Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 5:06 pm
I have transcribed this as best I could from the following video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGenk99YDwY
It occurs at the 34 minute mark for those who want to check on my transcription.
In context Tyson had just outlined how common the ingredients for lie are in the universe and how relatively fast in cosmic time live took to start on earth when...
Dawkins says “ I would go further and say that if ever you meet somebody who wishes to claim that he or she believes that life is unique in the universe, then it would follow from that belief, that the origin of life on this planet would have to be a quite stupifyingly rare and improbable event and that would have the rather odd consequence that when chemists try to work out theories and models of the origin of life, what they should be looking for is a stupendeously improbable theory and implausible theory because if there was a plausible theory about the origin of life that wouldn’t be it because life would have to be everywhere."
Dawkin's then I think realises the implication of his statement and immediately tries to say but if we can't find life it doesn't mean its not out there as it is probably to spread out for us to ever find. Surprisingly close to what we as Theists say about God but you won't take from us.
The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory?
so until life is found elsewhere?
ps I did find this before on a shorter clip but that seems to have been shortened now to edit out this piece otherwise I would have just posted it.
Posts: 10410
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 5:09 pm
No, it merely means that if life is rare, we may be barking up the wrong tree when we propose likely abiogenesis scenarios. We don't know if life is rare or not, and likely won't be in a position to know for some time to come.
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 5:12 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 5:09 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: No, it merely means that if life is rare, we may be barking up the wrong tree when we propose likely abiogenesis scenarios. We don't know if life is rare or not, and likely won't be in a position to know for some time to come.
would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory?
Posts: 10410
Threads: 15
Joined: September 9, 2011
Reputation:
119
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 5:18 pm
Unless God has suddenly become falsifiable, he is useless in science. There's no possible scenario into which you couldn't insert 'God did it with his omnipotence'. So God does not fall into the category of a stupendously improbable theory, because a scientific theory (the best explanation of the available facts that has stood up to repeated testing) that involves God is impossible, even if God exists.
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 5:18 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Unless God has suddenly become falsifiable, he is useless in science. There's no possible scenario into which you couldn't insert 'God did it with his omnipotence'. So God does not fall into the category of a stupendously improbable theory, because a scientific theory (the best explanation of the available facts that has stood up to repeated testing) that involves God is impossible, even if God exists.
what would the highest degree of stupendously impossable odds be and remember that 0.9 recurring mathematically = 1 certain so at the other end of the scale 0.0..infinite..01 = 0 impossable so I can take your impossable as the pinacle of stuendously impossable odds and therefore God fits by your use of impossable.
Posts: 69248
Threads: 3759
Joined: August 2, 2009
Reputation:
259
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Quote:The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory?
The MOST stupendously improbable of theories.
Posts: 1473
Threads: 20
Joined: November 12, 2011
Reputation:
26
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 6:14 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 5:54 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: (January 2, 2013 at 5:18 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Unless God has suddenly become falsifiable, he is useless in science. There's no possible scenario into which you couldn't insert 'God did it with his omnipotence'. So God does not fall into the category of a stupendously improbable theory, because a scientific theory (the best explanation of the available facts that has stood up to repeated testing) that involves God is impossible, even if God exists.
what would the highest degree of stupendously impossable odds be and remember that 0.9 recurring mathematically = 1 certain so at the other end of the scale 0.0..infinite..01 = 0 impossable so I can take your impossable as the pinacle of stuendously impossable odds and therefore God fits by your use of impossable.
See my avatar. Everything is nicely explained there for you.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.
Posts: 19552
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 6:23 pm
The implication that life can be found everywhere must be compounded with the planets that are at an adequate distance from their star in order to provide the necessary temperature for liquid water and proteins to endure. Also these planets cannot be too large, or gravity will become a problem.
How close to ours is any such planet?
How can we determine if such a planet has life at the distance that we are from them?
Posts: 444
Threads: 12
Joined: December 30, 2012
Reputation:
3
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 6:37 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 6:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: The implication that life can be found everywhere must be compounded with the planets that are at an adequate distance from their star in order to provide the necessary temperature for liquid water and proteins to endure. Also these planets cannot be too large, or gravity will become a problem.
How close to ours is any such planet?
How can we determine if such a planet has life at the distance that we are from them?
Yep thats what Dawkins said when he realised the possable implications of his slip in what was a friendly enviroment, i think he wouldn,t have let that slip in a more hostile debating enviroment. and as I said is surprisingly similar to the Theist arguement of how can you ever find God when He exists Transcendental to the Universe.
Posts: 19552
Threads: 177
Joined: July 31, 2012
Reputation:
92
RE: Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.
January 2, 2013 at 6:50 pm
(January 2, 2013 at 6:37 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote: Yep thats what Dawkins said when he realised the possable implications of his slip in what was a friendly enviroment, i think he wouldn,t have let that slip in a more hostile debating enviroment. and as I said is surprisingly similar to the Theist arguement of how can you ever find God when He exists Transcendental to the Universe.
Drich, is that you?... hmmm no, Drich writes possiable.
What does "God [...]exists Transcendental to the Universe" mean?
How can you compare that to the appearance of life in a far away planet that has all the right conditions for it?... but we just don't know where it is, yet (you know, because it is really far away and we don't have the appropriate tools for it... yet).
|
