ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

[chickenman]

Hi, Pekkle.

Now why would you think that?

...in response to my statement...

And since no one has seen [life form from non-life] 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)

Why would I think that "perhaps it's not possible"? Are you implying that it cannot not be possible? I think you implied otherwise elsewhere, but I don't recall for sure. So just asking for clarification.

Thanks, Pekkle.

cm :chicken:

 

[Pekkle]

I had gathered you were indicating that it might not be possible for us to know how life arose.

If you are saying that it might be possible that life did not arise from non-life then I still would not agree, clearly life has come from non-life as life has not always existed. Trying to evoke a creator does not explain where life came from, as you do not explain where the creator came from.

Here is an analogy:

Life was seeded by aliens.
Those aliens were seeded by earlier aliens.
Those aliens were seeded by earlier aliens.
Repeat infinitely.

Saying god existed forever and outside of time is a complete non-answer. To borrow from people questioning the big bang, why is there god rather than nothing?

 

[chickenman]

I had gathered you were indicating that it might not be possible for us to know how life arose.

If you are saying that it might be possible that life did not arise from non-life then I still would not agree, clearly life has come from non-life as life has not always existed. Trying to evoke a creator does not explain where life came from, as you do not explain where the creator came from.

Here is an analogy:

Life was seeded by aliens.
Those aliens were seeded by earlier aliens.
Those aliens were seeded by earlier aliens.
Repeat infinitely.

Saying god existed forever and outside of time is a complete non-answer. To borrow from people questioning the big bang, why is there god rather than nothing?

Oh no...I believe God created Adam and Eve, who then began cranking out babies. So I certainly have faith in what I believe to be the means by which life arose (I call it "knowing", but I certainly understand why you don't see it that way). I was simply pointing out that the non-theistic evolutionist's belief that life began by some other mechanism can't appeal to increasing probability over time, since the mechanism and its aspects (variables, chemical reactions, etc.) are completely unknown. I'm not creating an argument for what I believe (God created man). I'm simply pointing out the flaw of the probability-over-time argument.

 

[Johnny]

...I was simply pointing out that the non-theistic evolutionist's belief that life began by some other mechanism can't appeal to increasing probability over time, since the mechanism and its aspects (variables, chemical reactions, etc.) are completely unknown. I'm not creating an argument for what I believe (God created man). I'm simply pointing out the flaw of the probability-over-time argument.

The variables don't need to be known, nor does a mechanism. All that needs to be known is that it has a non-zero probability. And from that alone it can be stated that the likelihood of the desired outcome increases with repeated cycles of the event. Again this property is independent of any variables, known or unknown.

 

[P8ntrDan]

:rotfl:

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.

 

[chickenman]

The variables don't need to be known, nor does a mechanism. All that needs to be known is that it has a non-zero probability. And from that alone it can be stated that the likelihood of the desired outcome increases with repeated cycles of the event. Again this property is independent of any variables, known or unknown.

Johnny, don't you see what you're saying. You're saying that we don't have to have a clue about how life can possibly be formed from non-life, but we don't have to as long as there's enough time to increase the probability. To increase the probability of what? What if the process does not exist and never has. What are you increasing the probability of?

Don't you see that you are putting the cart before the horse. Doesn't it need to be determined how life can be formed naturally from non-life before you can say "it's bound to happen sooner or later"?

Johnny, is it at all possible that it is NOT possible for non-life to naturally (assuming no existence of God) and suddenly become life?

 

[Johnny]

Johnny, don't you see what you're saying. You're saying that we don't have to have a clue about how life can possibly be formed from non-life, but we don't have to as long as there's enough time to increase the probability. To increase the probability of what? What if the process does not exist and never has. What are you increasing the probability of?

It doesn't matter what process it's increasing because for any given process, regardless of what it is, the probability of achieving a desired probabilistic outcome of that process at some point in time increases with successive cycling of the process. Again, all probabilistic processes work this way. It's a universal trait. Thus, we don't have to identify a specific process, we just need to know that the process has a non-zero probability.

All that needs to be known is that it has a non-zero probability.​

Don't you see that you are putting the cart before the horse. Doesn't it need to be determined how life can be formed naturally from non-life before you can say "it's bound to happen sooner or later"?

No. It just needs to be determined that life can arise from non-life. Doesn't matter how.

Johnny, is it at all possible that it is NOT possible for non-life to naturally (assuming no existence of God) and suddenly become life?

Reword that and I'll answer. As it stands I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

 

[SUTG]

It doesn't matter what process it's increasing because for any given process, regardless of what it is, the probability of achieving a desired probabilistic outcome of that process at some point in time increases with successive cycling of the process. Again, all probabilistic processes work this way. It's a universal trait. Thus, we don't have to identify a specific process, we just need to know that the process has a non-zero probability.

All that needs to be known is that it has a non-zero probability.​

No. It just needs to be determined that life can arise from non-life. Doesn't matter how.

Exactly! :thumb:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

All that needs to be known is that it has a non-zero probability.

Exactly!

Do you know that there is ANY probability that life can arise from non-life? And if so, how?

 

[chickenman]

Somebody here is really thick, and I'll admit it might be me. I must not be communicating well. Because this makes no sense.

How are we to know that there is a non-zero probability for life naturally arising from non-life? We know there is life, because I'm here and writing a bunch of confusing messages (maybe I'M not alive afterall :think. So that's a given. But the way life came to be was either: a) God (or some other Intelligent Designer); or b) something happened naturally to make life form from non-life.

The non-zero probability is that there is life (1:1 odds). But since life being produced naturally from non-life has not been reproduced nor witnessed nor does anyone know how it could have happened, then why is it a GIVEN and the non-zero probability assigned to IT?

Johnny, my question was worded funny, wasn't it? I'll try again.
Since no one has duplicated producing life from non-life and no one has witnessed it happening naturally and no one knows how it could happen that way, is it possible that it did not happen naturally?

Whew! Sorry guys. I'm truly not trying to be thick-headed here. I think we're both seeing something quite clearly that the other side is not seeing at all.

Thanks for hanging with me.

cm :chicken:

 

[SUTG]

I'll answer your questions, :chicken: , although I can't speak for johnny. I think it is fair to say that no-one knows for sure where life came from. Although science has shown that all life has evolved from earlier life beyond any reasonable doubt*, scientists have not been able to create life in the lab. It is possible that life arose by natural processes, and it is possible that a god or gods created the first life, and those aren't even the only possibilities. There are alot of possibilities.

However, just because there are alot of possibilities, it does not follow that all of those possibilities are equally likely. I think that the most likely is that life arose via natural processes, and I have reasons for that.

However, to claim with certainty that life cannot possibly arise from natural processes is also a strong claim and must be defended. You ask how we know that life arising naturally has a non-zero probability. The answer is that we don't know what the probability is, so why should we claim that is is zero?

* Sorry, had to sneak that in there.

 

[chickenman]

I'll answer your questions, :chicken: , although I can't speak for johnny. I think it is fair to say that no-one knows for sure where life came from. Although science has shown that all life has evolved from earlier life beyond any reasonable doubt*, scientists have not been able to create life in the lab. It is possible that life arose by natural processes, and it is possible that a god or gods created the first life, and those aren't even the only possibilities. There are alot of possibilities.

However, just because there are alot of possibilities, it does not follow that all of those possibilities are equally likely. I think that the most likely is that life arose via natural processes, and I have reasons for that.

However, to claim with certainty that life cannot possibly arise from natural processes is also a strong claim and must be defended. You ask how we know that life arising naturally has a non-zero probability. The answer is that we don't know what the probability is, so why should we claim that is is zero?

* Sorry, had to sneak that in there.

Thanks, SUTG. It looks like you're kind of seeing what I'm getting at. I'll quickly address the bolded part of your response.

I didn't claim that life cannot possibly arise from natural processes. My only point was: since it has not been proven via observation or man-made re-creation, then how can one possibly be unwavering/steadfast in a claim for which it is THE very foundation? How can one argue vehemently for increasing-probability-over-time (IPOT) when the very thing needed to start the timer (of the IPOT clock) is completely unknown, unproven, un-witnessed, un-recreated? It might not even be possible. No one knows.

Don't you agree with that? If you say yes, I'll send you a free "Jesus love me, regardless of what I think" shirt.

 

[SUTG]

How can one argue vehemently for increasing-probability-over-time (IPOT) when the very thing needed to start the timer (of the IPOT clock) is completely unknown, unproven, un-witnessed, un-recreated?

By attaching johnny's disclaimer:

All that needs to be known is that it has a non-zero probability.​

If it has a non-zero probability then, all other things being equal, it will be more and more likely the more trials there are.

In other words, no matter how low the odds of the lottery are, they increase with each extra ticket you have. The standard disclaimer here would be that there is a winning ticket, i.e. the probability of an individual ticket being the winner is non-zero.

 

[chickenman]

Okay. I can live with the "IF". But that disclaimer has not been part of the overall conversation on this thread. I'm glad you acknowledge it's not a given and that it's possible that there's a designer (at least I think you sort of acknowledged that).

 

[Johnny]

I can live with the "IF". But that disclaimer has not been part of the overall conversation on this thread.

The variables don't need to be known, nor does a mechanism. All that needs to be known is that it has a non-zero probability.

All that needs to be known is that it has a non-zero probability.

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.

 

[Stripe]

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.

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.

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.

If you want to claim increasing probability over time then you have to show non-zero probability. Can you prove non-zero probability?

 

[Pekkle]

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.

 

[Pekkle]

:rotfl:

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?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Where did god come from?

God didn't come from anywhere.

 

[ThePhy]

… 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?