An Idea I Had
Offline I don't know if this is a common line of thought or I'm just stating the obvious but here goes:
I see a lot of theists arguing that the chance the us (Humans) could exist in the universe is so astronomical that there must be a God that helped us out.
Here is my question. Wouldn't ALL intelligent species that evolved in the universe think that they were extremely lucky?
My idea is that, regardless of whether we - humans - are the only intelligent life in the universe (highly unlikely imho), wasn't intelligent life bound to happen eventually if science tells us anything? Even if the chances are very low it has to happen some time by laws of chance. Even extremely pessimistic estimates of alien life do not postulate that we are unique.
And wouldn't that intelligent life think "Wow, that we even exist is a huge stroke of luck, maybe there is something more to this? Maybe a God exists?". Especially before they understand the world around them through science.
This is exactly what creationists say, but my argument is that ALL intelligent species WOULD think that, since they have no contact with alien (to them) life.
It's not unlikely that we exist at all, it had to happen eventually. Since we have no frame of reference of how much life similair to us exists in the universe of course we assume we're the only ones. Our survival of the fittest mentality also makes us arrogant.
It's just another way for us to say "We're the center of the universe", since that actual theory has been disproven. Does that make sense?
We're not unique, we have just assumed we are since we don't have hard evidence to the contrary.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
- Login to post comments
There is nothing more self centered than religion and theists. Out of the WHOLE universe, something in the sky tells me that I can't take a girl to bed unless I am married ? Something in the vastness of space is going to help me pay my bills ? Something in the cosmos gives a shit if I get a raise this year ? Hell, nothing in the cosmos seems to care about the problems of the entire planet, yet I am supposed to believe that it is watching me ? Religion is very self centered.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
The amazing thing is the extreme illogic of the position that we are too complicated to have arisen naturally, but somehow an infinitly more complex being than ourselves creating itself and everything else makes any sense at all.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I don't think it is impossible that 'God' exists, but I think my main point of this thread is that we are just like every other intelligent life out there. From a atheist's perspective: Nature has made us the way we are, not as a 'God' creates a person, but natural order that works in its own way. It seems reasonable to assume we are a decent batch of intelligent life, seeing as we haven't destroyed ourselves yet. Assuming most other life would be similar in logical ways to us, they would have religions as well. And why not? Whether you believe in it or not, it is obvious that religion fills an important role in civilization.
That is to say, the kernel of what religion is fills an important role. Morals, basic ethics, and etc. Feeling of belonging, the idea that your hardships will not be for nothing.
So if 'aliens' have religions they, almost certainly, would have fundamentalist sects as well. It seems to me that they would believe they are their "God's Creation" unless proven otherwise. Right now as I type this, I think there are quite possibly 'aliens' arguing over whether they are a God or gods exist just like us. They are probably thinking proof of a God is provided by the fact they exist at all, since it is so unlikely that it could ever happen by chance, right?
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
I think religion is our species' creation fueled in large part by our ego-central need to believe we are special in some way, either than other people or otherlife, our complete inability in general to accept we are the same as other life, a natural accurance, we don't have cosmic parents that love us like our earth parents who make us feel so safe when we are young and afraid. That petty little need we have to believe something more than ourselves like a god (aka our father/daddy) loves us and we'll be ok, and reassures us we are "special" in some way, not just a crab in the bucket. Basically our fear of coming to the conclusion we and we alone our the source of our own meaning, I think that terrifies peoples... (oh boy... how the heck do I make myself content, how the heck do I find meaning and create meaning in my own life in this natural world that doesn't love me or even consider my feelings???).
I've many times over the years, had a little chuckle contemplating how blindless and with how much passion men follow the various man made religions on earth while imagining another planet with intelligent life and their man made religions followed with as much spunk by their people. It's always good for a little giggle. Theists have a hard enough time dealing with the migrain causing cognitant dissonance from their attemps to rationalize their bias chosen religion of choice given the plethora of choices and powerful testimonies of truth from all groups. How the heck would they deal with finding out about another planet with intelligant life with just as many redilulous religions, each with just as much if not even more random bulshit dogma and knee-slappingly stupid mythology segregating the species into opposing groups. What would they think? Where would they go with their defense of Chrisianity to Zargonas the 6 legged bug like inteligent lifeform preacher of Planet Zargon who speaks with high frequency clicks and believes in a bug like god named "clickclick-doubleclick-clack" who created him in his image and loves him and commands all Zargonites to have atleast 300 children a year (average for their species)??? Good luck Christians... haha And good luck Zargonites persuading the Christians they have it all wrong, and that clearly as said in the book of "clickidy-clackclack," that the god chosen for no good reason by 20% of the Zargonite population who live mostly in the north west section of their planet, is the only true god and that they would be fools not to convert.
Good luck future intergallactic theists in your quests to persuade other life that your ancient religious myth is true, ha, haha, bwahahahahahahaha... And good luck waisting immense amount of time working out complex fuckflippinbackwards ways of rationalizing any of this to yourself and dragging your silly myths kicking and screaming accross the cosmos to stroke your ego. I wouldn't want your job.
Yup, but for the simple minded this is a perfect awnser, it is super simple and all encompassing, no need to think any more. I'll never get sick of theists I come accross everyday acting as though the "god" awnser to the existance of the universe is some form of wise, irrefutable, game ending, "aha" awnser, as if it is the conclusion all people come to...like duh.
They just don't seem to worry too much it only complicates the question of the universes existance even more by adding a >universe entity that also popped into to existence or always existed with no cause, they have no desire to continue with the thought process. You can go on and on with them...
"Something can't come from nothing"
"Fair enough, then who created god?"
"God is timeless he has always existed"
"Then why can't the universe have always existed?"
"Because everything that exists must have a cause?"
"But your god exists without a cause"
"That is different god exists outside the laws in our reality"
"Oh fuck off!!!"
God = end of mystery, and that's how they like it. It is a complete non awnser, it never will awnser anything, and they will never care. To them the god awnser is a comforting end to the journey that great question of the universes origin takes you on if you approach it honestly and openly. Silly theists...always missing out on the great delight of open and honest critical thinking, suckers...
It necessarily requires a beginning or end, in some types of religion?
Hey Opie,
The laws of chance? lol. What? let me say it again just to make sure you get what you said.
laws of chance? did you get it or perhaps one more time in case for some reason you still don't understand the problem or what's going on here.
Ready, here it goes.
laws of chance?
rofl, should further explanation be needed for the absurdity of these 3 words please let me know and I will teach you a little logic and the comedy of atheism.
wow, lol.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Jean Jean Jean
Where have you been? I've been worried sick.
I thought maybe you fell in the volcano.
"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia
Yes, listen to jeans logic everyone. It's a perfect example of doing it wrong, and what NOT to think.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Hello,
But seriously, doesn't THUNDER JONES remind you of a brand of underwear you had when you were 5. lol.
Thunder Jone's underwear is made with pure cotton and will last a life time.
Good stuff
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
?
I don't think you understood what I said, I said that intelligent life - us - had to happen eventually because even if the odds are incredibly low, it has to happen sometime. Therefore the laws of chance.
By the way I'm not an atheist, I, in fact, have not said a word about my own religious beliefs so you don't have to be so butthurt.
That was intelligent, my screen name sounds like underwear to you. Man, my entire argument is defeated. You win.
(Did you notice the sarcasm? I'm thinking maybe I broke your brain.)
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Doesn't the name jean chauvin remind you of underwear a redneck might wear?
Jones, just ignore jean. He's incapable of intelligent discussion. His only real value to this site is in showing just how stupid the average christian really is.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
In my experience Jean appears to be a lot stupider than the average Christian.
Any way I don't mind responding, it doesn't really take that much effort
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
To an extent I think you're right, to be honest I view religions creation/maintenance with us as a combination of thoughts from Douglas Adams and Richard Dawkins. In essence religion starts out as a means of understanding the world, the first humans to ponder things would wonder who or what made the world around them, they would likely assume that such a being was a larger more powerful version of themselves, also a tool user, etc. It served as a placeholder in understanding things and it also helped explain odd coincidences. I look at conspiracy theories and religion in the same way, they're a kind of short circuit in our brains pattern recognition software, false positives. If our hunter gatherer forebears heard a rustle in the brush, maybe it was just the wind or maybe it was a predator. If they took caution and were wrong they lost a bit of time, but if they decide it's just the wind and are wrong...well goodbye ancestor. So most likely those that had more...shall we say aggressive pattern recognition systems were more likely to survive, false positives generally being less threatening than false negatives which in turn allowed for religion and various primalist belief systems which eventually became the current religious systems of today.
Of course. When it comes to life we have a sample size of one. All samples of one are unique. But the idea that stars were just other suns far away and that other "earths" and people might exist there goes back to ancient Greece.
It was in fact stories like John Carter's Barsoom, aka Mars, with different life forms that lead to a review of the limits of where life could exist and in what form. The early limits, long since busted, lead believers to was taken as an opportunity by ignorant believers to jump at impossible without help.
Intelligent is a separate issue undefined in this context. We can define self-aware. As it has been demonstrated to exist in other species we can only address degree when it comes to us as in who studies who. And as fur animals will chew off their legs rather than attack the trap that holds the leg they clearly have some degree of awareness and problem solving. What believers appear to mean is an immortal soul for which there is no evidence.
As with the Greeks and our modern experience less than a century old the problem only arises in the earliest stages of research. So, yes, it will arise but it will not last very long. We already have more than half our time considering it breaking the initial impression of uniqueness.
Unlike us they may not be cursed with preachers for whom science ends just before the point where their misunderstanding is demonstrated to be nonsense. A truly rational species might hold of judgment until all the research is in.
Actually we or like us never has to happen. There were several robust proliferations where intelligence did not appear, insects, amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs. To those you can add birds and mammals. Only in Africa did a line start that lead to primates. And then you can add primates to the list that only resulted in a few homo lines that had a chance at more than using hand axes.
There is a very limited set of leaps or changes in evolution that lead to us.
Which is why I speculate the problem on earth was that the first non-insect land animals had only four legs. Every bottleneck in getting to us is bipedal and free hands. If four legs don't go to two you don't have a chance no matter how smart elephants. And while there are several examples of successful bipedal species they are either wings or mostly useless.
Now if the first animals had had six or eight legs then only four are needed for stability in walking and running. Imagine every species having two legs to spare to become hands. Imagine no speciad having to evolve to walk on two legs.
I would not argue we are unique. Rather I would argue we are rare because our lineage started with only four legs and that takes much longer for all the required elements for a technological species to appear.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Hello,
Philosophy is a joke? Have you ever heard of a Ph.D before? What does it mean when you have this and what does that degree stand for? Is this degree available on virtually all subjects?
hmm?
What exactly are the laws of chaos? Isn't a law an isolated absolute or highly probable event that happens due to physics or gravity or what have you.
So please give me specific examples of laws of chaos.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Hmm yes, perhaps it would be better to say that it didn't have to happen but was likely given the timeframe involved.
And I definitely do not mean that sentient life would have to look like us or be similiar physically at all, I'm not certain that our body structure is a prerequisite to success.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
What are you talking about?
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Yes, we had to change its name from natural philosophy to science to get away from being associated with the jokesters. Mental masturbation is not a noble thing.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
Hey Mickey,
lol, natural philosophy along with natural theology are both absurd and horrific. They are actually the death of philosophy and have no intellectual worth, i'd agree with you. I am not a natural philosopher.
But if you were to master your profession, you would have mastered the method and philosophy of the subject as a whole.
lol.
Mickey, you're so emotional.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
The above is nothing but my speculation. I would saddle no one else with it. But I do not see a flaw in the reasoning given the premises. And I believe I have correctly framed the issues on the evolution of intelligence as they understood today.
While the order of fish to amphibian is probably fixed in the universe and that amphibians will diverge into other definable groups such as mammals, reptiles and dinosaurs as happened here, which becomes dominant first or in what order after that is arbitrary absent additional evidence.
As to time frame, by about 10 billion years ago there were sufficient third generation stars to have an abundance of elements beyond hydrogen and helium to have life on their planets. Ours is 4.5 billion, less than half of 10. Even if everyone took 2x4.5 billion years there have been intelligent species for a billion years. Time frame hardly matters.
I would not swear I remember correctly but I think the oldest known primate which lead to lemurs to us is about 40 million years ago. Doing it the four legged way takes that little time. So even with limited four legged animals any 40 million year is sufficient.
I while back I had an answer to Fermi's question, if the universe is filled with intelligent species where are they?
My premise for an SF short story is the other species are so old they have forgotten what it was like when they thought they were the only sentient species. So they conduct an experiment. The find a species on the verge of realizing it is alone, use advanced technology to prevent them from observing evidence of sentient life in the universe which is so obvious without blocking it, and see how they react to being alone. It is not a perfect experiment. It is not an ethical experiment. But we are the experiment. Perhaps I can make it into an action story by saying it a rogue experiment and having the Avengers end it. And then the blocking technology is shut down and we see in the night sky stars spelling out EAT AT JOE'S.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
I have never denied you your self proclared status as the village idiot. Why do you continue to post to confirem your status as such? Science has nothing to do with philosphy. Only philosophers try to claim credit for science. But then a degree in philosophy is barely worth a job selling life insurance. Of course degreed philosphers whine about being unappreciated while scaring people and promising the insurance policy will cure all ills and pocketing the commission.
Give it a rest. We know what philosophy majors do for a living. A philosophy degree is just a single cut above an education major but the Ed majors can get work in their degree field. Philosophy majors are essentially taught nothing but an inflated idea of their own self-worth not unlike handing out trophies to everyone who participates in the handicapped olympics.
Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.
www.ussliberty.org
www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html
www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml
It would depend on how highly evolved that they are. Some lifeforms out there, might still be very primitive and unaware of anything beyond their own civilizations. Some life forms out there, might be so highly evolved that to them, we would look like a lost civilization, with a majority of people crying out into the empty air for answers from a being that does not exist.
For instance, a fish in the ocean, if it has any form of cognition, would see the ocean as the universe. It would not even conceive of the world that exists right above it. Same thing with alien species, I think it would depend on their level of evolution and how advanced they are. Not too many people argue that the sun revolves around the Earth anymore, or that the world is flat. But you still have people that believe disease is punishment from god.
We are slowly evolving past the need for religion, as the studies would suggest ( I have them somewhere) with the decline of church membership and more people in the civilized world identifying themselves as Atheists, Skeptics, or simply non-religious.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
It's funny to see people claim that intelligent life on Earth is a wondrous miracle while also claiming that the universe is fine-tuned for live to develop...
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
You know, that is a damned good point. Kinda refutes the whole "All this could not have happened by mistake argument." Doesn't it ?
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
I want to reiterate my point in this topic.
Theist's CONSTANTLY bring up how the universe and life is a miracle.
That life requires such a extremely precise and lucky circumstances to form.
So?
Assuming the idea of multiple universes is true, and that there are infinite universes, then the following logic should be obvious:
One of the universes is bound to be just about right.
Obviously our universe is working out pretty well for us.
It SEEMS like the universe is made for us, but OBVIOUSLY we would think that because that seems so unlikely!
Any life that exists will think it is special because it "got lucky". It didnt get lucky, it is just part of the small percentage of life that probability dishes out.
That life forming was inevitable, has probably happen, will probably happen again, and will probably think it is special too.
Even if the idea of infinite universes is false, so what? Our universe was right! Why? I don't know.
Our existence is not proof of anything except that we exist, and something similar could, and by all probability does, exist elsewhere.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Hey Thunder,
Theists? What KIND of theists? Are you talking about those who are in the Illuminati? Are you talking about Hindu's or Zorasterians?
You need to describe what KIND of theist you are talking about.
Christianity does not ever say that the Universe and Life is a miracle. This is absurd.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
That's because Christianity is too "low brow" to even entertain such lofty philosophical thoughts. It's too busy talking about stoning disbehaving children and to not eat unclean creatures like pigs.
"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci
Which christians ? Baptists ? Catholics ? Calvinists ? Westboro Baptists ? Methodists ? Episcopalians? Lutherans ? Presbyterians ? Pentecostals ? Snake Handling Pentecostals ? Church of Christ ? 7th Day Adventists ? Jehovah's Witnesses ? Mormons ? or Quakers ?
After all, we must have a vaild epistemology of what a christian is before we can make the blanket claim of what christians believe.
Respectfully,
Harley
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Respectfully <- You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
What does the Illuminati have to do with it? Also, Hindu's are Polytheists, meaning multiple gods. That's not a theistic religion.
BTW, how is it absurd? Most theists ON THIS SITE use the "life is a miracle by god" routine.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Thunder,
My point exactly. Hindu's are theists never the less. You need to stop committing the logical fallacy of
ambiguity and specficy the descrptive of the theist.
I do not think like, argue like, act like or cook like a Hindu. So to simply say theist could mean a high level satanist
like the queen of England or a member of the JuJu Tribesman of africa.
Christianity is completely different in thought and approach then all these religions.
Thus via logic, I am not a theist, I am a Christian theist. But if you wish to be consistent, continue the fallacies
my agnostic friend under the atheistic mask of the phantom.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
"a high level satanist like the queen of England"? What the hell? This is why you fail Jean, you throw in ridiculous unsupported claims with every post.
"Christianity is completely different in thought and approach then all these religions." Really? How is it different? Explain it to me
Christianity is an aggressive, expansionistic, monotheistic religion that is similar in many ways to Islam and Judaism. I would say Islam more than Judaism.
"I am not a theist, I am a Christian theist" Even if this is true, a CHRISTIAN THEIST is still a THEIST. BTW what is the "atheistic mask of the phantom"?
Seems like some nonsense you just made up, but i'm listening.
The reason I do not specify an exact religion is because I speak of theistic religions in general, including Chrisitianity.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
BTW, Does this mean you consider Satanism to be a Theistic religion that is a peer to Chrisitanity? Because that is what it sounded like.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
Hello OP, welcome to the forum.
To address your main point, regardless of how low the probability of life existing is, it will always be infinitely grater then the probability of an infinite being existing.
x = life occurring
g = god
g = ∞ , god is infinite
x >= 1 , life has occurred at least once
P(g) = ∞, probability of g is infinite
Therefore
P(x) > P(g), probability of x will always be grater then probability of g, OR the occurrence of x will be infinitely more likely then the occurrence of g.
P(g) - P(x) = ∞
Also, don't let Jean get to you
I love his sense of humour. 
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
A fool like Jean cannot penetrate my anti-troll defenses, don't worry.
I love how jean is almost always holding an illogical and fallacious position. It makes educating people easy when you have such a convenient example of doing it wrong.
In this lesson, we will explore the bolded section of text. It won't require more than a single example in one single sentence to show how the reasoning is flawed.
I don't look, think, act, cook, or argue like jean, and yet we are both homo sapiens all the same.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
This is a clear example that you should be careful on how you argument your hypothesis if your audience is educated as is the case in this forum.
If you read the quote from Paul Davies in my signature you get an idea on how I would put it...
It's like saying if you play the lottery and hit it big, you should believe that a god helped you.
If you lose, it was just what was expected no god intervened to cause you to loose.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen