Happy Atheist Forum

So from what I can gather, atheists have chosen a position of denial or disbelief in God because there is no evidence for him. Atheism is a position based on lack of evidence, which I find stupid. How does this kind of thinking serve elsewhere? Take ET life for example: there is no evidence at all that it exists. Going by atheist logic, unless a borg cube holds orbit and destroys the white house then ET life is unreasonable & superstitious. I however, given the extremely vast number of planets and the fact that life has already formed, think it's quite likely that life is out there somewhere.

This also goes for theoretical physics. There is currently no evidence for string theory - but it explains the forces of the universe so elegantly that I think it's very likely to be true. All I can say is that I'm glad that not everyone thinks like atheists, else we'd still be living in caves & banging our heads against the wall.

Note: I neither believe in God nor actually think that ET life doesn't exist.

Quote from: "Aedus"So from what I can gather, atheists have chosen a position of denial or disbelief in God because there is no evidence for him. Atheism is a position based on lack of evidence, which I find stupid. How does this kind of thinking serve elsewhere? Take ET life for example: there is no evidence at all that it exists. Going by atheist logic, unless a borg cube holds orbit and destroys the white house then ET life is unreasonable & superstitious. I however, given the extremely vast number of planets and the fact that life has already formed, think it's quite likely that life is out there somewhere.

This also goes for theoretical physics. There is currently no evidence for string theory - but it explains the forces of the universe so elegantly that I think it's very likely to be true. All I can say is that I'm glad that not everyone thinks like atheists, else we'd still be living in caves & banging our heads against the wall.

Note: I neither believe in God nor actually think that ET life doesn't exist.

de-evolving into a troll now are you?  When it comes to ET's its AGNOSTICS are supposed to take that position not atheists.  After all agnostics claim you can't know.  Atheists take what evidence we have and come to a conclusion.  Many atheists think there is life out there (whether or not they visit us is a different matter) because of the numbers.  The universe contains 3 to 7 × 10^22 stars (30 to 70 sextillion stars) If the odds of life were one in a billion or a trillion there would still be tons of life in the Universe.  Though we don't know for certain what the exact odds there of life occurring, and even if the number was astronomically small there is still a statical chance for life in the universe.

Quote from: "Aedus"So from what I can gather, atheists have chosen a position of denial or disbelief in God because there is no evidence for him. Atheism is a position based on lack of evidence, which I find stupid. How does this kind of thinking serve elsewhere? Take ET life for example: there is no evidence at all that it exists. Going by atheist logic, unless a borg cube holds orbit and destroys the white house then ET life is unreasonable & superstitious. I however, given the extremely vast number of planets and the fact that life has already formed, think it's quite likely that life is out there somewhere.

This also goes for theoretical physics. There is currently no evidence for string theory - but it explains the forces of the universe so elegantly that I think it's very likely to be true. All I can say is that I'm glad that not everyone thinks like atheists, else we'd still be living in caves & banging our heads against the wall.

Note: I neither believe in God nor actually think that ET life doesn't exist.

You've already received a warning for your boorish behavior here. What you are now attempting to do is bait people on the forum with strawman arguments (i.e. the position of ALL atheists), in which you are also attempting to be as insulting as possible. What is your problem with discussion? There are ways to discuss opinions, beliefs, and to make arguments without resorting to childish behavior. We might as well paraphrase you and say that we believe that an argument based on name-calling and insults is stupid. Get it?

I personally find it interesting that you used such a poor analogy with Borg cubes, ETs, the Drake Equation, and String Theory (about which I seriously doubt you have any detailed clue).

You have been given opportunities to discuss this rationally and have chosen not to do so. Because of this, you now have a second official warning to change your behavior or be banned from the forum. And really, being banned isn't a badge of honor, as many trolls think it is. So we welcome you to discuss topics with respect and civil discourse, or you can take it elsewhere.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"When it comes to ET's its AGNOSTICS are supposed to take that position not atheists.  After all agnostics claim you can't know.

I've yet to see an agnostic who crusades against ET life, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy because there is a lack of evidence for them. Agnostics take no position on these issues.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Atheists take what evidence we have and come to a conclusion.

Which for ET life & God is none. But atheists only crusade against God's existence, not ET life.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Many atheists think there is life out there (whether or not they visit us is a different matter) because of the numbers.  The universe contains 3 to 7 × 10^22 stars (30 to 70 sextillion stars) If the odds of life were one in a billion or a trillion there would still be tons of life in the Universe.  Though we don't know for certain what the exact odds there of life occurring, and even if the number was astronomically small there is still a statical chance for life in the universe.

What is the statistical chance of God existing?  Even if the number was astronomically small there is still a statistical chance for God to exist. Your argument gets us nowhere.

QuoteWhat you are now attempting to do is bait people on the forum with strawman arguments (i.e. the position of ALL atheists)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
"Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence."

QuoteYou have been given opportunities to discuss this rationally and have chosen not to do so. Because of this, you now have a second official warning to change your behavior or be banned from the forum. And really, being banned isn't a badge of honor, as many trolls think it is. So we welcome you to discuss topics with respect and civil discourse, or you can take it elsewhere.

Fine, but I didn't directly insult anyone. Tell me, do you give out warnings for people who attack theism & theists on these boards? Or does that protection apply only to atheists?

QuoteI personally find it interesting that you used such a poor analogy with Borg cubes, ETs, the Drake Equation, and String Theory (about which I seriously doubt you have any detailed clue).

Personal attack. Or do you disagree with my statements about string theory?

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"When it comes to ET's its AGNOSTICS are supposed to take that position not atheists.  After all agnostics claim you can't know.

I've yet to see an agnostic who crusades against ET life, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy because there is a lack of evidence for them. Agnostics take no position on these issues.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Atheists take what evidence we have and come to a conclusion.

Which for ET life & God is none. But atheists only crusade against God's existence, not ET life.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Many atheists think there is life out there (whether or not they visit us is a different matter) because of the numbers.  The universe contains 3 to 7 × 10^22 stars (30 to 70 sextillion stars) If the odds of life were one in a billion or a trillion there would still be tons of life in the Universe.  Though we don't know for certain what the exact odds there of life occurring, and even if the number was astronomically small there is still a statical chance for life in the universe.

What is the statistical chance of God existing?  Even if the number was astronomically small there is still a statistical chance for God to exist. Your argument gets us nowhere.

QuoteWhat you are now attempting to do is bait people on the forum with strawman arguments (i.e. the position of ALL atheists)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism)
"Atheists tend to lean towards skepticism regarding supernatural claims, citing a lack of empirical evidence."

QuoteYou have been given opportunities to discuss this rationally and have chosen not to do so. Because of this, you now have a second official warning to change your behavior or be banned from the forum. And really, being banned isn't a badge of honor, as many trolls think it is. So we welcome you to discuss topics with respect and civil discourse, or you can take it elsewhere.

Fine, but I didn't directly insult anyone. Tell me, do you give out warnings for people who attack theism & theists on these boards? Or does that protection apply only to atheists?

QuoteI personally find it interesting that you used such a poor analogy with Borg cubes, ETs, the Drake Equation, and String Theory (about which I seriously doubt you have any detailed clue).

Personal attack. Or do you disagree with my statements about string theory?

Four replies to your three statements directed to me:

1. Your Wiki reference means nothing and does not directly address what I said, hence even more proof your are trying to misrepresent atheists' views.

2. Yes, you did attempt to directly insult everyone who does not agree with you. Attempt. And we give out warnings to everyone who fails to comply with the forum rules and the requests of the moderators and administrators. We've banned atheists, christians, white, black, brights, trolls, spammers, agnostics...doesn't matter. And you have been given quite a bit of leniency to this point. Had you just stuck to something called good manners, you wouldn't be getting this message.

3. Don't know why you'd consider me telling you that you use poor analogies as a personal attack. You did, and it is not. My comment on String Theory is likely valid, given your general lack of meaningful discussion coming from you. I seriously doubt you have anything more than a basic understanding of String Theory. And I don't care, because if we were to try and discuss it, it would be useless anyway, since the top minds in cosmology have yet to form a consensus on it.

4. You are banned from the the forum for a period of one week, beginning in just a few minutes. Should you wish to return to the forum after that period, you are welcome to come back and participate as long as you maintain civil discourse, regardless of the topics discussed. Repeat offenses will simply result in a permanent ban from the forum.

Quote from: "Aedus"So from what I can gather, atheists have chosen a position of denial or disbelief in God because there is no evidence for him. Atheism is a position based on lack of evidence, which I find stupid.

Your opinion doesn't carry any weight with us yet, but calling us all stupid before building a very weak case is only going to lead us to the conclusion that you're not here to be a part of the community but rather simply to start trouble. That would be a waste of your time and ours.

Quote from: "Aedus"How does this kind of thinking serve elsewhere? Take ET life for example: there is no evidence at all that it exists. Going by atheist logic, unless a borg cube holds orbit and destroys the white house then ET life is unreasonable & superstitious. I however, given the extremely vast number of planets and the fact that life has already formed, think it's quite likely that life is out there somewhere.

When was the last time someone flew planes into buildings because they thought ET wanted them to? When was the last time someone went broke donating money to the church of ET? When was the last time that ET inspired a collective effort to attack evolution?

Quote from: "Aedus"I've yet to see an agnostic who crusades against ET life, Santa Claus, or the Tooth Fairy because there is a lack of evidence for them. Agnostics take no position on these issues.

False comparison, try again.

QuoteWhich for ET life & God is none. But atheists only crusade against God's existence, not ET life

First, the word "crusade is a poor choice".  Second, the ONLY commonality between atheists is a lack of belief in god(s).  Thirdly, not all atheists think there is no possibility of ET life.  There is no consensus amongst all atheists about anything else but the existence of god(s).

QuoteWhat is the statistical chance of God existing?  Even if the number was astronomically small there is still a statistical chance for God to exist. Your argument gets us nowhere

.

If you know anything about statistics, you'd know that you must have proper assumptions upon which to base the calculations.  These assumptions themselves have no support when attempting to estimate the probability of something like the existence of a deity as evidence by a paper in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society by Bartholomew (1988) *:

QuoteThe difference between a fallacious deductive proof and a plausible inductive argument which lends support to a hypothesis may not be easy to define in practice.  However, since a deductive proof can only make explicit what is already implicit in the axioms of the system it is difficult to see how the whole idea could have any place in relation to a being who encompasses all systems (pp.153)

QuoteFine, but I didn't directly insult anyone. Tell me, do you give out warnings for people who attack theism & theists on these boards? Or does that protection apply only to atheists?

The rules apply to all doucebags atheist or theist or anything else.  And yes, both theists and atheists have been banned.

* Bartholomew, D. (1988). Probability, statistics and theology.  Journal of Royal Statistical Society. Series A. (Statistics and Society), 151, 137-178.

The reason I, an atheist, do not believe in god, is the lack of evidence I have seen to indicate his existence. I do believe that ET life is very likely though. I base this belief on evidence.

The evidence is quite simple, we know life can form on planets, we know that there are many other planets, at other places in the universe, therefor, life could form out there in the universe, the matter of how much of it, and how likely it is etc etc are of course, completely different. Simple no? Feel free to reply when your ban is up.

http://speculativeevolution.wikia.com/w ... Scenario_I (http://speculativeevolution.wikia.com/wiki/ETI_Scenario_I)

Wow. It's like I can no longer contribute... the stuff that you guys are arguing about isn't absurd, it's not stupid or anything, but there's no longer any point of connection between that stuff and what I see.

...wow, I feel so lonely...  

Quote from: "Renegnicat"Wow. It's like I can no longer contribute... the stuff that you guys are arguing about isn't absurd, it's not stupid or anything, but there's no longer any point of connection between that stuff and what I see.

...wow, I feel so lonely...  

So...because you are a Buddhist it means you can't comment on if ET is superstition, likely, unlikely, confirmed etc? Hmm, doesn't sound like the Buddhists I know.

The OP, as written, isn't worth anyone's time spent.

It certainly seems less relevant, Whitney.  

Quote from: "Renegnicat"It certainly seems less relevant, Whitney.  

Ok...whatever.

Aww... I'm sorry. It's very relevant. Just not my cup of tea. Cheer up, please?  

Atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence of God.

Proof for aliens:
1. Life exists on Earth.
2. There are planets is space that are similar to Earth or could sustain some of Earth's life forms.
3. Life could exist on other planets.

Because there is evidence of life existing PERIOD, it is not unreasonable to believe an unknown life-form exists in an unknown place.

Quote from: "McQ"1. Your Wiki reference means nothing and does not directly address what I said, hence even more proof your are trying to misrepresent atheists' views.

Ok. Then I would love to hear your reasoning for having disbelief in God if it's not lack of evidence.

Quote from: "Will"When was the last time someone flew planes into buildings because they thought ET wanted them to? When was the last time someone went broke donating money to the church of ET? When was the last time that ET inspired a collective effort to attack evolution?

How about the 1938 War of the Worlds radio interpretation that caused mass panic?

Quote from: "Squid"Second, the ONLY commonality between atheists is a lack of belief in god(s).

Wrong, since nobody but atheists use the "lack of belief" definition and it's not defined that way in any dictionary.

QuoteThirdly, not all atheists think there is no possibility of ET life.

And not all atheists think there is no possibility for God either. Didn't Richard Dawkins say the possibility of God existing was like 99.8%?

QuoteIf you know anything about statistics, you'd know that you must have proper assumptions upon which to base the calculations.  These assumptions themselves have no support when attempting to estimate the probability of something like the existence of a deity as evidence by a paper in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society by Bartholomew (1988) *:

Perhaps atheists should have thought about that before they took a position of disbelief in God?

Quote from: "Ellainix"Atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence of God.

There is no scientific evidence for ET life either.

QuoteProof for aliens:
1. Life exists on Earth.
2. There are planets is space that are similar to Earth or could sustain some of Earth's life forms.
3. Life could exist on other planets.

QuoteProof for aliens:

Quote3. Life could exist on other planets.

QuoteProof

Quotecould exist

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg17.imageshack.us%2Fimg17%2F476%2F1244855030500.jpg&hash=b849995371c04b7f74e5aaefb2f20439da102be5)

could =/= does =/= proof

Quote from: "Ellainix"Because there is evidence of life existing PERIOD, it is not unreasonable to believe an unknown life-form exists in an unknown place.

Then is it unreasonable to believe an unknown all-powerful entity exists outside the universe just because entities exist PERIOD? It's a good thing that philosophers who thought they could accomplish something using only logic and no empirical evidence to back it up have become all but useless, to be replaced by scientists who use logic & evidence in unison.

Nobody has provided a shred of evidence for why ET life could exist. What, am I supposed to believe that little green men roam other planets just because there have been hundreds of movies and books on the subject? Get real.

Quote from: "Aedus"Nobody has provided a shred of evidence for why ET life could exist. What, am I supposed to believe that little green men roam other planets just because there have been hundreds of movies and books on the subject? Get real.

As far as I remember, no one in this thread mentioned little green men other than you.  Scientists (and anyone who isn't unhealthily obsessed with sci fi movies) suspect that our first encounter with ET will be in the form of a bacteria or something else very simple and small.  If you understand how scientists think life formed on Earth and also understand the size of the universe, it's not unreasonable to consider it probable that life formed elsewhere.  The issue would be someone knowing that life definitely exists on another planet because we haven't found it yet....I don't think anyone has claimed to know, some have just said they believe (there is a difference).

Aedus you are using poor arguments based on flawed assumptions of who atheists are again.  I see a banning did not drive an inkling of common sense into you.  Not only that but you did not learn a damn thing from your last experience here.  Your whole post is one giant facepalm you not only distort and misrepresent situations but you compound your errors with the smugness that only comes from enjoying the smell of your own farts.  

Your whole post is beyond ironic btw.  Aren't you a person who refuses to take a side until sufficient evidence is presented?  It's very hypocritical for you to take a side on this issue if thats the case.  In any case until you actually make a post with some substance that isn't laced with logical fallacies and personal opinion that you treat as facts i'm not going to waste my energy to type a message ... instead i'm only going to post this:

[youtube:20398x29]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc[/youtube:20398x29]

And I encourage everyone to do the same.

My 2cts. I don't give a shit about semantic discussions, because in 99.9% of all cases they are pointless, irrelevant and a waste of time. You could have endless discussions about word definitions, without reaching a common agreement about what the word exactly means. Since you are interested in little green men from outer space  :) ". With other words, this whole thread just seems to be an exercise in pointless futility.

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quote from: "Squid"Second, the ONLY commonality between atheists is a lack of belief in god(s).

Wrong, since nobody but atheists use the "lack of belief" definition and it's not defined that way in any dictionary.

That IS the only commonality.

Quote

QuoteThirdly, not all atheists think there is no possibility of ET life.

And not all atheists think there is no possibility for God either. Didn't Richard Dawkins say the possibility of God existing was like 99.8%?

And  here is your "tell"...there are two subcategories of atheism, most commonly divided into "strong/gnostic" and "weak/agnostic". I would prefer to utilize a continuum view rather than a static categorical view.  For instance, I see no significant evidence to warrant a belief in a diety/dieties and therefore reject that hypothesis.  This conclusion is tentative and may be amended with the presentation of new evidence.  Most would label me "weak/agnostic".  Some would say that's agnosticism, however, it is not as a conclusion has been made.

Quote

QuoteIf you know anything about statistics, you'd know that you must have proper assumptions upon which to base the calculations.  These assumptions themselves have no support when attempting to estimate the probability of something like the existence of a deity as evidence by a paper in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society by Bartholomew (1988) *:

Perhaps atheists should have thought about that before they took a position of disbelief in God?

Another dodge.  The distinction between belief in ET life and deities is fallacious, you don't seem to realize that.

LoneMateria - sorry, but "lalala I can't hear you" is not a valid debate tactic.

Quote from: "Squid"Another dodge.  The distinction between belief in ET life and deities is fallacious, you don't seem to realize that.

Prove it. As far as I'm concerned there is no definite assumptions for God nor ET life. The Drake equation for example relies on pure hypothesis/guess-work instead of basing probability on actual evidence. For all we know the probability of ET life as predicted by the Drake equation could be off by several orders of magnitude.

QuoteI don't give a shit about semantic discussions

Semantics is the basis of all of language, without which civilization would fall apart. Why not just get it over with and say "I don't give a shit about rational discussions"?

QuoteAny way, I'm not a kind of person, who loves to put labels on people or seeks hidden meanings behind words.

No, you just enjoy crusading against religion and avoiding any burden of proof by labeling yourself as something you're not. It must be lots of fun, I admit, but there are those of higher moral stature, such as myself, that are confident enough in their own beliefs with deriding others'.

Quote from: "Aedus"Nobody has provided a shred of evidence for why ET life could exist. What, am I supposed to believe that little green men roam other planets just because there have been hundreds of movies and books on the subject? Get real.

Ignore my post why don't you.

Quote

QuoteEllainix wrote:
Because there is evidence of life existing PERIOD, it is not unreasonable to believe an unknown life-form exists in an unknown place.

Then is it unreasonable to believe an unknown all-powerful entity exists outside the universe just because entities exist PERIOD? It's a good thing that philosophers who thought they could accomplish something using only logic and no empirical evidence to back it up have become all but useless, to be replaced by scientists who use logic & evidence in unison.

 "Then is it unreasonable to believe an unknown all-powerful entity exists outside the universe just because entities exist PERIOD?" Yes, it is wrong to believe this. The life thing is reasonable, because the laws of physics seem to be the same all over the universe, we know there are other planets in the universe, so it can be assumed that what can happen on this planet, can happen on other planets. Your assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe, and we don't know if anything all powerful can exist at all. This is just "coulds" now, actually moving from could, to is, is a whole different ball game. (Note in my case, I say life couldexist on other planets, not does)


 Just because lizards exist in America for instance, it is not reasonable to assume 1000 foot tall lizards that breathe fire and shoot lasers from their eyes exist on the moons of Jupiter.

Aedus, I'm not going to try and refute you. Not out of some strange debating tactic, but you seem to want to deride atheists. In fact, if I understand correctly, you seem to want to be saying that atheists are unreasonable, and that atheists are full of crap, etc etc.

I see no reason why I shouldn't let you have that victory. So, if, in the end, you want to say these things about atheists, and you want to be considered correct in saying them, go ahead. I would say it's a small price to pay, but it's really not a price to pay at all.  

Quote from: "SSY"Ignore my post why don't you.

That's because you apparently don't know what evidence is. But let's have at it:

Quote from: "SSY"The reason I, an atheist, do not believe in god, is the lack of evidence I have seen to indicate his existence. I do believe that ET life is very likely though. I base this belief on evidence.

The evidence is quite simple, we know life can form on planets, we know that there are many other planets, at other places in the universe, therefor, life could form out there in the universe, the matter of how much of it, and how likely it is etc etc are of course, completely different. Simple no? Feel free to reply when your ban is up.

The claim that "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists" would be considered a non-sequitur, not evidence. In a technical discussion such as this one, evidence is something that can be measured in a lab or observed. Since no such things exist for God or ET life, your "evidence" goes out the airlock.

Logic is not evidence. Logic alone will usually fail unless it's supported by empirical evidence. For example, Einstein once "proved" that black holes don't exist, which ended up being wrong. Or this one philosopher (can't remember his name) put forth the idea that it's impossible to cross a river since an infinite number of points exist between the two banks, and it's impossible to traverse an infinity.

Again, I require something more than vague rationalizations before I take your claim that ET life could exist seriously, such as real evidence. Again, until a borg cube holds orbit and destroys the white house your claims have about as much clout as any religion.

QuoteYes, it is wrong to believe this. The life thing is reasonable, because the laws of physics seem to be the same all over the universe, we know there are other planets in the universe, so it can be assumed that what can happen on this planet, can happen on other planets. Your assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe, and we don't know if anything all powerful can exist at all.

I didn't ask you which you thought was more likely.  Even if one option is seemingly less ridiculous than the other, they're still both ridiculous. By your standards, both ET life & God should be unreasonable since there's no evidence for either.

QuoteYour assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe

If we've been living under a rock and ignoring the latest scientific developments, then yes. It's common knowledge among physicists that parallel universes exist, and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is currently the subject of research. Here is the proof: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... the-m.html (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/09/n--one-of-the-m.html)

The laws of physics can work the same outside this universe as inside - therefore it's possible that life exists outside this universe. If you disagree then the burden of proof is on you.

QuoteThis is just "coulds" now, actually moving from could, to is, is a whole different ball game. (Note in my case, I say life couldexist on other planets, not does)

Ever heard of the phrase garbage in, garbage out? No matter how much more rational you think one option is compared to another, you still get a garbage conclusion when you start from a garbage premise i.e. god is likely to exist, or ET life is likely to exist.

To calculate the odds of whether something is likely to exist, you have to know for certain the assumptions that go into it, which nobody does for God or ET life, making both premises worse than useless. This is supposed to be common knowledge to anyone familiar with the Drake equation.

[youtube:3gqk1tyk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc[/youtube:3gqk1tyk]

rofl. It's amazing how butthurt some atheists get when their own beliefs come under the microscope instead of the other way around, and when they're forced to use their brains instead of spewing out standard atheist drivel.

I find that the main difference between dogmatic theists and dogmatic atheists is that the atheists aren't as blatant in their anti-science views.

So much wrong, I'll be in red today

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quote from: "SSY"Ignore my post why don't you.

That's because you apparently don't know what evidence is. But let's have at it:
Or becuase you seem intent on misrepresenting what I say

Quote from: "SSY"The reason I, an atheist, do not believe in god, is the lack of evidence I have seen to indicate his existence. I do believe that ET life is very likely though. I base this belief on evidence.

The evidence is quite simple, we know life can form on planets, we know that there are many other planets, at other places in the universe, therefor, life could form out there in the universe, the matter of how much of it, and how likely it is etc etc are of course, completely different. Simple no? Feel free to reply when your ban is up.

The claim that "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists" would be considered a non-sequitur, not evidence. In a technical discussion such as this one, evidence is something that can be measured in a lab or observed. Since no such things exist for God or ET life, your "evidence" goes out the airlock.
I never said "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists", I said life formed on this planet, therefor, life could form on other planets, reading comprehension might be difficult, but it really helps when trying to have a discussion, much more than constructing strawmen. For your information though, the evidence I observe, in a rather large lab, is that life exists on this planet, and planets exist elsewhere in the universe, the conclusion I draw from these facts, is that life could form on those other planets. I am a really nice guy, so am going to construct an argument that seems to be more on your level. There is fluff in my belly button, you have a belly button, therefor, there could be fluff in your belly button. If you ever finish being smug, get back to me on whether or not there is.


Logic is not evidence. Logic alone will usually fail unless it's supported by empirical evidence. For example, Einstein once "proved" that black holes don't exist, which ended up being wrong. Or this one philosopher (can't remember his name) put forth the idea that it's impossible to cross a river since an infinite number of points exist between the two banks, and it's impossible to traverse an infinity.

QuoteYes, it is wrong to believe this. The life thing is reasonable, because the laws of physics seem to be the same all over the universe, we know there are other planets in the universe, so it can be assumed that what can happen on this planet, can happen on other planets. Your assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe, and we don't know if anything all powerful can exist at all.

I didn't ask you which you thought was more likely.  Even if one option is seemingly less ridiculous than the other, they're still both ridiculous. By your standards, both ET life & God should be unreasonable since there's no evidence for either.

QuoteYour assumptions about an all powerful deity are unreasonable because we don't know if things can even exists outside the universe

If we've been living under a rock and ignoring the latest scientific developments, then yes. It's common knowledge among physicists that parallel universes exist, and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is currently the subject of research. Here is the proof: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... the-m.html (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/09/n--one-of-the-m.html)
One thing that never gets old, is people with no formal education in physics telling me how physics works. Just so you know, I speciallised in QM at undergrad, and am continuing to study it to a post graduate level. Now, your many worlds theory, is really an interpretation, with no evidence supporting it at all, not only that, there never could be any evidence supporting it, as universes, by definition, cannot interact with other universes. The article you linked to, shows the laughable, derisory standards of evidence you hold yourself to. With all your high minded talk of evidence in the previous paragraph, evidence in labs etc, I thought you would at least link to a paper about it, not just some fluff nonsense written on a pop science website. Even your website shows no evidence whatsoever, the only paragraph that pertains says that there is possibly, maybe a way of explaining a paradox, mathematically under this interpretation, not that this interpretation is real(no scientist worth his salt would ever try and present evidence for this theory btw). Please try harder, like harder than naming something you read about in a comic book once.


The laws of physics can work the same outside this universe as inside - therefore it's possible that life exists outside this universe. If you disagree then the burden of proof is on you.
They could indeed be the same, but we have no evidence to suggest that they could be, we know nothing about the outside of the universe (in as much as that term even makes sense), I made no claims about what was or what was not possible outside the universe, all I said was we don't know what it is like out there.

QuoteThis is just "coulds" now, actually moving from could, to is, is a whole different ball game. (Note in my case, I say life couldexist on other planets, not does)

Ever heard of the phrase garbage in, garbage out? No matter how much more rational you think one option is compared to another, you still get a garbage conclusion when you start from a garbage premise i.e. god is likely to exist, or ET life is likely to exist.
In drawing my conclusions abot ET life I used two premises, that life exists on this planet, and that other planets exist, which one of these premises do you have a problem with? If you are not saying anything about my argument in particular, and just filling the thread with basic logic theory, then thanks, but I can think of more appropriate people to school me on such matters.



To calculate the odds of whether something is likely to exist, you have to know for certain the assumptions that go into it, which nobody does for God or ET life, making both premises worse than useless. This is supposed to be common knowledge to anyone familiar with the Drake equation.
I never calculated the odds of ET Life existing, other than saying the chance was more than zero.

Excellent post SSY.  You are very civilized in this discussion where I don't have the patience and Aedus doesn't have the ability.  I think its personally hilarious that he has been banned once for being an ass and as soon as his ban was lifted he went right back to it.  Its okay because we all know Aedus is :

[youtube:6mv967lb]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3y3QoFnqZc[/youtube:6mv967lb]

on every subject he has talked about so far.  I guess he needs to be an ass to try and make up for his obvious lack of knowledge.

Aedus, what is the fascination with ET? You have been shown it is a bad analogy, yet continue to try to use it.

As for the possibility that life could exist elsewhere than Earth, you need only look at Earth to be assured of that evidence. Take this out of the Terra-centric viewpoint you are using. The universe exists, much larger than we imagined. Earth is in the universe. Life exists on Earth. Therefore, life can exist in the universe. Almost anywhere, at any time.

Done.

LoneMateria - unfortunately your guys' circle-jerking does not amuse me as much as it does you. Also, good work on adding nothing of value to the conversation. I guess you're butthurt because you really don't have anything of value to add.

QuoteI never said "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists", I said life formed on this planet, therefor, life could form on other planets, reading comprehension might be difficult, but it really helps when trying to have a discussion, much more than constructing strawmen. For your information though, the evidence I observe, in a rather large lab, is that life exists on this planet, and planets exist elsewhere in the universe, the conclusion I draw from these facts, is that life could form on those other planets. I am a really nice guy, so am going to construct an argument that seems to be more on your level.

There's no need to convince me; I think it is very likely that life exists on other planets. You should first convince yourself that you apply this same logic to God as you do to everything else.

QuoteThere is fluff in my belly button, you have a belly button, therefor, there could be fluff in your belly button. If you ever finish being smug, get back to me on whether or not there is.

I see no fluff in my belly button - another case of atheist logic being wrong yet again.

QuoteOne thing that never gets old, is people with no formal education in physics telling me how physics works. Just so you know, I speciallised in QM at undergrad, and am continuing to study it to a post graduate level. Now, your many worlds theory, is really an interpretation, with no evidence supporting it at all,

There is far more evidence than that - you're disputing a fact that is almost common knowledge in theoretical physics. I'm talking about info from the WMAP satellite or the fact that our universe itself was smaller than an electron during the big bang, combined with the uncertainty principle, pretty much forces the idea of parallel universes upon us. I'm surprised because all the atheist scientists out there are pushing for a multiverse so that our universe's fine-tuning can no longer be used as an argument for God.

Quotenot only that, there never could be any evidence supporting it, as universes, by definition, cannot interact with other universes.

This is simply retarded. Most of science is done indirectly. Just because we can't do something now doesn't mean we won't be able to, and your claim that unvierses can't interact with universes is based on nothing. Dark matter for example is exactly the kind of way that parallel universes might interact with ours. Gravity wave detectors are among one of the things that could potentially test for parallel universes in the future.

Again, I'm glad not everyone has the "if there's no 100% evidence for it, it doesn't exist" mentality.

Quote from: "McQ"Life exists on Earth. Therefore, life can exist in the universe.

This non-sequitur is not any more compelling now than the first time I heard it.

:up:

 

Quote from: "LoneMateria"...he [Aedus] has been banned once for being an ass and as soon as his ban was lifted he went right back to it.

I think that I can see a modification of Aedus' tactics, which I commend.  From where I sit, safely on the sidelines (please don't call me a coward, Aedus :rant: , but I've enjoyed his recent posts a bit more than the pre-time-out style.

QuoteProve it. As far as I'm concerned there is no definite assumptions for God nor ET life. The Drake equation for example relies on pure hypothesis/guess-work instead of basing probability on actual evidence. For all we know the probability of ET life as predicted by the Drake equation could be off by several orders of magnitude.

At what point did I say anything about definite assumptions?  I didn't, you did.  I also said nothing about the Drake equation.  You are still making the mistake of oversimplification with generalization - not all atheists are sold on the idea of there being or not being other life in the universe just as not all atheists staunchly proclaim absolutely that there is no possibility of a deity as evidenced by the paraphrase you posted from Dawkins.  There is no one unified "atheist ideal" on the subjects as you have implied, therein lies your problem.  The major difference I have been trying to get across to you is the conclusion.  You chose to say, "I don't/can't know".  I have chosen to say, "I currently see no compelling evidence to warrant support for the existence of a deity" - this is called a tentative conclusion which may be amended with the introduction of new evidence to the contrary of that conclusion - this is where such deduction becomes a correlate of scientific reasoning.

The problem is cosmologists first tried to make an educated guess at the probability of their being life on other planets based solely on how many planets are earth like. Yet, until an Abiogenesis theory or some other is proven right, we won't really know what else is required in order for life to begin or how common it would be. So, while if I had to guess I would say we are probably not alone (even if that means there is just some bacteria swimming in the water recently found on the moon) I don't claim to know... even as far as the likelihood of it goes. Technically that make me an "Agnostic" on the matter. Then again, being an Epistemological Nihilist, I'm agnostic on every matter.  

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quote from: "Ellainix"Atheists don't believe in God because there is no evidence of God.

There is no scientific evidence for ET life either.

QuoteProof for aliens:
1. Life exists on Earth.
2. There are planets is space that are similar to Earth or could sustain some of Earth's life forms.
3. Life could exist on other planets.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg17.imageshack.us%2Fimg17%2F476%2F1244855030500.jpg&hash=b849995371c04b7f74e5aaefb2f20439da102be5)

could =/= does =/= proof

Quote from: "Ellainix"Because there is evidence of life existing PERIOD, it is not unreasonable to believe an unknown life-form exists in an unknown place.

Then is it unreasonable to believe an unknown all-powerful entity exists outside the universe just because entities exist PERIOD? It's a good thing that philosophers who thought they could accomplish something using only logic and no empirical evidence to back it up have become all but useless, to be replaced by scientists who use logic & evidence in unison.

Nice straw man argument. My proof was to indicate that it is logically acceptable to believe or assume their existence, not that they actually existed. Although, I suppose you are right. No one has any evidence that three-headed albino shark demons don't exist, so you could suggest it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they exist and also that they can travel between dimensions and kill their children on crosses for humanity's right to live?

QuoteNobody has provided a shred of evidence for why ET life could exist. What, am I supposed to believe that little green men roam other planets just because there have been hundreds of movies and books on the subject? Get real.

Nobody has provided a shred of evidence for why God could exist. What, am I supposed to believe that little angels and demons roam other planes just because there have been hundreds of movies and books on the subject? Get real.

An even greater straw man argument.

I don't understand your point. We don't believe in God. Most of us probably don't care if aliens might or might not be real. It seems to me that you just finished Star Trek and Star Wars and thought to yourself I can't believe Atheists believe this stuff.

You don't understand my fundamental point. We can hypothesize the existence of life on other planets because we have studied life here on Earth. When you hypothesize the existence of God, you have nothing to base it on. You're just making stuff up or interpreting old books.

Blue

Quote from: "Aedus"LoneMateria - unfortunately your guys' circle-jerking does not amuse me as much as it does you. Also, good work on adding nothing of value to the conversation. I guess you're butthurt because you really don't have anything of value to add.

QuoteI never said "life exists on this planet, therefore ET life exists", I said life formed on this planet, therefor, life could form on other planets, reading comprehension might be difficult, but it really helps when trying to have a discussion, much more than constructing strawmen. For your information though, the evidence I observe, in a rather large lab, is that life exists on this planet, and planets exist elsewhere in the universe, the conclusion I draw from these facts, is that life could form on those other planets. I am a really nice guy, so am going to construct an argument that seems to be more on your level.

There's no need to convince me; I think it is very likely that life exists on other planets. You should first convince yourself that you apply this same logic to God as you do to everything else.
Great, construct an argument of this nature to show that god could exist, uses premises such as "we observe x, therefor x* could exist in the universe", I would be surprised if you managed this.

QuoteThere is fluff in my belly button, you have a belly button, therefor, there could be fluff in your belly button. If you ever finish being smug, get back to me on whether or not there is.

I see no fluff in my belly button - another case of atheist logic being wrong yet again.
I said "COULD", are you denying there could be fluff in your bellybutton?

QuoteOne thing that never gets old, is people with no formal education in physics telling me how physics works. Just so you know, I speciallised in QM at undergrad, and am continuing to study it to a post graduate level. Now, your many worlds theory, is really an interpretation, with no evidence supporting it at all,

There is far more evidence than that - you're disputing a fact that is almost common knowledge in theoretical physics. I'm talking about info from the WMAP satellite or the fact that our universe itself was smaller than an electron during the big bang, combined with the uncertainty principle, pretty much forces the idea of parallel universes upon us. I'm surprised because all the atheist scientists out there are pushing for a multiverse so that our universe's fine-tuning can no longer be used as an argument for God.
Great, now all you have to do is prove it, don't worry that the greatest minds in theoretical physics have not managed to do so, you obviously know something they do not.The WMAP shows the CMB is flat, and the universe was indeed very tiny at one time (by the way, an electron has no physical extension, if you wish to consider it a point particle with a definite position, then it would have zero size, the universe, to the best of our knowledge, has never been smaller than nothing.). You still have not said how tiny universe and a flat CMB create multi universes, Pro Tip, if you do figure it out, you will be getting a Nobel prize, please mention me in your speech

Quotenot only that, there never could be any evidence supporting it, as universes, by definition, cannot interact with other universes.

This is simply retarded. Most of science is done indirectly. Just because we can't do something now doesn't mean we won't be able to, and your claim that unvierses can't interact with universes is based on nothing. Dark matter for example is exactly the kind of way that parallel universes might interact with ours. Gravity wave detectors are among one of the things that could potentially test for parallel universes in the future.

Sigh, How can you measure something that does not interact with you in anyway? How do I know that something in another universe can not interact with us? From the definition of universe.

"The Universe comprises everything we perceive to physically exist, the entirety of space and time, all forms of matter and energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern them."

Please explain how we could interact with something that falls outside those criteria. I have already had the Multiverse debate on here with someone much more informed about it, you could look it up.


Again, I'm glad not everyone has the "if there's no 100% evidence for it, it doesn't exist" mentality.

Quote from: "McQ"Life exists on Earth. Therefore, life can exist in the universe.

This non-sequitur is not any more compelling now than the first time I heard it.

I am leaning towards trolling now, he seems to be deliberately ignoring what we say, substituting what he wants, then going off on a tirade. He is also, really bad at physics

Quote from: "SSY"I am leaning towards trolling now, he seems to be deliberately ignoring what we say, substituting what he wants, then going off on a tirade. He is also, really bad at physics

Thats why i gave up on actually taking time out to respond to him.  His posts are summed up by the youtube link I keep posting.  I agree with Recusant that Aedus has taken a small step or two to being less of an ass ... however he is still generalizing and trying to pass off opinion as truth and still ignores everything you say to the contrary of his personal opinion while being condescending toward the main users of this forum.

By the way SSY your posts on this subject are wonderful reading as is Squids.

:blush:  :blush:  :blush:  :blush:  :blush:  :blush:  :blush:  :blush:

LoneMysteria is trolling this thread - he should be warned/infracted.

QuoteMy proof was to indicate that it is logically acceptable to believe or assume their existence, not that they actually existed.

I don't disagree with that. I disagree that you apply this logic to God. You demand evidence for God, but your last two points of your "proof" have no evidence whatsoever.

QuoteAlthough, I suppose you are right. No one has any evidence that three-headed albino shark demons don't exist, so you could suggest it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they exist and also that they can travel between dimensions and kill their children on crosses for humanity's right to live?

Why don't you crusade against those sharks' existence? That's about as stupid as what all the atheists on this forum are doing now.

QuoteI am leaning towards trolling now, he seems to be deliberately ignoring what we say, substituting what he wants, then going off on a tirade.

The problem here is that you're not intelligent enough to understand my argument. You and the rest of the pseudo-intellectuals reading this thread think that you are accomplishing something by proving that it's logical that ET life can exist, when in reality you're just playing into my trap because:
1) There is still no evidence of ET life.
2) The entire point of my argument is that you don't apply this same kind of logical reasoning to God as to ET life.

Quote from: "SSY"Great, construct an argument of this nature to show that god could exist, uses premises such as "we observe x, therefor x* could exist in the universe", I would be surprised if you managed this.

We observe intelligent creators here in this universe, therefore an intelligent creator could exist outside this universe.

QuoteI said "COULD", are you denying there could be fluff in your bellybutton?

Apart from word games, you have no empirical evidence to support your claims. Theists can play word games too, but see how much clout I give to their arguments.

QuoteGreat, now all you have to do is prove it, don't worry that the greatest minds in theoretical physics have not managed to do so, you obviously know something they do not.

Other physicists research this topic and accept it as much as they do anything else that has extremely large amounts of indirect evidence, such as macroevolution. Ever heard of the phrase "Everything which is not forbidden, is compulsory"? Parallel universes are not forbidden anywhere, and are in fact predicted by many different theories. The fact that you're too close-minded and inflexible to accept new ideas is not a valid argument for why they don't exist.

Quote(by the way, an electron has no physical extension, if you wish to consider it a point particle with a definite position, then it would have zero size the universe, to the best of our knowledge, has never been smaller than nothing.)

ROFL!

Two things:
1) An electron with zero volume does not exist in reality. Point particles are idealized objects that make calculations in physics easier. A simple google search would have told you that Lorentz's prediction of the electron's radius is about 1/1000 of a Bohr radius. We haven't been able to measure far down enough to know the exact size of an electron - that does not mean it's zero. It's funny that when theists run into a gap in our knowledge they claim that "goddidit" but when atheists run into a gap in our knowledge they conclude that there is nothing else to be learned. Such narrowmindedness angers me. How are humans supposed to make any progress with this shitty attitude?
2) The universe, when it started inflating, did in fact have zero volume.

I find it ironic and hilarious that you accuse me of being bad at physics. Go back to school you bum.

QuoteYou still have not said how tiny universe and a flat CMB create multi universes, Pro Tip, if you do figure it out, you will be getting a Nobel prize, please mention me in your speech

Uhm, no, the info I'm talking about is the CMB cold spot. This is potential evidence. You're the one who requires 100% proof to believe in anything, not me.

QuoteYSigh, How can you measure something that does not interact with you in anyway? How do I know that something in another universe can not interact with us? From the definition of universe.

My bad for assuming that we were talking about the actual relevant definition of the universe, the one predicted by string theory or the many-worlds theory. In a technical debate, guess what, it just so happens that the technical definition applies! Try to muster up an actual argument instead of playing word games.

Again, just because we can't do something now doesn't mean we won't be able to. For example, it might be possible for physicists to ignite a baby-universe in the lab, given enough energy. Stop being so close-minded. I can't believe you majored in QM.

QuoteI have already had the Multiverse debate on here with someone much more informed about it, you could look it up.

Our conversation about this topic is over, as you've already proven your ignorance on this subject and I can't spot a difference between you and all those other atheists who know dick about science/cosmology, yet talk about it anyway. Also, it's taking the thread off-topic. I am not going to try to convince you that there is 100% evidence for parallel universes, because there's not. But it's almost as accepted by the scientific community as evolution, or any other theories based on indirect evidence. Parallel universes have been predicted for decades i.e. the Einstein-rosen bridge, string theory, or the many-worlds theory. Mathematically, it has been proven that these universes are possible.

Max Tegmark of MIT, who is, unlike you, an expert in this field, claimed that "The existence of such "parallel universes" will be no more controversial than the existence of other galaxies - then called "island universes" - was 100 years ago." Now, I'm not trying to appeal to authority here, but I almost feel like you've been ignoring all the latest developments in physics for the past 20 years. Again, stop being so narrow-minded.

Quote from: "Aedus"

QuoteAlthough, I suppose you are right. No one has any evidence that three-headed albino shark demons don't exist, so you could suggest it is perfectly reasonable to believe that they exist and also that they can travel between dimensions and kill their children on crosses for humanity's right to live?

Why don't you crusade against those sharks' existence? That's about as stupid as what all the atheists on this forum are doing now.

We don't crusade. You're the one who crusaded into our forum trying to convince us that we should believe in god because we believe in aliens. Actually, you kind of just came in here and assumed we believe in aliens. Nobody stepped up and said "I believe in aliens", that was your doing. This isn't a forum dedicated to people who have thoughts on alien life.

There is no evidence that aliens exist.
There is evidence that aliens could exist.
There is no evidence that gods exists.
There is no evidence that gods could exist.

Please tell me what is it about gods that make you think one might exist?

Quote2) The entire point of my argument is that you don't apply this same kind of logical reasoning to God as to ET life.

Hey, let me let you in on a secret. We don't treat these subjects the same because they are completely different.

Quote

Quote from: "SSY"Great, construct an argument of this nature to show that god could exist, uses premises such as "we observe x, therefor x* could exist in the universe", I would be surprised if you managed this.

We observe intelligent creators here in this universe, therefore an intelligent creator could exist outside this universe.

Right. Now identify the part where it is logical to assume that if these exo-universe intelligent creators exist, they are in any way gods.

Quote

QuoteI said "COULD", are you denying there could be fluff in your bellybutton?

Apart from word games, you have no empirical evidence to support your claims. Theists can play word games too, but see how much clout I give to their arguments.

Actually, there are mountains of evidence to suggest that "fluff" does in fact occur in the belly buttons of humans. For more on the scientific theory of naval lint, read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navel_lint).

Well, let us go round in another circle.

QuoteWe observe intelligent creators here in this universe, therefore an intelligent creator could exist outside this universe.

We have not observed places outside this universe, we have observed other planets in this universe, that is the difference.this is the important bit, since you seem to have given on multiple universes, you have an uphill battle to prove that places outside the universe exist. Once you have done this, you need to prove that things that exist in this universe, can exist outside it, wherte the laws of physics could be completley different, again, an uphill battle. I will understand if you try and weedle out of it, you have not made a strong enough argument for you to defend.

If by word games, you mean being correct, then yes, I am playing word games, if I wanted to say exists, i would have said that, not could exist.

QuoteOther physicists research this topic and accept it as much as they do anything else

Please name them, then link me to the papers that prove that multiple universes exist.

Quoteif you wish to consider it a point particle with a definite position

I said this because I know an electron is not a point particle, I said "if you wish to consider it a point particle", your reading skills must be hindered by the froth emmenating from your mouth. Also, we only know the universe down to about 10^-35 seconds after the big bang, at which point it had a non zero volume, as yet, no one has probed back further than this, they do not know that the universe had zero volume, a singularity is predicted by a lot of people, but the simple fact is, we have no proof that it ever was zero volume. You may also note, I said smaller than nothing, which is the not the same as zero volume, I in fact said that to highlight the incorrect statements in your post.

Please explain how the CMB cold spot is evidence for multiple universes.

The reason I do not use the definition of the universe predicted by those two theories is that they have no experimental verification. If you want to use the multiverse definition of the universe, to prove the multiverse, you may be consumed by a cloud of your own fail. Just because you read about some super awesome new theory in some sci-fi rag does not make it a fact. Even a string theorist will admit that their theory has no experimental verification., it does not make predictions we can measure. Peer reviewed journals are the places where real science takes place, that is where the serious debate goes on, relying on pop science publications for second hand knowledge, filtered through some journalist with a second rate understanding is not a good idea.

Your best friend is the unverified statement, like "But it's almost as accepted by the scientific community as evolution" which is frankly pifle, you have no evidence at all to back this up, you even admitted it has not got enough ( any ) evidence to prove it, then you go on to say scientists believe it anyway.

All Max needs now is some evidence for me to take him seriously.

Maybe ET seeded Earth with the building blocks for life and left us to it. I like that hypothesis far more than the invisible wizard who 'poofed' us all into existence over the course of seven days.

If we are talking about the proof thing, then sure, there is no real proof ET or the god of the bible exists. I prefer to go with logic though. Logic suggests that if we are alive on this planet then life should also exist somewhere else simply based upon the vast numbers of galaxies and stars out there.
As soon as someone starts to tell me that an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent, omnipresent super being who presides over us, judging us for every action and/or inaction before we are born, during our lives and after our death is REAL, then I have a hard time accepting that. Plainly on reasons of logic, this notion is utterly absurd.

Why would a deity have such weird tendencies anyway? Why would it give a shit about sex before marriage or abortion? Why does it seemingly display a completely messed up moral compass? So messed up that most people on this planet are actually moralistically purer than this so-called god of the bible. Surely something with the ability to create 'the heavens' from scratch would have a loftier ability to discern right from wrong. If it really gave a shit about us instead of hiding behind the veil of 'I work in mysterious ways' then we wouldn't see all of the crap in its name we do today, would we? So, god speaks to some people in their heads? He cares for them personally? Why, exactly? You don't need actual evidence to see the absurdity of this.

In reality, all the evidence points towards the bible having been written by humans a couple of hundred years after jebus was supposed to have been alive. There may not be any true evidence for the existence of ET but then there is no book saying they created us. People don't worship ET in the same way christians worship god. There aren't wars fought over who has the best invisible ET looking after them. People don't behead 'infidels' in the name of ET. There is no rule book or code of conduct supposedly created by ET on which we have to base our lives. The ET thing is simple - are we alone? There isn't a massively complicated code of conduct based upon it. It is really just a simple question.

You seem to have compared two things which aren't really comparable. I think your angst is misplaced.

Here (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/11/the-billionyear-technology-gap-could-one-exist-the-weekend-feature.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheDailyGalaxyNewsFromPlanetEarthBeyond+(The+Daily+Galaxy:+News+from+Planet+Earth+%26+Beyond)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher) is a link that might shed a little light on alien life and some possibilities of why we don't see it.

Quote from: "karadan"There may not be any true evidence for the existence of ET but then there is no book saying they created us. People don't worship ET in the same way christians worship god. There aren't wars fought over who has the best invisible ET looking after them. People don't behead 'infidels' in the name of ET. There is no rule book or code of conduct supposedly created by ET on which we have to base our lives. The ET thing is simple - are we alone? There isn't a massively complicated code of conduct based upon it. It is really just a simple question.

Right on.  I didn't get physically and emotionally abused in school for having parents that didn't believe in ETs.  I didn't get broken hands and ribs from a pack of fools doing ETs work.  I didn't get spat on (literally) by a person I thought was a friend because she found out I didn't believe in ETs.  My friend didn't lose her job when she was outed for not believing in ETs.  I didn't get "Die Not Believing in ET Cunt" scratched into my car.  My ex-husband didn't scream in my face about me being worthless because I didn't believe in ETs.  Dozens of people didn't contact me or comment on my editorials with threats of death and violence because I don't believe in ET.

ET believers aren't pounding through laws to take away human rights.  ET believers aren't refusing to get medical help for their dying children.  ET believers aren't kicking their homosexual teens out on the street.  In other parts of the world, ET believers aren't pouring acid into the mouths of children to exorcise evil ETs.  Thirteen year old girls getting raped in the Middle East aren't getting stoned to death for losing their virginity by ET believers.  Millions of women aren't kept as near property, hidden behind masks, and denied basic human rights by ET believers.

The ET question has zero effect on my life.  Since the number of zany ET believing zealots ready to kill, harass, oppress or legislate in ET's name is negligible I don't spare them a thought unless they make the news.  And then I simply shake my head and think, "What a bunch of nutjobs."

But, in case you hadn't noticed, we're surrounded by zany, God believing zealots ready to kill, harass, oppress or legislate in God's name.  As soon as the ET believers start screwing with people wholesale like God believers are doing, I'll start bitching about them, too.

My boyfriend refuses to publicly admit that he doesn't believe in gods because of that kind of stuff. Kylyssa's post really shows light to the real issue that is ignored in this thread.

Quote from: "Aedus"LoneMysteria is trolling this thread - he should be warned/infracted.

Leave the moderating to the mods.  We have a report feature which can be used if you feel the need to complain in the future...it is not appropriate to do so in thread.

QuoteWhy don't you crusade against those sharks' existence? That's about as stupid as what all the atheists on this forum are doing now.

QuoteThe problem here is that you're not intelligent enough to understand my argument. You and the rest of the pseudo-intellectuals reading this thread

QuoteI find it ironic and hilarious that you accuse me of being bad at physics. Go back to school you bum.

^If I see anything else like the above bolded parts I'm going to ban you Aedus and this time it will be a lot longer than a week.  So, it's your choice, either quit being so rude (ad homs) or get banned.

update, sound similar?

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=65540

Yeah, I put a post in the Moderator area that he is on Dawkin's doing the same thing. I forgot to mention it here in this thread. Good catch, SSY.

Quote from: "Ellainix"There is evidence that aliens could exist.

Let's hear it bro! I wish this evidence was presented alot earlier in the thread!  

Quote from: "SSY"update, sound similar?

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=65540

Is posting on other forums frowned upon too now?

Quote from: "SSY"We have not observed places outside this universe, we have observed other planets in this universe, that is the difference.

But we have not observed ET life, so your point is moot.

Quote from: "SSY"this is the important bit, since you seem to have given on multiple universes, you have an uphill battle to prove that places outside the universe exist. Once you have done this, you need to prove that things that exist in this universe, can exist outside it, wherte the laws of physics could be completley different, again, an uphill battle. I will understand if you try and weedle out of it, you have not made a strong enough argument for you to defend.

If by word games, you mean being correct, then yes, I am playing word games, if I wanted to say exists, i would have said that, not could exist.

Luckily I can play word games too. Let's say God is the universe. We have observed intelligent creators here on Earth, therefore an intelligent creator could exist in the universe (or be the universe).

QuotePlease name them, then link me to the papers that prove that multiple universes exist.

Sure, after you find me papers that show proof for ET life.

QuoteI said this because I know an electron is not a point particle, I said "if you wish to consider it a point particle", your reading skills must be hindered by the froth emmenating from your mouth

It's too bad that the electron being a point particle had nothing to do with anything I said. You discuss irrelevant things and then call me out for being confused by your nonsense.

QuoteThe reason I do not use the definition of the universe predicted by those two theories is that they have no experimental verification.

They have no experimental verification NOW. Projects like LISA, LIGO, and LHC will probably be able to test these things in the future. Take a guess as to why these projects which cost billions of dollars are being funded in the first place.

QuotePeer reviewed journals are the places where real science takes place, that is where the serious debate goes on

Good for you. Unfortunately I have no access to any databases at the moment - send me a link to a decent database and I'll find you articles.

Quote"But it's almost as accepted by the scientific community as evolution" which is frankly pifle, you have no evidence at all to back this up, you even admitted it has not got enough ( any ) evidence to prove it, then you go on to say scientists believe it anyway.

The obvious conclusion here was supposed to be that the multiverse is a theory, like macro-evolution. The difference is that scientists have not come to a full conclusion on it because many of the details are still unknown. Every cosmologist agrees that the universe is fine-tuned for life. This is evidence for either:
a) God.
b) the multiverse.

Take your pick. Personally I choose b, not minding the fact that the multiverse has been predicted by many of the most accurate equations known to man. Or the fact that it makes no sense for the big bang  to start itself. If you disagree that this is evidence, then you'd also disagree that there is evidence for macroevolution. For example, I could claim that fossils and homologous structures are merely evidence of similar animals. But we know that you're extremely selective and have bizarre and otherworldy criteria for evaluating things that aren't immediately tangible, so this conversation is hardly worth dragging on, is it?

People like you are interesting to me, because if you had it your way, there would be no research, no experimentation, you would only deal with what you could see, jack-shit would get accomplished, and all the scientists would pack up and retire. Also, I assume that you don't believe in higher dimensions either, correct?

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quote from: "Ellainix"There is evidence that aliens could exist.

Let's hear it bro! I wish this evidence was presented alot earlier in the thread!  

No, actually, this is stupid. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that aliens could exist. You came here with your stupid pseudo-logic god arguments, back your own point of view that they can't exist or shut up.

Quote from: "Ellainix"No, actually, this is stupid. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that aliens could exist. You came here with your stupid pseudo-logic god arguments, back your own point of view that they can't exist or shut up.

Ok, fine, aliens can exist. Scientists also think that God can exist too. However, there is no evidence for either God or aliens.

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quote from: "Ellainix"No, actually, this is stupid. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that aliens could exist. You came here with your stupid pseudo-logic god arguments, back your own point of view that they can't exist or shut up.

Ok, fine, aliens can exist. Scientists also think that God can exist too. However, there is no evidence for either God or aliens.

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.

When I'm feeling masochistic, I usually just whack my thumb with a hammer.  

Supernatural beliefs are not logical.  Trying to apply logic to them is pretty illogical, too.  People who believe in ghosts and gods and fairies are immune to logic until they decide to listen to it and not just try to prove their superiority through flawed debate tactics.

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 (http://tinyurl.com/yf78bk4)

Quote from: "SSY"The reason I, an atheist, do not believe in god, is the lack of evidence I have seen to indicate his existence. I do believe that ET life is very likely though. I base this belief on evidence.

The evidence is quite simple, we know life can form on planets, we know that there are many other planets, at other places in the universe, therefor, life could form out there in the universe, the matter of how much of it, and how likely it is etc etc are of course, completely different. Simple no? Feel free to reply when your ban is up.

How the fuck did this thread reach 4 pages? It should have died at this post.

 :drool

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quote from: "SSY"The reason I, an atheist, do not believe in god, is the lack of evidence I have seen to indicate his existence. I do believe that ET life is very likely though. I base this belief on evidence.

The evidence is quite simple, we know life can form on planets, we know that there are many other planets, at other places in the universe, therefor, life could form out there in the universe, the matter of how much of it, and how likely it is etc etc are of course, completely different. Simple no? Feel free to reply when your ban is up.

How the fuck did this thread reach 4 pages? It should have died at this post.

 :drool

People keep beating the dead horse.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"People keep beating the dead horse.

He's not dead...just mostly dead. (3 internets if you catch the reference.)

I figure this can only go on so long before he gets himself banned again.

Quote from: "Tanker"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"People keep beating the dead horse.

He's not dead...just mostly dead. (3 internets if you catch the reference.)

Miracle Max, The Princess Bride.
 

Quote from: "Whitney"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 (http://tinyurl.com/yf78bk4)

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

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "SSY"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.

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".

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.

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteOther things that have no experimental verification include pixies and jesus

And ET life.

Quotefalse 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?

Quote from: "SSY"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.  

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?

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.

Quote from: "Aedus"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.

Quote from: "Aedus"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?

Quote from: "Aedus"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.  

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quotefalse 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.

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.

 

Quote from: "Aedus"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 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=4174).  Dr. Krauss is far from a moron.

Quote from: "Aedus"

Quote from: "Whitney"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 (http://tinyurl.com/yf78bk4)

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

Quote from: "Whitney"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.

Quote from: "SSY"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?

QuoteYou 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.

QuoteOther 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

Quotefalse 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

Quote from: "SSY"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.

Quote from: "SSY"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:

QuoteOh 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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Aedus"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.

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.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Oh and if you are still able to read this Aedus

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