Atheist "Logic": ET Life is Superstitious and Unreasonable

[SSY]

update, sound similar?

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

[McQ]

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.

[Aedus]

There is evidence that aliens could exist.

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

update, sound similar?

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

Is posting on other forums frowned upon too now?

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.

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).

Please 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.

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

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.

The 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.

Peer 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.

"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?

[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.

[Aedus]

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.

[Whitney]

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.

[SSY]

[Kylyssa]

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.

[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

[G-Roll]

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

[LoneMateria]

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.

[Tanker]

People keep beating the dead horse.

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

[SSY]

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

[McQ]

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.
 

[Aedus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

That would be because I thought we were discussing something that was supposed to be common knowledge in theoretical physics. However, if you're so anal about articles because "you're a real scientist" (lol), then look for "Multiverse understanding of cosmological coincidences" by Bousso, or "Evidence for the multiverse in the standard model and beyond" by Hall, LJ.

Other things that have no experimental verification include pixies and jesus

And ET life.

false dichotomy

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

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

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?