[c0nstant]

Originally Posted by radix

Where did you get those figures? What evidence are they based on? What science was used to come to that determination. Don't bother answering, I know you made it up.

On the one hand, you are convinced that there must be no god based on the fact that there is no proof one. No proof, no god. You call people who think otherwise idiots.

On the other hand, you are convinced that there must be alien life based on the fact that there is no proof of any. No proof, must be aliens. You call people who think otherwise idiots.

Clearly you don't see the inconsistency in your thought process.

Either you accept that things can exist without having physical proof of them or you don't.

meow mix meow mix please deliver!

[radix]

Originally Posted by jh valley

meow mix meow mix please deliver!

Well it's true. Put in the form of a syllogism:

Major premise:  There exist no things for which we have no evidence of their existence.

Minor premise:  We have no evidence that alien life exists.

Conclusion:  No alien life exists.

or, changing the major premise.

Major premise:  There may exist things for which we have no evidence of their existence.

Minor premise:  We have no evidence that (god|aliens) exist(s).

Conclusion:  There is a possibility that (god|aliens) exist(s).

In other words, if you you accept that alien life exists as a matter of fact, sans evidence, then logically you're leaving yourself open to agnosticism. Somewhat interestingly, if you accept the first major premise as true, then you also preclude the possibility of scientific discovery. Since the fact of the matter is that we've discovered new things over the past few centuries, dark matter for instance, the major premise in the first syllogism is demonstrably false. Thus we have to accept that there may exist things that we have no compelling evidence for. Ergo, there is the possibility of ETI, and there is the possibility (however remote) of the existence of a god. This is why, to me, the smartest answer, and the one that is in keeping with the best traditions of science, is:

I don't know, let's keep trying to figure it out.

If there's one thing science has proven, it's that dogma seldom works.

[c0nstant]

no no no, you make sense. i'm just really drink. herro

[radix]

Originally Posted by jh valley

no no no, you make sense. i'm just really drink. herro

herro

[Dan in PA]

Originally Posted by jh valley

no no no, you make sense. i'm just really drink. herro

lmao jh

[Verbiage]

LOL. You guys make me laugh!

[BTM]

JH must be the "drinkest" member on here

[Verbiage]

I see alcohol poisoning in his future.

[BTM]

Nahh, alcohol poisoning is for people who don't have tolerance and all the sudden go nuts one night and can't handle it. JH must have crazy tolerance by now

[Koroush]

If you play EVE online... you will feel like this allllll the time.

[DougLikesBMW]

Originally Posted by radix

Where did you get those figures? What evidence are they based on? What science was used to come to that determination? Don't bother answering, I know you made it up.

On the one hand, you are convinced that there must be no god based on the fact that there is no proof one. No proof, no god. You call people who think otherwise idiots.

On the other hand, you are convinced that there must be alien life based on the fact that there is no proof of any. No proof, must be aliens. You call people who think otherwise idiots.

Clearly you don't see the inconsistency in your thought process.

Either you accept that things can exist without having physical proof of them or you don't. For the record, I'm not particularly religious. I bounce between agnosticism and perhaps some sort of pantheism.

I'm not sure if you're serious...surely you can't be.

There is no inconsistency in my thought process.

Infinitely small chance of there being a god. Infinitely large chance of there being life outside of our planet.

This is obvious with any knowledge of the sheer size of the multiverse and having read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

[Verbiage]

Originally Posted by BTM

Nahh, alcohol poisoning is for people who don't have tolerance and all the sudden go nuts one night and can't handle it. JH must have crazy tolerance by now

Well, a murdered liver, then.

[radix]

Originally Posted by DougLikesBMW

I'm not sure if you're serious...surely you can't be.

Yes, I am.

There is no inconsistency in my thought process.

Yes, there is. I pointed it out to you in detail.

Infinitely small chance of there being a god. Infinitely large chance of there being life outside of our planet.

You have no evidence of either of those statements. Claims such as those should be substantiated by evidence, or at least reasoning. You cannot on the one hand claim vehemently that there is no God, and on the other hand claim vehemently that there must be ETI. You either accept that it possible for things to exist without being able to prove their existence or you do not. You're trying to have it both ways, thus my comment about the inconsistency of your thinking.

This is obvious with any knowledge of the sheer size of the multiverse and having read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.

First of all, the concept of the multiverse is nothing more than hypothesis. It is not theory because it has not withstood the test of fitting in with observed phenomenon. Nobody has any knowledge of the size of the multiverse, as it hasn't been proven that the multiverse hypothesis is true.

As far as Richard Dawkins goes, I've never read his book, but if he claims absolutely that there is no possibility of god, then he is making claims that amount to argumentum ad ignorantiam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

General form of the argument:

P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.

let P = god|aliens

and you get, using god as an example:

The existence of god has never been disproven, therefore god must exist.

and

The existence of god has never been proven, therefore god must not exist.

respectively. It's a two way street, those who claim that there must be a god suffer from the same logical fallacy as those who claim that there is no possibility of a god. The only logical answer is "I cannot be certain of the answer".

[len56]

Originally Posted by Koroush

If you play EVE online... you will feel like this allllll the time.

dust 514 looks sick. (it's made by the same people as EVE but it's for the consoles. i'm not exactly sure how it works but i think you play as one of the soldiers in a real life PC player's EVE army. EX. so they attack RPG style and you play one of the soldiers FPS style, real time. )

just wait till infinity comes out http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/

it'll probably take a few years :P

but it's supposed to have more star systems than you can visit in a lifetime (they're generated by the game engine) and you can go all the way down to the terrain on every planet

video: http://www.infinity-universe.com/Inf...=113&Itemid=93

[DougLikesBMW]

Originally Posted by radix

Claims such as those should be substantiated by evidence, or at least reasoning. You cannot on the one hand claim vehemently that there is no God, and on the other hand claim vehemently that there must be ETI. You either except that it possible for things to exist without being able to prove their existence or you do not. You're trying to have it both ways, thus my comment about the inconsistency of your thinking.

First of all, the concept of the multiverse is nothing more than hypothesis. It is not theory because it has not withstood the test of fitting in with observed phenomenon. Nobody has any knowledge of the size of the multiverse, as it hasn't been proven that the multiverse hypothesis is true.

As far as Richard Dawkins goes, I've never read his book, but if he claims absolutely that there is no possibility of god, then he is making claims that amount to argumentum ad ignorantiam:


respectively. It's a two way street, those who claim that there must be a god suffer from the same logical fallacy as those who claim that there is no possibility of a god. The only logical answer is "I cannot be certain of the answer".

They are substantiated by reasoning: Probability.

Dawkins does not claim there is no possibility, rather that the probability is very small.

Fair enough about the multiverse.

Also, I never said anything about the life having to be intelligent.

[radix]

Originally Posted by DougLikesBMW

They are substantiated by reasoning: Probability.

Dawkins does not claim there is no possibility, rather that the probability is very small.

Since probability is calculated mathematically, could you share the calculation he used to determine the probability? I don't have access to his book.

[james426]

What if what people percieve as gods are actually aliens? There, everyone wins!

[DougLikesBMW]

Originally Posted by radix

Since probability is calculated mathematically, could you share the calculation he used to determine the probability? I don't have access to his book.

Sorry, left the book at home...am 3 hours away.

[Verbiage]

Go to sleep Doug, lol.

[graider]

Originally Posted by len56

lol i think that idea would go badly. its like being on a tiny island in the middle of the pacific, burning it, and only having a log to get you to the nearest continent so you can have food.

plus, don't you have any nostalgia? it would be sick if earth was the center to human intergalactic space colonies. something always to fall back too. but we should clean the gene pool before expanding. we don't need more human filth :P unless, you send em all to one planet, and don't build any space ports.

more like middle of pacific by yourself and swimming, no food and water. LOL

as far as I can see right now, we are not getting to the nearest stars anytime soon let alone getting to a star with planet that supports some kind of life.

we should stop all the war bullsh1t and put more investment into space. Country that don't contribute anything benefit to human and just start war due to religion conflict, please just die.

[OC Guy]

Originally Posted by radix

Well it's true. Put in the form of a syllogism:

Major premise:  There exist no things for which we have no evidence of their existence.

Minor premise:  We have no evidence that alien life exists.

Conclusion:  No alien life exists.

or, changing the major premise.

Major premise:  There may exist things for which we have no evidence of their existence.

Minor premise:  We have no evidence that (god|aliens) exist(s).

Conclusion:  There is a possibility that (god|aliens) exist(s).

In other words, if you you accept that alien life exists as a matter of fact, sans evidence, then logically you're leaving yourself open to agnosticism. Somewhat interestingly, if you accept the first major premise as true, then you also preclude the possibility of scientific discovery. Since the fact of the matter is that we've discovered new things over the past few centuries, dark matter for instance, the major premise in the first syllogism is demonstrably false. Thus we have to accept that there may exist things that we have no compelling evidence for. Ergo, there is the possibility of ETI, and there is the possibility (however remote) of the existence of a god. This is why, to me, the smartest answer, and the one that is in keeping with the best traditions of science, is:



If there's one thing science has proven, it's that dogma seldom works.

blah blah blah, leave your preaching to another thread. There's no reason to inject your beliefs in this thread. Leave your God debate to the designated subforum.

[radix]

Originally Posted by OC 335i

blah blah blah, leave your preaching to another thread. There's no reason to inject your beliefs in this thread. Leave your God debate to the designated subforum.

blah blah blah, leave your imperatives for someone else. There's no reason for you to think you have any right to tell me what I can and cannot post. Leave your bad attitude to another forum.

In other words, dial 1-800-go#-sand and if you get an answer ask for someone who gives a flying fuck about what you think I should and should and shouldn't post.

Oh, and you missed the point of that post entirely.