Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9206 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Fyre1212
Post Volume: Total: 919,410 Year: 6,667/9,624 Month: 7/238 Week: 7/22 Day: 7/5 Hour: 4/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Probability of the existence of God
Stile
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 196 of 219 (500555)
02-27-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Stile
09-30-2008 10:33 AM


The basic arguement
In iano's basic arguement, he is trivially and uselessly correct that there is no objective reason to take "objective evidence" above "subjective evidence." In this sense, iano most certainly is "right."
However, once we accept any relevent priority, even one as simple as "I want to honestly search for the truth of this universe." iano is then very, very wrong. And it is simple to show such (as seen in the previous posts).
Of course, if we don't accept such a priority, iano is right. But, well, why would anyone want to be right only if they must also accept being dishonest or not caring about truth? Such a "win" seems to fit clearly in the "irrelevent" bag, especially on a forum where we are all supposed to be searching for the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Stile, posted 09-30-2008 10:33 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 197 of 219 (502029)
03-09-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Straggler
10-03-2008 6:39 PM


Another Day... again... maybe
Awwww... I really liked this discussion. So almost metaphysical and yet still so objective and verifiable. I learnt a lot about the boundaries of my own stance by going over these arguements. I was hoping it was about to pick up again, as this so implied:
Straggler writes:
iano writes:
Anytime Bubba. Anytime
I am happy to pick up where we left off here anytime...
From: Message 22
Perhaps "anytime" will come next year, though
This post has been brought to you by Blatant Bait Tactics... where we try valiantly to spark conversation in interesting areas, for you! The viewer!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Straggler, posted 10-03-2008 6:39 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Sarawak
Member (Idle past 5725 days)
Posts: 47
Joined: 03-07-2009


Message 198 of 219 (503287)
03-17-2009 10:02 AM


Anywhere from 0 to 1
I look at God as a human construct, not the reverse, i.e. humans are a God construct. Therefore for those who feel the need to construct God, he is every bit as real as a tree (p=1). For those with no need, he is non-existent (p=0).
Of course, there will always be those in transition or who can't decide, so that probability is somewhere in between. But it's generally a pretty clean cut.
The rub is not whether you believe or I don't, it comes when you or I decide to jam our belief down someone else's neck.
But to the original question, I see no way to objectively set a probability for the existence of God. The assumptions required to calculate such probability would never be widely accepted and therefore the answer would be meaningless to a significant piece of humanity.

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 5:51 AM Sarawak has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 5177 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 199 of 219 (503678)
03-21-2009 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by Sarawak
03-17-2009 10:02 AM


Re: Anywhere from 0 to 1
Sarawak writes:
But to the original question, I see no way to objectively set a probability for the existence of God. The assumptions required to calculate such probability would never be widely accepted and therefore the answer would be meaningless to a significant piece of humanity.
im not so sure that you'd have a hard time finding people to accept the probablity, whats the probablity that we evolved and the universe evolved?
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of "a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row."
now what are the odds of that?
Yet evolution is a widely accepted scientific belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Sarawak, posted 03-17-2009 10:02 AM Sarawak has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Theodoric, posted 03-21-2009 9:33 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 204 by Drosophilla, posted 09-04-2009 6:15 AM Peg has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9489
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 6.5


Message 200 of 219 (503704)
03-21-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Peg
03-21-2009 5:51 AM


Re: Anywhere from 0 to 1
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of "a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row."
The statement is completely taken out of context. He was speaking about the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence; not evolution.
Also, why do you believe this one statement by an Astronomer has any bearing on the validity of the TOE?
If that is how things work, can I take random quotes from creationists and use them as a gold standard?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 5:51 AM Peg has not replied

  
Doubletime
Junior Member (Idle past 5640 days)
Posts: 27
Joined: 05-08-2009


Message 201 of 219 (512445)
06-18-2009 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wumpini
04-23-2008 8:20 AM


100 percent
Anything that is obeyed is a god.
For exampel britney spears or the cross or money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wumpini, posted 04-23-2008 8:20 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 202 by Blue Jay, posted 06-18-2009 7:57 AM Doubletime has not replied
 Message 203 by bluescat48, posted 06-18-2009 2:00 PM Doubletime has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2945 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 202 of 219 (512453)
06-18-2009 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 201 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:18 AM


Hi, Doubletime.
Welcome to EvC!
Doubletime writes:
Anything that is obeyed is a god.
This is not helpful. It's called "equivocation": basically, it means using a term such that it doesn't specify anything in particular, which makes it easy for you to dodge rebuttals, and difficult for your opponent to figure out what you mean when you're talking.
And, I don't know anybody who obeys a cross or money.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:18 AM Doubletime has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4437 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 203 of 219 (512495)
06-18-2009 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Doubletime
06-18-2009 6:18 AM


Doubletime writes:
Anything that is obeyed is a god.
Oh! That straitens that out. Parents are gods to their children and Constitutions are gods to citizens. DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Doubletime, posted 06-18-2009 6:18 AM Doubletime has not replied

  
Drosophilla
Member (Idle past 3889 days)
Posts: 172
From: Doncaster, yorkshire, UK
Joined: 08-25-2009


Message 204 of 219 (522582)
09-04-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by Peg
03-21-2009 5:51 AM


Re: Anywhere from 0 to 1
Peg quote:
Robert Naeye, a writer for Astronomy magazine and an evolutionist, wrote that life on earth is the result of "a long sequence of improbable events [that] transpired in just the right way to bring forth our existence, as if we had won a million-dollar lottery a million times in a row."
now what are the odds of that?
Are we being a naughty little liar Peg? Please provide the citation that says Bob Naeye is an evolutionist. You do realise his field is astronomy don't you...i've never come across any articles where he dips his toes into the Toe - pardon my pun.
Now to educate you a little:
Bob Naeye like any astronomer knows the probable number of planets in our universe exceeds a billion billion at a VERY conservative estimate....this is not idle guesswork, the inference is made from studies of the huge known number of galaxies - the way in which they are formed, the huge amount of stellar matter (evidenced by spin rotation caused by matter - obeying known laws of physics)and the planetary theories of formation from accretion discs. If you want to argue any of the above I first suggest you read up on astronimical phenomena in a respected peer reviewed science journal (not some piffling retarded creationist junk publication).
Now abiogenesis, of wich is required ONLY ONCE on a planet to kick start life-processes may indeed be like winning a lottery (the suggestion of a million times in a row is meaningless - on what is that based? Truth is we don't know how unlikely it is). But even if it is as low as one in a billion, the fact that there is at least a billion billion planets out there would still mean life could have kickstarted a billion times ....not so difficult as one might think.
OK says you...what if it was a billion times harder than that...suppose there is only one in a billion billion chance...well with a billion billion plantets that would mean one...and here we are. You see Peg you can't just pluck junk figures based on nothing out of thin air...if you are going to come up with a factual figure you have to be able to justify it - and then compare it against our estimated number of a billion billion planets which although is also just estimated - is in fact based on solid astronomical observations.
Now on to the ToE itself - which doesn't in any way use abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is needed in the first place to kickstart things off and i've dealt with that above....once life begins on a planet then the ToE kicks in and comprises just two simple parts working in elegant harmony:
1. Succeding generations differ from the parent generation (via genetic variation)....this is known in detail and even you Peg would have to be a complete fool to say there is no variation between parents and their offspring.
2. Natural selection selects the 'fitest' for that particular environment which allows evolution to 'progress'...again you'd have to be completely stupid to deny such a basic statement.
Here's the rub for you now and the link to the OP:
The Toe gauantees that once life kickstarts then evolution MUST happen because both 1. and 2. above do happen and this 'forces' a descent with modification based on natural selection - as Darwin long ago put it.
So to compare evolution with God in terms of probablitity is junk worthy only of an impaired thought process.
Summary:
1. No quantitative probability of God can be given at all - just as much probablility for him based on evidence (or total lack of it) as there is for Santa Claus (and at least Santa fetches me presents...lol)
2. Abiogenesis which is need for life to start in our scientific model is likely to be a very improbable event, but because of the vast number of planets evidenced out there it becomes actually very likely that abiogenesis has happend (and will happen in the future) on a good number of them...and it only had to happen once - Earth for the model to hold)
3.Once abiogenesis has taken effect on a planet the ToE effectively guarantees that evolution will proceed - if you don't understand why then please read Dawkin's 'Selfish Gene','The Blind Watchmaker' or 'Climbing mount Improbable'.
Conclusion:
Probability of God existing? - Utterly impossible to say as absolutely no evidence (sorry Peg - the bible is written by man and is not evidence for a God) but is in the reallm of Santa Claus, The Pink Unicorn and the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Probability of life existing and evolving as per the TOE? Actually quite likely - it's nowhere near as impossible as you think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Peg, posted 03-21-2009 5:51 AM Peg has not replied

  
Hawkins
Member (Idle past 1622 days)
Posts: 150
From: Hong Kong
Joined: 08-25-2005


Message 205 of 219 (528429)
10-06-2009 4:54 AM


To mankind in stone age, there's not a slide evidence that elections exist. yet electrons exist long time ago even before the existence of the stone age men. It is thus a fallacy to believe the the lack of evidence means non-existence. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
Probability of God's existence? It is only out of a human mind that such a probability ever exists. There's no such a probability out there. The truth is, if God exists, the probability of His existence is 100%. If He's not there, the probability is 0.

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Stile, posted 10-06-2009 8:07 AM Hawkins has not replied
 Message 207 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 6:43 PM Hawkins has not replied

  
Stile
Member (Idle past 291 days)
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 206 of 219 (528456)
10-06-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Hawkins
10-06-2009 4:54 AM


Current rational chances for God: 0.00%
Hawkins writes:
To mankind in stone age, there's not a slide evidence that elections exist. yet electrons exist long time ago even before the existence of the stone age men. It is thus a fallacy to believe the the lack of evidence means non-existence. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
It may be incorrect at times, but it most certainly is rational. In fact, it would be incredibly irrational to believe in electrons while there is absolutely no evidence for them. Even if they actually exist.
If you believe in electrons before there's any evidence for them to exist, then to remain consistent (and therefore rational) you must also believe in all other things for which there is no evidence. Such a position is ludicrous.
The only rational, and consistent position is to ignore all propositions for which there are no evidence.
This means you may be ignoring something that actually exists. Temporarily, anyway, since as soon as some evidence of such a thing does surface, then it certainly is rational to change your position and start giving the concept some sort of respect. However, it also means that you're guaranteed not to be spending time on something that may only exist as imagination.
If, on the other hand, you decide that believing in something with no evidence is a good thing to do... there is no guarantee that you're not wasting your time on something that is pure imagination.
Therefore, while believing in things with no evidence you can be trapped into forever thinking that something imaginary is actually real. But, while ignoring all things for which there is no evidence, such a never-ending error cannot happen. It's still possible to be temporarily incorrect, but this error is minimized and does have an ending... when evidence can be found.
Rationally, it is better to allow a chance to be temporarily incorrect then it is to allow a chance to be forever wrong.
The truth is, if God exists, the probability of His existence is 100%. If He's not there, the probability is 0.
And, the rational truth is that while there is no evidence for God, the rational probability for His existence is exactly the same as the rational probability for all other things which cannot be differentiated from imagination: 1/Infinity. Or, rounding to the nearest few decimal places: 0.00%
Being rational doesn't mean it's a perfectly accurate model of reality. It only means that it's following our best known method for obtaining accurate results for modelling reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Hawkins, posted 10-06-2009 4:54 AM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:23 AM Stile has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3198 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 207 of 219 (529000)
10-07-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by Hawkins
10-06-2009 4:54 AM


To mankind in stone age, there's not a slide evidence that elections exist. yet electrons exist long time ago even before the existence of the stone age men.
Yes, but the question isn't "Is there a probability that some natural force/partical/sub-atomic particle exists?" - I'm sure there are many natural things for which we haven't the slightest evidence for, nor a general probablity of it existing.
But, I'm sure scientist in 200 years will be discovering things that our generation of scientist (amazing as they maybe ) haven't even thought of to look for yet. But this logical prediction is not irrational when dealing with nature (like your electron example).
However, it doesn't apply to something supernatural.
What the "supernatural" actually is, has yet to be defined with a concept that we can all understand. Therefore no means to investigate it are available.
If we can't define it, and we can't investigated, then what exactly are you claiming there is probability for exactly?
"Is there a probability that God exists?" - Well, what exactly do you mean by God...?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Hawkins, posted 10-06-2009 4:54 AM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:18 AM onifre has not replied

  
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 208 of 219 (547291)
02-17-2010 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wumpini
04-23-2008 8:20 AM


logical ramification
CHAPTER ONE
THE AXIOM
I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;
I did not say . . . Seek me in chaos.
--(Isaiah 5:19 D.S.V.)
There are two possible schools of thought pertaining to the evaluation of the Universe that we live in. One school of thought is embodied in the philosophy known as Solipsism. This philosophy expounds that all external reality is relative to the perception of the individual, or, in other words, all reality is subjective and cannot be described by objective analysis. As an example, Solipsism is the belief that everything that individuals perceive is a projection of the thoughts of their mind. Taken to its fullest implications, Solipsism means that if you think strongly that an object that you perceive does not really exist, then you will cease to perceive it and it will thus disappear. Conversely, if you think strongly enough that an object does exist, then you will perceive it and it will thus exist. Understandably, the ardent adherents of this school of thought soon lost what sanity they had.
When we lead from ignorance, we can come to no conclusions. When we say, Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say ‘This is’ or ‘This isn’t,’ then all reasoning comes to a halt right there. We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing. All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.
What we must do is place rules and set limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be. We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits. The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.1
Most importantly, Einstein presumed that all the laws of nature must be entirely equivalent in all conceivable systems of reference, differing only by uniform velocities. Without an ether, reasoned Einstein, there is no real physical basis for absolute spatial positions or orientations; all, therefore, must be relative to the observer. At the same time, all observers must see the many laws of nature in an identical way.2
Science deals only with phenomena that can be reproduced; observations that, under certain fixed conditions, can be made by anybody of normal intelligence; observations upon which reasonable men can agree.3
In opposition to Solipsism is the school of thought that objective interpretation of the universe we live in is possible. Since the validity of Solipsism would mean that it would be impossible to make logical sense out of what we are aware of, we will assume that Solipsism is invalid. Bearing this in mind, I propose the following axiom, which we may call the Axiom of Interdependency:
If a spiritual universe exists, there likewise must also exist laws or principles common to both such a spiritual universe and to the physical universe, in order for us to be able to perceive any manifestation of such a spiritual universe.
Notice that this axiom in no way assumes the existence of a spiritual universe. The reason why seeking objective proof of the existence of a spiritual universe is futile will be dealt with in later chapters.
What this axiom does say is that if a spiritual universe exists that does not have laws or principles in common with our physical universe, then we cannot be aware of it and thus it would be of no concern to us. However, if a spiritual universe exists such that we are aware of some of its manifestations, then it will have laws or principles in common with our physical universe. Thus, for any postulated assertion of a spiritual reality, there should be corresponding evidence of that reality reflected in our physical universe. Conversely, it should be possible to formulate a framework of characteristics of the physical universe that will indicate the nature of the corresponding spiritual reality. Practically speaking, this axiom means that it is possible to construct a logical theory encompassing virtually every field of science that will explain the purpose behind everything known to man.
Chapter Two
AN EXTRAPOLATION
... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isaiah 43:10)
There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.
First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Regardless of the great variety of legends depicting such an occurrence, all such legends have in common two things: Life was originated by some supernatural means, and some divine being or beings employed this means.
Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). Therefore, let us examine the other explanation for the origin of life and see what conclusions may be derived from such an analysis.
The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:
Moreover, while Haldane and Oparin (both atheists) could cheerfully divorce life and God, others were offended by this and strove to show that there was no way in which the origin of life could be removed from the miraculous and made the result of the chance collisions of atoms.
A French biophysicist, Piere Lecomte du Noűy dealt with this very matter in his book, Human Destiny, which was published in 1947. By then the full complexity of the protein molecule was established, and Lecomte du Noűy attempted to show that if the various atom of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur arranged themselves in purely random order, the chance of their arriving in this way at even a single protein molecule of the type associated with life was so exceedingly small that the entire lifetime of the universe would be insufficient to offer it more than an insignificant chance of happening. Chance, he maintained, could not account for life....
Lecomte du Nouy's argument seemed exceedingly strong, and many people eagerly let themselves be persuaded by it and still do even today.
?Yet it is wrong.
Options Disable Sm The fallacy in Lecomte du Noūy’s argument rests in the assumption that pure chance was alone the guiding factor and that atoms can fit together in any fashion at all. Actually, atoms are guided in their combinations by well?known laws of physics and chemistry, so that the formation of complex compounds from simple ones are constrained by severely restrictive rules that sharply limit the number of different ways in which they combine. What's more, as we approach complex molecules, such as those of proteins and nucleic acids, there is no one particular molecule that is associated with life, but innumerable different molecules, till of which are in association.4
What we learn it from the above is that the formation of organic molecules from inorganic atoms is entirely permissible, mathematically speaking, according to the laws of physics and chemistry governing such interactions.
Most of the stony meteorites contain small glassy inclusions, and about two percent of these are called carbonaceous chondrites because they contain significant quantities of organic matter. The proportions, in fact, are extraordinarily high. About 0.1 percent of all material, which has ever fallen on Earth, is organic. By comparison, if we measure the total weight of all organic matter on earth against the mass of the planet itself, only 0.0000001 percent is of living origin. This means that meteors are coming from somewhere that is a million times more organic than earth itself?which is something one has to stop and think about for a while.5
Not only are organic molecules mechanistically permissible, but also direct evidence of their existence, in astounding proportions, elsewhere than on Earth is a fact.
These are the stuff of organic chemistry, the study of compounds producing, or produced by living organisms; and these are the kinds of reaction, which it now seems certain, are taking place between the stars.
Awareness of this possibility seems to have reached a peak at a gathering of astronomers in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1973. Several papers presented to what is now known as the Dusty Universe symposium pointed out that there seemed to be a lot of atoms missing from interstellar space. Spectroscopic analyses kept coming up with results that showed less carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen than everyone expected to find there.
New models were put forward, slid the most promising of these suggested that the missing atoms had gone undetected because they were bound up on the surface of interstellar dust grains in a sort of molecular mush which Mayo Greenburg called "dirty ice." At that time there was little experimental evidence for the existence of such accretions on cosmic grains, but since then, radio astronomy ? which receives and interprets microwaves rather than light waves, and can look right through interstellar clouds ? has given us what we need. The very short radio waves provide a sort of electronic spectrum that includes fingerprints as distinctive as those that appear in the lines of an optical spectrum. And in the last few years radio astronomers have detected an ever?increasing list of simple organic molecules in interstellar space.
The first substances detected in this way were nothing more than simple connections of the most common atoms: cyanogens (CN), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) But then formaldehyde (H2CO) was found, and before long formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH2OH) acetaldehyde (HCOCH3) and methyl firmate (HCOOCH3) turned up. One doesn't have to be a chemist to see that the progression is toward ever more complex organic compounds.6
The existence of organic molecules has not only been verified in meteors reaching the Earth's surface, but has also been verified as being true for interstellar space as well. How can this be so? Weren't we taught that chemical reactions required heat and were inhibited by cold, cold such as we find in interstellar space?
It used to be assumed that chemical reactions need heat and slow down as temperatures were reduced. This is true, but only up to a point. We now know that as the temperature nears absolute zero, a strange thermodynamic inversion takes place and many processes actually accelerate, so that the complex early evolution of carbon compounds is more likely to take place inside interstellar clouds than almost anywhere else.7
At any rate, Leslie Orgel did a number of elegant experiments of which I will describe the simplest. He took some of the basic constituents, which are sure to have been present in the atmosphere of the earth at any early time: hydrogen cyanide is one, ammonia is another. He made a dilute solution of them in water, and then froze the solution over a period of several days. As a result, the concentrated material is pushed into a sort of tiny iceberg to the top, and there the presence of a small amount of color reveals that organic molecules have been formed. Some amino acids, no doubt; but, most important, Orgel found that he had formed one of the four fundamental constituents in the genetic alphabet which directs all life. He had made adenine, one of the four bases in DNA.8
The chemical reactions permissible under cold conditions have been shown to be capable of producing a very high level of complexity of organic molecules, even up to the level of the basic constituent of all known life, DNA.
The compounds in the carbonaceous chondrites are not life; they have formed in the direction of our kind of life?and human experimenters have had nothing to do with their formation. On the whole, then, meteoritic studies tend to support laboratory, experiments and make it appear all the more likely that life is a natural, a normal, and even an inevitable phenomenon. Atoms apparently tend to come together to form compounds in the direction of our kind of life whenever they have the least chance to do so.9
It is always possible that the laboratory conditions producing organic molecules have exceeded the limits that existed under the natural conditions that they are simulating. However, meteorites have been shown to contain organic molecules with the same indications; and these were not produced by human experimentation.
It is a big jump from prebiotic molecules in interstellar clouds to primitive organisms on a comet, but it is not an unreasonable one. When a comet gets anywhere near the sun, its water melts and could mingle with the trapped dust to produce a solution of organic molecules which, we know from spectroscopic analysis of Khoutek's comet in 1973, includes amino acids and heterocyclic compounds.10
Scientific analysis has confirmed that organic molecules basic to life definitely do exist in space.
At least one further source of information about the strange things in meteorites remains to be explored. If the organic compounds are protocells in a state of suspended animation, perhaps they can be roused. Soviet and American scientists have been trying to do just that.
Fred Sisler of the United States Geological Survey has begun collecting samples from the interior of carbonaceous chondrites, and he finds that even after a long period under sterile conditions, some of his nutrient broths nevertheless cloud over, indicating the presence of living microorganisms. And at least one of these sleeping beauties, roused from an unimaginable slumber, is totally unfamiliar to terrestrial microbiologists. No one has ever seen anything like it here before, so it is going to be hard to dismiss that one as a contaminant.11
Not only have meteorites proven the existence of extraterrestrial organic molecules but, in one case, they have also given us proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life:
Several rigorous analyses of carbonaceous chondrites have now been made, and all show quite clearly that they contain compounds such as paraffins, long?chain aromatic hydrocarbons like tar, fatty acids, amino acids (the basic precursors of protein), and even porphyrins (the building blocks of chlorophyll). And in early 1977, an international group of seven scientists ? astronomers, chemists, and applied mathematicians ?collaborated in an intensive study on a recently collected chondrites from a site in Africa. They found that it contained an organic compound, an aromatic polymer, whose spectral properties are identical those long to known from interstellar extinction curves. The fingerprints are unique and unmistakable. For the first time we have proof that some meteorites have their origin in presolar interstellar clouds and must be among the most primitive solid bodies in the universe. And, more than that, we have evidence of a cosmic trade in which complex organic compounds, precisely those necessary for the initiation of life, are manufactured in space and imported here to Earth. 12
Evidence proves that meteorites are of interstellar origin. This means that organic material not only is distributed throughout interstellar space but also is readily available to any planetary system in the galaxy. Let us now examine what is known about processes involving organic molecules under terrestrial conditions.
In other words, we don't depend on chance alone, but on chance guided by the laws of nature, and that should be enough.
Could the matter be checked in the laboratory? The American chemist Harold Clayton Grey encouraged a young student, Stanley Lloyd Miller (1930), to run the necessary experiment in 1952.
Miller tried to duplicate primordial conditions on Earth, assuming Oparin's Atmosphere 1. He began with a closed and sterile mixture of water. Ammonia methane, and hydrogen, which represented a small and simple version of Earth's primordial atmosphere and ocean. He then used an electric discharge as an energy source, and that represented a tiny version of the Sun.
He circulated the mixture past the discharge for a week and then analyzed it. The originally colorless mixture had turned pink on the first day, and by the end of the week one?sixth of the methane with which Miller had started had been converted into more complex molecules. Among those molecules were glycine and alanine, the two simplest of the amino acids that occur in proteins.
In the years after that key experiment, other similar experiments were conducted with variations in starting materials and in energy sources. Invariably, more complicated molecules, sometimes identical with those in living tissues, sometimes merely related to them, were formed. An amazing variety of key molecules of living tissue were formed "spontaneously" in this manner, although calculations of the simplistic Lecomte du Nouy type would have given their formation virtually no chance.
If this could be done in small volumes over very short ? periods of time, what could have been done in an entire ocean, over a period of many millions of years?
It was also impressive that all the changes produced in the laboratory by the chance collisions of molecules and the chance absorption of energy (guided always by the known laws of nature) seemed to move always in the direction of life as we know it now. There seemed no important changes that pointed definitely in some different chemical direction.
That made it seem as though life were an inevitable product of high probability varieties of chemical reactions, and that the formation of life on the primordial Earth could not have been avoided. 13
All indications are that, given the constituency of the primordial?biosphere, the formation of life as we know it appears inevitable.
The implications were overwhelming. The ingredients themselves had the automatically linked together into these compounds fundamental to life.14
But the self?assembling tendency of matter, its inherent capacity to form living material, had been clearly demonstrated. 15
All of this evidence? in the laboratory, in meteorites, in interstellar clouds? makes it look as though the Haldane?Oparin suggestions are correct. Life did start spontaneously on the primordial Earth, and all indications would seem to be that it must have started readily, that the reactions in that direction were inevitable.
It follows that life would therefore start, sooner or later, on any habitable planet. 16
Scientific evidence indicates that, wherever favorable planetary conditions exist, life will inevitably evolve.
Obviously, the next question to be answered is: do we know whether or not our planetary system is unique?
A few photographic demonstrations of such massive planets have, in recent years, been achieved. Planets massive enough to be detected in this way are unlikely, however, to have conditions on them conducive to life, at least life, as we know it. Nevertheless, their existence does offer yet further indication of the universality of planetary systems. 17
Thus, the conditions are everywhere to be found throughout the universe much as we find them here in the solar system. The ingredients are everywhere the same, too, and the laws of physics. It would therefore seem almost impossible to escape the natural conclusion that life must consequently have arisen elsewhere in the universe? independently, many times, and in many places.18
As we survey evolution on Earth, there does seem a trend in the direction of increasing size and complexity (occasionally overdone?, to be sure, to the point of diminishing returns). What's more, increasing complexity seems almost to involve increasing intelligence in widespread groups of living things....
The weight of evidence, as presently known, therefore forces us to consider that intelligence, and sufficient intelligence to produce a civilization, is more or less an inevitable development on a habitable planet given sufficient time.... 19
The next step is to estimate the number of habitable planets both in the universe and in our particular galaxy.
Up to a billion galaxies can be detected by modern telescopes, stretching out to distances of a billion light?years.20
That would mean that in the observable universe, there are as many as 1,000,000,000,000,000.000,000 (a billion trillion) stars.21
ilies 1 - The number of stars in our galaxy ? 300 '000,000,000.22
8 ? The number of habitable planets in our galaxy ? 650,000,000.23
It is rather breathtaking to decide on the basis of (we hope) strict logic and the beat evidence we can find that there are 650 million habitable planets in our galaxy alone, and therefore over 2 billion billion in the Universe as a whole.24
How hard it is for the human mind to comprehend the enormity of this conclusion! How hard it is to realize the astronomical magnitude of our universe!
The number of planets in our galaxy on which a technological civilization has developed ? 390,000,000:...
That means that of the 390 million civilizations in our galaxy, only 260 are as primitive as we are?an inconsiderable number. All the rest (meaning just about all of them) are more advanced than we are.25
According to what are perhaps the most logical estimates that we can at present supply, there are 390 million civilizations in our galaxy alone, all but 260 of which are more advanced than ours. There are approximately 3 billion times that many civilizations in the universe. What conclusions can be deduced if we add to these figures the implications inherent to the process of evolution itself?
The ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more and more improved in relation to its condition. This improvement leads to the gradual advancement of the organization of the greater number of living beings throughout the world. 26
Evolution is the climbing of a ladder from simple to complex by steps, each of which is stable in itself. That is what has brought life by slow steps but constantly up a ladder of increasing complexity- which is the central progress and problem in evolution. 27
It might even be that a dying civilization might provide for its own succession, either by the genetic engineering of some near-intelligent species or by the creation of artificial intelligence. 28
Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.
What are the implications of such a conclusion?
Such an entity would in all practicality be:
1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.
Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.
Summary of Chapter Two:
The fool has said in his heart; there is no God. (Psalm 12:1)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wumpini, posted 04-23-2008 8:20 AM Wumpini has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18631
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 209 of 219 (721450)
03-07-2014 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Rahvin
04-24-2008 1:42 PM


Re: Probability
Rahvin writes:
What is the probability of a fairy sitting on your shoulder? There is exactly as much evidence surrounding the fairy as there is for "god." If you accept that the probability of a fairy sitting on your shoulder approaches zero (not disprovable, but highly unlikely), then how can you rationally claim that "god" has a 50% chance of existing?
Conversely, do you honestly believe that every figment of anyone's imagination has a 50/50 chance of actually existing? After all, each figment either exists or does not exist.
Keyphrase: figment of anyones imagination. By definition,(as defined by believers) God is not a figment nor content of human imagination. We cant very well attempt to prove something that apriori is a figment of imagination. We must first assume...for the sake of argument(and in order to prove/disprove) that if God can even exist,then by definition God is not a product of human imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Rahvin, posted 04-24-2008 1:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by ringo, posted 03-07-2014 11:13 AM Phat has replied
 Message 219 by Rahvin, posted 03-10-2014 1:17 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18631
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 4.4


Message 210 of 219 (721451)
03-07-2014 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by onifre
10-07-2009 6:43 PM


I know....nothing.
Onifre writes:
What the "supernatural" actually is, has yet to be defined with a concept that we can all understand. Therefore no means to investigate it are available.
If we can't define it, and we can't investigated, then what exactly are you claiming there is probability for exactly?
"Is there a probability that God exists?" - Well, what exactly do you mean by God...?
Exactly. This is what I was trying to explain to Stile over in his topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 6:43 PM onifre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024