. Let me ask some clarifying questions, if you don't mind:
    No problem, sometimes people talk right past each other on here.

    Originally posted by chickenman
    1. Are you 100% certain that life can NATURALLY form from non-life?
    No.
    Originally posted by chickenman
    If you answer No to Question #1, then wouldn't you agree that you also cannot say that there is an increasing probability over time that it will occur?
    Not quite. What I can say is that with whatever certainty I believe that life can form naturally, I also believe that the probability increases over time. There is a difference between knowing with 100% certainty something and judging something to be true. If I judge something to be true, any secondary or tertiary reasoning which is dependent upon that judgment is only as strong as my judgment.

    Leave a comment:


  • chickenman
    replied
    Originally posted by Johnny View Post
    Your argument was that because we don't know every single variable, we can't argue probability-over-time. My response was that variables don't matter as long as something has a non-zero probability. Every time I posted I made it explicitly clear what I was talking about.
    Sorry if it wasn't clear to me. Or maybe it's become muddied at this point. Let me ask some clarifying questions, if you don't mind:
    1. Are you 100% certain that life can NATURALLY form from non-life? I think your answer is No, here. But I don't want to put words in your mouth (or your fingertips).
    2. If you answer Yes, then disregard question #3 and tell me: what is the process? I think I understand that your answer wouldn't be Yes. So go to #3 if I understand correctly.
    3. If you answer No to Question #1, then wouldn't you agree that you also cannot say that there is an increasing probability over time that it will occur?
    I'm truly not trying to be thick-headed, Johnny. I honestly want to get on the same page (in that we both completely understand what the other is trying to say).
    Originally posted by Pekkle View Post
    Life exists, life is made up of inanimate components. Inanimate compenents are able to form into complex structures. Therefore there is a non-zero probability that life will form from inanimate components.
    By "inanimate", do you mean inorganic? Do you mean non-life?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by ThePhy View Post
    Then, by your earlier arguments in this thread, the pixels on a TV must be flatly prohibited from randomly ever forming a picture of Marilyn Monroe. Can you explain why that particular pattern is one that can never occur?
    Because it will never happen.

    Would you like to return to the points that have led us this far or would you like to respond to the thread at where it's at?

    Leave a comment:


  • Stripe
    replied
    Originally posted by Pekkle View Post
    Life exists, life is made up of inanimate components. Inanimate compenents are able to form into complex structures. Therefore there is a non-zero probability that life will form from inanimate components.
    Your statement here is that life exists so it must have happened the way you say it does.

    You've assumed your conclusions. We can all do that. Got any evidence?

    Leave a comment:


  • ThePhy
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    … Everyone agrees that if something is possible then the mathematical probability of seeing that event increases with time.

    If you want to claim increasing probability over time then you have to show non-zero probability. Can you prove non-zero probability?
    Then, by your earlier arguments in this thread, the pixels on a TV must be flatly prohibited from randomly ever forming a picture of Marilyn Monroe. Can you explain why that particular pattern is one that can never occur?

    Leave a comment:


  • One Eyed Jack
    replied
    Originally posted by Pekkle View Post
    Where did god come from?
    God didn't come from anywhere.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pekkle
    replied
    Originally posted by P8ntrDan View Post


    All the arguments I've seen so far for the random chance actually happening have insisted that it could happen by chance. That's rediculous. The only way something can come from nothing is if intelligence is involved, ex. God intelligently designing the universe where before there was naught.
    Where did god come from?

    Leave a comment:


  • Pekkle
    replied
    Originally posted by Stripe View Post
    Can you prove non-zero probability?

    Life exists, life is made up of inanimate components. Inanimate compenents are able to form into complex structures. Therefore there is a non-zero probability that life will form from inanimate components.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X