The Vital Question by Nick Lane was the one that really blew my mind.
Yes, there is a black hole in biology.
Now I'm not a scientist in any field, but I can still speculate.
We live in a quantum universe which runs on probability.
If I knew how many particles are contained in it I could maybe come up with the approximate chance of live evolving.
Let's suppose it contains 10^100 particles in some sort of random dance, then the probability of life beginning to evolve anywhere would be 1/(10^100).
If that's anywhere near true then SETI might as well close.
Hi split this topic off as it's worthy of its own thread and a derail to the other one :)
The probability of life in this universe is 1.
Quote from: Dark Lightning on November 05, 2023, 04:19:10 PMThe probability of life in this universe is 1.
:fingertap: :fingertap: I hate Sundays
Just seen this has been taken off another thread.
Big question this and it sounds ridiculous to think it doesn't.
But does life actually exist?
Do people exist?
Only humans have enough consciousness to ask questions about life and the universe.
The Anthropic Principle will drive you mad.
It occupied Stephen Hawking's mind for decades.
But something must exist, and it's what we call consciousness and it's still a mystery.
Consciousness Explained by Daniel Dennett needs to be re-titled Consciousness Not Explained.
What are people?
Dawkins does an awful job on this.
I need a quantum physicist to explain.
Closest I know is that the filaments of the brain have some resemblance to the filaments of the cosmos.
A simulation was done a few years ago. I'll try and find it.
There is also the idea that life has only one purpose - to hydrogenate carbon dioxide.
It could well be that we are living in a computer simulation (https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory).
Quote from: Tom62 on November 06, 2023, 05:08:19 PMIt could well be that we are living in a computer simulation (https://builtin.com/hardware/simulation-theory).
It could be that God created the simulation?
Fred Hoyle: "We must now admit to ourselves that the probability of life arising by chance by evolution is the same probability of throwing six in dice five million consecutive times."
He also came up with the 747 analogy.
Probability of life evolving on earth is like a hurricane blowing through a scrapyard and assembling a jumbo jet.
The one that fascinates me is this.
For you to exist at all your parents had to meet, and your grand parents also had to meet, going back 10,000 generations of our species. Then before that to the common ancestor of all human species.
These odds are truly cosmic.
It sounds like your existence is odds of 1/(2^20,000) at least. In reality it's incalculable.
The overwhelming probability is that someone else should be here in your place.
One big problem never solved is why the universe bothers to exist at all.
Best answer I know is that it is here to transition muons into electrons.
We are just by-products of that process.
https://www.energy.gov/science/doe-explainsmuons#:~:text=The%20muon%20is%20one%20of,part%20of%20the%20lepton%20group.
Quote from: zorkan on November 07, 2023, 11:31:54 AMFor you to exist at all your parents had to meet, and your grand parents also had to meet, going back 10,000 generations of our species. Then before that to the common ancestor of all human species.
These odds are truly cosmic.
It sounds like your existence is odds of 1/(2^20,000) at least. In reality it's incalculable.
The overwhelming probability is that someone else should be here in your place.
Seems to me that the odds of someone else being here would be just the same as mine.
Quote from: Recusant on November 07, 2023, 10:48:26 PMQuote from: zorkan on November 07, 2023, 11:31:54 AMFor you to exist at all your parents had to meet, and your grand parents also had to meet, going back 10,000 generations of our species. Then before that to the common ancestor of all human species.
These odds are truly cosmic.
It sounds like your existence is odds of 1/(2^20,000) at least. In reality it's incalculable.
The overwhelming probability is that someone else should be here in your place.
Seems to me that the odds of someone else being here would be just the same as mine.
Ye it seems a dumb argument to me.
I assume the universe at this point had to contain some quantity of lumps of stuff/critters.
It had to reach some configuration at this point and it ended up as it is with me in it.
So what? It's not as if I'm significant.
Why worry about it? We'll all be gone soon.
Quote from: Recusant on November 07, 2023, 10:48:26 PMSeems to me that the odds of someone else being here would be just the same as mine.
Given that life has existed on this planet for something like 4 billion years, what do you base this on?
If I wander into a town centre and look at the crowd, I think that it's a miracle any of us are here.
Quote from: zorkan on November 09, 2023, 12:28:24 PMQuote from: Recusant on November 07, 2023, 10:48:26 PMSeems to me that the odds of someone else being here would be just the same as mine.
Given that life has existed on this planet for something like 4 billion years, what do you base this on?
If I wander into a town centre and look at the crowd, I think that it's a miracle any of us are here.
You laid some odds against my being here--could easily have been somebody else. I did not dispute that. However the odds against them being here are just the same as mine, correct?
Quote from: Recusant on November 09, 2023, 02:56:32 PMQuote from: zorkan on November 09, 2023, 12:28:24 PMQuote from: Recusant on November 07, 2023, 10:48:26 PMSeems to me that the odds of someone else being here would be just the same as mine.
Given that life has existed on this planet for something like 4 billion years, what do you base this on?
If I wander into a town centre and look at the crowd, I think that it's a miracle any of us are here.
You laid some odds against my being here--could easily have been somebody else. I did not dispute that. However the odds against them being here are just the same as mine, correct?
I think the whole line of "what are the odds" arguments is fallacious when applied to past events.
What are the odds that I was born? 100%. The end. What are the odds that I'm me as opposed to Bob over yonder? Same.
Now, what are the odds that
my child (I have none) will have grey eyes or be interested in chemistry or find Jesus or visit Mars? Those are the meaningful questions.
So, what are the odds of life arising somewhere in the Universe? The answer is, it
did. Now, what are the odds of somewhere other than Earth spawning or having spawned life? From there rise many a valid and interesting questions.
Quote from: zorkan on November 09, 2023, 12:28:24 PMQuote from: Recusant on November 07, 2023, 10:48:26 PMSeems to me that the odds of someone else being here would be just the same as mine.
Given that life has existed on this planet for something like 4 billion years, what do you base this on?
If I wander into a town centre and look at the crowd, I think that it's a miracle any of us are here.
Sounds like a Marcusian sentiment.
My atheist world view doesn't allow for miracles.
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on November 09, 2023, 10:11:29 PMSounds like a Marcusian sentiment.
My atheist world view doesn't allow for miracles.
I'm talking about the miracle of evolution which got us here to develop consciousness.
I've never come across Marcuse, but I'll wager his theories have been challenged.
Quote from: zorkan on November 10, 2023, 12:20:23 PMQuote from: The Magic Pudding.. on November 09, 2023, 10:11:29 PMSounds like a Marcusian sentiment.
My atheist world view doesn't allow for miracles.
I'm talking about the miracle of evolution which got us here to develop consciousness.
I've never come across Marcuse, but I'll wager his theories have been challenged.
I'm using this definition of miracle:
"an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency."
Evolution is not a miracle
:this: Listen to the roo-loving* upside-down man in the stolen royal hat. :smilenod:
Evolution is a process, not a miracle.
*...In soup, not in Biblical sense. Or... Wait, it's Puds. Does he even appreciate roo soup? What if he doesn't even like roos? would that automatically invalidate the wisdom of suing proper definitions? Somehow, it feels like it must.
There be philosophy to be done, and The Asmo shall be done doin' it. :smilenod:
Point is, if it can be explained a tenth as well as evolution, then it has loooong since ceased to be a miracle - except with far more Os.
I soon found plenty of websites on evolution which use the word miracle.
Like molecules which found a way to replicate before evolution even started.
"An even greater appeal to miracles is found in evolutionary stories about the origin of life, because until reliable self-replication begins, there can be no natural selection. Consequently, evolutionists cannot avail themselves of their favourite hand-waving rescue device and can only appeal only to laws of chemistry and to chance."
But if it's offensive to use that word here, I won't use it.
It's not a matter of offense, it's just wrong. In any event, that so-called "miracle" is actually called abiogenesis, and people looking into that are seeing some promise.
Quote from: zorkan on November 10, 2023, 04:16:19 PMI soon found plenty of websites on evolution which use the word miracle.
Like molecules which found a way to replicate before evolution even started.
"An even greater appeal to miracles is found in evolutionary stories about the origin of life, because until reliable self-replication begins, there can be no natural selection. Consequently, evolutionists cannot avail themselves of their favourite hand-waving rescue device and can only appeal only to laws of chemistry and to chance."
But if it's offensive to use that word here, I won't use it.
Go ahead and use it, nobody's stopping you. Certainly the Discovery Institute (https://evolutionnews.org/2016/07/miracles_in_evo/) would approve. Just to be clear about who they are (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute) and what they do. Liars for Jesus.
I'm referring to natural miracles and not the supernatural ones of the bible.
Life is not inevitable on this planet.
It arose by chance and not design.
The bible did sort of get right by saying that man was born out of dust.
Another possibility is life was seeded from space by viruses or bacteria.
If correct, their chances of hitting the earth in the right conditions is quite high.
One thing I don't accept is the name Jesus.
There never was such a person roaming around the land of Israel.
Jesus is not even a Jewish name.
There were any number of Christs in lands not far away, and all of them predate him.
The unattributed quote that you used comes from a Discovery Institute site. That should be a clue regarding their use of the term "miracle."
Quote from: zorkan on November 11, 2023, 01:44:24 PMI'm referring to natural miracles and not the supernatural ones of the bible.
Life is not inevitable on this planet.
It arose by chance and not design.
The bible did sort of get right by saying that man was born out of dust.
Another possibility is life was seeded from space by viruses or bacteria.
If correct, their chances of hitting the earth in the right conditions is quite high.
One thing I don't accept is the name Jesus.
There never was such a person roaming around the land of Israel.
Jesus is not even a Jewish name.
There were any number of Christs in lands not far away, and all of them predate him.
There is no such thing as a natural miracle. A miracle is by definition supernatural. It's use in a natural context is misuse of the word.
Everything in language is metaphor.
I accept that if the word miracle is unacceptable here, then another should be used.
How about unlikely.
But even JC might have been a drug dealer and make natural miracle cures.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/jan/06/science.religion
He might also have been a magic mushroom as proposed by John Allegro.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sacred_Mushroom_and_the_Cross
"Buddha" dealt in the soma.
Whatever that was it would have been an hallucinatory drug.
"If you see buddha on the path, kill him."
Quote from: zorkan on November 12, 2023, 12:28:09 PM"Buddha" dealt in the soma.
Whatever that was it would have been an hallucinatory drug.
"If you see buddha on the path, kill him."
Can you cite a source for the claim that Buddha "dealt in soma"?
If the Buddha folks use a little bit of snort, or some magic mushrooms, they are only trying to achieve Nirvana.
If I wanted to be involved with a religion I think that I might choose Buddha. Not because of the use of happy medicines, but because they don't have a God.
Quote from: zorkan on November 12, 2023, 12:28:09 PMEverything in language is metaphor.
I accept that if the word miracle is unacceptable here, then another should be used.
How about unlikely.
That is untrue. Everything is a matter of agreement with regards to the proper association, to be sure, but a metaphor... That, it may or may not be, and usually
isn't.If I say "cat," you may imagine a small, furry creature that likes sleeping on laptop keyboards - or you may imagine a big, angry yellow thing with a massive mane - or the guy who sang "Wild World" and "Morning Has Broken." It does not mean that "cat" is a metaphor for either - only that there is no agreement between us as to what we associate the word with. Metaphors do require that agreement to work - otherwise, they are just misunderstandings.
As for it being unacceptable, far from it - like any other word, it has its place. It does carry its baggage, however, which one should be mindful of when choosing it over often more precise substitutes. For instance, you can certainly use "The miracle of life" to describe the process by which living things originated from non-living components. We don't know how they did it, only
that they did. However, calling it a miracle also implies a degree of unknow
ability. If you want to imply it - you've found your word. If not - maybe "origin" or "emergence" would be better in the given context.
Quotemiracle cures.
A miracle cure is a cure that, if we disregard the outright-bullshit varieties, should not work, but (allegedly) does. When a cure is expected to work (though not necessarily universally, but in a large enough sample for statistical significance) then it's just a cure - no modifiers necessary.
Quotemagic mushroom
This, on the other hand, is an example of a metaphor. The very mundane muggle-shrooms are, in fact, hallucinogenic., and so their effects can be perceived as "magical."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8583800/
If religious experience was not based on drugs, I cannot think what it is based on.
Big health problems in those days.
The word Christ is a almost certainly a code word for a substance that can provide pain relief.
Read John Allegro.
Christ Buddha, Chrishna, Yeshua Christ examples that spread down the old trading routes from far east to near east.
There never was just one buddha or one Christ.
Plenty of shamans who made a living, just like witch doctors.
In most cases the patient recovers naturally, then the witch doctors get the credit.
Quote from: zorkan on November 13, 2023, 03:14:43 PMhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8583800/
Interesting paper, thank you (link to full text (https://wiki.dmt-nexus.me/w/images/9/97/Psychedelic_mushrooms_in_buddhist_tradition.pdf)). However, it does not provide any evidence that Buddha "dealt in soma." While use of
soma is an ancient practice preceding Buddha by centuries if not well over a thousand years, I have not encountered any indication that he had anything to do with it. What you've brought is a paper describing later Buddhists who had a likely syncretic involvement with it. From the paper:
QuoteNo direct connection of any psychedelic mushroom to any Buddhist tradition has yet been demonstrated, but I present evidence here which shows that in a Buddhist alchemical tradition, probably a continuation of the Vedic soma use, Amanita muscaria was taken under certain conditions to achieve enlightenment.
Quote from: Asmodean on November 10, 2023, 03:01:58 PM:this: Listen to the roo-loving* upside-down man in the stolen royal hat. :smilenod:
Evolution is a process, not a miracle.
*...In soup, not in Biblical sense. Or... Wait, it's Puds. Does he even appreciate roo soup? What if he doesn't even like roos? would that automatically invalidate the wisdom of suing proper definitions? Somehow, it feels like it must.
There be philosophy to be done, and The Asmo shall be done doin' it. :smilenod:
Point is, if it can be explained a tenth as well as evolution, then it has loooong since ceased to be a miracle - except with far more Os.
As the alternate roo-loving upside-down man, albeit sans stolen royal hat, I must say that I, for one, actually do like roos and even roo soup. In fact, I have even made roo soup, roo tail soup to be precise. It was delicious!
Returning you now to normal service...
Yes, you see, Nose over yonder, he's the proper upside-down gentleman. He hath partaken of the great roo and approved of it. :smilenod:
A bit of wild speculation, but most science is either speculation or plagiarism.
The universe is the biggest mystery and how and why it was created and why it is fine tuned for life is what keeps philosophers and scientists awake during the night.
Suppose it was created in another dimension by artificial intelligence for the purpose of making a mirror universe to hold its universe together.
Not a new idea I know, but any software has bugs to begin, and we might expect even AI to have some.
The resulting chaos eventually forms molecules which makes life possible given enough time.
The planet we live on is in a goldilock's zone where life started about 4 billion years ago.
It is believed that Homo sapiens nearly died out at one point with a population of only a few thousand.
So the Catholic idea about evolution being guided by god has to be bullshit.
Then our world is nothing more than a biological and geological junk yard.
Based on an idea by Peter Atkins in On Being.
Quote from: zorkan on November 16, 2023, 11:26:25 AMbut most science is either speculation or plagiarism.
What?!
I demand receipts or a proper scope of "most."
QuoteThe universe is the biggest mystery and how and why it was created and why it is fine tuned for life is what keeps philosophers and scientists awake during the night.
Is the universe fine-tuned for life (As in, it was tuned with the end-goal being a hostile-as-hell environment with an occasional dust mote upon which life may find purchase) or does life exist in it merely because the conditions on at least one such mote among bajillions are such that it might?
May completely different life exist under completely different conditions?
My point is; I see your philosophical mysteries and raise you my own.
QuoteSuppose it was created in another dimension by artificial intelligence for the purpose of making a mirror universe to hold its universe together.
Not a new idea I know, but any software has bugs to begin, and we might expect even AI to have some.
The resulting chaos eventually forms molecules which makes life possible given enough time.
Nah. Assumes a controlled system. How would you justify that assumption?
QuoteThe planet we live on is in a goldilock's zone where life started about 4 billion years ago.
It is believed that Homo sapiens nearly died out at one point with a population of only a few thousand.
So the Catholic idea about evolution being guided by god has to be bullshit.
Then our world is nothing more than a biological and geological junk yard.
Based on an idea by Peter Atkins in On Being.
"Biological junk yard" is... A layman's guide to creating misunderstanding. What do you mean by "junk," for instance?
Yes, Earth is in the habitable zone, but let us not forget that the orbits of two other planets and one large moon are also within that same zone. Where are the Venutians? The answer in its simplest form is that within certain limits, the "right" distance from the star for what we call life depends on a multitude of factors besides actual distance. Atmospheric composition, thickness and chemistry, shape and stability of orbit, and a "living" magnetic core and plate tectonics to name but a few. I'm not sure about Venus, but it's been theorised that before its core solidified enough, Mars had a denser atmosphere, a water cycle and a warmer climate. Could Mars too have spawned life? (Low Nitrogen content would speak against it, still it's interesting to speculate)
It is quite possible some sort of intelligence had a hand in the universe.
What caused the very brief period of inflation which it is theorised triggered the universe.
Did it just happen on its own?
Is the universe all there is and all there ever has been?
Does it have purpose and meaning, or none?
I don't even know what the universe is, or its shape, or whether it's finite or infinite.
Best answer I know its purpose is to transition muons into electrons, and we are along for the ride to help with entropy.
If it does have an artificial design then the religious are worshipping a machine.
I think Atkins knows a thing or two.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Being-scientists-exploration-questions-existence/dp/0199660549
Just one of his books.
Quote from: zorkan on November 16, 2023, 02:37:08 PMIt is quite possible some sort of intelligence had a hand in the universe.
I may tenuously agree with you on this if you drop the word "quite."
QuoteWhat caused the very brief period of inflation which it is theorised triggered the universe.
We don't know, but then there is nothing pointing towards it being anything we would consider intelligent.
I'm familiar with the hypothesis which describes the expansion of space (Consider space as the sum of the fields necessary for energy/matter) driven by some sort of repelling force, which decreased in magnitude with distance (not too unlike how gravity or volume of sound does) thereby slowing the expansion.
Is it accurate, especially in my layman interpretation? Probably not. Is it a more adequate world model than "aliens did it?" Absolutely.
QuoteIs the universe all there is and all there ever has been?
There might be a multiverse. However, for all we are likely to know based on the current models of reality, to us, the answer may as well be "yes," much by the same token as "Is Milkomeda all there is" could be thusly answered by a hypothetical civilization living at a time when the nearest galaxy from their own is speeding away from them at or above above the speed of light.
QuoteDoes it have purpose and meaning, or none?
That is, quite simply, up to you. I may or may not share in your assignment of meaning and purpose, but that is neither here nor there. For instance, you may think that the purpose of a hammer is to drive nails. I may think that its purpose is to cave in helmets on a medieval battlefield. The dude who made the hammer may think that it's for hammering iron at the forge. A philosopher may think it's for all or none of the above. Doesn't matter.
In my opinion, If you use it for something, it has a purpose. You
are using the universe for something.
QuoteI don't even know what the universe is, or its shape, or whether it's finite or infinite.
Best answer I know its purpose is to transition muons into electrons, and we are along for the ride to help with entropy.
Assuming that something other than space is outside space, is the outward shape of space even a valid parameter?
That said, I'll disagree with you there. Particle physics is not the puirpose, but a
property of the universe, much like "heavy" is the
property of a hammer, while driving nails or splitting skulls is the purpose to which said property is applied
by the user.As for entropy, if we have the right of it, it increases because statistically or on a large enough scale, it
must. It's "simply" a matter of there being infinitely more disordered states of matter and energy than there are ordered ones. If anything, we resist it for a few decades by adding energy to the system in order to reorder the disorderly.
QuoteIf it does have an artificial design then the religious are worshipping a machine.
A bit of a stretch, unless using a very specific definition of "machine."
QuoteWe don't know, but then there is nothing pointing towards it being anything we would consider intelligent.
Where Dawkins gets it hopelessly wrong is when he says god must be even more complex than his creation.
Stephen Wolfram would contradict this idea. Seth Lloyd might also.
QuoteA bit of a stretch, unless using a very specific definition of "machine."
A computational machine could work off binary leading to ever greater complexity.
I doubt if a spirit in the sky would work off binary but a type of computer could.
Quote from: zorkan on November 19, 2023, 04:58:55 PMWhere Dawkins gets it hopelessly wrong is when he says god must be even more complex than his creation.
Stephen Wolfram would contradict this idea. Seth Lloyd might also.
I have two issues with this. One is that to the best of my knowledge, what prof. Dawkins proposed is that a god would add a level of complexity to the equation
that would require explaining. It would.
The other issue is, "well, so what?" I did not make an argument for the professor, nor did I attribute it to him. Your counter-argument does not use Dawkins' body of work to address mine - what does it have to do with him then?
QuoteA computational machine could work off binary leading to ever greater complexity.
I doubt if a spirit in the sky would work off binary but a type of computer could.
An analogue computer like your brain, or a digital one like your iPhone? What are the causes of its existence? Or, asked another way, what are the reasons it
must exist in a compelling model of reality?
A compelling argument for the non-existence of god has to be that he would have to have control over all the particles in the universe.
Another would surely be why does order produce chaos.
A compelling argument for non-existence of god is that a god is not necessary to model a functioning universe. (As in, why assume an irrelevant god?)
"Order" "producing" "chaos" is a dreadful way of addressing entropy, but if you must, it does so because in a dynamic system, there are infinitely more disordered states than there are ordered ones. I'll give you an example; how many combinations of eight button presses on your PC keyboard result in exactly one valid eight-letter word? Now, how many combinations result in something else?
Without added energy, a closed system will eventually decay as its individual components change state. You can think of it, in a way, like the abovementioned eight-letter words gradually incurring spelling errors that compound over time.
Pantheon
pantheon
Panthoen
Pantohen
aPntohen
aPnthoen
Spnohten
,snothEn
Entropy. It's reversible - even auto-reversible at times, but in the long run, the house always wins by virtue of sample sizes and statistics, rather than "beating" every individual player's every hand.
The second law of thermodynamics, as presented by The Asmo, ladies and gentlemen. If any physicists reading this feel like yelling loudly at Him, please do - He will appreciate any correction or clarification.
If it makes you happier I'll revise order produces chaos to ask why god should want to destroy hos own creation by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, the supreme law of the universe.
A destroyer god would make more sense than a creator god.
That is indeed a valid question. If indeed the Universe is on its merry way to heat death, and it already being as hostile a place to us squishy, heat-and-water-loving things as it is, how could one reconcile it with the idea of a good or a just creator? for that matter, how would one go about reconciling that with an intelligent creator?
I suppose the answer is them good old "mysterious ways." A non-answer, if you think about it, but a popular enough one.
Remember that god drowned every man, woman and child in the flood, apart from Noah and his family and a breeding pair of all land animals.
So he had a bit form. Maybe he didn't like his wider creation, but that was going to take longer to destroy.
God does indeed work in mysterious ways, and there are only things that god knows.
To that I'd argue god is a not perfect, then.
Ah, yes, the flood! There "was" a lot of incest on and around that boat. :smilenod:
Quote from: Tank on November 11, 2023, 05:14:23 PMThere is no such thing as a natural miracle. A miracle is by definition supernatural. It's use in a natural context is misuse of the word.
Re-reading the opening chapter of The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being: Evolution and the Making of Us by Prof. Alice Roberts, I found where I had read the term natural miracle.
Apart from being a famous biologist and anthropologist she is also the former president of the British Humanists.
Quote from: zorkan on November 26, 2023, 12:37:00 PMQuote from: Tank on November 11, 2023, 05:14:23 PMThere is no such thing as a natural miracle. A miracle is by definition supernatural. It's use in a natural context is misuse of the word.
Re-reading the opening chapter of The Incredible Unlikeliness of Being: Evolution and the Making of Us by Prof. Alice Roberts, I found where I had read the term natural miracle.
Apart from being a famous biologist and anthropologist she is also the former president of the British Humanists.
Yes I know her. Still doesn't mean she's right. And appeals to authority hold no weight here. :)
But have you read the book?
The first chapter takes my breath away.
I don't like authority either.
If someone says I am right and you are wrong, I turn my back.
It's not a matter of antiauthoritarianism - just that an argument of "Well, this here smart person *point* thinks so" is unpersuasive.
Look at it this way; Let's say I approve of Brexit while Tank can't stand it. (By the way, this is an example. Actual opinions may vary and are not that relevant to this discussion) Is the validity (as opposed to quality or eloquence) of our arguments for and against it dependent on our respective IQs? What happens when two for all intents and purposes equally "smart" people come to mutuially-exclusive conclusions about the same issue, based on the same data?
"Yes, but Einstein/Jesus/my mother said so!"
Well, so what? They may think that their conclusions are accurate, as may you - but what does that mean to me?
What I would like, is something akin to this, for instance, "Einstein thought that Newtonian mechanics were inaccurate/incomplete because they would not organically conform to explaining and sufficiently predicting the motion of certain celestial objects. I agree with that line of thinking because Mercury."
Now we can discuss whether or not you have a point, using Einstein's body of work as reference. Otherwise, you need not have invoked his name at all, except perhaps to credit him for what you "copy/paste" into your argument.
EDIT: revised a little for clarity between citing sources and arguments from authority.
I like the football crowd analogy.
Ask each individual to write down what they saw after the game and you are going to get any number of different accounts.
Might be able to explain this by reference to Einstein's famous theory.
So who do you trust? No one.
There is no authority.
Can you even describe what that life form is? You can't.
You can only label it as a human, a cat, or whatever your language allows.
You can conclude it's an arrangement of atoms done in a certain way which is successful in surviving its environment.
But why?