Slashdot Mirror
A Third of Sun-Like Stars May Have Warm Earth Analogs
The Bad Astronomer writes "An astronomer studying data from the first 136 days of the Kepler observatory missions has calculated that as many as 34% of all Sun-like stars (abstract) may have Earth-sized planets orbiting in their habitable zones, where conditions are right for life as we know it. I have some reservations with his numbers, but they do match other studies. There may be 15 billion warm, Earth-sized worlds in our galaxy alone."
A Third of Sun-Like Stars May Have Warm Earth Analogs
Don't worry; our knowledge of superior digital technology will save us.
Thanks -- try the veal! I'm here all week.
H'mm, pretty small crowd for a Thursday. . . .
15 billion, but 0 within reach... So much for that info.
That's sure a lot of shards for one galaxy. How do I move my character to one of the cool ones?
Not after the MPAA finds out
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Why do we still put a mandate of "liquid water" in the hospitable zone requirement? Are we really naive enough to think that life out there CAN'T POSSIBLY FORM without water?
Am I just totally nuts here?
analog has always seemed warmer to me.
Good people go to bed earlier.
And how many stars are there?
Someone do my math for me, I'm busy working.
Well, we have to send someone to go look for those warm-earth analogs. Eh... why not? Sure.
I don't see the obsession with Goldilocks zones...
1) We will have the technology to inhabit "unihabital planets" long before we have the technology to REACH goldilock planets.
2) If the plan is just to find life- I know we look at planets like ours- becuase we know how to look for life similar to ours as oppossed to other theoretical life forms. BUT- odds are- there are probably a thousand life forms that don't appear anything like earth-forms for every one that does.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Analogs? So that 1/3 are rocking turntables while the other 2/3 are all about the CDs or mp3s?
if you listen to the Mormons, they say that the developers talk to us all the time.
What the developers have to say is all there in the manual. Or at least it's supposed to be. Mormons think there are a bunch of other manuals, and Catholics add a few chapters, but other followers of Christ are under the impression that those manuals are uninspired and misleading.
There may be 15 billion Earth-like worlds with aliens who don't know or can't accept population control, looking to acquire new real estate and resources to satisfy the ever-increasing demand that is putting a terrible strain on their homeworld.
I don't 'see' the obsession with Earth sized planets. A Jupiter hosting 20+ moons in the 'Goldilocks' zone will provide many possible habitats.
Planetary science and exobiology is immature yet. It needs time and a really big telescope.
True, but I was so disappointed at the ratio between possibly habitable and those out of reach... You see, I want to visit those places, in my lifetime... :)
Man, I am so ready to move to an analog world!
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
Which proves the existance of FTL travel since without it, even those issues editted by the great John W Campbell won't have reached beyond the closest handful of stars...
"There may be 15 billion warm, Earth-sized worlds in our galaxy alone."
- But can they run Linux?
The existence of these planets is yet to be confirmed. There are currently only two planets confirmed to be in the habitable zone.
He is a Mormon. Mormons believe that Jesus walked among Native American Indian tribes, and that there are lost cities in America. The Book of Mormon describes three heavily populated, literate, advanced civilizations in the Americas. The book primarily deals with the Nephites and the Lamanites, who it claims existed in the Americas from about 600 BC to AD 400. It also deals with the rise and fall of the Jaredite nation, which the Book of Mormon claims came from the Old World shortly after the fall of the Tower of Babel. This is silly stuff. We do not need a person who believes this running our country. Beliefs matter. Don't vote for kooks.
A third of Sun-Like stars may have spaghetti monsters hiding in their solar systems.
Why aren't they here yet? Even if a very small portion of those has intelligent life, at least some of those would be millions of years ahead of us in technology. Even if there are no higher physics that can shortcut light speed, they should be here by now. That leaves two options: They are here and are watching behind the equivalent of a bird blind, or technological civilizations invariably self destruct.
But no clear evidence of intelligent alien life anywhere. If there really are possibly billions of warm earth like planets. Then the reason we have no evidence can't be because intelligent alien life doesn't exist IMO. The reply's to this post will likely be a great explanation of why there are no aliens. My only reply to those people is if that's true then there really can't be billions of earth like planets.
Unfortunately, all of the democratic and republican presidents have publicly admitted to holding some irrational, religious belief or another. Is there a single, serious, declared atheist candidate? No? Then if we're going to elect another idiot who believes an imaginary friend is telling him to invade other countries, we might as well skip the mainstream irrational and go for the full-on, batshit crazy stuff.
Nothing can save America anymore. May Cthulhu eat us first.
...razing the dead...
Now there's an interesting mental image of the savior.
"Other planets are warm without man made CO2!"
Fandroids hate facts.
So are you agreeing or disagreeing with xevioso?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
It's easier to disprove, however. I.e. there's more archaeological evidence clearly showing it to be false. Christians dodge the bullet wrt Great Flood etc by claiming that it's all allegorical, but, last I checked, it's not an option for Mormons, at least not for those parts of their scripture that are directly affected. So their only choice is to dismiss the science that proves them wrong as invalid.
Actually, communism has succeeded on all of them. That's why they are all silent - they have nothing to discuss with bourgeois imperialistic likes of us. ~
An Earth Analog is not the same as our Earth.
So if there are that many earth-like worlds... Well, you know the question.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
...razing the dead...
Now there's an interesting mental image of the savior.
It's well known that the Lord was a 80th level Paladin, and did triple damage against the undead.
Not necessarily even allegorical. For a civilization whose idea of the "whole world" is probably a few thousand miles wide, the notion of the "whole world" being flooded is actually pretty plausible.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
This is actually on-topic, because Mormon theology requires there to be all sorts of habitable Earth-like worlds out there for good Latter Day Saints to become Gods for when they die.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
Problematic word, that.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
That makes sense, after all hasn't communism always been "good idea, wrong species"?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I know we look at planets like ours- becuase we know how to look for life similar to ours as oppossed to other theoretical life forms. BUT- odds are- there are probably a thousand life forms that don't appear anything like earth-forms for every one that does.
There could be life on the sun. The atmopsheric storms of Jupiter might form intelligent life. It's all neat SF, but completely useless to talk about in science. It's not that planetary scientists don't get this, it just that it adds nothing to the conversation to say "life mght be everywhere". Fine, sure, but then what? Beyond SETI, there's no way to detect life-not-as-we-know-it, so it doesn't matter in any practical way.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
I'm sorry, but there's a pretty big difference between the two. Also important, one set of beliefs is pretty easy to disprove, whereas the other isn't.
The Mormon beliefs include entire lost cities and civilizations in North America. There is absolutely NO evidence to support these beliefs in archeology or genetics. If there were an advanced civilization here 1000 years ago, I think it's pretty safe to assume we'd know about it by now with archeology. We know about other civilizations from that time period, such as the Anasazi who lived near where I do now, in Arizona; even though they were a comparatively small tribe, they left canals, petroglyphs, and best of all entire cities (villages actually by modern standards) that still stand today. Same goes for other pre-Columbian civilizations in Central and South America. We know quite a bit about the civilizations that preceded European settlement on this continent, and there isn't one shred of evidence to back up Joseph Smith's wild claims.
The Jesus story is much harder to disprove. It's all about one man, not multiple civilizations. This one man didn't build any physical monuments, cities, etc. People from that time claimed he performed a few miracles, but nothing that would leave any archaeological record, so they may be true, or they might not, there's no real way to know. Most importantly, the story is about a man who claimed to be the son of God, and came here to teach us about how to live with one another. Strangely enough, this turned into a worldwide religion that lasts to this day, yet many of his so-called followers (especially ones in the USA) haven't bothered actually learning about the very simple things he taught, such as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and instead have twisted the religion into a hate-filled thing that bears his name but none of his teachings.
How about electing someone who's actually a Christian, and believes the stuff like "love thy neighbor", "do unto others", etc. The people calling themselves Christian now haven't bothered reading anything that Christ taught.
"But, I don't WANT water! Can't you make something with alcohol in it ?!?"
Another number you can plug into the Drake equation, FWIW.
1) We will have the technology to inhabit "unihabital planets" long before we have the technology to REACH goldilock planets.
Yes, but who really wants to live in a giant artificial dome? It'd be nice to find someplace that's like our own planet naturally.
Anyway, yes, the plan is to find life, and hopefully intelligent life. You're not going to find that on Jupiter or Venus, or at least it's highly unlikely because those planets won't support carbon-and-water-based life like us. To find life that resembles us, we have to look for planets that resemble ours.
BUT- odds are- there are probably a thousand life forms that don't appear anything like earth-forms for every one that does.
Pure conjecture, and I imagine any biologist would tell you you're wrong.
Do we have an agreed-upon definition of "intelligent"?
We can't dismiss existence based on our own species.
not... 1?
I hope they have better luck with intelligent life than we've had.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
Hi, I am from one of those 15.000.000.000 planets, and we have got Slashdot in here as well, we also speak english, and I wish you all my ET friends a good day.
=]
A literal reading of the Bible is very clear that world is the entirety of creation, and Noah and whoever was on the Ark were the only survivors. Anything beyond that is creative reinterpretation of the text.
Who said they don't make land any more?
Yes it seems that once again arrogant humans would rather believe they are the exception, instead of the rule. Why is it so tough to believe that there are not only other planets like earth, but that they are just as likely teeming with life as ours is? We are MOST likely to be the product of the rule, NOT the exception, and Earth is definitely NOT the center universe. Get over yourselves humans, and maybe have a little respect for the rest of the biosphere!
If there are aliens, how would we know? It's not like we've put much effort into going out and looking for them. All we've done is sit around with some radio telescopes and listen for them, as if they would use something as quaint as radio waves to communicate, and as if the ones about as advanced as us are spending all their energy beaming radio signals into space hoping for someone to answer.
Basically, the idea that "there are no aliens" assumes that we're sooooo special that obviously the aliens would want to come visit us and say hi, even though we're so backwards and primitive and stupid that we haven't even bothered to venture past our own Moon (which we quickly got bored with and decided to go start some more wars instead to occupy our time), except for a few small unmanned probes that have only explored our own star system, barely.
A literal reading of the English translation by a modern westerner is not the same as a literal reading of the ancient Hebrew by an ancient Jew. Hell, there are idioms in the Torah that we still don't know the meaning of.
I wonder what they taste like. I bet they are yummy. I wish I could live long enough to find out.
How about electing someone who actually believes a fairy tale instead of claiming to believe it to get votes
As much as I admire honesty...no.
As an atheist who has read the bible, I am honestly fucking scared of being governed by someone who is familiar with it and literally believes the whole thing.
From Wikipedia:
Although this article seems to claim that we now have a decent handle on the 'ne' factor now (and maybe "R*" and "fp" too), we still have no idea what the values of the other factors are.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
I think that's part of the problem with Christianity: the Bible, and many Christians who believe the whole thing. Jesus never said the Bible was inerrant or true, in fact it didn't exist until long after he died (though the OT parts did).
Here's my suggestion: ignore the Old Testament for the most part, as that's all Jewish stuff. Just read the stuff Jesus himself said and did, and don't worry too much about the rest. I don't even think he's the same as the OT god; he just didn't want to upset people too much by saying much of the OT (Torah) was wrong or inaccurate.
I am scared by people who think people who do believe in god are irrational
And I am honestly scared of being governed by anybody who is familiar with it and still does not get it enough to care.
About 12K years ago, the last ice age ended and sea levels rose, filling a bunch of previously-habitable land up with water. Some of that is believed to have happened very quickly, as ice dams broke in the vicinity of Gibraltar and/or the Bosporus (incidentally, near the areas where the ancestors of the Hebrews lived). You don't think it's reasonable for a group of people living in, say, what is now the middle of the Adriatic Sea to think their entirety of creation (i.e., the few tens of miles or so in any direction that they might have been expected to have explored on foot) was flooded?
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You don't think it's reasonable for a group of people living in, say, what is now the middle of the Adriatic Sea to think their entirety of creation (i.e., the few tens of miles or so in any direction that they might have been expected to have explored on foot) was flooded?
It's not. The problem is that Bible has God directly address Noah, and claim that he's going to wipe humanity out entirely. If you treat Bible as the literal word of God, there's no way about it. If you treat it as a collection of garbled ancient stories mixed up with myths and legends of ancient Jews, then sure, it makes sense - but not so much as a holy book.
That's the whole problem with this. The Drake Equation is really nothing more than conjecture, and most of the terms are unknown and probably just plain unknowable (unless you're Q). We might be able to get some values for these terms that are somewhat plausible, but only if we actually start exploring other star systems, so that we could start applying some statistics (e.g., "out of 10 star systems we've explored, all 10 had planets, 8 had planets that could potentially support life, 7 have developed life, and 1 has developed intelligent life"). We'll never figure those things out just sitting here on this planet and never going anywhere.
For "fc", what detectable signs of our existence have we released into space? A few radio transmissions during the dawn of the TV age maybe? That's not much. It's not like we've made some giant structure that aliens could see with a powerful telescope (the way we're now seeing exoplanets) and be able to tell with high certainty that it's artificially-made.
"fp" is probably close to 100%, judging by all the exoplanets that are being discovered around every nearby star these days.
I wonder how many other alien situations are sitting around saying "we must be the only intelligent species in the universe, because no one else has bothered to come visit us", and also saying "space exploration is too expensive and not profitable, so let's not bother. This world will sustain us forever."
Just read the stuff other people said Jesus himself said and did, and don't worry too much about the rest.
I hate doing this, but FTFY.
The NT isn't contemporary, is it? Even if it was it's been translated, copied and retranslated so many times it's lost most of its original meaning anyway.
getting an atheist candidate would be no different than a religious one. you are not guaranteed serious, rational behavior. instead of pointing to a group and saying we need one of these for a candidate, we should look at people on their merits. there are mormons, and other christians, and muslims, and jews, and other religious types who may believe supernatural things that you believe are ridiculous, but if they can demonstrate making decisions without these things being a heavy influence on them, then they would make good candidates.
it is just as silly and irrational to think that finding an atheist candidate is the cure to fundamentalist religious candidates. atheists are just as locked into a belief system they can't prove as much as almost anyone else, they are not nihilists.
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
I could reply to the "contemporary" part, but that gets into too many uncertainties. But I will reply to the "translated, copied and retranslated so many times" part (or at least the "translated...retranslated" part).
As far as we know, the New Testament was written in Greek. (There are some theories that the gospels, or at least Matthew, Mark Luke and John, were written in Aramaic. Some would say the entire NT, but that seems pretty unlikely, given the audience.) We have the NT in Greek. Yes, it's been translated many times: into Latin, and a thousand or more other languages. But that doesn't cause it to "lose most of its original meaning," because you can read it in Greek if you want to, or you can try to triangulate the original meaning by reading many different English (or French, or German, or...) translations which were nearly all done directly from the Greek.
Similarly, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, except for a few small parts written in Aramaic. Again, this has been translated into many languages, but you can still read it in Hebrew and Aramaic if you take the time to learn those languages. Or you can try reading multiple English translations, virtually all of which were done from the original Hebrew/ Aramaic.
I said "nearly all" and "virtually all." You can read the New Testament as translated from Latin, but that would be going through two stages of translation (Greek --> Latin --> English). Similarly, you can read the Old Testament as translated from Greek (the Septuagint translation, done one to three hundred years BC); again, two stages (Hebrew/ Aramaic --> Greek --> English).
About the copying issue: you might want to look into the differences between the Masoretic texts of the Bible, and those found at Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls). While the latter are a thousand years or more older than the former, the differences are not that great. Copyists were apparently pretty careful.
In sum, it's not at all true that "it's lost most of its original meaning." On the contrary.
But don't take my word for it, do some research!
Are there any without investment bankers....
> who really wants to live in a giant artificial dome?
Arnold? Oh, yeah, you're right.
You're a rational Christian, then? When was the last time you sat down, weighed the factual evidence (not scripture), critically evaluated your beliefs and adjusted them to reflect your perceived probability of your prior beliefs being correct? I doubt most people who consider themselves religious would even know how to do that. And those that are rational in other areas of their life are obviously not applying rationality to their religious beliefs. So yes, I think labelling religious people as irrational is perfectly right.
The Drake Equation isn't "conjecture" - it's just a way to formulate the question. The numbers you plug into it are largely conjecture at the moment, although we're about to have pretty specific values for many of the elements. This puts some bounds on the final number. The more certain you are regarding each element of the equation, the more tightly bound the final number becomes.
> When was the last time you sat down, weighed the factual evidence (not scripture), critically evaluated your beliefs and adjusted them to reflect your perceived probability of your prior beliefs being correct?
Quite often I think.
You will find, that dealing with scripture in the way religious people do, is not always real. Dealing with scripture generally is not something, my kind is very good at. I am a skeptic. But knowledge about that too slowly accumulates, along with myriads of sideknowledge.
So while I consider myself quite good in scripture, I like to build my own opinion about things.
I would rather give up any of that and be a happy religious nut sometimes.
> I doubt most people who consider themselves religious would even know how to do that.
Religious? No. But that depends on the definition of the word. Being Religious is caring more about the outward of belief, than the inward. I would not condemn that as idiocy. It allows you to find belief in another way, without the same intellectual struggle. But every believer who takes his belief seriously, is struggling with it.
Because every human struggles.
Stopping to ask certain questions out of fear or the feeling of being right and stopping to ask them because of being content are two different things.
But you will find, that religious people do not differ very much from nonreligiouspeople in that particular context.
I believe, the difference is only made by the truth behind the belief. If it keeps being negated, and you force yourself to believe it, you might be wrong, after all.
> And those that are rational in other areas of their life are obviously not applying rationality to their religious beliefs. So yes, I think labelling religious people as irrational is perfectly right.
I am not sure if I can follow what it means to be rational in other areas of life but irrational in religious beliefs, but that also depends on the culture you come from and which kind of denomination rules your christian influence. Every denomination has its strengths, but also its weaknesses. Since they sometimes shift into some direction - because they are humans too - finding balanced churches where mixed individuals are, and there is room for debate, art, family, work with the needy, etc. is not always easy. And only there christianity is coming alive in its fullest, because people learn from others and learn to accept and love and care, hear personal reports from missionaries or meet people of different skillsets - even with the mind.
you mostly find people from not so useful classes of the actual cultural surroundings (shifted over time, who those people were - at the moment a lot of immigrants here). churches are often in the middle of struggle.
If being christian is irrational, depends on the existence of god.
Not on the christians around, that are irrational.
Mod points! Mod points right here! Please bring them all here.
'tis but a scratch.
Just more proof Paladins are developer favorites. When was the last time you heard of a Sorcerer or Bard becoming the central figure of a globe spanning religion?
If being christian is irrational, depends on the existence of god. Not on the christians around, that are irrational.
So since there is no observational, experimental or inferential evidence that points to the existence of a god, you're willing to concede that religious people who are unwilling to take this lack of evidence into account and re-consider their beliefs are, in fact, exhibiting a lack of rationality?
None of that is any less sensical that believing all the other stories about Jesus. Water to whine, razing the dead, walking on water, etc.
Quite. You shouldn't vote for kooks who seriously believes in any religion. They're all as charmingly ridiculous.as each other.
I know it's totally different in the US, but here in the UK, politicians tend to keep quiet about their religious beliefs, for fear of ridicule and hatred from most of the electorate.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
A literal reading of the English translation by a modern westerner is not the same as a literal reading of the ancient Hebrew by an ancient Jew. Hell, there are idioms in the Torah that we still don't know the meaning of.
So, probably best not to take the Bible too seriously then? I'm with you on that. As a collection of not entirely convincing myths, it's generally more fun than Lord of the Rings, except for the "A begat B who begat C..." bits.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
About 12K years ago, the last ice age ended and sea levels rose, filling a bunch of previously-habitable land up with water. Some of that is believed to have happened very quickly, as ice dams broke in the vicinity of Gibraltar and/or the Bosporus (incidentally, near the areas where the ancestors of the Hebrews lived). You don't think it's reasonable for a group of people living in, say, what is now the middle of the Adriatic Sea to think their entirety of creation (i.e., the few tens of miles or so in any direction that they might have been expected to have explored on foot) was flooded?
Many cultures have flood myths, and no doubt you're at least partly right. The problem, though, is that the Bible is story has stuff about God wiping out humanity's sins. If it turns out it was just a natural disaster, then the Goddy parts are pointless and in fact lies.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
No, there are levels of insanity just as there are levels of stupidity. Although not ideal, it's still better to have a politician who holds a mainstream, fairly moderate set of stupid beliefs than one who has an extreme set of stupid beliefs.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Jesus never said the Bible was inerrant or true, in fact it didn't exist until long after he died (though the OT parts did).
I'd be much more convinced by the whole idea of Christianity if Jesus had in fact written all the NT before he died and not left it to shitheels like St Paul to put a spin on his teachings.
I mean, if you're the son of God, why would you need mere mortals to interpret your words?
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Any humans there? No. Intelligence is not a module you can plug into any species -- unless you are a child watching cartoons with talking dinosaurs and squirrels.
E Proelio Veritas.
"Pure conjecture, and I imagine any biologist would tell you you're wrong."
Actually, I think they would come up with the classic arguments of "we know life can evolve with water, it did here", "panspermia causes all life", "we know what we're looking for when looking at life like ours".
There was once a time our ancestors thought staying warm on a cold day was acomplished by getting in a cave, or snuggling up to a cave woman. Then we found fire, animal hides, clothes from fabric, other insulation techniques, electricity, a glass of brandy... the dozens of ways we know to feel warm today.
The fact that life today requires RNA and water just means we know squat. Instead of looking for life out there that looks like earth-life; we should be looking EVERYWHERE- looking for things that violate what we know about chemistry and physics- and checking out if some life-form could be causing them.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Regarding the dome. Even on these earth-like planets you'd probably still need a "dome" (at leastfor the first dozen generations) It would be extremely surprising if we found an environment rich in stable oxygen. (Oxygen is highly reactive- it is only thanks to photosynthesis we have it in it's free form here on earth).
Unless the life on these other planets were almost exactly like ours and even had plant-like photosynthesis producing oxygen we needed. Even then- better hope there is nothing poisonous to us in the air.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Excuse me, but if you believe the biblical record, Jesus reanimated the dead (Lazarus), and later returned from the grave himself. He was obviously a Necromancer.
If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
I am scared by people who think people who do believe in god are irrational
That is fine if you can have a rational debate with a non-believer, without falling back on "you need to have Faith" and "Jesus has revelaled himself to me" as arguments.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
atheists are just as locked into a belief system they can't prove as much as almost anyone else
No we're not. If a believer could provide one piece of convincing evidence that God existed, I'd be more than happy to change my position, at once, as I certainly wouldn't want to disrespect or annoy an omniscient omnipresent Supreme Being.
But at the moment I see no reason to believe in the Abrahamic God any more than one of the Ancient Egyptian or Greek deities.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Err, rather, I am suggesting that, for those who *do* take the Bible seriously, they need to be more inquisitive and deliberate, rather than the trite expression "Bible says it; I believe it." An interest in ancient history, as well as ancient Hebrew and Greek, are helpful in this regard. It is unfortunate that so many non-literate* Christians down here in the Bible Belt really don't know what their Bible is saying.
*I say "non-literate" because they can read... they just choose not to.
we should be looking EVERYWHERE- looking for things that violate what we know about chemistry and physics- and checking out if some life-form could be causing them.
The problem with this is that we don't have limitless resources to look for life everywhere, so we concentrate our efforts on "life as we know it", since we already know that carbon-and-water works pretty well at creating life.
We also know that carbon and water have very interesting and useful chemical properties, which we don't see in many other elements; there's an entire branch of chemistry dedicated to this, called "organic chemistry", which concentrates on carbon compounds. Carbon, particularly in a 6-sided ring, plus hydrogen and oxygen and some other things on occasion, combine in seemingly limitless ways to form useful compounds for biology. Do we see this property with any other chemicals? Not really, not in the same way, that I've heard of.
We may not have ever left this planet (except for a brief excursion to the moon), but we DO know that all matter in the universe is composed of a small number of elements, and we DO know a whole lot about those elements and how they interact with each other. It's not like we're going to visit other star systems and find planets where life is based on a different periodic table of elements that's different from ours.
I thought long about that sentence.
Yes. I support it. First I misunderstood and even wanted to claim the same thing.
There is no scientific data which supports a being called god IN our universe. There cant be any reliable data on a transcendent god outside our universe, and nothing - except the existence of religion in human cultures, which could be simply imagination - supports that.
I even add philosophically, that caring about a god being part of our universe is a waste of time, which also rules out the existence of "two or more separate gods", since then again there is space and time. As is to care about a god who is bipolar. Or to care about a god, that is either non-transcendent or impersonal. Or to care about a god who is evil.
Rationally, this leaves me two choices, a transcendent personal (therefore intelligent) god who is pure love and righteousness, or no god at all.
I do not even care if it is different.
Since a transcendent personal god is only witnessable in a relationship, I left the task up to him, to start it.
The rest is personal and no evidence anyway.
This is as far rational debate about God can go.
You CANNOT do that! Jesus points to the old testament as the the method to achieve that which he proclaims will bring you into salvation. Any attempt to disregard the old testament would have to disagree with Jesus' own teaching, and therefore cannot be proposed as a way to resolve the paradoxical problems Christianity presents.
Where does he do that?
Hence, an excellent reason to look for life where there is water. It is a known fact that life on Earth requires the presence of water and even though it is the only form of life we have observed, it's still observable evidence.
Nope, sorry, not a 'classic' argument among the scientific community. An interesting hypothesis but it has no evidence to back it up.
This is my biggest point of contention with your argument. I agree that we could make an attempt to look for life that is fundamentally different from us on the molecular level even though we would have to make huge assumptions about what to look for and would be left with not even the faintest idea of where to start. Even if we make all these leaps of faith and somehow find the time and resources to devote to it and then win the galactic lottery and find some form of non-carbon based, intelligent life, how would we even go about interacting with it? Such a life form would be so deeply different from us that even with our astronomical luck so far, the chances of its intelligence being remotely compatible with our own would be, for all practical purposes, 0%.
Carbon based extraterrestrial life is going to be weird enough as it is if we ever find any, we don't need to complicate the matter more by trying to commune with space rocks or gaseous clouds.
Whenever he is asked what one should do to be in God's good graces.
I hope you're not asking me for verses. That is the entire premise of his message. The new covenant only removes the reward vs punishment incentive of the old. It does not suggest that the old is irrelevant. Basically: same rules, different consequences.