Atheist "Logic": ET Life is Superstitious and Unreasonable

[Whitney]

Just as there is no direct proof of ET life there is no direct proof of multiverse being true.  Why do you have such high standards for one hypothesis and not the other?  Not to mention that you seem very certain that multiverse is true while others in this thread have simply stated that ET is very probable given what we know about how life started and conditions elsewhere in the universe.

[LoneMateria]

There's no proof that God can't be scientifically tested. What if we can get God to show himself or do something in the lab by performing an arcane ritual? What if we can experimentally detect the dimension that God lives in?

I'm going to disagree with you here.  God can be scientifically tested because when you say God you give him traits that are testable.  Like an all loving god who can cure the sick.  Lets see are there sick people ... yes ... hmmm.  Is able to break the laws of physics ... hmm... haven't seen that done yet.  Let's see if something exists within our reality and/or has any influence in it whatsoever like a God would then the effects of said influence will be testable.  When we test those conditions we don't see a God.  So people are left with a few choices.  1: is to cop out and make up an excuse ... a.k.a. apologetics.  2: Is to remove those traits from that being which, in the end, leaves a being not worthy of the title God.  3: Accept the God hypothesis is incorrect.  And i'm sure there are some i'm not thinking of.

Now to answer your questions if God were to show himself under lab conditions then great we'd no longer be atheists.  But either because it doesn't exist or it doesn't want to it hasn't shown up under said lab conditions and we are still atheists.

Of course, we can do none of these things now, just like we can't test for ET life now. Therefore, I'll put both of these things into the area of silly superstition.

Care to back up your assertion?  What makes you think we can't test for ET life now?

1) Einstein-Rosen bridge.
2) String theory.
3) Bubble universe theory.
4) Many-worlds hypothesis.
5) etc. etc. etc.

Oh so you are backing up your opinion with untestable hypotheses?  I see.  

false dichotomy

Sure, but I consider any alternatives that atheists could provide to most likely be retarded and/or non-scientific. For example, there's the third non-explanation: I have no fucking idea, and refuse to admit that anything is fine-tuned. I've even seen some atheist morons say that they see no reason for why a universe or the big bang coming out of virtual nothingness couldn't happen, as if accepting these non-sequiturs makes them look open-minded. With these kinds of standards, anything is a false dichotomy.

I'd love to hear what you think started the big bang. Maybe you think that since the big bang is the limit of our knowledge that therefore nothing before it happened, and it just started itself?

Oh so I see, you use a logical fallacy then because it made your point you don't care you made the fallacy ... it is somehow still valid.  What a joke.  I didn't read the rest of your post since it is more then likely filled with more garbage.  These opinions of yours are intangible and are colored by your own bigotry toward atheists.  They have no basis in reality and are teeming with fallacies.  For future reference when you argue a point you need to strive for no fallacies and to have your opinion supported by evidence and reason ... not intangible hypotheses.

[Recusant]

Hi Aedus.  Let me just say that I, for one, appreciate the fact that you returned to continue your conversations here.  Now if you can just keep your fingers moving in a relatively civil manner, I look forward to reading more posts from you.  I think that if nothing else, you may sharpen your debating skills (as opposed to useless invective rhetoric) on our rough hides.

 

I've even seen some atheist [[strike:3ugyyjg8]morons[/strike:3ugyyjg8]] say that they see no reason for why a universe or the big bang coming out of virtual nothingness couldn't happen, as if accepting these non-sequiturs makes them look open-minded.

You see how easy that was?  I admit, I found your jejune use of insulting epithets amusing at first, but it quickly palls.  If you have a strong, well reasoned argument to make, then vituperation actually detracts from it's effectiveness by making you sound like a child throwing a tantrum.

You might enjoy watching the video I linked to in this thread.  Dr. Krauss is far from a moron.

[SSY]

I figured this is as good a place as any to post this:

MARS methane must be created by geologic or chemical processes, or it is a by-product of microbial life http://tinyurl.com/yf78bk4

I think I'll go with geologic processes, since there is no evidence for life on Mars.

They are real material beings that can leave behind real evidence and we can make a hypothesis of what kind of evidence they might leave behind based on Earth life. We can also make a hypothesis on what kind of planet might suit alien life by knowing that all life we know needs water to survive (some more than others).  We have a general idea of how many planets exist and are finding planets which scientists think might be earth-like.  So we have tons of information that can be used to test the alien hypothesis and determine the probability of it existing.  So, unlike God, the existence of aliens (not little green men from mars BS, just organisms on a different planet) is a scientific question. Scientists shouldn't even be trying to answer the question of god from a scientific point of view because there is no way to run tests to determine if god exists...they can think of god philosophically all they want when they take off the lab coat.

There's no proof that God can't be scientifically tested. What if we can get God to show himself or do something in the lab by performing an arcane ritual? What if we can experimentally detect the dimension that God lives in?

Of course, we can do none of these things now, just like we can't test for ET life now. Therefore, I'll put both of these things into the area of silly superstition.

Which equations, no copping out here, name the equations, and then tell us all how they predict a multiverse, go on, do it.

1) Einstein-Rosen bridge.
2) String theory.
3) Bubble universe theory.
4) Many-worlds hypothesis.
5) etc. etc. etc.

Great, you wrote down the names of some theories, now all you have to do is tell us how they predict multiple universe, and the evidence for them. When you said most accurate equations known to man, i thought you might be so good as to give the actual equations, and then explain how they are so accurate. Writing down the names of some theories you do not understand does not constitute evidence, massive cop out.

Multiverses are predicted everywhere but forbidden nowhere. I subscribe to the idea of a multiverse in general because of this and the fact that the big bang couldn't have started itself - it makes sense for a multiverse to be eternal, and periodically create big bangs, but it makes no sense for just this universe itself to be eternal. By "subscribe" I mean I think that they're highly likely, such that the best answer to whether they exist or not would be "yes". How does it make sense for a multiverse to be eternal? do you have any evidence to back up these ideas? How do you know the big bang could not have started itself? Assuming Cause and effect is valid at the first instant in the universe is a pretty big assumption

I subscribe to higher dimensions for example because they're the best shot at unifying the forces. The laws of physics are simplified in higher dimensions and take on a higher symmetry. If you write down a super metric tensor, you get Einstein's theory of gravity, the Yang-Mills and Maxwell fields, and others. That's why this is the subject of intense research in theoretical physics.Why are they the best shot at unifying forces? Have you checked out the other theories that try to do this? Who says the Forces have to be unified?

You want me to provide your evidence? If you don't have the evidence, then what have you been basing your arguments on up until now? The traditional way in which to think is to look at evidence before coming to conclusions.

That would be because I thought we were discussing something that was supposed to be common knowledge in theoretical physics. However, if you're so anal about articles because "you're a real scientist" (lol), then look for "Multiverse understanding of cosmological coincidences" by Bousso, or "Evidence for the multiverse in the standard model and beyond" by Hall, LJ.Guess what, the common knowledge amongst theoretical physicists is that there is no proof of the multiverse, sorry I had to be the one to tell you. I take it you read those two papers yes? What about it do you find so convincing? Of course you already know this, but simply observing something as very unlikely does not mean we live in a multiverse.

Other things that have no experimental verification include pixies and jesus

And ET life.Well done, we both agree there is no verification that ET life does exist

false dichotomy

Sure, but I consider any alternatives that atheists could provide to most likely be retarded and/or non-scientific. For example, there's the third non-explanation: I have no fucking idea, and refuse to admit that anything is fine-tuned. I've even seen some atheist morons say that they see no reason for why a universe or the big bang coming out of virtual nothingness couldn't happen, as if accepting these non-sequiturs makes them look open-minded. With these kinds of standards, anything is a false dichotomy.Guess what, when you do not know something, the only think you can say is "I don't know", making up answers is what theists do.

I'd love to hear what you think started the big bang. Maybe you think that since the big bang is the limit of our knowledge that therefore nothing before it happened, and it just started itself?I have no idea what caused it, I accept the possibility it started itself, as I said before, I do not assume the regime of cause and effect was in place during the first instant of the universe, I am more than comfortable saying I do not know things

YOU CAN READ MY MIND???? Except of course, people like me would not waste money on wild fanciful research that has no basis in fact, so far you have gievn no evidence as to why the theories you subscribe to are better than his mighty noodly appendage

It's too bad that research in exactly these things that were considered "impossible" or "not based on fact" have opened up completely new vistas for humans. Do you know how new ideas get accepted in science? I'll give you a hint: it's not because close-minded people or old people suddenly accept new theories. What happens is they die out and a new generation of open-minded physicists come to adopt an idea, and then progress is made. Close-minded people are only an obstacle to human progress; in my book they're right down there with bigoted theist scum.  No physicist worth his salt would accept an idea without evidence

But hey, I guess you think that theoretical physicists aren't real scientists then, and all their funding should be canceled. Despite the fact that higher dimensions for example are our last hope of unifying the physical forces, you admitted that you wouldn't fund this. I'm glad the decision is not up to you. Again, your bizarre and otherworldly criteria for evaluating things that aren't immediately tangible confounds me. I've presented a bunch of evidence/reasoning, which is itself embarrassing because I thought we were discussing things that were common subjects in theoretical physics. Since your position basically boils down to "I don't believe in anything I can't see, except ET life," I believe our conversation is done, yes?

Last hope? Citation on that? I know, demanding something be measurable before I allot millions of pounds to try and measure it is somewhat weird isn't it? Also, please, please learn to read, I accept only the possibility of ET life, I think there may well be some out there, but i would not say "there IS ET life", because we have no evidence for that fact. I also accept there may be a multiverse, but I really doubt we would ever be able to prove the fact one way or another. As far as i can see or conversation has not gotten anywhere, so there is still a long way to go.

I would be interested to know if you believe in the possibility of god, or if you believe in the possibility of ET life, from the side you are arguing, it would seem like you are trying to say you cannot have one with out the other. Please tell us whether you do, this would be most interesting to me.

[Aedus]

Great, you wrote down the names of some theories, now all you have to do is tell us how they predict multiple universe

Uhm, how about you do it yourself? It seems that I'm the only one gathering any evidence in this thread while you're content to perch and say "nope, not good enough for me". It'd be nice if you provided evidence for...well, anything you've said during the duration of this thread. That'd be a welcome change. :crazy:

Oh so I see, you use a logical fallacy then because it made your point you don't care you made the fallacy ... it is somehow still valid.  What a joke.  I didn't read the rest of your post since it is more then likely filled with more garbage.  These opinions of yours are intangible and are colored by your own bigotry toward atheists.  They have no basis in reality and are teeming with fallacies.  For future reference when you argue a point you need to strive for no fallacies and to have your opinion supported by evidence and reason ... not intangible hypotheses.

Actually, the problem is that you're not intelligent enough to understand  my point. Yes, it's technically a false dichotomy, but the point is that the other options are tantamount to rampant bullshit and can be discarded by anyone with half a brain.

Just as there is no direct proof of ET life there is no direct proof of multiverse being true.  Why do you have such high standards for one hypothesis and not the other?  Not to mention that you seem very certain that multiverse is true while others in this thread have simply stated that ET is very probable given what we know about how life started and conditions elsewhere in the universe.

1) I don't actually think that ET life doesn't exist or is unlikely to exist.
2) I've already said there's no experimental verification for a multiverse. Does a multiverse exist? In my opinion it probably does. I never claimed to be sold on any of the details though.

The great thing about not subscribing to the atheist dogma of "if you can't see it, it doesn't exist" is that you can adapt your beliefs to what's reasonable, instead of just staying away from anything that's unknown.

[Whitney]

Actually, the problem is that you're not intelligent enough to understand  my point.

I said one more slip up and you are gone, well, good riddance.  If you think you can be more mature in 6 months you can continue the discussion at that time.

[LoneMateria]

I was gonna respond to the crap he said but ... too late.  Was just a matter of time TY Whitney.

Oh and if you are still able to read this Aedus I misread your post ... i was skimming through the garbage and I thought you said you can't show with current evidence there is a God.  Perhaps my post will make more sense now.

[Whitney]

Oh and if you are still able to read this Aedus

He can...guests can view most areas of the forum.