Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[McCulloch]

Any evidence that they exist, beyond the distance of our own galaxy (and even in some places within our galaxy) would be undetectable by us, so the lack of evidence is hardly an issue.

Yet, it is always raised as an issue in regards to God. What I'm trying to point out is the inconsistent standards being applied to aliens and to a creator.

No, I disagree. We know beyond any doubt that there is at least one advanced civilization in the universe. So looking at the possibility of there being another is simply applying the principle that something that has happened is possible. Heck, you don't even have to differentiate between the theist and non-theist approach. Life happened at least once. Maybe it happened because God said, "Let there be life" or maybe it happened some other way. How can you say with any degree of certainty that it didn't happen somewhere else too? I cannot. And I am at a complete loss as to why you have any confidence in the assertion that it must not have happened.
God, on the other hand, has no proven instance. In fact, many of the believers in God, assert quite firmly that if there is a god, it must be the only one. So, the lack of evidence is far more of a detriment to the theists.

If no evidence of aliens exist and they are completely undetectable, then it can still be assumed that they must exist. Yet, if no evidence for God exists and it is undetectable, then it is concluded it must not exist.

This analysis would be valid if we had no evidence that life exists in the universe.

However, to restate, without evidence of more than the one instance of life in the universe, we cannot reasonably conclude that there is or is not other life forms in the universe, we can only conclude that within the available scope of our inquiries, since there has not been found life, that life is statistically rare.

And, without evidence for any God, gods, angels, demons, djinn, nephilim, spirits, souls, Satan, ghosts, phantoms, wraiths, incubi, succubi, fairies, norns or moirae we can provisionally conclude that there are none.

And even when evidence is presented for God's existence and evidence is presented that the probability for alien life is quite low, it is still asserted that God does not exist and aliens do.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Was there any evidence presented showing the probability of the existence of God?

Thus far, evidence has been presented and the conclusion agreed that life is quite rare in our universe. We have no dispute on that point. No valid evidence has been presented to show that the statistically expected number of inhabited planets in the universe is one or less.

The irony, of course, is that the one who is insisting that the universe was intentionally designed to support life argues that there can only be one instance of life in this vast universe and the one who argues that there is no sign of intent in the universe's design, is willing to allow that there may be other life forms somewhere.

[McCulloch]

The probability of advanced life is incredibly rare, but the size of the universe is incredibly vast. I am of the view that the vastness of the universe offsets the rareness of the event. You calculate that the rareness of the event offsets the vastness of the universe. I have asked for some validation of your calculation.

Again, I did not generate the values, but if you insist, we can explore justifying the values. But, you first need to provide your calculation of the probability of having a habitable planet.

No, you presented the values as evidence. You therefore are required to justify their values or withdraw them as evidence.

However, in New Science the following was reported:

Other Earths

* 27 October 2001 by Govert Schilling

OUR galaxy may contain hundreds of thousands of life-bearing planets, according to a new estimate. This could make the nearest inhabited twin of planet Earth as close as a few hundred light years away.

In 1961, the American scientist Frank Drake suggested a simple formula for calculating the number of technologically advanced civilisations in the Galaxy. But the Drake equation contains a number of parameters that are very difficult to estimate, such as the number of Earth-like planets around other stars and the percentage of these planets that are likely to evolve life.

Now Siegfried Franck and a team of German climate researchers from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research near Berlin have set new limits on these parameters. Franck's team first calculated how many planets lie in a star's habitable zone—the region where the temperature allows photosynthesis. They arrived at a figure of half a million "Gaias", as they call extrasolar terrestrial planets with a globally acting biosphere. "Because we also allowed for the fact that the habitable zone of any star will migrate and shrink as the star evolves, our number is much lower than earlier estimates," says Franck.

Their estimate is also conservative in other respects. Based on theoretical arguments, the team assumed that only one per cent of all stars in the Milky Way is accompanied by Earth-like planets. They also assumed that life will form and evolve on only one per cent of all habitable planets. "Some people believe this factor to be 100 per cent," says Franck.

Although many variables remain utterly uncertain, Franck's work is useful in setting an upper bound on the number of Gaias, says Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, DC. "If Earths turn out to be commonplace, then they will not have overestimated the number of life-bearing planets greatly, but if Earths turn out to be rarer, then their estimate may be too high by several powers of 10."

But other researchers are sceptical. "It is a very good paper," says Donald Brownlee, an astronomer at the University of Washington in Seattle, "but we have no way to know if the estimate is good or not. We have no data."

Other astronomers think the conclusions of Franck's team are premature. "We don't know enough to predict habitability," says planet hunter Geoffrey Marcy of the University of California in Berkeley. And there are other unknowns Franck has not taken into account. For instance, as Brownlee and others have suggested, a star's position in the Milky Way may play an important role in the development and sustenance of Earth-like planets and life.

The only way to find out is to observe extrasolar Earth-like planets for real. "That may actually happen within the next several years if NASA decides to fly the Kepler mission," says William Cochran of the University of Texas in Austin. Kepler should reveal how common terrestrial planets are, and produce statistical data on their orbits and sizes.

The current estimates of the values in the Drake equation have the expected number of extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy at 2.31.

I admit that there is still a great degree of uncertainty.

My reasoning is thus. Advanced life has occurred at least once. Given the vast size of the universe, there is no apparent reason why it should not have occurred again.

Since you have not yet provided any justification for the probability of having a habitable planet, it would be presumptuous to assume that the number of planets would overcome it.

Quite so. Since you have not yet provided any justification for the probability of not having a habitable planet, it would be presumptuous to assume that the incredible vastness of the universe would not overcome it.

Let's be wild in our speculation and imagine that they could travel at the fabulously unrealistic speed of half the speed of light, even though acceleration to that speed would be incredible and the relativistic effects significant.

I would agree that even going half the speed of light would not be realistic. To do intergalactic travel, it would require some unknown method that is not bound by the universal speed limit.

I'm going to go out on limb here and rashly speculate that the consensus of all physicists is correct, faster than light travel is impossible. I'll not wait for them to develop this technology nor will I assume that because they have not done the impossible that they do not exist.

We have never observed any life coming from non-life.

No, we have not. We know that it happened. We just don't know how. Yet.

Then the law of biogenesis remains a law. And there is no exception to it.

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed. The law says nothing, however, about the biogenesis of very primitive life from increasingly complex molecules.
Law of Biogenesis

And scientists should continue to search for a naturalistic explanation. And if they do, my argument will be falsified. If they do not find a naturalistic explanation, my argument stands.

Yes, the God-of-the-gaps. Until we find a naturalistic explanation for the [strike]weather[/strike], [strike]crop success[/strike], [strike]disease[/strike], [strike]reproduction[/strike], [strike]diversity of species[/strike], gravity, the big bang singularity and abiogenesis, the theistic non-explanation, "God must have done it" must remain on the table.

[otseng]

So looking at the possibility of there being another is simply applying the principle that something that has happened is possible.

Just because something happened once does not show that it would happen more than once. There would even be a finite probability that there's an exact copy of all the humans on Earth on another planet. But, nobody proposes that. (Unless one belives in an infinite universe or an infinite multiverse.)

If we did happen to come about through naturalistic processes, then sure, we happened to meet that finite probability for us to be here. But again, it would be even more improbable for that to occur twice.

And I am at a complete loss as to why you have any confidence in the assertion that it must not have happened.

Reason for my lack of confidence in aliens? There's no evidence for it and the miniscule probability of one arising from naturalistic means.

God, on the other hand, has no proven instance. In fact, many of the believers in God, assert quite firmly that if there is a god, it must be the only one. So, the lack of evidence is far more of a detriment to the theists.

Let me use this to summarize my arguments so far.

First off, I've stated at the outset that I'm not out to prove God exists. My claim is simply that the arguments for God outweigh the arguments against God.

The first evidence presented is the fine-tuning of the universe. As one example, the critical density had to fall within a precision of 1 part in 10⁵⁹. I proposed two explanations:
- We are in one of a multitude of universes that exist.
- An intelligent entity created our universe.

You didn't really argue for the multiverse. But, you did present a third option - "We are in the only possible universe. Uncreated." But, there was no rationale given as to why we are in the only possible universe.

Another argument I gave was the origin of the universe. This remains a mystery to science. Whereas a creator is an explanation for the origin of the universe.

My third argument is that I hold that extraterrestrial life do not exist. This is supported by the lack of evidence for their existence through either direct or indirect means. And that the probability of having a habitable planet is very low. If no alien life exists, this would disprove the mediocrity and Copernican principles and prove that we are special.

Fourth argument is the origin of life. This is another mystery to science. A creator would also explain this.

The alternative to God boils down to "We don't know". So, a creator would have more explanatory power for all these things.

However, to restate, without evidence of more than the one instance of life in the universe, we cannot reasonably conclude that there is or is not other life forms in the universe, we can only conclude that within the available scope of our inquiries, since there has not been found life, that life is statistically rare.

Really the only conclusion based on evidence is that life is unique.

And, without evidence for any God, gods, angels, demons, djinn, nephilim, spirits, souls, Satan, ghosts, phantoms, wraiths, incubi, succubi, fairies, norns or moirae we can provisionally conclude that there are none.

I'm only arguing for a God, so you can dismiss all the others.

Sorry, I must have missed it. Was there any evidence presented showing the probability of the existence of God?

No, I never argued for the probability of the existence of God. I've only argued that comparing the explanations, it is more rational to believe in a God as a cause than the other explanations.

The irony, of course, is that the one who is insisting that the universe was intentionally designed to support life argues that there can only be one instance of life in this vast universe and the one who argues that there is no sign of intent in the universe's design, is willing to allow that there may be other life forms somewhere.

Yes, the universe was fine-tuned for life to exist in the universe. But in addition to that, Earth is fine-tuned for life to exist. So, Earth would be the only place for life to exist in the universe.

No, you presented the values as evidence. You therefore are required to justify their values or withdraw them as evidence.

Since I presented a source, there is no need to withdraw it as evidence.

Since you have not yet provided any justification for the probability of not having a habitable planet, it would be presumptuous to assume that the incredible vastness of the universe would not overcome it.

Like I said, I'm willing to investigate justifying the values that Ross came up with. Only condition is that you provide justification for your estimates as well.

The Law of Biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, states that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria cannot appear fully formed. The law says nothing, however, about the biogenesis of very primitive life from increasingly complex molecules.

Saying the first cell is the exception to the law of biogenesis would be special pleading. Just because it is microscopic does not mean it could violate the law. Further, there is no evidence to support that it can happen. It has never been observed in nature or in the lab. And there is not even a viable theory as to how it can occur.

Yes, the God-of-the-gaps.

And the alternative is gaps-in-science: Science will eventually figure out the origin of the universe and the first lifeform, we just don't know what it is yet.

[McCulloch]

And I am at a complete loss as to why you have any confidence in the assertion that it must not have happened.

Reason for my lack of confidence in aliens? There's no evidence for it and the miniscule probability of one arising from naturalistic means.

I think I must have missed where you posted a valid calculation or approximation of this probability.

[McCulloch]

No, you presented the values as evidence. You therefore are required to justify their values or withdraw them as evidence.

Since I presented a source, there is no need to withdraw it as evidence.

That's a really good one.

Now seriously, really. You presented some values, along with the source, and that counts as evidence?

While we're in a joking mood, here is a source.

Plug in your own values and calculate your own values.

Calculate the possible number of communicating civilizations within our own galaxy using the Drake Equation.

N* = the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy: 200 billion

fp = fraction of stars with planets around them: .0001%

ne = number of planets per star ecologically able to sustain life: .33

fl = fraction of those planets where life actually evolves: .0001%

fi = the fraction of fl that evolves intelligent life: .0001%

fc = the fraction of fi that communicates: .0001%

fL = the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations survives: 100 years

Nc = the possible number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy =

6.6 × 10^-18


Copyright 1980-2006 @ The Extrasolar Planetary Foundation, All Rights Reserved

I used as conservative values as I could, and still the expected number of is
6.6 × 10^-18 1.7 × 10¹¹ = 1.1 × 10<sup>-6

Better than the odds in the lottery.</sup>

[otseng]

And I am at a complete loss as to why you have any confidence in the assertion that it must not have happened.

Reason for my lack of confidence in aliens? There's no evidence for it and the miniscule probability of one arising from naturalistic means.

I think I must have missed where you posted a valid calculation or approximation of this probability.

Just because you think the estimate is not valid does not by itself invalidate the estimate.

Now seriously, really. You presented some values, along with the source, and that counts as evidence?

Of course it counts as evidence. I'm not saying that his values are definitive. As I've noted all along, it is his estimate. But, this is no different from anyone's values for the Drake equation. They are all estimates.

But, the major difference between the Ross' equation and the Drake equation is that cosmologists have a better understanding of the requirements for a habitable planet since the 60s. And Ross includes these parameters. The Drake equation does not, but lumps it into n_e.

[otseng]

Nc = the possible number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy =

6.6 × 10^-18

The Drake equation only applies to our galaxy, so this is the number that should be considered. And based on your own values, it would show that the odds are quite remote.

[McCulloch]

Nc = the possible number of communicating civilizations in the galaxy =

6.6 × 10^-18

The Drake equation only applies to our galaxy, so this is the number that should be considered. And based on your own values, it would show that the odds are quite remote.

Yes, if I select the lowest available values for each of the variables, the probability of life in our galaxy is remote. Yet multiply even that remote possibility by the number of available galaxies, the number is less remote.

[McCulloch]

Let me use this to summarize my arguments so far.

And I'll summarize my responses so far.

First off, I've stated at the outset that I'm not out to prove God exists. My claim is simply that the arguments for God outweigh the arguments against God.

And I am not out to disprove the existence of God. My claim is that the God hypothesis provides no explanatory value. There are insufficient reasons for a reasonable person to believe in a god.

The first evidence presented is the fine-tuning of the universe. As one example, the critical density had to fall within a precision of 1 part in 10⁵⁹. I proposed two explanations:
- We are in one of a multitude of universes that exist.
- An intelligent entity created our universe.

You didn't really argue for the multiverse. But, you did present a third option - "We are in the only possible universe. Uncreated." But, there was no rationale given as to why we are in the only possible universe.

I did argue for the multiverse with the hole in the sheet analogy. To start with, we know two things: that there is at least one universe and that the one universe that we know about has attributes which, if they were a bit different, would make the development of life as we know it impossible. At the outset, we have offered two explanations for these observations, that some entity outside of the universe deliberately planned for the universe to have the exact attributes we measure OR that there are many possible universes and we inhabit the one with the right attributes for our existence.
Both of these explanations require that there be some kind of realm outside of the universe that we know. One requires that this meta-universe have a time-like dimension and has a being with intent and power. The other only requires that the meta-universe is a kind of phase space of all possible universes.
For me, it is rather straight-forward to choose from those two options. Use Occam's razor. The God hypothesis, requires us to suppose an entity for which we have no direct evidence living in a realm with attributes we must specify, whereas the multiverse hypotheses requires only that there be other versions of an entity that we know really does exist, only with different sets of attributes. Furthermore, since this god must exist in a realm with a time-like dimension, the same arguments used to posit that the universe requires a cause could then be used to require that this god requires a cause.
For the sake of completeness, I have indicated that we are not and should not be limited to just those two explanations. A third option does exist. That is that the universe is the way that it is because it could not be any other way, like the number pi.

Another argument I gave was the origin of the universe. This remains a mystery to science. Whereas a creator is an explanation for the origin of the universe.

But such a creator is not really an explanation for the origin of the universe, it is merely a displacement of the question to another level.

My third argument is that I hold that extraterrestrial life do not exist. This is supported by the lack of evidence for their existence through either direct or indirect means. And that the probability of having a habitable planet is very low. If no alien life exists, this would disprove the mediocrity and Copernican principles and prove that we are special.

In this line of reasoning, I have two objections. We know that life has occurred at least once in the universe. If the expected number of occurrences of life happening in the universe is significantly less than 1, then one must look for reasons other than random chance for life to have arisen. You have failed to show the validity of the calculation presented which you have attempted to show that this value is less than 1. Secondly, even if life is unique, it does not mean that the mediocrity principle has been disproven, just that a rare event has occurred.

Fourth argument is the origin of life. This is another mystery to science. A creator would also explain this.

The alternative to God boils down to "We don't know". So, a creator would have more explanatory power for all these things.

Just as God makes the earth quakes, God makes the weather, God makes disease seems to have more explanatory power than "We don't know" would have had for the ancients. However, a reasonable person would value an honest "I don't know" over a speculative "God did it."

[McCulloch]

And, without evidence for any God, gods, angels, demons, djinn, nephilim, spirits, souls, Satan, ghosts, phantoms, wraiths, incubi, succubi, fairies, norns or moirae we can provisionally conclude that there are none.

I'm only arguing for a God, so you can dismiss all the others.

I'll dismiss all of them for exactly the same reason: Lack of evidence.

Yes, the universe was fine-tuned for life to exist in the universe. But in addition to that, Earth is fine-tuned for life to exist. So, Earth would be the only place for life to exist in the universe.

Is this how we infer intent on the part of the designer?
Have a look at the scale of the universe. Saying that God created the universe so that humans could exist, is like saying that I bought Anna Creek Station (24,000 km² or 6,000,000 acres) in order that I have a place to raise yeast for brewing my beer, and then only getting a single yeast (typically measuring 3–4 micrometer) to grow.

Since you have not yet provided any justification for the probability of not having a habitable planet, it would be presumptuous to assume that the incredible vastness of the universe would not overcome it.

Like I said, I'm willing to investigate justifying the values that Ross came up with. Only condition is that you provide justification for your estimates as well.

I was unaware that the requirement to support your arguments was conditional.

Yes, the God-of-the-gaps.

And the alternative is gaps-in-science: Science will eventually figure out the origin of the universe and the first lifeform, we just don't know what it is yet.

Of course. Science thrives on the unknown. More things to find out and research. Theology thrives on ignorance. God did it shuts down any rational attempt to find an answer. We don't know how the first lifelike entities arose from self-replicating chemicals or how the first cellular life arose from whatever forms they developed from. But we are not going to stop trying to find out because the believers in some supernatural spirit claim that it must have happened by a miracle.