# Another hypothetical, to show how normal people would use logic...



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 3, 2012)

let's say that space aliens found the Mars Rover in a 100 years, long after it was finished with its work and no longer making tracks.

What would be their options for its origin?

IMO, it would be:

a)    came about by defying laws of probability 

or 

b)     designed


If they were smart enough to deduct that it was designed, what would they know of the designer?

Would other aliens think them crazy or idiots for thinking it was designed when they had not actually seen the designer?   

All they would know is that something with intelligence had created it.    That's all they could know.

Rebuttal?   Discussion?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 3, 2012)

Very good point Bandy! This is a great question, it will be interesting to see the answers.


----------



## Four (Dec 3, 2012)

That's not how we think (i cant speak for aliens)

You don't look at something and identify if it was created or not.. you look at it and identify if it's artificial, or natural.

We can do this pretty easily (for most things) because you've got lots of good heuristics. Just like you can tell that a dog is a dog, even though you've never seen the specific breed or specific organism.

So, if aliens found the mars rover, they could likely tell it's not a natural feature of the planet mars, and likely was artificially constructed and transported by a conscious / sentient / intelligent organism, much like themselves (assuming said aliens are somewhat like humans)


----------



## bullethead (Dec 3, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> let's say that space aliens found the Mars Rover in a 100 years, long after it was finished with its work and no longer making tracks.
> 
> What would be their options for its origin?
> 
> ...



They might assume a God created it. They might worship the rover as some kind of artifact of their Lord. Some, no matter much evidence there was against a God making the Rover will still believe it HAD to be created by a God and when that starts to sound silly then they will go into default mode and say "well the rover might not have been made by a God but SURELY a God HAD to make whatever made the rover"
OR
Like with all the information we currently know about things, when added up none of it connects to a divine being,God or certainly any specific God as told in an ancient book.


----------



## Four (Dec 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> They might assume a God created it. They might worship the rover as some kind of artifact of their Lord. Some, no matter much evidence there was against a God making the Rover will still believe it HAD to be created by a God and when that starts to sound silly then they will go into default mode and say "well the rover might not have been made by a God but SURELY a God HAD to make whatever made the rover"



reminds me of the cargo cults


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 3, 2012)

bullethead said:


> They might assume a God created it. They might worship the rover as some kind of artifact of their Lord. Some, no matter much evidence there was against a God making the Rover will still believe it HAD to be created by a God and when that starts to sound silly then they will go into default mode and say "well the rover might not have been made by a God but SURELY a God HAD to make whatever made the rover"
> OR
> Like with all the information we currently know about things, when added up none of it connects to a divine being,God or certainly any specific God as told in an ancient book.



You're right, saying the rovers just fell out of the sky built that way by happenstance seems to be a better argument. Making fun of people that have completely logical arguments in the meantime.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 3, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You're right, saying the rovers just fell out of the sky built that way by happenstance seems to be a better argument. Making fun of people that have completely logical arguments in the meantime.



Logical?
Most of it is logical until someone says Nothing can exist forever and something cannot come from Nothing and then introduces a being that they claim has always been. 

And while we're still in the early stages of the conversation it is eventually going to turn into how the God of the Bible is responsible for this so called intelligent design.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 3, 2012)

Like I said before: all this worshiping business is premature.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 4, 2012)

thanks, guys.    I think we all agreed that the aliens would know nothing about the creator of the rover.

Sort of relates to the SETI program.... (you have to agree....what a joke  lol )     They are searching for some alien signal....and when it comes they will assume that it is not natural, but intelligently ordered.   Why wouldn't they assume that the signal had 'defied the laws of probability' and just naturally occurred with complex information?   

I'll tell you why....because the scientists know that the odds favor an intelligence being behind a complex signal.   They will use the same logic they use in life.   

Anyway....enjoyed reading your responses.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> thanks, guys.    I think we all agreed that the aliens would know nothing about the creator of the rover.
> 
> Sort of relates to the SETI program.... (you have to agree....what a joke  lol )     They are searching for some alien signal....and when it comes they will assume that it is not natural, but intelligently ordered.   Why wouldn't they assume that the signal had 'defied the laws of probability' and just naturally occurred with complex information?
> 
> ...



Yes, at that point they would favor an intelligent being behind a complex signal. It is doubtful single celled organisms could build a listening device and another to send a signal back. It COULD be that it took those intelligent aliens 10-20-100 billions years to be able to get to the point where they are intelligent enough to do such things.
In your hypothetical scenario would your scientists IMMEDIATELY assume that those intelligent aliens were just made from dust and clay within the last 6,000 years? And what would those same scientists put the odds at of that happening?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 4, 2012)

so, they would 'see' design and intelligence in the signal, but ignore extreme complexity in genetic material?   


That's my point.   like the video stated....chains of improbable coincidences....     

You have a 1 in 10^250 power faith.     Impresses me.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> so, they would 'see' design and intelligence in the signal, but ignore extreme complexity in genetic material?
> 
> 
> That's my point.   like the video stated....chains of improbable coincidences....
> ...



Those aliens are in the same boat as humans as to how they got there and became intelligent. Humans didn't poof into existence and launch a rocket within the first year. You and I both know it took millions of years to get to the point that we are at now. Improbable coincidences are exactly what helped us survive as a species.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> until someone says Nothing can exist forever



Who said that? Cause I sure didn't


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Who said that? Cause I sure didn't



Good then you are starting to see why matter could have always been around and is the result of the Big Bang because it was here in one form or another(from the size of an atom to the size of a planet or star) constantly changing and creating.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Good then you are starting to see why matter could have always been around


I can't say that I am Bullet.

I still think physical matter is not eternal. I've even started a thread with a fantastic linked article showing a perfectly logical argument as to why it is not eternal.



> and is the result of the Big Bang because it was here in one form or another(from the size of an atom to the size of a planet or star) constantly changing and creating.



Ask yourself the same question about the big bang that you would ask yourself about any other bang.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> let's say that space aliens found the Mars Rover in a 100 years, long after it was finished with its work and no longer making tracks.
> 
> What would be their options for its origin?
> 
> ...



Space aliens that had the technology to get to Mars found another piece of technology and you think their questions would be whether it was contrived or created?



I think the title of the thread is an ample precursory warning as to the absurdity of this question, in and of itself, without even reading it.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Good then you are starting to see why matter could have always been around and is the result of the Big Bang because it was here in one form or another(from the size of an atom to the size of a planet or star) constantly changing and creating.



good to know that you believe in the eternal at least.  lol


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> Good then you are starting to see why matter could have always been around and is the result of the Big Bang because it was here in one form or another(from the size of an atom to the size of a planet or star) constantly changing and creating.



Where is "hear"? Using such terminology places finite parameters on an infinite universe. This humanizes the argument and attempts to place scientific constraints on the unknown.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I can't say that I am Bullet.
> 
> I still think physical matter is not eternal. I've even started a thread with a fantastic linked article showing a perfectly logical argument as to why it is not eternal.
> 
> ...



So spiritual matter creates physical matter? Is that what your saying?
How long has spiritual matter existed before the piece of physical matter? Is the Big Bang it's first work??
Was physical matter created 13 billion years ago by spiritual matter or has this process been going on longer than we can comprehend in one form or another??? Has it been going on and repeating itself in places we might never discover or do not still exist and remnants of those places have started what we know now?

Am I to believe that if we can trace it all back to the actual beginning of physical matters existence that one second before that and back to eons upon eons upon eons in time there was just some "spiritual matter" with a conscience and all of a sudden it decided to start the ball (as we know it) rolling???


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2012)

BANDERSNATCH said:


> good to know that you believe in the eternal at least.  lol



I don't think that there is one single piece that is eternal. I think that there has always been enough of it in forms that we do not understand yet that lends itself into creating more. I don't think it starts or stops within our universe.


----------



## bullethead (Dec 4, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> Where is "hear"? Using such terminology places finite parameters on an infinite universe. This humanizes the argument and attempts to place scientific constraints on the unknown.



instead of "hear" replace it with "it existed".


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> instead of "hear" replace it with "it existed".



Where did it exist?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

bullethead said:


> So spiritual matter creates physical matter? Is that what your saying?


Yes.



> How long has spiritual matter existed before the piece of physical matter? Is the Big Bang it's first work??






> Was physical matter created 13 billion years ago by spiritual matter or has this process been going on longer than we can comprehend in one form or another???






> Has it been going on and repeating itself in places we might never discover or do not still exist and remnants of those places have started what we know now?






> Am I to believe that if we can trace it all back to the actual beginning of physical matters existence that one second before that and back to eons upon eons upon eons in time there was just some "spiritual matter" with a conscience and all of a sudden it decided to start the ball (as we know it) rolling???


I don't believe that "one second before that" there was such a thing as "eons and eons" because I don't think time existed because I don't believe anything physical existed, at least not in this particular universe, others universes I have no idea about.

As far as what you are to believe, all I am trying to argue is that matter cannot be eternal, logically speaking, and that there must have been an intelligent eternal non physical being that created physical matter, including humans.

I call that Being God, a coupled with everything else I believe about the Christian doctrine and history, I believe that God to be the God in the Bible.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> others universes I have no idea about.



How is it possible for there to be more than on universe?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> How is it possible for there to be more than on universe?



I have no idea. There may only be one for all I know. I didn't mean to imply that I thought there is more than one, only that it could be a possibility. I haven't studied the multiverse theory and I certianly don't know the full aspects of God or His creation.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> I have no idea. There may only be one for all I know. I didn't mean to imply that I thought there is more than one, only that it could be a possibility. I haven't studied the multiverse theory and I certianly don't know the full aspects of God or His creation.



Lay it at the foot of the cross.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Lay it at the foot of the cross.



I will, because it has absolutely zero bearing on anything that has to do with my faith. "Lay it at the foot of the Cross" means that whatever information I find on the question of whether there is more than one universe my answer will be "ok".


----------



## JFS (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> all I am trying to argue is that matter cannot be eteral, logically speaking, and that there must have been an intelligent eternal non physical being that created physical matter



There is no way anyone can know.  Conjuring a matterless spirit isn't an answer, it's just a projection of wishful thinking.   We have matter, we just don't know how long it's been around and never will.   Anything beyond that relies on facts not in evidence and without any proof.  I guess that is why they call it faith, but it surely isn't the best answer, just the comforting one to some.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

JFS said:


> There is no way anyone can know.  Conjuring a matterless spirit isn't an answer, it's just a projection of wishful thinking.   We have matter, we just don't know how long it's been around and never will.   Anything beyond that relies on facts not in evidence and without any proof.  I guess that is why they call it faith, but it surely isn't the best answer, just the comforting one to some.



How are speculative, unproven scientific theories (magic) superior to faith?


----------



## Four (Dec 4, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> How are speculative, unproven scientific theories (magic) superior to faith?



apples to oranges.

faith is a method of finding truth


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

Four said:


> apples to oranges.
> 
> faith is a method of finding truth



You sure about that?


----------



## Four (Dec 4, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> You sure about that?



Pretty sure, yea. which one were you questioning?

To my  understanding, you're comparing  "speculative, unproven scientific theories" which are truth claims.. for example, the sky is blue, i ate a steak last night, etc to faith, faith is a methodology.. not a truth claim.. You could compare the scientific method to faith, or astrology to faith..


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

JFS said:


> Conjuring a matterless spirit isn't an answer



Sure it is......



Dallas Willard said:


> This completes the demonstration in our first stage of theistic evidence. To sum up: The dependent character of all physical states, together with the completeness of the series of dependencies underlying the existence of any given physical state, logically implies at least one self-existent, and therefore non-physical, state of being: a state of being, or an entity, radically different from those that make up the physical or "natural" world. It is demonstrably absurd that there should be a self-sufficient physical universe, if by that we mean an all-inclusive totality of entities and events of the familiar or scientific physical variety, and unless (like Spinoza) we are prepared to treat the universe itself as having an essentially different type of being from the physical:—which then just concedes our point.



You didn't read any of the article I posted for you, did you? It's very interesting, you should read some of it.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

Four said:


> Pretty sure, yea. which one were you questioning?
> 
> To my  understanding, you're comparing  "speculative, unproven scientific theories" which are truth claims.. for example, the sky is blue, i ate a steak last night, etc to faith, faith is a methodology.. not a truth claim.. You could compare the scientific method to faith, or astrology to faith..



No, I was referring to the topic at hand, referring to multiverses, string theory, quantum physics etc. All admittedly speculative and unproven by the scientific community (magic) in so much as theories go.

My faith has never failed me, can't say the same for science.


----------



## Four (Dec 4, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> No, I was referring to the topic at hand, referring to multiverses, string theory, quantum physics etc. All admittedly speculative and unproven by the scientific community (magic) in so much as theories go.



Ahhh, you're saying the god theory and the multiverse theory have equal weight. That's an apple to apple comparrision (two truth claims) 

I would argue (obviously) that the god theory has less supporting evidence, but i certainly wouldn't argue that the string theory, multiverses, etc are proven.. not even close.



Miguel Cervantes said:


> My faith has never failed me, can't say the same for science.



Ok, lets get a non-transparent jar filled with marbles... you use faith to determine the number of marbles in the jar , i'll use the scientific method (meaning, i'll just count the marbles)


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

Four said:


> Ok, lets get a non-transparent jar filled with marbles... you use faith to determine the number of marbles in the jar , i'll use the scientific method (meaning, i'll just count the marbles)



Faith, as in faith in God, is not meant as a means to count marbles in a jar, one would be incorrectly using spiritual faith in that circumstance. The scientific method is much better suited for counting marbles in a jar.


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

Four said:


> Ahhh, you're saying the god theory and the multiverse theory have equal weight. That's an apple to apple comparrision (two truth claims)
> 
> I would argue (obviously) that the god theory has less supporting evidence, but i certainly wouldn't argue that the string theory, multiverses, etc are proven.. not even close.
> 
> ...



No, you put the marbles in the jar, I'll put my faith in the jar. All you will be left with is a number of marbles, my faith will fill all of the voids between them regardless of how they are organized.


----------



## JFS (Dec 4, 2012)

Four said:


> you use faith ... i'll use the scientific method



I've always though the people who forego modern medicine and rely on prayer are crazy, but at least they are honest.   But that's better than hiding behind the god of the gaps and continually retreating in the face of knowledge to hide in the unknown (or in this case maybe the unknowable).


----------



## JFS (Dec 4, 2012)

Miguel Cervantes said:


> No, you put the marbles in the jar, I'll put my faith in the jar. All you will be left with is a number of marbles



So I think it is fair to say that you have your faith but lost your marbles.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

JFS said:


> So I think it is fair to say that you have your faith but lost your marbles.



While I agree with Miguel in this thread, this is


----------



## Miguel Cervantes (Dec 4, 2012)

JFS said:


> So I think it is fair to say that you have your faith but lost your marbles.



I lost my marbles many years ago.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Faith, as in faith in God, is not meant as a means to count marbles in a jar, one would be incorrectly using spiritual faith in that circumstance. The scientific method is much better suited for counting marbles in a jar.




Is the scientific method useful for examining the origin of all matter or is faith a better tool?

Exactly what is faith in God good for again?


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 4, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Is the scientific method useful for examining the origin of all matter or is faith a better tool?


The scientific method. Again, nobody is arguing that faith in God answers scientific questions.



> Exactly what is faith in God good for again?


Haven't you read the Bible?


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 4, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Haven't you read the Bible?



Almost twice.  The second time, I knew how it would end and quit.  Still not sure what its good for.


----------



## stringmusic (Dec 5, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Almost twice.  The second time, I knew how it would end and quit.


Then you know what faith in God is good for.



> Still not sure what its good for.



Try reading it a third time.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH (Dec 5, 2012)

He should just skip to the end.


----------



## ambush80 (Dec 5, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Then you know what faith in God is good for.
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading it a third time.





BANDERSNATCH said:


> He should just skip to the end.



Meh....


----------



## flintdiver (Dec 7, 2012)

I think they would also likely take the Operations Manual out of it and use the words written in it as the "word of the god " that placed the rover there . And our bible says,  "open Hatch 1 before opening hatch 2 " , Amen


----------



## ted_BSR (Dec 7, 2012)

This whole thread operates on the assumption that life on mars is similar to life on Earth. We are carbon based life forms. If you are gonna guess, then think outside of the box. Maybe life on other planets is based on a different element, and has an entirely different perspective on "life".


----------

