ET does not have a “power” area code in the Milky Way?

M62 and Vy: who is arguing that ET's are impossible beings, including intelligent, self aware ones? Is not the issue more one of (a) do we have empirical evidence of such being actual, and (b) is there a sound empirically grounded basis for their spontaneous origin on blind chance and mechanical necessity in a wholly material cosmos that (including a multiverse etc) exhausts reality? KF kairosfocus

I’m not desperate to believe in aliens. I couldn’t care less if they exist or not.

Ookaay.

It’s puzzling how you could think so given what I’ve said. But okie dokie.

That's not the only puzzling thing but okie dokie.

There is precedence for human-like life in the universe and galaxy in the form of us. It therefore seems plausible to me that, if there is a creator, that human-like life would exist elsewhere as well. There’s no good reason why it should not, in my opinion.

Hmmm, same thing again.

If there is a creator, why would they populate only a single planet in the entire universe?

Because "they" want to? There's over-engineering in life, I don't see why the universe shouldn't be the same. I'm sure stargazers appreciate it. Vy

Vy: To believe in the existence of aliens? I'm not desperate to believe in aliens. I couldn't care less if they exist or not. (Unless, of course, they want to eat us.) It's puzzling to me how you could think I am desperate given what I've said. But okie dokie. Re: Unicorns There is precedence for human-like life in the universe and galaxy in the form of us. It therefore seems plausible to me that, if there is a creator, that human-like life would exist elsewhere as well. There's no good reason why it should not, in my opinion. And, as I said before (which is the point of my original post), "I can’t think of any reason except a religious one why anyone would object to the idea of the existence of ETs." For the sake of discussion, maybe you could answer my question in my first post: "If there is a creator, why would they populate only a single planet in the entire universe?" mike1962

Desperate for what?

To believe in the existence of aliens? Not exactly the same thing but:

Mikael: How do you know unicorns don't exist? The universe is a helluvalot bigger ... It's reasonable to rule out the existence of Santa Claus and his flying reindeers based on our exploration of earth. It's not reasonable to rule out the existence of unicorns in the galaxy or elsewhere. Vhy: So what created them? Mikael: The creator(s). Vhy: What creator(s). Mikael: Any creator(s).

Unicorns could very well be an alien "horse" creature on some yet-to-be discovered planet but to claim that "Any" creator(s) could create them is not exactly a good reason for believing they exist. Vy

Vy: Ok but the “Any creator(s)” comment made you, intentionally or not, sound sorta desperate. I don't see how. Desperate for what? mike1962

Ok but the "Any creator(s)" comment made you, intentionally or not, sound sorta desperate. Vy

Vy @42 Saying that it is not reasonable to rule out ETs in the galaxy or elsewhere is not the same thing as saying that aliens should exist. If there is a creator, I would be surprised if aliens do not exist. Likewise, that is not an assertion that aliens should exist. mike1962

I don’t see how.

~

There are very few places, if any, where humans haven’t trampled underfoot on our planet. The galaxy is a helluvalot bigger, and we have virtually no access. ... It’s not reasonable to rule out ETs in the galaxy or elsewhere.

Vy: What creator(s)? Mike: Any creator(s)

Those, especially the last one, make it pretty clear. Vy

Sure, but the study of exoplanets is in its infancy.

Sure. ;)

From what we currently understand, the prevalence of advanced civilizations would seemingly be either very low, or beyond understanding.

Or they don't exist. Vy

Vy: Like I said, they’ve come up empty. Sure, but the study of exoplanets is in its infancy. Vy: Pretty inadequate excuses. From what we currently understand, the prevalence of advanced civilizations would seemingly be either very low, or beyond understanding. Zachriel

...who is a dead lion being kicked by assorted live donkeys... That's one I'll need to remember. Hee Haw Mung

PS: The reply in outline that you refuse to touch on the merits:

This caught my eye, and it seems to be a case of conclusion in hand (reject the Judaeo-Christian tradition) let’s find a talking point to dismiss any alternative without regard to substantial warrant. 1 –> Your presentation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is strawmannish and prejudicial. Your avoiding saying Jews indicates your evasion of the implicit hostility to that great people. 2 –> You need to read say Ac 17 and Rom 1 – 2 with unprejudiced eyes, and to recognise that in us all is a voice of conscience and mind within and a pointing cosmos without. In that same despised tradition, the conscience within is highlighted as God’s candle that when undimmed and undistorted points to God. 3 –> You do not have to agree, just, recognise that there is in fact a documented universality across humanity in the tradition starting from that God has made the nations of one blood and has control of place time and peoplehood. 4 –> In that context, Messiah in Judaism and messiah fulfilled in Christianity is universal through a great global gospel commission. 5 –> The Jews as covenant family and nation are a vehicle of blessing to the whole world, not oh God cares nothing about anyone else. That, is blood-laced slander that you echo, however much you hesitate and resort to euphemism.. 6 –> You then commit the error of the Drake Eqn. By guessed at parameters and estimates, it proposed that we ought to expect a great many high tech civilisations in our galaxy. 8 –> Such reasoning is countered by the many indicia of fine tuning that makes ours a privileged and likely rare planet, save by design. 9 –> In short the evidence makes design of our system a serious contender, and likely other habitable systems, if they exist. Which would instantly demolish the oh God does not care for others rhetorical gambit that builds on the already implicit hostility to Jews and Christians. 10 –> Where of course the data points of observed ETs are conspicuously missing. More prejudice laden guesswork. 11 –> Beyond, the fact is that it is at minimum arguable that a genuine nothing has no capacities, non-being cannot act. So if there were ever utter non-being, such would forever obtain. Those who would wish otherwise need to show good evidence. 12 –> If something now is, credibly something always was, independent of other things and integral to the framework of a possible world. 13 –> Necessary being, where once a serious candidate is on the table — flying spaghetti monsters et al need not apply — will either be actual or impossible, as 2 + 3 = 5 is actual and as square circles are impossible. 14 –> God is a serious candidate NB and there is no good argument that God is impossible. Atheists these days cannot properly appeal to arguments from evil post Plantinga free will defense or even Boethius on if no God then whence the good — 1500 years ago. 15 –> Multiply by evidence of fine tuning and beginning pointing to a designed cosmos, evidence of FSCO/I in life forms and evidence that we are responsibly free rationally contemplative minded morally governed beings with moral law written into conscience, and that strongly points to the God of ethical theism. 16 –> Bring to bear the biblical tradition and its prophecies of messiah combined with the eyewitness lifetime record, including the 500 unshakable witnesses of the resurrection. In short, there is a serious case to answer that is being rhetorically swept away instead of substantially faced. Which is exactly what Rom 1 – 2 warns against.

That is what you need to have a cogent response to. kairosfocus

Aleta, You continue to double down and to project accusations by direct implication. You are responsible to know what you are accusing people of, and you are responsible to know why the accusation against Mr Gish, who is a dead lion being kicked by assorted live donkeys, is without significant merit. Not least, in a debate context, if you can take a few points and demolish them with facts, credibility will be lost. So the accusation is not just a slander but an admission that one cannot and so will not try to answer, just smear and dismiss. Such deserve to lose, and indeed Mr Gish won what 300 hundred debates or thereabouts. Next, it is not un-noticed that to date you have not been able to answer on any of the substantial matters raised in reply. Yes, these are involved, you need to do your homework. And, there is no debate clock ticking, as well as, there is a whole internet out there where if there were cogent responses, they could be linked and clipped for key points. The truth is, the record of what you said is:

The whole idea that the God of Christianity singled out not just this planet [--> bare naked assertion without grounds in fact, indicative of prejudice] but one small group of relatively primitive people [--> antisemitism] on it as the sole focus of his attention [--> materially false, and exposed as such above, cf below] is, in itself, sufficient reason to believe that the story of that God is not true [--> dismissal on ill founded accusations and appeal to destructive prejudices, not addressing of substantial issues that are there and should be addressed to hold a responsible position].

That is what I replied to, and for cause. What you put on record forever is utterly indefensible and irresponsible though it may well play as oh brilliant in certain echo chambers. KF kairosfocus

I will point out that kf did not respond to my point - virtually all of his points addressed to issues that have nothing to do with what I said. Then to say that I am at fault for not responding to his points is a Gish gallop technique. For instance, all that stuff about the Drake equation has absolutely nothing to do with what I said - I offered no speculations on what might exist elsewhere in the universe. Perhaps if I have time after I will flesh out my point, but I seriously doubt kf is capable of just addressing the issue at hand. Aleta

Vy: I never said you said they “should exist” It seems like you implied that I did given your question:

Vy: Why should, apart from hugeness of the universe, aliens exist?

Vy: but what you said could certainly be summarized to that. I don't see how. mike1962

I agree with that definition, although I didn't include the ideas that you italicized in my description. It is an accurate description of something like your post, I think - a whole bunch of points each of which would be a subject by itself, many unrelated to each other, and most not related to the post of mine you replied to. Aleta

F/N: Drake Eqn, from UD Glossary:

Drake Equation — in 1960, Frank Drake developed a speculative model for producing an educated guess of the number of extra-terrestrial civilizations in our galaxy that we may make contact with, N: N = R* x fp x ne x fl x fi x fc x L, where: R* –> estimated rate of new star formation (in a galaxy “similar” to ours) fp –> est. fraction of these with planets ne –> est. fraction of these suitable for life fl –> est. fraction of these that actually form life fi –> est. fraction of these where intelligent life (so, civilization) emerges fc –> est. fraction of civilizations that are detectable at inter-stellar ranges L –> est. length of time such civilizations are detectable As “estimated” highlights, each factor is at best an educated guess, and this leads into an ongoing debate. The equations, however, remains valuable for those interested in the design issue, as it sets up a context in which we may discuss the requisite factors, hurdles and available causal forces for getting to a universe that may have planetary systems that could/does bear civilizations that are significantly comparable to ours (starting with our own world), and thus that would become detectable at long range by signals and/or by active and enduring colonization of space. In turn, that leads to an integrated discussion of the many linked cosmological fine-tuning, Goldilocks zone, complex, functional information and origin of consciousness and conscience issues that are deeply connected to the points raised by the findings of cosmological and biological Intelligent Design theory.

The linked challenge is the great silence, i.e. either some of these factors are huge barriers or we are missing something else that makes for a great silence around us. Through radio we have already broadcast our presence to a sphere 100 LY across and growing. KF kairosfocus

Aleta, Gish gallop:

Rational Wiki [so called]: The Gish Gallop is the debating technique of drowning an opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time. More often than not, these myriad arguments are full of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments — the only condition is that there be many of them, not that they be particularly compelling on their own.

. . . is an accusation and a slander -- both against Gish and in this case me, already answered in outline. When you unwarrantedly accuse people of being dishonest like that, expect to get a serious reply and to lose credibility as a result. KF kairosfocus

Very large planets revolving close to their star are the easiest to detect. If you were to study the Solar System from afar, the Sun’s light would overwhelm the reflected light from planets. With careful study, you might notice Jupiter and perhaps Saturn, but Earth might very well escape detection.

Like I said, they've come up empty.

That’s called the Fermi paradox.

Pretty inadequate excuses. Vy

It’s a real shame, kf, when people resolutely act in such a way as to refuse to even acknowledge the issues, much less address the issues. Mung

I didn’t say they “should exist”. What I said was

I never said you said they "should exist" but what you said could certainly be summarized to that. Vy

Vy: Why should, apart from hugeness of the universe, aliens exist? I didn't say they "should exist". What I said was: I can’t think of any reason except a religious one why anyone would object to the idea of the existence of ETs... It’s reasonable to rule out bigfoot based on our explorations of earth. It’s not reasonable to rule out ETs in the galaxy or elsewhere... If there is a creator, why would they populate only a single planet in the entire universe? That would seems like a colossal waste of resources. mike1962

FTR: Gish gallop is a derogatory term describing a "debating" style, independent of the content, which just makes a continual barrage of not-very-related talking points, ignoring the points of the other person, and being unwilling to focus on any one of them. Aleta

Vy: Mhm, and all of the ~2000 planets (?) have come up empty. Very large planets revolving close to their star are the easiest to detect. If you were to study the Solar System from afar, the Sun's light would overwhelm the reflected light from planets. With careful study, you might notice Jupiter and perhaps Saturn, but Earth might very well escape detection. Vy: We’re assumed to be less advanced than whatever is supposed to be out there and yet in the x billion Darwin years they’ve been exploring interstellar space, those things didn’t think to leave their robot sentries behind just in case. That's called the Fermi paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox#Hypothetical_explanations_for_the_paradox Zachriel

Any creator(s)

LOL! Why should, apart from hugeness of the universe, aliens exist? Vy

Vy: What creator(s)? Any creator(s) mike1962

Exoplanets were hypothesized by Bruno in 1584. It’s only recently that the hypothesis has been confirmed.

Mhm, and all of the ~2000 planets (?) have come up empty.

The technology is still very limited on finding planets considered suitable for life.

We're assumed to be less advanced than whatever is supposed to be out there and yet in the x billion Darwin years they've been exploring interstellar space, those things didn't think to leave their robot sentries behind just in case. Vy

The creator(s).

What creator(s)?

I’ve never seen a decent ultimate explanation for why the creator(s) would want to do that or anything else.

Until you explain what those "creator(s)" are supposed to be, this isn't useful.

I suspect it has something to do with the nature of consciousness.

Huh?

I’m not one of them. Lesson learned?

Yes, 6 posts ago and no, considering you haven't explained what those creator(s) are. They could very well be other aliens who need an origin. Vy

Vy: Vy: Given the constant failure to find anything that remotely looks like Earth or even meets 50% – 75% of the general requirements for life for the last umpteen years? Exoplanets were hypothesized by Bruno in 1584. It's only recently that the hypothesis has been confirmed. The technology is still very limited on finding planets considered suitable for life. Zachriel

Vy: What is supposed to be populating those undetected earths? The creator(s). Vy: Why are they supposed to be populated? "Why" speaks to intent. I've never seen a decent ultimate explanation for why the creator(s) would want to do that or anything else. I suspect it has something to do with the nature of consciousness. Vy: The only other people I’ve discussed with that have made those same comments are the same people who believe spontaneous generation + probablymaybecouldness = life. I'm not one of them. Lesson learned? mike1962

Care to elaborate?

The only other people I've discussed with that have made those same comments are the same people who believe spontaneous generation + probablymaybecouldness = life. Vy

Aleta, the doubly slanderous phrase Gish gallop tells me you are not serious. Gish on easily accessible public record won hundreds of debates on the substance that the fossils did not fit the narrative, a fact that led to the punctuated equilibria school of thought. Above, you tossed off loaded points which I addressed by drawing out implications and outlining a due response. You resorted to a term which is an accusation of dishonesty. You have not dealt with the substantial issues. This is dismiss, then on challenge, distract, distort, denigrate to double down. You failed to deal with the substance, which strongly suggests you cannot. KF kairosfocus

The universe is unimaginably huge and we have had a vanishingly small sample size with regards to the content of other planets.

You don't seem to get it. What is supposed to be populating those undetected earths? Why are they supposed to be populated? Vy

Vy: Given the constant failure to find anything that remotely looks like Earth or even meets 50% – 75% of the general requirements for life for the last umpteen years? Absolutely. The universe is unimaginably huge and so far we have had a vanishingly small sample size with regards to the content of other planets. I think it is unreasonable one way or another to make definitive conclusions based on the current sample size. Either possibility would be consistent with our current findings. Vy: Can you think of any naturalistic mechanism to form life? Mike: No. What prompted you to ask me that? Your answer merely quoted me. I still don't know why you would ask me that since I have promoted no "naturalistic mechanism." Care to elaborate? mike1962

Do you think it is more reasonable given the evidence that there is no life anywhere except on earth?

Given the constant failure to find anything that remotely looks like Earth or even meets 50% - 75% of the general requirements for life for the last umpteen years? Absolutely.

What prompted you to ask me that?

I can’t think of any reason except a religious one why anyone would object to the idea of the existence of ETs. --- If there is a creator, why would they populate only a single planet in the entire universe? That would seems like a colossal waste of resources

Vy

anthropic: Are these scientific arguments, or theological ones based on speculation about what God might or might not do? Theological. anthropic: And Mike, the idea of “waste” for a being of infinite resources isn’t even wrong. Category error. Which category? Vy: Based on what? Your gut feeling? I already alluded to it: the size of the universe and the fact that we don't have access to much of it. Do you think it is more reasonable given the evidence that there is no life anywhere except on earth? If so, why? Vy: Can you think of any naturalistic mechanism to form life? No. What prompted you to ask me that? mike1962

I'll point out that at last some of kf points are practically incomprehensible:

3 –> You do not have to agree, just, recognise that there is in fact a documented universality across humanity in the tradition starting from that God has made the nations of one blood and has control of place time and peoplehood.

That is one mess of a sentence, I have no idea what it means, and it is irrelevant to my point. That's why I, and I'm sure I speak for others, make no attempt to parse the stuff kf writes. Aleta

I made a point, and kf brought up all sorts of issues not even related to my point. I'm not obligated in any way to respond to all that. Aleta

It's a real shame, kf, when people simply refuse to address the issues. Mung

kf, because all the rest of the stuff you've said is a Gish-gallop mish-mash of points you've made a jillion times, and I know from experience that "discussing" things with you is not worth my time. Your continual name-calling is by itself one reason to not discuss things with you. Aleta

Aleta, you need to look at the implications of your sweepingly dismissive talking points above, and you need to face the substantial issues on the table in outline. So far I am only seeing now arguing to the man not the issue. KF kairosfocus

to anthropic at 3: I would say my observation is anthropological and philosophical. Also, when I wrote that the Christian God story involved God singling out "one small group of relatively primitive people", kf started his typical type of post on this matter by writing

1 –> Your presentation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is strawmannish and prejudicial. Your avoiding saying Jews indicates your evasion of the implicit hostility to that great people.

Man, talking about making a mountain out of a non-existent molehill, and making a negative, hostile judgment for absolutely no good reason. Weird. Aleta

Aleta:

The whole idea that the God of Christianity singled out not just this planet but one small group of relatively primitive people on it as the sole focus of his attention is, in itself, sufficient reason to believe that the story of that God is not true.

This caught my eye, and it seems to be a case of conclusion in hand (reject the Judaeo-Christian tradition) let's find a talking point to dismiss any alternative without regard to substantial warrant. 1 --> Your presentation of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is strawmannish and prejudicial. Your avoiding saying Jews indicates your evasion of the implicit hostility to that great people. 2 --> You need to read say Ac 17 and Rom 1 - 2 with unprejudiced eyes, and to recognise that in us all is a voice of conscience and mind within and a pointing cosmos without. In that same despised tradition, the conscience within is highlighted as God's candle that when undimmed and undistorted points to God. 3 --> You do not have to agree, just, recognise that there is in fact a documented universality across humanity in the tradition starting from that God has made the nations of one blood and has control of place time and peoplehood. 4 --> In that context, Messiah in Judaism and messiah fulfilled in Christianity is universal through a great global gospel commission. 5 --> The Jews as covenant family and nation are a vehicle of blessing to the whole world, not oh God cares nothing about anyone else. That, is blood-laced slander that you echo, however much you hesitate and resort to euphemism.. 6 --> You then commit the error of the Drake Eqn. By guessed at parameters and estimates, it proposed that we ought to expect a great many high tech civilisations in our galaxy. 8 --> Such reasoning is countered by the many indicia of fine tuning that makes ours a privileged and likely rare planet, save by design. 9 --> In short the evidence makes design of our system a serious contender, and likely other habitable systems, if they exist. Which would instantly demolish the oh God does not care for others rhetorical gambit that builds on the already implicit hostility to Jews and Christians. 10 --> Where of course the data points of observed ETs are conspicuously missing. More prejudice laden guesswork. 11 --> Beyond, the fact is that it is at minimum arguable that a genuine nothing has no capacities, non-being cannot act. So if there were ever utter non-being, such would forever obtain. Those who would wish otherwise need to show good evidence. 12 --> If something now is, credibly something always was, independent of other things and integral to the framework of a possible world. 13 --> Necessary being, where once a serious candidate is on the table -- flying spaghetti monsters et al need not apply -- will either be actual or impossible, as 2 + 3 = 5 is actual and as square circles are impossible. 14 --> God is a serious candidate NB and there is no good argument that God is impossible. Atheists these days cannot properly appeal to arguments from evil post Plantinga free will defense or even Boethius on if no God then whence the good -- 1500 years ago. 15 --> Multiply by evidence of fine tuning and beginning pointing to a designed cosmos, evidence of FSCO/I in life forms and evidence that we are responsibly free rationally contemplative minded morally governed beings with moral law written into conscience, and that strongly points to the God of ethical theism. 16 --> Bring to bear the biblical tradition and its prophecies of messiah combined with the eyewitness lifetime record, including the 500 unshakable witnesses of the resurrection. In short, there is a serious case to answer that is being rhetorically swept away instead of substantially faced. Which is exactly what Rom 1 - 2 warns against. KF kairosfocus

I wonder how the probablymaybecouldnessdidit and ETDidIt camps get past this Vy

It’s not reasonable to rule out ETs in the galaxy or elsewhere.

Based on what? Your gut feeling? The ability of Hollywood to model imaginary aliens? The Speed Force? The "tendency" of life to pop out of Neverland? The Powerpuff girls chemical soup? Stuff Happens Law? SETI's inability to find even Earth-ejected bacteria on another planet? Because "OMG, we found water!!!!!"??? The universe is too big for just us? Vy

And if the universe was created with every planet having humanoid creatures, Aleta would be talking about how our seemingly insignificant position is "sufficient reason to believe that the story of that God is not true" or if the universe was just one solar system large, Mike would be talking about how it's such an inadequate display of God's power.

I can’t think of any reason except a religious one why anyone would object to the idea of the existence of ETs.

Can you think of any naturalistic mechanism to form life? Realize that chemical evolution (aka spontaneous generation) + probablymaybecouldness = biological evolution is something that exists only in the imagination of the believers. Vy

Mike 1 'If there is a creator, why would they populate only a single planet in the entire universe? That would seems like a colossal waste of resources." Aleta 2 "The whole idea that the God of Christianity singled out not just this planet but one small group of relatively primitive people on it as the sole focus of his attention is, in itself, sufficient reason to believe that the story of that God is not true." Are these scientific arguments, or theological ones based on speculation about what God might or might not do? And Mike, the idea of "waste" for a being of infinite resources isn't even wrong. Category error. anthropic

The whole idea that the God of Christianity singled out not just this planet but one small group of relatively primitive people on it as the sole focus of his attention is, in itself, sufficient reason to believe that the story of that God is not true. Aleta

"Many people assume that if you doubt the existence of extraterrestrials, you must have a hidden religious reason." I can't think of any reason except a religious one why anyone would object to the idea of the existence of ETs. "Continuing lack of evidence is sufficient reason for doubting Bigfoot, these critics agree, but not ET." There are very few places, if any, where humans haven't trampled underfoot on our planet. The galaxy is a helluvalot bigger, and we have virtually no access. It's reasonable to rule out bigfoot based on our explorations of earth. It's not reasonable to rule out ETs in the galaxy or elsewhere. If there is a creator, why would they populate only a single planet in the entire universe? That would seems like a colossal waste of resources. mike1962