Quote:
Originally Posted by Chadillac
First, we must assume that we will either go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or mankind becoming an advanced civilization is probable. It does not matter how long it will take us to become an advanced civilization, just that it's possible.
If it is possible for us to become an advanced civilization, we must assume that this could have been possible elsewhere in the Universe before we were able to become an advanced civilization. If advanced civilizations do exist, why should we suppose they would interact with us in ways that are only slightly more advanced than our current capacities? Would we not see their communications with us as "magic" or supernatural?
If mankind is able to progress to a point that it could create other worlds and start life on these worlds, could we not assume that our world is another creation from another civilization? If a civilization was able to reach this point, we can assume that this civilization must be benevolent as to not destroy itself before reaching this point. This civilization would probably have many of the attributes that we contribute to God.
Here is a link where you can download the actual argument:
Files: The New God Argument (Sunstone 2008) - Document
Anyways, I just thought it was interesting and wondered if any of you had any thoughts on it. |
Since I can't log in to actually read the original argument, I'm going to assume you did a good job of paraphrasing it.
There are so many things wrong with it. The original assumption that we will either go extinct before becoming an advanced civilization or mankind becoming an advanced civilization is probable, is absurd. (Do I have to point out why?) We have no reason to assume such, but for argument's sake, I'll go ahead and assume it. The second sentence saying that it's possible is completely true. It's possible, but that in no way leads to probable.
"If it is possible for us to become an advanced civilization, we must assume that this could have been possible elsewhere in the Universe before we were able to become an advanced civilization." We don't have to assume that. It doesn't follow from any argument presented nor do I see any reason to assume it. If such a string of advanced civilizations creating other advanced civilizations exists, one civilization necessarily had to be the original civilization. We have no reason to assume that we cannot be that civilization that starts the string, if we assume such a string exists. If you disagree, I beg you to show me why.
"If advanced civilizations do exist, why should we suppose they would interact with us in ways that are only slightly more advanced than our current capacities? Would we not see their communications with us as "magic" or supernatural?" We have a very good reason to suppose they would interact with us in ways slightly more advanced than our current capacities. It's because if they are so more advanced than us and are able to create other worlds and life itself, then they would know what we would be capable of understanding based on our evolution until now. They likely would have gone though a similar evolution and would be able to communicate with us as soon as it is possible. Magic ro supernatural communications? No they'd send us radio waves back because of the ease of use and it's what we would understand. The only plausable explination of why we wouldn't understand their communcation attempts is if we were the second in the seriese of civilization creating civilizations and the first hasn't yet figured things out to be able to tell us so that we can be ready for when the third is ready to hear from us. (Congrats if you understood that)
"If mankind is able to progress to a point that it could create other worlds and start life on these worlds, could we not assume that our world is another creation from another civilization?" We could make such an assumption, but more importantly, do we have reason to? Otherwise, why should we assume such? If only for argument's sake, ok I'll assume it.
"If a civilization was able to reach this point, we can assume that this civilization must be benevolent as to not destroy itself before reaching this point." We can assume that, but we have no reason to. Malevolence does not require self-destruction. Just look at any malevolent entity that exists, like a virus or parasite. They prey on the host until the host is dead, but do not prey on themselves, otherwise, as is evident, they would not exist for long. Why assume the civilization isn't an inteligent and malovelent civilization that is cultivating this planet as well as millions of others as a food source or sport hunting area to fulfil it's own malevolent desire for killing?
"This civilization would probably have many of the attributes that we contribute to God." Most common attributes of God: Omnipotence, omnibenevolence, and infalibility. Omnipotence? I see no argument for that anywhere nor do I see any reason to believe such a civilization would have such a quality. Omnibenevolence? Umm, see above paragraph. Infalibility? I see no reason to believe such a civilization would have this quality either. In fact, I do see reason to believe infalibility couldn't be an attribute of any evolving civilization simply because it's not possible to be both changing and infalible.
Maybe it's just me, but everything in that argument seems flawed.