[Chadillac]

Originally Posted by Itchytoe

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.

I am trying to condense several pages of arguments to a few paragraphs. I do not pretend to have presented the entire argument, just a few snip-its. I am able to download the argument while not logged in, I'm not sure why you're not able to.

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.

What is the probability that humans evolved from multi-celled life forms? Very small, but we know that it has happened. What is the probability that advanced intelligent beings evolved from humans? Unless you believe that humans are the pinnacle of evolution, I would imagine that the probability of this is greater than the probability that humans evolved from mulit-celled life forms.

"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.

You are correct. However, If the capacity of God (creation of intelligent universes like our own) is possible, with the other countless planets in the Universe, could we not say that we are "probably" not the first to do so?

"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.

Or, they would communicate with us through a much simpler way than radio waves... What many people would call prayer. This way, they would be able to start communicating with us much sooner than radio waves.

"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?

Yes, again this is a probability. But what is probable?

I believe we can make this assumption by looking at past trends of human destructive capacity. Throughout history, humans have increased in destruction capability exponentially. Anthropologists have suggested that early humans probably first used spears 5 million years ago. 4.5 million years after that, there is evidence of wooden spears made with fire-hardened points. Over 100,000 years after that, humans began making complex blades used as spear points. Roughly 65000 years after that, the bow and arrow emerges. 14,000 years after that is the first confirmed use of gunpowder. And less than a thousand years after that, the first nuclear weapon is used
in war. If we are to extrapolate this into the future, we would find weapons that could destroy the earth for a few dollars.

If a civilization was to reach this point of planetary destroying weapons for a few dollars, their civilization would have to be at least more benevolent than ours. How long do you think our earth would last right now if everyone has this power?

"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.

I don't think it matters if they really are omnipotent, omnibenevolent, etc... but wether or not they would appear to be so. How many 5-year olds think that their parents are all knowing and perfect? If they were to create our earth and do things beyond our comprehension, wouldn't it appear that they are omnipotent? Omnibenevolent? See above. Infallible? Again, I think they would appear to be so.

Or, a civilization is somehow able to reach the pinnacle of evolution...