More than meets the eye

Hivemind187

Its funny but I have heard this one a couple of times.

"There must be something more to life, something grander!" or some variant of this.

I wonder, exactly - considering the size of the universe, the number of galaxies, the number of planets, the depths of their oceans, the abundance of life throughout and the unbelievably small (and equally phenomenally huge) and complex (and equally simply) systems that comprise the universe and make reality work - how much MORE they want?

Why do you need to have a "God"? It just seems like selling everything in life and the universe short.

McPedro

Hivemind187 wrote:

Its funny but I have heard this one a couple of times.

"There must be something more to life, something grander!" or some variant of this.

I wonder, exactly - considering the size of the universe, the number of galaxies, the number of planets, the depths of their oceans, the abundance of life throughout and the unbelievably small (and equally phenomenally huge) and complex (and equally simply) systems that comprise the universe and make reality work - how much MORE they want?

Why do you need to have a "God"? It just seems like selling everything in life and the universe short.

Why do you need to have a "God"?

Erm! humanity needs and always did need something to look forward too, its human nature to look to the future, imo religeon and whatever God you believe in has the only purpose to give you faith and keep you on the straight and narrow.

Hivemind187

McPedro wrote:

Erm! humanity needs and always did need something to look forward too, its human nature to look to the future, imo religeon and whatever God you believe in has the only purpose to give you faith and keep you on the straight and narrow.

... you did see the sign on the way in didnt you? The one that says Atheists & Agnostics?

Crucifix

I am disapointed this thread isn't about Transformers.

Hivemind187

Crucifix wrote:

I am disapointed this thread isn't about Transformers.

Optimus Prime may actually BE god.

Fallen Seraph

Hivemind187 wrote:

... you did see the sign on the way in didnt you? The one that says Atheists & Agnostics?

He was answering a question you asked? What is the relevence of the forum name to this?

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote:

... you did see the sign on the way in didnt you? The one that says Atheists & Agnostics?

Do you mean the one that says "Atheism & Agnosticism"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

McPedro wrote:

Erm! humanity needs and always did need something to look forward too, its human nature to look to the future, imo religeon and whatever God you believe in has the only purpose to give you faith and keep you on the straight and narrow.

I would say belief in the supernatural lowers uncertainty which lowers stress and increases your immune system, increases yor survival advantage and hence many humans are programmed to belief in the supernatural or personal God of some sort.

Why do you need to have a "God"?

It's part of the human condition. See above.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

I would say belief in the supernatural lowers uncertainty which lowers stress and increases your immune system, increases yor survival advantage and hence many humans are programmed to belief in the supernatural or personal God of some sort.

It's part of the human condition. See above.

I'd go with that - something certain in an uncertain world. They play that element up in a lot of religious music/poetry. Plus God never actually contradicts you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I'd go with that - something certain in an uncertain world. They play that element up in a lot of religious music/poetry. Plus God never actually contradicts you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah I liked the way my dog never contradicted me, no matter what I said.
I am beginning to understand the attraction to religion, more and more each day

Dades

Crucifix wrote:

I am disapointed this thread isn't about Transformers.

ROFL

Anyhow, it's not about having a "god" per se - it's about not wanting to accept how insignificant our 'blink and you'll miss it' lives really are.

PDN

The Atheist wrote:

ROFL

Anyhow, it's not about having a "god" per se - it's about not wanting to accept how insignificant our 'blink and you'll miss it' lives really are.

Blink and you'll miss it. I'll agree with that assessment of our lives.

As often happens, the Bible expresses it quite well.
"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." (James 4:14)

It's nice to see The Atheist thinking along biblical lines. My presence on this board may be yielding some good after all.

Zillah

They don't want the universe to have more meaning.
They want themselves to have more meaning.


And being the ultra-loved children of the space-daddy means you're quite important, I've been told.

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

considering the size of the universe, the number of galaxies, the number of planets, the depths of their oceans, the abundance of life throughout and the unbelievably small (and equally phenomenally huge) and complex (and equally simply) systems that comprise the universe and make reality work - how much MORE they want?

I'm interested in this abundance of life throughout the universe. I am no scientist, so maybe I am totally unaware of some pretty awesome discoveries. Is there proof of life existing any where else in the universe than on this planet? Or is this more of a faith statement than a factual description of the universe?

Disclaimer:
This post is asking a question. I am not arguing that life is confined to this planet, and anyone who chooses to get offended by such a suggestion, or accuses me of alienphobia, is just being silly.

Fallen Seraph

I'm interested in this abundance of life throughout the universe. I am no scientist, so maybe I am totally unaware of some pretty awesome discoveries. Is there proof of life existing any where else in the universe than on this planet? Or is this more of a faith statement than a factual description of the universe?

Well as is my understanding it's incredibly difficult to detect planets at all and even more difficult still to detect any planet with a mass less than that of jupiter. I know one earth-like planet has been discovered in the past few weeks but am unacquainted with the method used to discover it. Regardless; we're able to see almost to the end of the universe; but barely able to spot jupiter-sized planets. So we haven't seen any indication of life; but this lack of indication of life doesn't by any means indicate a lack of life. We simply haven't been able to look at places where we'd expect it to be.

So any speculation about extra-terrestrial life is just that- speculation. But I don't think it fair to suggest that it's baseless and wild speculation.

(also iirc people were investigation micro-organisms that originated on mars a while back but this is simply something from distant memory that I could easily have made up

edit: after a quick look on wikipedia it would appear that this was indeed something I just imagined.)

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Blink and you'll miss it. I'll agree with that assessment of our lives.

As often happens, the Bible expresses it quite well.
"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." (James 4:14)

It's nice to see The Atheist thinking along biblical lines. My presence on this board may be yielding some good after all.

I'm surprised you think atheists might be unaware of the briefness of mortality, or need the Bible to make them aware. It's better said in the Rubaiyat, for my money:

XXXVIII
One Moment in Annihilation's Waste,
One Moment, of the Well of Life to taste--
The Stars are setting and the Caravan
Starts for the Dawn of Nothing--Oh, make haste!

but there's a lot of good stuff about sic transit gloria mundi in there:

XVI
The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon
Turns Ashes--or it prospers; and anon,
Like Snow upon the Desert's dusty Face,
Lighting a little hour or two--is gone.

XVII
Think, in this batter'd Caravanserai
Whose Portals are alternate Night and Day,
How Sultan after Sultan with his Pomp
Abode his destined Hour, and went his way.

XLII
And if the Wine you drink, the Lip you press
End in what All begins and ends in--Yes;
Think then you are To-day what Yesterday
You were--To-morrow You shall not be less.

the last perhaps most pertinent to the atheist.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

It's better said in the Rubaiyat, for my money:

Yes, I can appreciate that you would appreciate something a bit more wordy.

When it comes to poetry expressing the fleeting nature of human life (and the futility of human power and authority), I prefer Percy Shelley's Ozymandias. Its cadences are superb:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I'm interested in this abundance of life throughout the universe. I am no scientist, so maybe I am totally unaware of some pretty awesome discoveries. Is there proof of life existing any where else in the universe than on this planet? Or is this more of a faith statement than a factual description of the universe?

It is an educated guess based on what is required for life (life as we know it of course, to quote Star Trek) and the huge size of the universe.

If the odds of life developing on a planet are a billion to one (of course this is impossible to say, but for argument sake lets pick a very unlikely number) that means that life on individual planets has developed well over a billion times in the universe, since there are estimated to be well over a billion billion planets in the universe.

Its hard to imagine that life, of some kind, has not developed some where else in the universe, considering that life as we understand it is really just a complex chemical reaction, one that seems rather likely to happen given the right conditions

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

It is an educated guess based on what is required for life (life as we know it of course, to quote Star Trek) and the huge size of the universe.

If the odds of life developing on a planet are a billion to one (of course this is impossible to say, but for argument sake lets pick a very unlikely number) that means that life on individual planets has developed well over a billion times in the universe, since there are estimated to be well over a billion billion planets in the universe.

Its hard to imagine that life, of some kind, has not developed some where else in the universe, considering that life as we understand it is really just a complex chemical reaction, one that seems rather likely to happen given the right conditions

So it's an educated guess based on the size of the universe (which we don't know) and the odds of life developing on a planet (which we don't know and which it is impossible to know)?

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

So it's an educated guess based on the size of the universe (which we don't know) and the odds of life developing on a planet (which we don't know and which it is impossible to know)?

More like - It is an educated guess based on the size of the observable universe which we have a good idea of and the odds of life developing on a planet which again we have a good idea of.

We understand of the types of solar systems where planets suitable for life (atmosphere, heat, gravity etc) would develop in and what types of stars they would form around. We can work out a rough idea of the number of stars with said planets that are likely in the observable universe.

We have a fair idea at the conditions on these planets that cause life (complex self replicating molecules) to form and how likely they these conditions are to happen.

So with this we can work out roughly that the difficulty for life to develop some where else in the universe are far less than the probable number of planets. We might be off by millions, but it doesn't really matter since the numbers are so huge anyway, and all you are looking to say is that the chances of it happening are more likely than the chances of it not happening (by some order)

It is therefore much more likely than not that life has developed at least once some where else in the universe. Possibly only once, possibly billions of times

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

Yes, I can appreciate that you would appreciate something a bit more wordy.

When it comes to poetry expressing the fleeting nature of human life (and the futility of human power and authority), I prefer Percy Shelley's Ozymandias. Its cadences are superb:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Another favourite, it must be said. Hardly laconic, though, for your choice...and of course it lends itself well to declamation.

I suspect that most of us who are more strongly theist or atheist are equally aware of the brevity and futility of life. We differ mostly in our response to that truth - I wonder if we each think the other has "opted out" in the face of it?

PDN wrote:

So it's an educated guess based on the size of the universe (which we don't know) and the odds of life developing on a planet (which we don't know and which it is impossible to know)?

The equation usually used is the Drake Equation. There's a discussion of it somewhere on the Creationism thread, but in summary even if the chance of life developing on a planet is incredibly tiny, the probability of our being the only life in this Galaxy remain almost zero. A decade ago, that claim wasn't quite so solid, but we have since begun to fill in the terms pertaining to "planets round other stars", and "planets in the habitable zone".

cordially,
Scofflaw

dan719

PDN wrote:

Blink and you'll miss it. I'll agree with that assessment of our lives.

As often happens, the Bible expresses it quite well.
"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes." (James 4:14)

It's nice to see The Atheist thinking along biblical lines. My presence on this board may be yielding some good after all.

So does Macbeth, 'life is but a strutting player upon a stage, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing'. 'All hail macbeth':D

But seriously I wonder that when we discover(or are discovered by) other forms of complex life will religion exist among them. This could yeild the answers to the origins of religion, if these e.ts have evolved in a different manner to us, and have no religion then it would seem that religion is merely a by-product of natural selection, and obviously redundant.

And I personally feel that a need to see so called meaning in life through the supernatural is harmful to one's own happiness. Surely one finds meaning in one's family,friends, the stars and the beautiful harmony of nature(as explored throgh science). I apoligise for the chaotic nature of the post, I didn't get much sleep last night.;)

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I'm interested in this abundance of life throughout the universe. I am no scientist, so maybe I am totally unaware of some pretty awesome discoveries. Is there proof of life existing any where else in the universe than on this planet? Or is this more of a faith statement than a factual description of the universe?

Cue the Drake equation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

An equation for life somewhere else in the Universe.

Proofs don't exist in Science in PDN, only testable and falsifiable theories, proofs are in Maths.

Dades

PDN wrote:

Blink and you'll miss it.

It's nice to see The Atheist thinking along biblical lines. My presence on this board may be yielding some good after all.

I had both bread and wine over the weekend too. Was that the subliminal theist in me?

Actually I boggled my mind a bit one night, spending too long looking at the night sky after too much of said wine.

Son Goku

PDN wrote:

So it's an educated guess based on the size of the universe (which we don't know)

We do know the size of the universe. It is roughly 70/90 billion light years across. At this stage we also know that it is probably "multiply-connected", in the sense that if you head of in several different directions, you'd eventually come back to where you started.

PDN wrote:

the odds of life developing on a planet (which we don't know and which it is impossible to know)?

This is true, at least for the conceivable future it would be impossible to gather the necessary data. We will be able to conclude the probability of carbon based life arising in the Milky Way eventually though, as it is possible to gather the data required for this.

Schuhart

Scofflaw wrote:

It's better said in the Rubaiyat, for my money:

PDN wrote:

When it comes to poetry expressing the fleeting nature of human life (and the futility of human power and authority), I prefer Percy Shelley's Ozymandias. Its cadences are superb

No, it has to Willie Nelson.

Mommas, don’t let your babies grow up to be cowboys.
Don’t let them pick guitars or ride them old trucks.
Make them be doctors and lawyers and such.

(Well at least you can sing along to it.)

aidan24326

Scofflaw wrote:

The equation usually used is the Drake Equation. There's a discussion of it somewhere on the Creationism thread, but in summary even if the chance of life developing on a planet is incredibly tiny, the probability of our being the only life in this Galaxy remain almost zero. A decade ago, that claim wasn't quite so solid, but we have since begun to fill in the terms pertaining to "planets round other stars", and "planets in the habitable zone".

Given the sheer size and age of the universe, and the vast number of planets, it would seem absurd if earth was the only place where life ever arose. But what form alien life might take is impossible to know, whether they'd even be based on the same chemistry as us. There may be types of life we can't even imagine. Maybe an alien civilisation already know about us, but choose not to intervene, perhaps being far ahead of us in their advancement.

Or maybe we're just an outrageous fluke. Anyway what was this thread about? I can't remember now.

Demetrius

To paraphrase (some guy called Fermi?), if there are other intelligent life-forms in the Universe, then why aren't they here?

Surely, if there were, say 10,000 habitable planets in the Universe, at least one planet would have in the last few billion years or so produced a species that (so long as it didn't nuke itself first) that would have left some sign or signal behind them, if not their actual presence?

coffee_cake

Demetrius wrote:

To paraphrase (some guy called Fermi?), if there are other intelligent life-forms in the Universe, then why aren't they here?

Maybe they're on their way now and we'll see them in a few thousand years or so
just because there might be other life doesn't mean they have ftl

Zombrex

Demetrius wrote:

To paraphrase (some guy called Fermi?), if there are other intelligent life-forms in the Universe, then why aren't they here?

Surely, if there were, say 10,000 habitable planets in the Universe, at least one planet would have in the last few billion years or so produced a species that (so long as it didn't nuke itself first) that would have left some sign or signal behind them, if not their actual presence?

Who says they haven't?

We have only been looking at the sky with radio telescopes for the last 100 years. The odds that when we would be looking would be when the signal would reach us are quite small. It might not reach us for a thousand years, a million years, a billion years....

Which is why I always say to any UFO believers I know (all two of them), that do they not find it a bit strange that as soon as humans started writing sci-fi novels the aliens turned up ... what are the odds

pH

bluewolf wrote:

Maybe they're on their way now and we'll see them in a few thousand years or so
just because there might be other life doesn't mean they have ftl

There are reasonable estimates that even without ftl a species *should* be able to colonize a Galaxy in a timeframe of the order 5m to 50m years, which given current estimates of the age of the the universe is a tiny proportion of the time available to have done so.

As far as I know, nobody has addressed Fermi's paradox satisfactorily, if intelligent life is reasonably common and the universe 14 billion years old then it *should* be all over the place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox