Re: Challenge VanniApr 17th, 2005
Been going back to see what I missed. This is from a ways back:
...Carl Sagan (and someone else who’s name I have forgotten)...
probably Frank Drake
...once calculated that there should be at least 1 million planets in our galaxy with advanced life forms, but as more and more information became available, they downgraded their estimate to the point where they said that it now appears there should be no life forms, not even us. Sounds like an argument for divine intervention.
You're misrepresenting their conclusions. It depends entirely on what assumptions you put into what's called the Drake Equation, and it is not an argument for divine intervention. All it says is that we don't have enough information to form a definitive conclusion. Divine intervention remains an assumption, not a conclusion or an argument.
Your arguments consistently look to me like some version of one or more of the following,
1. Cosmological Argument
(1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause.
(2) I say the universe must have a cause.
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
1. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause.
2. The universe has a beginning.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
This is the Kalam argument that’s been around for more than 1000 years, and was totally ignored by conventional science of the 19th century. They believed in an infinite universe, even though that’s a mathematical impossibility.