You and TheMadFool have everything backwards. And you believe that that is how it is. That's how strong your faith is. — god must be atheist

Matter is not a substance it is a mathematical concept. It is a pattern in an energy field. These patterns can be described mathematically. Matter is a concept in God's mind.

Matter is a concept in God's mind. — EnPassant

What?

Nonsense. If everything counts as evidence, then nothing counts as evidence. — 180 Proof

That depends on how you define evidence. I'm defining evidence as what exists be it a dust mote or a galaxy or anything in between. 'Evidence for' is not something that is objectively 'out there'. There is no "evidence for" anything out there in reality because "evidence for" is in the understanding, in the mind.
Evidence is mute. It only becomes evidence for something in our understanding. This is an important distinction.

What? — javi2541997

Matter is two things. The substance of matter is energy. The form of matter is geometry. When energy cools it condenses into material patterns - like water forming ice crystals. These patterns are physical objects like a hydrogen atom, a rock, a planet...
These patterns can dissolve away as matter returns to its energy state. Material objects are transient patterns not substances.

Yes, I understand what matter is, but why do you mix it with religion saying is in God’s mind?

Yes, I understand what matter is, but why do you mix it with religion saying is in God’s mind? — javi2541997

If God created the material universe then it follows logically that matter is a concept in God's mind. Matter is not an eternal substance, it is a mathematical idea. And if God exists that is where the idea originated, right?

And if God exists that is where the idea originated, right? — EnPassant

The premise is wrong since the moment that you cannot prove God’s existence at all. Believing or not in something so personal as religion is free to someone’s thoughts. But I guess we should not mix it with science to be honest...
God never “created” the material universe neither the matter, universe and earth we live in. Science is the main academic source which develop and research the principles about physics writing tons of proofs and investigations.
God and religion are just beliefs...

:roll:

God and religion are just beliefs... — javi2541997

The main point I'm making is that matter is a mathematical reality and this is evidence for God's existence since a mathematical concept needs a mind to originate in.

The main point I'm making is that matter is a mathematical reality and this is evidence for God's existence since a mathematical concept needs a mind to originate in. — EnPassant

But why maths and matter need to be related to God? How do you know God has a “mind”?

How do you know God has a “mind”? — javi2541997

If God created the universe He must be very smart indeed and have something that our word 'mind' approximates.

God created the universe — EnPassant

Prove me he created the universe. I am waiting here.

Matter is not a substance it is a mathematical concept. — EnPassant

Bingo! Matter is anything that has mass and has volume; both mass and volume are mathematically defined.

Bingo! Matter is anything that has mass and has volume; both mass and volume are mathematically defined. — TheMadFool

Yes, even mass is understood to be a process, not a substance. See Higg's Field.

A little something to ponder upon:

1. We don't know the answer to "are we alone?"

but,

2. If there are aliens, we know the answer to their question, "are we alone?" No, definitely not!

I propose a new question be formulated: are they (aliens) alone? No!

A little something to ponder upon:

1. We don't know the answer to "are we alone?"

but,

2. If there are aliens, we know the answer to their question, "are we alone?" No, definitely not!

I propose a new question be formulated: are they (aliens) alone? No! — TheMadFool

Fitch's paradox of knowability:

1. Assumption: Everything is knowable
2. Conclusion: Everything is known

Suppose Fitch's argument is sound.

3. Everything is known (collective omniscience).
4. Not everything is known to humans.
Ergo,
5. Aliens exist.

We are not alone.

QED

:lol:

Abusrdum sans reductio! :smile:

I realize this thread is not recent, but I thought I should tack my thoughts on here rather than starting a new thread.

I think it is more probable than not that we are the first, or one of the first, intelligent species in the galaxy. I think this because most Earth like planets are, so I have heard, younger than Earth (they formed after Earth). If that is the case, and it is the case that carbon lifeforms are the only kind, then it stands to reason that we are probably one of the first intelligent lifeforms in the galaxy.

Assuming that alien life started around the time or shortly after life on Earth started, and assuming a similar timeline of evolution, there may well be aliens like us right now in the galaxy. So why haven't we heard from them yet? I think we have not heard from aliens yet simply because the galaxy is big and any radio transmissions (which intelligent life elsewhere would presumably have developed) would take a long time to reach us. In fact, supposing the Milky Way to be about 100,000 lightyears in diameter, and if we estimate that most earthlike habitable planets are between 20,000 and 50,000 light years away (I am making some estimates but I don't think they are wildly incorrect), that means we will likely have to wait another 20,000 or so years before we contact aliens, or they contact us, or both.

Of course, if aliens are not just carbon-based, that should make alien life more abundant and increase the likelihood that we hear from aliens in a less massive time frame.

Final thought: each day that we do not detect aliens strengthens the case that aliens are carbon-based lifeforms only, like us.

I remember this thread very well. EnPassant had two delightful moments: and .

I regret asking him to prove that God created the universe if God actually did. It was plainly a strawman fallacy.

Perhaps I need to focus on why a mathematical concept is evidence of God's existence, but at the same time, it needs a mind to originate in.

If a mathematical concept needs a mind to originate in, then God's existence follows the same fate.

It shouldn't be forgotten that aside from the vast distances involved in astronomy, there are also vast periods of time to be reckoned with. Human culture has had technology capable of seeing beyond the solar system for a bit more than a century - the flash of a match, in cosmic timescales. So what are the odds of two matches being lit at the same time? You see the point? Other civilizations might have preceeded ours by tens of millions of years, or conversely we might have preceeded theirs by the same factor. Of course, all wild guesswork, but something to consider.

So what are the odds of two matches being lit at the same time? You see the point? Other civilizations might have preceeded ours by tens of millions of years, or conversely we might have preceeded theirs by the same factor. Of course, all wild guesswork, but something to consider. — Wayfarer

Yep. Very nice point, Wayfarer. :up:

Who knows … life could be infinitely unique and we could be the only lifeforms in the whole galaxy. We still don’t know what the odds of abiogenesis occurring are here.

If there were other life forms however they’d face the same technical challenges we do when it comes to interstellar travel. And if they had mastered ftl travel our lifeforms to them would appear primitive just like bacteria appear to us

Perhaps there is also another lifeform in the whole galaxy who is wondering exactly the same—if we (or they) are the only civilization in this vast system of stars.

I think the best guess based on what we know right now is that we are amongst the very first intelligent species.

As ludicrously vast as the distances are between stars, the galaxy has been around for deep time; sufficient for an advanced ETI to have done several things that we can think of that would be detectable (and who knows how many more things that we are unaware of yet). Theres no reason we know of yet why the night sky couldn't have been lit up with the evidence of hundreds of thousands of species.

I wish it weren't so, but the deafening silence is reason to be pessimistic about the numbers.

I think a primary factor in determining the variation in time between life on Earth compared to when life forms elsewhere would be the difference in time between Earth's formation and the formation of most Earthlike planets.

Who knows … life could be infinitely unique and we could be the only lifeforms in the whole galaxy. We still don’t know what the odds of abiogenesis occurring are here. — kindred

I do not think it is infinitely unique; maybe it is unlikely. However, given that life arose on Earth fairly soon, in geological timescales after the planet formed, it seems like it would not be that unlikely an occurrence. But I agree with you that the odds of abiogenesis are important to the question of whether there are aliens.

the deafening silence is reason to be pessimistic about the numbers. — Mijin

If life were not only carbon based, I do think we would be right to expect more aliens. That said, if it is carbon based and only forms on planets similar to Earth, most of those planets are either still forming or are young compared to Earth, meaning we would not expect there to be ETI, or at least not that many ETIs; so I agree that some pessimism is warranted in that regard, but not about the possibility of ETI.

As said, the odds of abiogenesis are relevant.

The timescale on when an ETI would be expected to send out a radio signal will consider 1. the odds of abiogenesis, and as pointed out, 2. the times at which those planets formed.

I think a primary factor in determining the variation in time between life on Earth compared to when life forms elsewhere would be the difference in time between Earth's formation and the formation of most Earthlike planets. — NotAristotle

We know there are trillions of galaxies, and that each galaxy probably contains trillions of planets. Who's keeping the Almanac?

I was referring to life in our galaxy only as I think it is more likely that any first received radio signals would originate within our galaxy due to the vast distances between galaxies.

The timescale on when an ETI would be expected to send out a radio signal will consider 1. the odds of abiogenesis, and as ↪Wayfarer pointed out, 2. the times at which those planets formed. — NotAristotle

; @Wayfarer

Does this really depend on the act of randomness or chance that much?

Chance has a very specific role in this context and in modern culture. It is generally presumed to be the only alternative to intentional creation - either something was created intentionally (per Creation) or it ‘just happened’. I think that is a false dilemma.

(As it happens I’m writing a novel on the subject of the propagation of life. It is very sympathetic to the idea of panspermia which is the theory that the there are clouds of proto-organic material in the Cosmos which form the basis of living organisms wherever the circumstances are propitious (hint: doesn’t include Mars.) But in this novel, this process doesn’t involve physical space travel, which is laughed off as a techno-barbarian fantasy.)