ARCHIVE: Signals from space aliens or random chance?

[Stripe]

A bigger point is that nature has produced intelligence, not the other way around. :sherlock:

That would be something you believe without evidence.

 

[NotSamHarris]

That would be something you believe without evidence.

So far I've found no reason to invoke any supernaturals to explain what we have. I'm thinking that the Universe is more of evidence of itself, rather than evidence of something else entirely.

 

[The Berean]

So far I've found no reason to invoke any supernaturals to explain what we have. I'm thinking that the Universe is more of evidence of itself, rather than evidence of something else entirely.

So in essense you are saying the universe exists because it exists? :think:

 

[NotSamHarris]

So in essense you are saying the universe exists because it exists?

Almost, though I didn't mean that the Universe is evidence of why/how/where it became in the first place. I'm saying that we know that it exists, because it exists ("d'uh", I know, I know). As to "why" it exists... The "whys" always go on forever, even with the God hypothesis: no matter what the answer to the first "why" question, you can always ask another one.

 

[Stripe]

Almost, though I didn't mean that the Universe is evidence of why/how/where it became in the first place. I'm saying that we know that it exists, because it exists ("d'uh", I know, I know). As to "why" it exists... The "whys" always go on forever, even with the God hypothesis: no matter what the answer to the first "why" question, you can always ask another one.

So a simple answer like God provides is at least just as valid as anything else.

 

[NotSamHarris]

So a simple answer like God provides is at least just as valid as anything else.

Not as valid because then you have an even greater "unknown" to explain.

 

[Stripe]

Not as valid because then you have an even greater "unknown" to explain.

How can one unknown be more unknown than another unknown? :idunno:

 

[NotSamHarris]

How can one unknown be more unknown than another unknown? :idunno:

Ok, fair enough. But I'd say that some hypothesis that rely on the unknown are less likely than others. For example, I think it is less likely that the Universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster than that it was created by something else.

 

[Stripe]

Ok, fair enough. But I'd say that some hypothesis that rely on the unknown are less likely than others. For example, I think it is less likely that the Universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster than that it was created by something else.

:chuckle:

I agree. :thumb:

 

[NotSamHarris]

How can one unknown be more unknown than another unknown? :idunno:

Some "unknowns" are harder to turn into "knowns" than others.

 

[Stripe]

Some "unknowns" are harder to turn into "knowns" than others.

How do you know?

 

[NotSamHarris]

How do you know?

"Unknown" here can't mean something that can never be known. I'd call that "unknowable" or something. So, "unknown" can also be understood as being an answer to some problem. It is only "unknown" as long as we haven't solved the problem. Therefore, for some "unknowns" to be harder to turn into "knows" means that some problems are more difficult to solve than others.

For example, a in mathematical problem "x + 3 = 8", the x has an unknown value until we calculate it. It is easy to come up with a more difficult problem, having an "unknown" that is harder to turn into "known" than in the previous problem.

 

[Stripe]

"Unknown" here can't mean something that can never be known. I'd call that "unknowable" or something. So, "unknown" can also be understood as being an answer to some problem. It is only "unknown" as long as we haven't solved the problem. Therefore, for some "unknowns" to be harder to turn into "knows" means that some problems are more difficult to solve than others.

For example, a in mathematical problem "x + 3 = 8", the x has an unknown value until we calculate it. It is easy to come up with a more difficult problem, having an "unknown" that is harder to turn into "known" than in the previous problem.

OK. That makes sense.

 

[Letsargue]

There are no such things as Never, or Impossible, or less than None, or more than All. No matter how long or what it is. - The “Is”, or “are nots” of the impossible cannot exist. - Want-it-to-be, has nothing to do with the existence of Intelligence beyond the lack of Intelligence of the earth. To say that the earth is “intelligent” shows the lack of it. --- In other words, - beyond the “Unintelligent Creatures”, Intelligence “Decreases”, not “Increases”. How can wanting it to be without any evidence that there is, and saying that there is; - how could that ever be intelligent? How can the unintelligent teach intelligently? --- If there were “Intelligent Beings” out there; they could not be of the “Creatures” created by God; ( thus ) it couldn’t be more intelligent than earth, or they would have already made themselves known if it were not “Impossible”. It wouldn’t be that hard to do if that was the “Intention”.

The word “intelligence” is not used in this way in the Bible, and is listed only one time.
The word “intelligent” is not mentioned in the Bible.
The word “Knowledge” and “Aptitude” replace the word “Intelligence”.
Hoses 4:6 KJV – “My people are destroyed for lack of ( Knowledge ): because thou hast rejected ( Knowledge ), I will also reject thee”. ------//-- If I’m right; - in Parable, all “Intelligence”, good and evil came from the Tree of “Intelligence” / “Knowledge”, and only existed on the earth.

Paul – 091912

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I just reread this old thread today. Oh man... this is classic, classic stuff. :up:

 

[Stripe]

I just reread this old thread today. Oh man... this is classic, classic stuff. :up:

:banana: