Great, we go from some people claiming that even one instance of life starting spontaneously on earth sometime during its 4 billion year history is so unlikely that it is virtually impossible, to claiming that it's unlikely that it happened only once.

"[Steve:] Well, You can't just look at the earth, there is an entire universe out there. How many millions upon millions of planets had the spotential, with perhaps only success on this one planet from all the billions out there?

[Joel]See my reply above. Very improbable that (a) that life, since its birth in another planet, would have reached planet Earth 4,500 years ago, and then found the appropriate conditions to flourish again.

But, still, notice that in this way you are only shifting the problem of the origin of life to another planet."

No, I am not shifting the problem to another planet. What I am saying is that the entire universe is the sample space for where life can start, somewhere.

Suppose you say "It is impossible for life to evolve because the odds against it are 1 in X (with X being some insanely large number)"

I can refute this by saying "Well suppose you have 10X attempts, then on average life will start 10 times."

The "10X" in this case refers to the rest of the sample space, such as the universe at large for example. Life evolved here, so we can say "Wow look at the odds against life evolving, surely there was some supernatural power at work" In exactly the same way that someone, out of the millions who purchased a lottery ticket, can say "Wow look at the odds against me winning, surely someone was watching over me."

(Edited by Steve Zarwulkoff on 5/20, 9:02am)

(Edited by Steve Zarwulkoff on 5/20, 9:02am)

One interesting point - Ardrey has come over to her view....

the basis of science is not evidence

I don't have absolute proof of any knowledge; and no human has.

[Dean Michael Gores:] By "evidence" I mean subjective experiences. By evidence I mean the information that we collect with our senses.

I label what you name “evidence” as “percept”, or “sensory data”. Your “evidence” has a taste of certainty that I find misleading, and very subjectivist.

[Dean Michael Gores:] "Reaching conclusions" is not evidence, instead it is the end result of using induction and deduction on evidence.

I don’t think so. When someone says that something is an “evidence”, the person has already reached a conclusion –a conclusion related to one or more of the percepts from which he has defined the evidence.

[Dean Michael Gores:] I agree that perception can be misleading. I do my best to compare what I have perceived with what I have perceived in the past and what other's perceive.

Notice that in order to compare percepts you use reason. Then, you require reason to define what is evident –or not evident.

[Dean Michael Gores:] By doing this, I can find conflicts and resolve them by either removing old information from my context to fit new evidence, or to keep the new perception in a "possible yet reasoned unlikely" box- to save it for later just in case.

Please notice here a problem with your use of words: Your “evidence” (my “sensory data”) can’t be contradictory: they are what you sense and nothing else!

What can be contradictory are the conclusions you define (through the use of reasoning) to describe your percepts.

[Dean Michael Gores:] You seem to support the idea that subjective evidence is useless. You didn't come right out and say it, but that's what you seemed to allude to.

I think that sensory data can be very useful (for a lot of relatively simple activities they are), but that

“sometimes what you perceive as "evident" is really misleading.”

Raw perception is not scientific knowledge, is simply what we sense from materiality.

Perception is one of the basic tools of knowledge, but not the central pillar. The central pillar is the use of reason. The brain, not your eyes, is the generator of knowledge, and through reason you define what is evident and what is not evident at all.

[Dean Michael Gores:] Sure, we could be living in the matrix. Sure, my senses could be completely wrong. Never the less, I have no reason to think that.

Yes, you have no reason to think that. A thinking human dares to label something as evident only after a bit of reasoning (then, he can still be mistaken, of course.)

Think about that: when a magician suddenly hides a card and you don’t see it anymore, would you say that is evident that the card has suddenly ceased to exist?

[Dean Michael Gores:] Even if those were the case, my senses would still be giving me *some* information about *some* part of reality.

True. That’s why we humans can acquire knowledge. Perception is not “perfect”, but is useful.

[Dean Michael Gores:] It would be laughable for you to claim that my subjective senses do not receive information about reality.

Yes. It would be. But you won’t score so easy   ;-)

[Dean Michael Gores:] I agree that you can have a knowledge base with reason alone.

 Where did I say that?

 When you build something apart from reality, that’s not knowledge, but sheer fantasy. Period.

 Of course you need to get along with your subjective limitations. But precisely that’s one of the wonderful things of individuality.

[Dean Michael Gores:] Existence includes you.

Ok, I am part of existence, but that does not answer what existence is.

[Dean Michael Gores:] I use the word "existence" when I try to convey the meaning: everything in reality.

Me too.

[Dean Michael Gores:] You would not exist if there was no existence. You exist. There must be existence.

Yes, existence exists. But no human knows what “existence”, everything in reality, is.

I won’t know what existence is until I know everything. I won’t hold my breath...

Now, recalling a portion of my former message:

“[...] we can't have absolute proof of any knowledge: because absolute proof of a knowledge implies the knowledge of absolutely everything.”

 
So total certain knowledge of a thing requires the knowledge of what existence is.