Which is Scarier? Aliens or No Aliens

[dalekphalm]

15 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Those are all sectarian assumptions.

There can be no other assumptions.

 

Because if you go with the "Well he's God so therefore he's all powerful and doesn't need physics" - well that's just fantasy nonsense.

 

The default position if something has no evidence (or even a theory on how it would exist without evidence) is that it doesn't exist. There is no evidence - not even a little bit - of god or gods existing. Nothing credible anyway (Joseph Smith is not credible, for example).

 

If there is evidence discovered to support the existence of god, that would be great. Such is not the case.

[Bombastinator]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

There can be no other assumptions.

 

Because if you go with the "Well he's God so therefore he's all powerful and doesn't need physics" - well that's just fantasy nonsense.

 

The default position if something has no evidence (or even a theory on how it would exist without evidence) is that it doesn't exist. There is no evidence - not even a little bit - of god or gods existing. Nothing credible anyway (Joseph Smith is not credible, for example).

 

If there is evidence discovered to support the existence of god, that would be great. Such is not the case.

By paragraph:

1: true

 

2: I don’t myself.  You’re getting into that sectarian thing with that “fantasy nonsense” though.  Mankind knows a heckuva lot more than it used to about physics but that’s still barely anything.  One of the scary things about any kind of science is the more one knows the more ones sees how much is unknown and the unknown grows faster than the known. 
 

3:  it’s the default position of the scientific method anyway.  But the philosophy of science, of which the scientific method is part, points out the reasons for taking that stance.

 

4: ironically the position of monotheism, and the thing that kept Alexander the Great from wiping out the Jewish nation as he had done to hundreds before and after is that the entire basis of the whole thing is that evidence of gods existence would negate the entire point.  A thing Douglas Adam’s babble fish was designed to send up (though it failed because apparently he didn't quite get it either)

[GoldSrc]

20 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Those are all sectarian assumptions.

Seems fair enough to go with the tool we know that it works.

[dalekphalm]

7 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

You’re getting into that sectarian thing with that “fantasy nonsense” though.

What do you even mean by this? You keep repeating "this is that sectarian thing".

 

Please elaborate. You can't talk about the Abrahamic God, for example, without talking about what the Abrahamic Religions believe about said god.

7 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Mankind knows a heckuva lot more than it used to about physics but that’s still barely anything.

100% agree with this statement. We have a pretty good idea about the basic fundamentals, but there's so much we don't know, especially regarding Quantum Mechanics and the deeper fringes of Physics.

7 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

One of the scary things about any kind of science is the more one knows the more ones sees how much is unknown and the unknown grows faster than the known.

There are certainly always knew questions, the more we learn. But that's a good thing, I'd say.

7 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

3:  it’s the default position of the scientific method anyway.  But the philosophy of science, of which the scientific method is part, points out the reasons for taking that stance.

It's a good stance to have.

 

Religions were probably an evolutionary necessity for an evolving sentient species that lacked vast scientific knowledge. But there is zero evidence for any god, let alone the Abrahamic God. And we definitely can't use an human written materials such as the Bible, etc - as sources to prove the existence of any god. Not to mention the fact that there have been thousands (perhaps millions, or all of human history) gods that have been invented. Many of which are very different from each other.

 

So which god is real and why? Most likely none of them.

7 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

4: ironically the position of monotheism, and the thing that kept Alexander the Great from wiping out the Jewish nation as he had done to hundreds before and after is that the entire basis of the whole thing is that evidence of gods existence would negate the entire point.  A thing Douglas Adam’s babble fish was designed to send up (though it failed because apparently he didn't quite get it either)

Evidence of God would remove the deep seated need for "faith" - but I think if God was real, sooner or later, evidence of his nature would surface - unless he cheated and broke the laws of physics to hide his presence - but if that were the case, you can literally just say fuck everything, every rule, every piece of science, because there's a magic being that can literally do anything,

 

I don't fault anyone for believing in God - especially if they believe in the "He created the conditions for the universe to be born, he set the rules, and he stood back and didn't interfere" - but hardly any religion believes in that interpretation. Most major religions have their god interfering every now and then.

 

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

What do you even mean by this? You keep repeating "this is that sectarian thing".

 

Please elaborate. You can't talk about the Abrahamic God, for example, without talking about what the Abrahamic Religions believe about said god.

100% agree with this statement. We have a pretty good idea about the basic fundamentals, but there's so much we don't know, especially regarding Quantum Mechanics and the deeper fringes of Physics.

There are certainly always knew questions, the more we learn. But that's a good thing, I'd say.

It's a good stance to have.

 

Religions were probably an evolutionary necessity for an evolving sentient species that lacked vast scientific knowledge. But there is zero evidence for any god, let alone the Abrahamic God. And we definitely can't use an human written materials such as the Bible, etc - as sources to prove the existence of any god. Not to mention the fact that there have been thousands (perhaps millions, or all of human history) gods that have been invented. Many of which are very different from each other.

 

So which god is real and why? Most likely none of them.

Evidence of God would remove the deep seated need for "faith" - but I think if God was real, sooner or later, evidence of his nature would surface - unless he cheated and broke the laws of physics to hide his presence - but if that were the case, you can literally just say fuck everything, every rule, every piece of science, because there's a magic being that can literally do anything,

 

I don't fault anyone for believing in God - especially if they believe in the "He created the conditions for the universe to be born, he set the rules, and he stood back and didn't interfere" - but hardly any religion believes in that interpretation. Most major religions have their god interfering every now and then.

 

Re “the sectarian thing”

I thought was established and defined by #1. It’s a reference to an earlier post.  It’s in the thread.  You make statements of “ this is true and because this is true this other thing is also true” without supporting the first thing, implying there’s this gigantic other complex thing behind it. 

 

re: science

whether you think it is good or not is irrelevant and not the point.  The whole thing was cut up in a weird way.  This is why I quit doing cut quotes here.  Careful omission causes nothing but problems.  The scientific method concept of automatic denial is a legal fiction designed for a purpose, albeit a very useful one, and that purpose is explained in the philosophy of science. It’s effectively a quote out of context.  You counterpoint with yet more unsupported stuff.  There’s actually an “I think” in there as well as a “were probably” Both are by definition assumptions spun from nothing, or perhaps the same sort of aforementioned gigantic glob of concepts created out of view I labeled “the sectarian thing” 

[whm1974]

Which god(s)? And would their existence be a good thing? Ever stop to think why Jesus calls himself a Shepherd or Fisher of Men...?

 

Why do Humans keep livestock and fish???

[Bombastinator]

7 hours ago, whm1974 said:

Which god(s)? And would their existence be a good thing? Ever stop to think why Jesus calls himself a Shepherd or Fisher of Men...?

 

Why do Humans keep livestock and fish???

A multi thousand year old concept.  There are whole volumes on this one.

[dalekphalm]

13 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Re “the sectarian thing”

I thought was established and defined by #1. It’s a reference to an earlier post.  It’s in the thread.  You make statements of “ this is true and because this is true this other thing is also true” without supporting the first thing, implying there’s this gigantic other complex thing behind it. 

You never explained this. I literally searched the entire 11 page topic for the word "sectarian" - all of which were made by you, except the one reference I made asking you to clarify.

 

You did not establish or define what you meant. It's not in the thread. Explain what you mean by "sectarian thing".

 

You say I make statements like "this is true and because..." - what specific statement are you referring to?

13 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

re: science

whether you think it is good or not is irrelevant and not the point.  The whole thing was cut up in a weird way.  This is why I quit doing cut quotes here.  Careful omission causes nothing but problems.  The scientific method concept of automatic denial is a legal fiction designed for a purpose, albeit a very useful one, and that purpose is explained in the philosophy of science. It’s effectively a quote out of context.  You counterpoint with yet more unsupported stuff.  There’s actually an “I think” in there as well as a “were probably” Both are by definition assumptions spun from nothing, or perhaps the same sort of aforementioned gigantic glob of concepts created out of view I labeled “the sectarian thing” 

You not doing cut quotes frankly makes it harder for everyone to know what you're talking about. Instead we have to attempt to figure out which part of a reply you're specifically referring to. Sometimes that's easy, often it's not.

[Bombastinator]

50 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

You never explained this. I literally searched the entire 11 page topic for the word "sectarian" - all of which were made by you, except the one reference I made asking you to clarify.

 

You did not establish or define what you meant. It's not in the thread. Explain what you mean by "sectarian thing".

 

You say I make statements like "this is true and because..." - what specific statement are you referring to?

You not doing cut quotes frankly makes it harder for everyone to know what you're talking about. Instead we have to attempt to figure out which part of a reply you're specifically referring to. Sometimes that's easy, often it's not.

Re: sectarian

have you checked the dictionary?

[The Torrent]

On 10/15/2020 at 8:09 AM, Lord Vile said:

TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BREAK THE LAWS OF FUCKING PHYSICS. No matter how advanced we make tech we can't travel anywhere close to lightspeed because what you're trying to move has a significant mass and the energy required to move something even at the speed of the parker probe without gravity assist would take more energy than we could generate even with something like fusion which is the most energy dense source in the universe. Like no matter how good nutrition and training gets or even making a genetically perfect human no one will ever run 100m in 2 seconds. There are some things that simply cannot be done. 

Here’s something interesting for you to think about,

 

it’s not about traveling in the universe when it’s flat faster than light, it’s about moving less than light, hence being faster.

 

now imagine a negative mass warping and bending space, time slows down at more gravity, but negative gravity will bend space outwards theatrically and hence increase our speed of time faster than that of light.

 

now imagine accelerating. Time slows down as u get faster because u have more gravity so the ability to accelerated to almost light speed and decelerate from it will be important.

 

now do that with negative mass and you have your answer.

 

sorry ive not worded all this properly I just see someone shouting about how it’s not possible to go faster than light and just want to explain, u don’t need to go faster, u just need to get to the destination quicker, by bending space in such a way with gravity or negative gravity, that you will travel less distance.

 

[The Torrent]

On 10/18/2020 at 2:53 AM, GoldSrc said:

The existence of any god is not "probable", all claims about a god violate the laws of physics of this universe.

Physics, chemistry and biology do not.

So it's as simple as applying Occam's razor and go with the explanation that makes the least assumptions.

 

No. Complete rubbish. Watch your wording.

 

any god? What is a god to you? Your god is different from my view of god. Be careful how you use that word.

 

a big dude sitting there on a cloud calling stuff? Don’t be stupid.

you don’t understand the word god, perhaps you have a Christian or abrahamic definition of it, but make sure you mention specifics about what type of god you claim that claims of god violate laws lmao. That was an extremely dumb thing to say.

 

 

[The Torrent]

On 10/18/2020 at 3:08 AM, GoldSrc said:

True, but such a god that does not violate the laws of physics, should be able to be measured or detected.

We can't see magnetic fields for example, other frequencies of light invisible to our eyes, or ionizing radiation, but we can detect their existence and measure them.

Such god would fall into the category of an advanced being, ruled and limited by the same laws that we are, and basically incapable of being the reason the universe exists and whose death will come with the heat death of the universe.

Once again, people just don’t understand the word ‘God’.

 

maybe he’s not a person? Maybe they aren’t a thing that can be measured? Maybe they are just a universal constant.

 

don’t attack religion when you don’t understand it. Attack specific religions if you please (whether that is breaking any other rules is nothing to do with me) but then state which ‘image’ of god you are attacking.

 

do not make the foolish assumption of a Christian has the same image of a god as a Muslim or a Hindu or a Sikh.

 

 

[whm1974]

3 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

No. Complete rubbish. Watch your wording.

 

any god? What is a god to you? Your god is different from my view of god. Be careful how you use that word.

 

a big dude sitting there on a cloud calling stuff? Don’t be stupid.

you don’t understand the word god, perhaps you have a Christian or abrahamic definition of it, but make sure you mention specifics about what type of god you claim that claims of god violate laws lmao. That was an extremely dumb thing to say.

 

 

YAWN!!! Why are talking about "god(s)" in a Topic about wither or not Life exist beyond Earth?

[The Torrent]

1 minute ago, whm1974 said:

YAWN!!! Why are talking about "god(s)" in a Topic about wither or not Life exist beyond Earth?

Because god as a physical being (which they’re not) would technically be classed as an alien?

[Commodus]

Just now, whm1974 said:

YAWN!!! Why are talking about "god(s)" in a Topic about wither or not Life exist beyond Earth?

Well, I could see how the existence of other intelligent species would cast doubt on many religions (the notion that humanity is a unique, divine creation), but yeah... it's rather tangential the way it's been discussed here.

[whm1974]

5 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

Once again, people just don’t understand the word ‘God’.

 

maybe he’s not a person? Maybe they aren’t a thing that can be measured? Maybe they are just a universal constant.

 

don’t attack religion when you don’t understand it. Attack specific religions if you please (whether that is breaking any other rules is nothing to do with me) but then state which ‘image’ of god you are attacking.

 

do not make the foolish assumption of a Christian has the same image of a god as a Muslim or a Hindu or a Sikh.

 

 

How about making the assumption that two members of the same Religion have the same concept of "god(s)"?

[The Torrent]

Just now, Commodus said:

Well, I could see how the existence of other intelligent species would cast doubt on many religions (the notion that humanity is a unique, divine creation), but yeah... it's rather tangential the way it's been discussed here.

*some religions.

 

specifically ones which have had their books re written several times for control.

 

most are fine from it from my view point.

[The Torrent]

1 minute ago, whm1974 said:

How about making the assumption that two members of the same Religion have the same concept of "god(s)"?

Even this is difficult to do tbh lol. Concepts of god are beyond out physical capability. By far.

 

what does a cat see when it sees a tv? Just flashing lights. Do dogs understand beauty? Not at all. Messy garden = tidy garden.

 

answer is right there, we can’t see it. We can try and but there’s most likely a wall.

[Bombastinator]

On 10/17/2020 at 8:53 PM, GoldSrc said:

The existence of any god is not "probable", all claims about a god violate the laws of physics of this universe.

Physics, chemistry and biology do not.

So it's as simple as applying Occam's razor and go with the explanation that makes the least assumptions.

 

You need to read about the history of Occam’s razor.  Your argument seems to be “we cannot prove god exists therefore s/he does not”. That’s not how science works.  
its “we cannot prove that god exists therefore science is to constrained to act as if s/he does not” which is not the same thing.

Edited October 19, 2020 by Bombastinator

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

How about making the assumption that two members of the same Religion have the same concept of "god(s)"?

There is an old joke that more or less goes:

 

two quakers were sitting on a bench (I don’t know why it was quakers.  It seems to apply to all sects) and one said to the other “all the world is crazy except me and thee and sometimes I wonder about thee”

[whm1974]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

You need to read about the history of Occam’s razor.  Your argument seems to be “we cannot prove god exists therefore s/he does not”. That’s not how science works.  
its “we cannot prove that god exists therefore science is to constrained to act as if he does not” which is not the same thing.

All Truth Statements about Reality can be Tested or if you will Falsified. Statement that are not possible to be shown as false are not worth having debated over...

[Bombastinator]

Just now, whm1974 said:

All Truth Statements about Reality can be Tested or if you will Falsified. Statement that are not possible to be shown as false are not worth having debated over...

“All” is a big word which is limited in the next sentence. 
So the scientific method can only be applied to things that can be shown to be false. 

[whm1974]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

“All” is a big word which is limited in the next sentence. 
So the scientific method can only be applied to things that can be shown to be false. 

Well it is possible for a "theory" to be shown as False by testing. Statements of Faith are not and can not be part of Science.

[dalekphalm]

35 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Re: sectarian

have you checked the dictionary?

You're literally ignoring the question. I know what the dictionary definition of sectarian is:

 

I don't care what the dictionary definition is - I care what you mean when you keep bringing that up every time someone mentions god, and the very high likelihood that one does not exist.

 

None of that definition explains what you're trying to say.

 

So I will ask again, please elaborate. Don't side step, don't refer me to a dictionary. Use your own words to explain what you mean.

 

22 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

any god? What is a god to you? Your god is different from my view of god. Be careful how you use that word.

"God" (lower g or Upper G) is generally agreed upon to be some kind of higher being - usually divine in nature - often all powerful. There's no basis for pretty much any of that. Perhaps there might be some day, but right now there's not.

22 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

a big dude sitting there on a cloud calling stuff? Don’t be stupid.

You're the one telling people that they don't understand the word god - yet a large portion of people literally believe it's a big dude sitting there "in the clouds" (meaning: heaven). Don't call people stupid - even if I think that idea is wrong, I don't call them stupid for believing in it.

22 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

you don’t understand the word god, perhaps you have a Christian or abrahamic definition of it, but make sure you mention specifics about what type of god you claim that claims of god violate laws lmao. That was an extremely dumb thing to say.

I don't believe that any known definition of a human-created god could exist with the known laws of physics. If you feel otherwise, feel free to mention some examples.

19 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

Once again, people just don’t understand the word ‘God’.

 

maybe he’s not a person? Maybe they aren’t a thing that can be measured? Maybe they are just a universal constant.

Everything can be measured, including universal constants (actually especially universal constants - it's how we define almost everything, by basing them off of universal constants).

 

Perhaps - if a "god" does exist - that we cannot measure them yet. But if they exist, they can be measured in some capacity. Anything else is just fantasy.

 

19 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

do not make the foolish assumption of a Christian has the same image of a god as a Muslim or a Hindu or a Sikh.

Not going to comment on Hindu or Sikhism but even though Islam and Christianity might have different images of "God", they're literally the same god by definition (The "Abrahamic God"). Though they might not even agree witht hat.

[Bombastinator]

36 minutes ago, whm1974 said:

Well it is possible for a "theory" to be shown as False by testing. Statements of Faith are not and can not be part of Science.

They’re not examinable by science.  Different thing