I doubt the Smithsonian would allow the video where I got this information from to be shown over and over again if the premises are false.
http://www.trueorigin.org/privplansmith01.asp





The more planets there are, the more rare it becomes. So it actually is surprising.

Line up 10 bottles with only one having an open lid and throw a rock, you have a 1/10 chance of getting the rock into that bottle with no lid (10%)

Line up a trillion bottles with only one having an open lid and throw a rock, you have a 1/trillion chance.

How is that less surprising to you?



Answer the question then. If I am wrong - what is right? What do you believe in?

This post was edited by herbdoc on Nov 6 2014 05:02pm

Sorry, that's not what I meant. The premises regarding the rarity of intelligent life arising on any particular planet may be correct. The premise that because they are rare, God must've done it is the incorrect premise, because it ignores the fact that there is an equally massive number of planets for it to have happened on.







This is a completely different idea entirely. A real comparison would be:

Line up 10 bottles with all of them having an open lid and throw a rock.

Line up 1 trillion bottles with all of them having an open lid and throw a rock.

Which scenario has a higher chance of having a rock go into any bottle?

I seriously urge you to look into selection bias, specifically anthropic bias, as your entire argument is unfortunately dismissed because of it.





I don't really know what you're asking me. Why does the universe exist? I would guess it's necessary. But I'm only human, so I don't know.

we simply disagree friend.

When you put all the factors that a planet needs for life into the bottle equation, they all wouldn't be open.



I think God created us.

What do you believe?

Nothing?



It was written in 2002, the Smithsonian showed the video i referenced in 2005. Which got many supporters from many universities.
Without looking into anthropoic bias, do you think they would let something that is "dismissed" be shown?

This post was edited by herbdoc on Nov 6 2014 05:14pm

Ok, if the open bottles are the ones with the potential for life, a universe with more "bottles" would still have the same % of them open. I.e. the trillion bottle example should have 100 billion open ones (10% as the first example shows).

I seriously suggest you read this, as you clearly are an intelligent person but you're simply wrong about this: http://www.anthropic-principle.com/?q=book/chapter_2





I believe in plenty of things.

But there isn't 100 billion open ones. For decades we've been searching for a terrestrial/habitable planet.

WE are rare

I don't have much time to read new things, with much depth... maybe you could pin point what specifically dismisseswhat I posted.

Multiple Universes??



How did earth come to be and how did intellectual life form from 2 atoms.

You are quick to dismiss what I post, but you do not suggest your personalbelief.

This post was edited by herbdoc on Nov 6 2014 05:24pm

I agree we are rare. That is not what I'm disputing. We may very well be the ONLY intelligent life in the universe. What I'm disputing is that we're so rare as to defy natural explanation, which is not true, and which I'm guessing you think is the case due to anthropic bias. In a nutshell:

An observation selection effect exists when some property of a thing is correlated with the observer existing in the first place. The study of such effects is sometimes called "anthropic reasoning" or "anthropics", after the anthropic principle.

For example, if intelligence hadn't evolved, we wouldn't exist, and couldn't evaluate the probability of intelligence evolving. In a big enough universe, intelligence could evolve somewhere even if the probability of it happening was arbitrarily low. Therefore we cannot just infer that because intelligence evolved here, evolution is common, or that designing intelligence is easy.

Or more simply:

Even though the vast majority of the planets are not suitable for intelligent life, it is no wonder that we should observe one of the exceptional planets which are fine-tuned; for the other planets contain no observers and hence are not observed.

In other words, we aren't looking at the probability that life would arise specifically on Earth. We are looking at the probability that life would arise anywhere in the universe at any time, because that's the place that would observe life having arisen. The idea that the universe seems fine-tuned for life is an error.



My personal belief about what? I, like many others, am willing to abstain from belief about things that humans can't know about, like the existence of the universe. Any claim to know is equally arrogant.

give me an example of randomness in nature and tell me how you would distinguish it from order

i don't believe in randomness fyi

i don't suggest you believe in anything that doesn't have evidence to support it

This post was edited by duffman316 on Nov 6 2014 07:03pm

this thread still going lol

You said


I said



If you don't believe in the fine tuning and intelligent design, then what do you believe in? If you are so quick to bash the fine tuning argument, then what is your belief?


Where is your evidence of non-intelligent design? What do you believe is the reason we're here? How do you think we came to be? Where is that, "evidence" ?
_____________________________________________



So we're a bunch of arrogant people. That I can agree with. But why bash down someone's belief, if you simply just "stand on the side-lines" with your beliefs?

Seems pretty weak, having no beliefs, and then having the balls to question other people's beliefs. Seems pretty easy actually. The simple road.
"I don't know why we're here or what happened, so i'll just live day to day"
Does that really fill you up with satisfaction?

This post was edited by herbdoc on Nov 6 2014 09:02pm

Hey man, I'm not bashing your beliefs, I post in the Political and Religious Discussion forum all the time and anyone there can vouch I have nothing but respect for religious belief.

I'm just saying your reasoning for your beliefs doesn't hold up to scrutiny. I'm not saying you're wrong about God existing, just that your reasons aren't convincing.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Nov 6 2014 10:21pm