Life Should be Common in the Universe, physicists say

That's not faith. At least, not in the sense you mean it.

faith noun \ˈfāth\
: strong belief or trust in someone or something:

I mean it in the above sense....and of course, the examples I gave are valid....the bus could be late....I could have kicked the bucket.....Newton's laws of gravity are not 100% certain, as with any scientific theory.....

We accept knowledge as per what text books may tell us.....we stand on the shoulders of giants, accepting what they told us and maybe extrapolating their findings further.
If we didn't have faith [as I have outlined] all our days would be spent investigating curcumstances, doing our own experiments, always making observations before we dare set one foot after the other.

As someone else mentioned, I think some confuse everyday faith and the stigma of the word itself, to imply a belief in some magical deity. That is not necessarily so.
 
Though some definitions drop the issue of proof (evidence), proof is what differentiates science from religion.
 
I had faith today that the bus would be on time......I had faith that I would still be around at this moment posting here....I had faith today that when I jumped up in the air, all Newtons gravity laws would hold true and I would come back down....
I had faith in many other mundane things today the same as you did, but which due to their common everyday nature, you never gave a second thought to.
No you didn't. You had tentative trust based on previous experience. It's not the same thing as religious faith. It's an equivocation fallacy. The religious use of the word is different than the common usage. Religious faith is absolute unshakable belief in the absence of evidence, and even in light of contrary evidence.
 
No you didn't. You had tentative trust based on previous experience. It's not the same thing as religious faith



Of course it isn't religious faith...I already said that.
The tentative trust you speak of is the everyday experience of having faith.
I think you are splitting hairs.
 
Well, actually it hasn't always been so. The Sun hasn't always risen in the sky, because at one time there was no sky as there was no Earth and no Sun. And the Sun will not always rise, there will come a time when it doesn’t because there will be no Earth and the Sun that exists today will no longer exist. Things change. I find it odd, that you don’t think things change.

Just because during your brief existence the Sun has always risen, it doesn’t mean it always will. You don’t know when or if our universe may change. One day the structure of the universe may change. There has been much talk recently of the Higgs Boson and that it might be unstable. We don’t have absolute knowledge; therefore you cannot know with absolute certitude.

This may come as a surprise to you, but people don’t only get mugged on “mean” streets – whatever that means.  People get mugged in good neighborhoods all the time. I live in a very good neighborhood, but a guy was recently murdered in an office building about a mile from my home. When the murder victim went to work that day, he had faith he wouldn’t be murdered. But he was, and he didn’t even know is killer. And many people have fallen victim to criminals in their homes with locked doors. Are you really that ignorant, that simple, and that naive?

We are social animals. Faith/trust is integral to our existence. I’ll give you some more examples. When people go to the grocery store, they trust, they have faith that the food they purchase isn’t tainted. Merchants trust that when we pay our bills with credit cards our banks will pay them. When employees go to work, they have faith their employer will pay them. When we go to physicians, we trust they will give us good medical advice and treatment. Faith is integral to our existence. It motivates us. It comforts us. You can deny it all you like, but faith/trust is integral to your existence. I think you are confusing faith with a belief in a God. Those are two entirely separate things. Faith is more than a belief in a God. I think you need to go back and reread my previous post, this time more slowly. There are things we have faith in based on our experience and there are some things we have faith in based on culture and our individual needs and wants. There is a difference.

Rubbish. The sun has been rising for 4.5 billion years and will continue to do so or many billions of years more. That covers my lifetime and yours which is all we know, so you're wrong: we're talking about our lives not the distant future.

If you don't know what mean streets mean then go look it up. No one gets mugged where I live so I know I won't be mugged. I'm not ignorant, I just have a good idea about risk management, unlike you. And don't descend into insults to try and make your invalid point.

People don't have trust or faith in anything very much. Here in France it's quite normal to get a second opinion when consulting your doctor, and as a matter of fact my partner died of cancer which the GP failed to spot. Horsemeat scandal anyone? Banks go bust in case you didn't notice, and so do companies. Now who's ignorant, simple and naive? I was a financial controller for 20 years and I've seen more scams than you've had hot dinners, so clear off with your pompous arrogant nonsense. I think you need to back and find your brains, more slowly.

Let me expand on this. People don't trust or have faith in, in no particular order, politicians, bankers, accountants, lawyers, doctors, plumbers or most anyone else. They expect to get screwed and very often they do. If you don't know that you really are naive.
 
Let me expand on this. People don't trust or have faith in, in no particular order, politicians, bankers, accountants, lawyers, doctors, plumbers or most anyone else. They expect to get screwed and very often they do. If you don't know that you really are naive.

and grocers, and car mechanics, and TV stores and the next door neighbour and each other in general.

I fail to see how any of this invalidates faith in the way that we are discussing.

Have you ever asked a stranger in any town for directions to somewhere?
You probably will take notice of him/her because they are locals, correct?
Or ask a bus driver how long to the next stop....Isn't that faith?

I cannot believe we are playing such games of pedant and semantics over one simple five letter word, that some seem to abhore due to connotations to religion. :shrug:
 
With reference to my last post...It has been said that this is what drove Fred Hoyle [an Atheist] in not accepting the BB theory.....it predicted a beginning, which Hoyle saw as a possible reason for a creator. :shrug:
A good example of baggage and agendas misleading an otherwise great man.
 
and grocers, and car mechanics, and TV stores and the next door neighbour and each other in general.

I fail to see how any of this invalidates faith in the way that we are discussing.

Have you ever asked a stranger in any town for directions to somewhere?
You probably will take notice of him/her because they are locals, correct?
Or ask a bus driver how long to the next stop....Isn't that faith?

I cannot believe we are playing such games of pedant and semantics over one simple five letter word, that some seem to abhore due to connotations to religion. :shrug:

I'm making the point that people don't have trust or faith - and that's nothing to do with religious faith - they make informed decisions based on experience and knowledge. Let me give you an example. Someone says they know a great restaurant. Do you go there? You think about the person making the recomendation and decide: do they know anything about food? Do they go to restaurants? Are they low-life idiots? Then you decide.

Directions: yes, probably, but if you have a map that would be better.

Bus drivers are paid and unlikely to lie, so yes, but that's not faith, it's a calculated guess.
 
Of course it isn't religious faith...I already said that.
The tentative trust you speak of is the everyday experience of having faith.
I think you are splitting hairs.
Then please stop conflating the two. The "trust" displayed in science is nothing like religious faith, and it's intellectually dishonest of you to imply so.
 
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices ...
Reality and our language are a bit more complicated and nuanced than you seem to think they are.
Institutionalized knowledge is static, which means dead. That's the problem with all religions. Once you make anything a religion, you've killed it. In order to be alive, one must not have faith. Faith is literally death. A baby has no faith in anything, and it is the most alive.
 
Oh yes it is. It's that old dictionary thingy again. The unpleasant fact for you is we live in an uncertain world. There is a branches of mathematics and physics which study that uncertainty. And humans need a bit of certainty in their lives to motivate and comfort us. That certainty is expressed in the form of faith which is routed in experience, culture and our individual needs and desires.

Now you're conflating faith, trust, and certainty. You can't seem to stop shooting yourself in the foot, Joe.

I will give you a clue, when you have to ignore evidence and reason as you do to justify your belief, there might be something wrong with your belief.

Irony.
 
Does it really take a physicist declaration , for anybody to use their common sense , to declare that life is common in the Universe ?

What has the Human intellect become...

Are we this stupid , idiotic , brain dead ...... Are we ?

I'm not
 
The term faith is belief in that which cannot be seen. Faith is required for things that are outside direct sensory experience, but which can be inferred within the mind/imagination, by other sources of indirect evidence. The religious might infer God by miracles. The scientific method is more about direct evidence the eyes can see, so we can all see the same things without the imagination. Faith is a charisma, that bridges the gap between the inferred world of what might be, and the seen world of what is, by motivating discovery and exploration until the data appears.

The semantical problem is atheism went political and defined faith as religious and therefore something negative that needs to be avoided. When the same term/actions comes back to bite them, within science, they make use of the dual standard to say this is different. Science needs to remain neutral and not biased by the religion of atheism. \

As far as life elsewhere in the universe, show us one data point the eyes can see. I have no problem with faith since it is the front end of all innovation and new ideas.
 
Now you're conflating faith, trust, and certainty. You can't seem to stop shooting yourself in the foot, Joe.

LOL, I am conflating faith and trust, because that is how those words are defined in the dictionaries.  Your repeated refusal to acknowledge simple and easily verifiable things like word definitions, just speaks to your intellectual enfeeblement.

The fact is, as I have stated many times in this discussion, we live in an uncertain world. Your repeated refusal to acknowledge that fact too will not and does not change reality. You just by choice or ability or lack thereof are unable to recognize the world around you - not to mention a dictionary. You live in an illusion, a prisoner of your debilitated intellect. And that is something I cannot help you with friend.

Faith is how the human mind copes with uncertainty. We need faith in ourselves and faith in others. Faith is an integral part of our lives. It we want to succeed, if we want to thrive, we have to have some faith in ourselves as well as others. That is a fact, a pure and simple fact. That doesn’t mean we all need to believe or even want to believe in a God or religion.


Only if you use words incorrectly, take a walk on the wild side Balerion, open a dictionary.
 
Last edited:
The issue of life elsewhere has been discussed in many Threads during the past 10 or more years.

In 2-3 or more Threads, I have posted remarks similar to the following.

The history of the Earth strongly supports the notion that life exists in many other solar systems throughout the universe.

It also supports the notion that technological cultures are rare.​

Some of my & others Posts have provided more details. The following is a brief summary.


Life appeared on Earth almost as soon as conditions were suitable for its existence. I think there is evidence of life existing 3.5 billion years ago. This strongly indicates that life is has occurred in many other solar systems: It is likely anywhere that conditions are suitable for it.

Technological cultures are undoubtedly rare.​

The latter of the above statements is suggested by the following.


The dinosaurs existed for circa 150 million years. The last of them were no closer to developing a technological culture than the first ones. This strongly indicates that such a culture is not an inevitable or even a likely result of evolution.

The Denisovans & Neandertals showed as much potential as Homo Sapiens, but became extinct before they got past a stone age level of civilization.​

It is interesting to note that in addition to the potential for the development of a technological culture, there is also the requirement for evolutionary pressure in that direction.

For example: The octopus seems to have the brain potential for developing technology. However, there is very little pressure for that species to do so. The octopus can move in three dimensions allowing it to find & exploit its food supply. Its suckers are wonderful for grabbing & manipulating prey. There is little pressure for the evolution of technology. The start of such evolution is the use of a naturally occurring tool (Id est: A stick).
 
The Denisovans & Neandertals showed as much potential as Homo sapiens, but became extinct before they got past a stone age level of civilization.
You neglected to distinguish between the Early Stone Age or Paleolithic Era, and the Late Stone age or Neolithic Era. The Neolithic began 12KYA with the Agricultural Revolution--the invention of the twin technologies of farming and animal husbandry.

[BTW: The word "civilization" means "the building of cities." Neither the Denisovans nor the Neanderthals invented that technology. The first cities were built around 9000BCE. In fact the first permanent settlements for people who were no longer nomadic hunter-gatherers were built at the start of the Neolithic Era (essentially defining that paradigm shift), when H. sapiens was the only surviving human species.

It is interesting to note that in addition to the potential for the development of a technological culture, there is also the requirement for evolutionary pressure in that direction.

The pressure for the discovery of agricultural technology was the unreliability of the natural food supply. Nomadic hunter-gatherers were at the mercy of the weather. Years of low rainfall occurred rather often (on the average about one year out of ten, IIRC), and during one of these years people died of starvation. This led inevitably to violent competition among the various small tribes of humans, for their precious hunting and gathering territory.

In fact, reexamination of ancient fossils with modern instruments has revealed the sad statistic that more than half of adult Paleolithic humans were killed by violence--more than by all other causes combined!

There was tremendous pressure on these folks to discover or invent technologies that could make the food supply last through a lean year. I'm sure the brainy members of every tribe spent considerable time pondering this issue--while the brawny members were inventing more powerful weapons. This inevitably led to detailed study of the way the food supply is created in nature, and then experimentation with ways to copy nature: planting of seeds, irrigation, protecting (edible) crops from grazing herbivores, then protecting the (edible) herbivores from the carnivores while learning to keep the herds nearby.

The Mesopotamians figured this out around 10,000BCE. The first cultivated crop was fig trees, the first domesticated animals were probably the goats who were attracted to our garbage piles. The people in India, China, Vietnam, Egypt and several other sites in the Old World got the same idea a bit later. The New World had only recently been populated so they didn't have to fight over food yet, but they eventually cultivated the pepper plant. The Peruvians domesticated the llama, but in North America the largest domesticated animal was the turkey. (You try taming a moose, bison or mountain goat!)

In regions where cattle were domesticated, it didn't take long for people to realize that dairy farming is a much more efficient use of pasture land than beef farming. Most people became lactose-intolerant in childhood, but they discovered the technology of cheese-making--more resource-efficient than eating the cows' meat but not as efficient as drinking their milk. A few lucky individuals manifested lactase persistence, allowing them to continue drinking milk into adulthood. This was a tremendous advantage--both to the individuals and to their tribe--so they reproduced prolifically and their genes became common. Today there are still vast regions such as northern Europe, where virtually everyone can drink milk, and equally vast places like China where almost no one in the native population can.
 
For example: The octopus seems to have the brain potential for developing technology. However, there is very little pressure for that species to do so. The octopus can move in three dimensions allowing it to find & exploit its food supply. Its suckers are wonderful for grabbing & manipulating prey. There is little pressure for the evolution of technology. The start of such evolution is the use of a naturally occurring tool (Id est: A stick).




And couple that with the uncountable numbers of stars, planets and the probable infinite nature of space/time/Universe, and the odds of ETL of an advanced nature is real.
 
Back
Top