See life does seem highly unlikely to occur. I remember reading soo many times how when cooling down even if something almost negligible was different the universe as we know it wouldn’t have existed. With that being said it’s not an objective proof. Objective proof would be for example if God itself came down to Earth or something and spoke to all of humanity or whatever, or if someone from the dead could come back alive and bring evidence of a heaven or what not. Sure how un-probable we are to exist can suggest something external at play but suggesting is not the same as proving. There are soo many things in life that have like a 1 in millions chance of happening and still happen because that’s how probability works.
There’s a wonderful quote which I adore.
“If there are gods and they are just, they will not care about how devout you have been but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods but they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods you will be gone but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones” - Marcus Aurelius.
.....
It’s kind of similar to our evolution in knowledge of a black hole. Back in the old days Scientists had many theories regarding why our observations of the galaxy are not consistent with our calculations, there were theories that existed and black holes was one of them. Just like God some people believed it others didn’t and it was just a suggestion/theory. However now we actually have a real photo of a black hole and it matches everything we calculated and observed so that’s an objective proof confirming black holes in fact do exist.
(1) Firstly, why the obsession with 'objective' proof?
There are a lot of things that are given and not necessarily explained by science.
(I would even argue that mathematics should be considered separate field to the empirical methodology of science)
For instance there are 3 types of knowledge:
1. Logic / maths / laws e.g. knowing the rules of chess.
>> This requires reason but more importantly a good starting point (base assumptions/axioms)
2. Science / empirical e.g. knowing that water boils at 100 degrees
>> This requires good measures and instruments;
e.g. I can look at a person and determine how tall they are.
3. Relational e.g. knowing a person.
>> This requires trust in what the person is saying.
e.g. I can know Bob because Bob has told me about his likes/dislikes etc.
As great as maths and science are, they can only determine so much about a person. Sure if God was Russell's teapot, then we would have certainly disproven his existence surely, and there would no believers.
For instance, the origins of information (true or otherwise) are something that cannot be explained by science. (This also includes DNA, morals, and the origins of reason/thoughts); although we can explain how information is transformed, transferred. Even AI (predictive AI) requires information to be fed into it, from an external source (such as a human), and its code is written by humans.
Science starts at a zero point assuming that we don’t know anything about the universe and then seeks evidence and experiments to prove anything we come up with.
(2) It is factually incorrect to say that science starts from a point of zero knowledge and then moves to enlightenment through experiment. Even maths doesn't start from a point of zero knowledge.
Most of science is based on previous knowledge (whether that knowledge is correct or not). Science doesn't start from a blank slate.
Pragmatically, a lot of science is driven by previous predictions/theory or practical applications.
Maths on the hand, is all about the assumptions and setting the rules. This is why maths can sometimes be divorced from science.
Secondly, science operates on assumptions and basis as well as maths.
For example, it assumes that the mechanics of the universe are relatively unchanging (in terms of the physical laws) (or what the Bible refers to 'nothing new under the sun'), which basically is why you can conduct the same experiment several times and get the same conclusions.
(3) Bases for truth
What the black hole example actually was, is that people used their existing knowledge of black holes and calculations to be able to photograph it (there is an episode on Catalyst on ABC that looks in this). All the photo did was confirm existing theory was on the right track, which leads me to these criterion for what is true.
1. Correspondence/consistent - does it fit with all other information?
2. Coherence - is it clear and understandable?
3. Relevance/Pragmatic - is it is useful/liveable?
“If there are gods and they are just, they will not care about how devout you have been but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods but they are unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no Gods you will be gone but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones” - Marcus Aurelius .
There is a lot wrong with this quote (it is like an inverted version of Pascals wager) ,
It assumes that a just God (imposing our warped understanding of just) is a God who doesn't care how faithful we've been (deliberately substitution here). It is like saying that a just ruler doesn't care if its citizens obey the laws of the land; or a Father doesn't care to discipline his children when they show him no respect. If that is the case for these earthly examples, how much more so for one who made the heavens and the earth?
...
let’s keep things civil and respect other’s beliefs yeah : )
