God vs. ET

By:  TᵢG  •  3 weeks ago  •  91 comments

God vs. ET
At the very end, the argument leaps to a logical equivalence of God and extraterrestrial life in terms of existence.

To comment, please join the group Religious and not News Chat

Religious and not News Chat

Consider the following logic:

  1. There is no direct evidence of extraterrestrial life
  2. It is, however, probable based on our empirical understanding of life and the number of planets suitable to host life, that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the universe
  3. It is thus reasonable to assume extraterrestrial life does exist

   If it is reasonable to assume extraterrestrial life exists, then it is reasonable to assume a creator of the universe exists ('God')

What are the problems with this reasoning?

  • Premise 1 is correct.   We have zero evidence -not a shred-  that extraterrestrial life exists.
  • Premise 2 is correct.   Given our empirical and theoretical understanding of the size and variability of the cosmos, it is statistically more likely than not that at least one extraterrestrial life form exists in the universe.
  • Premise 3 is correct.   Given the probability, it is reasonable to assume extraterrestrial life exists.   This is not a fact, it is a reasonable speculation.

The conclusion, however, is a non-sequitur.   The conclusion does not follow from the premises.   At the very end, the argument leaps to a logical equivalence of God and extraterrestrial life in terms of existence.   That is, it hijacks the assertions for extraterrestrial life and -at the last moment- substitutes in 'God'.

To see the flaw, let's look at the premises with 'God' (sentient creator of the universe) properly used instead of extraterrestrial life.

  1. There is no direct evidence of a sentient creator of the universe
  2. It is, however, probable based on our empirical understanding of life and the number of planets suitable to host life, that sentient creator of the universe exists somewhere in the universe
  3. It is thus reasonable to assume a sentient creator of the universe does exist
  • Premise 1 is correct.   We have zero evidence -not a shred-  that a sentient creator of the universe exists
  • Premise 2 blows up.   The empirical factors for determining the likelihood of extraterrestrial life have nothing to do with the likelihood of a sentient creator of the universe.
  • Premise 3 is false because premise 2 is false.

Substituting God for extraterrestrial life equates the most supreme possible entity - the creator of the universe - with a single life form.    Extraterrestrial life could exist as a lowly single-cell organism in a minor planet in a distant galaxy.   That is all it takes for the extraterrestrial logic to work.   Not so with God.

So in simple terms: The likelihood that extraterrestrial life in even the most primitive form exists says nothing about the likelihood that God exists.   One can reasonably assume that extraterrestrial life exists (this is not fact, it is simply an educated guess) and commit resources to explore the cosmos looking for evidence to support this hypothesis.    The God hypothesis, however, is profoundly different and needs its own argument and supporting empirical data.   

Hijacking the extraterrestrial argument is absurd on its face.

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
TᵢG
1  author  TᵢG    3 weeks ago

Logic is good.

 
 
Gordy327
1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago
Logic is good.

Absolutely. It's just a shame so many are logically kaput. 

 
 
JBB
1.2  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

I would replace the word "Assume" in logic item #3 probably with the word "speculate". The way it is "Assume" would be thus could be interchangeable with the word "Believe". It is my opine that sans proof to assume something exists or to believe in its existance is logocally unsound. Speculation that something probably exists is in my mind quit different than actual belief in said things existance. Didn't I say I would never discuss semantics with you ever again?

By my logic, it is reasonable to speculate about the possible existance of all sorts of krazy things possible things possibly existing in other realms. That does not equate with my assuming extratesticals exist or believing an older man with a long white beard created the entire universe in seven days seven thousand years ago who still today sits in judgement of us all under threat of eternal suffering and damnation in hellfire. Sorry, I know you didn't ask. I must be bored...

 
 
Skrekk
1.2.1  Skrekk  replied to  JBB @1.2    2 weeks ago
Speculation that something probably exists is in my mind quit different than actual belief in said things existance.

Correct.

 
 
TᵢG
1.2.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @1.2    2 weeks ago

A reasonable assumption normally is taken to mean speculation based on decent evidence.  To me, there are facts (truth) and then there are assumptions (hypotheses, speculation, ...).   The quality of an assumption (by any name) is a function of the supporting evidence and logic.

Not sure the semantic nuances make a difference; the logic remains the same.    The words:  "Given the probability, it is reasonable to assume extraterrestrial life exists.   This is not a fact, it is a reasonable speculation." basically express: "there is thus sufficient reason for us to expect that extraterrestrials exist even though we do not know this as a fact"

 
 
JBB
1.2.3  JBB  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.2    2 weeks ago

As I said, "speculate" definitely does not equal "assume"...

I'm not going to argue. They have very different meanings.

 
 
TᵢG
1.2.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @1.2.3    2 weeks ago
I'm not going to argue. They have very different meanings.

You did not and do not have to argue about word choice (unless you want to):

TiG @1.2.2Not sure the semantic nuances make a difference; the logic remains the same

Substitute whatever word you wish in the argument.   As long as that word connotes to likelihood and not fact  the argument remains the same and the critique remains the same.

My point in this article is about the critique itself.   Not the semantic nuances on words such as assume, believe and speculate.

 
 
NV-Robin6
1.3  NV-Robin6  replied to  TᵢG @1    one week ago

Yes, logic is good, TiG! It's the best and the reason humanity and it's consciousness continue to exist and expand.   And it's good to read you again and many of our former NV greats once again. I have missed you guys! I don't have much time yet to be online and frankly, I couldn't stand the nonsense here (or any other forum on the net) for the most part-- but I see if I stick where the brains and logic are, it may be worth it during my slowest work season to participate a bit here and there. I do long for the good ole days when civility was the norm. 

Hope this finds all well with you and hats off to all that I knew along my way as well. I hope  to catch up here soon.

The answer to life, the universe and everything IS 42! ;-)

 
 
TᵢG
1.3.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  NV-Robin6 @1.3    one week ago
I couldn't stand the nonsense here (or any other forum on the net) for the most part-- but I see if I stick where the brains and logic are, it may be worth it during my slowest work season to participate a bit here and there.

The best way to shape a forum to one's liking is to participate.  There are plenty of folks from the older days who, if here, could easily take this site in different interesting directions.    

Also, the technology on NT seems to provide all the goodies many of us were used to (and beyond that in some cases).

Good to read you again Robin!   If you get a chance, I wrote a piece on AI last week:  What (really) Is Artificial Intelligence.     No AI prerequisite knowledge required.

 
 
NV-Robin6
1.3.2  NV-Robin6  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.1    6 days ago

HI again TiG, first chance to login since I left you my note. I'll check it out this week for sure and set for tracking right now.  I'll take your advice on the participation as I really do miss our NV guys so very much and would love to reconnect and see if there is that great kinship of like-minded NV intelligentsia thriving here, along side of you, of course. I sure hope so! I recognize a whole bunch and sure hope all is well and tolerable here.

Hello to all my ole NV buddies! Hope to catch up with each and every one of you over the winter when I have some time to participate. :-)

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1    3 days ago
It is, however, probable based on our empirical understanding of life and the number of planets suitable to host life, that extraterrestrial life exists somewhere in the univers Premise 2 is correct. Given our empirical and theoretical understanding of the size and variability of the cosmos, it is statistically more likely than not that at least one extraterrestrial life form exists in the universe.

This is incorrect. Statistically, there is no basis for the likelihood of life anywhere else. There is only one place in the universe known to have life and one cannot build a statistical model from a sample of one. There are no statistics that support a claim that it is more likely there is other life out there than not. 

 
 
epistte
1.4.1  epistte  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4    3 days ago
This is incorrect. Statistically, there is no basis for the likelihood of life anywhere else. There is only one place in the universe known to have life and one cannot build a statistical model from a sample of one. There are no statistics that support a claim that it is more likely there is other life out there than not. 

Why would the earth be the only place that life forms in the entire galaxy? What makes this small blue plant in a backer star system so unique that it would be the only place that life would start and flourish? 

 
 
Gordy327
1.4.2  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4    3 days ago

Are you seriously suggesting there is little or no possibility of life elsewhere in the universe? Statistically, there is a high probability of life elsewhere in the universe, given the sheer vastness of the universe and the the myriad of conditions on which life can arise, develop, and even thrive. Earth is a perfect model and example of that.

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.3  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.2    3 days ago

Statistically, we are beginning to get an understanding of how many stars have planets. Statistically, we are beginning to understand what kind of planets those are and in what quantity they appear. Statistically, we're getting a feel of how those planets may be distributed within a star system. The reason we are beginning to be able to use statistics in these cases is because we have a sample greater than one in these areas. 

What we are statistically still on ground zero on is how many of them are likely to contain life because we are still stuck at a statistical sample of one concerning that. To say that it is statistically likely based simply on one confirmed planet with life on it isn't actually based on statistics. Doing so is akin to putting one's hand in a box of marbles, pulling out one that is black and stating on that one drawing that all the marbles in the box are likely black. 

Saying that there is likely to be other life out there based on what we know may be a reasoned statement, but it isn't one supported by any statistical model. About as close as one can get is, based on what we've learned of exoplanets so far, we can come up with statistics of how many of the right kind of planets appear in the right orbit around their star (or stars). That doesn't translate to a statistical likelihood of them having life. In order to do that you have to find some of those planets to actually have life on them. At that point one can start actually building a model based on statistics. 

If I am wrong, please show me actual statistics that prove your point. But to answer your question, no, I'm not suggesting there is little or not life out there. The reason I'm commenting on this at all is that religious people are often characterized as non-rational believers who don't base their claims on evidence. Yet statements like "it is statistically likely" are presented as science when they aren't. The belief, at this point, that there is other life out there is only that. A belief. It isn't backed up by evidence, without which one cannot build a statistical model. That is, it's simply a matter of faith. 

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4    3 days ago
Statistically, there is no basis for the likelihood of life anywhere else.

Of course there is.  The problem is that you insist upon using a ridiculously simple statistical model.   (Statistics is based on models.   Choice of model is critical.)

Finding life on Earth is the critical factor.  Not because of its number (one observation - not thousands) but because it proves that the physics of the universe can host life.   Once that has been established (and it has been established) the proper model would look at the likelihood that the conditions for life might be elsewhere.   Your model translates a profound data point (the physics of universe can host life) into almost meaningless data - a count (only one planet found thus far hosting life).   And then you argue that this one data point (merely the count) has no statistical power to estimate the likelihood of another data point.   True.   The problem is that your model sucks.   Use a better (more realistic) model.


Consider first this analogy:

The physics of the universe appears to be generally uniform - quantum dynamics and the more visible manifestations in cosmological bodies (direct evidence) suggest that conditions that can arise in our part of the universe could arise in other parts.   As an analogy, imagine a large green field - a large grassy area several square miles subject to the same basic environmental conditions.   You find one mushroom where you happen to be standing.   Given the size (critical factor) of this generally uniform (critical factor) green field it is likely that you will find another mushroom.  Your model simply counts mushrooms and totally ignores other information such as the size and physical conditions of the green field.   So in your model, finding one mushroom does not mean anything.  In my model, the one mushroom is PROOF that a mushroom can grow in this green field and thus it is likely that another mushroom exists elsewhere in this green field.   The larger the field the more potential areas for hosting mushrooms and the more likely one exists.  (I chose mushrooms because they are particular and sporadic - like habitable exoplanets.)

Putting this in cosmological terms, our galaxy has about 400 billions stars (and possibly trillions of planets)  [ NASA ]:

Its [Milky Way] spiraling expanse probably contains about 400 billion stars, our Sun among them. And if each of those stars has not just one planet, but, like ours, a whole system of them, then the number of planets in the galaxy is truly astronomical: We’re already heading into the trillions.

The universe conservatively contains at least 200 billion galaxies [ NASA ]:

This led to an estimate that the observable universe contained about 200 billion galaxies.  The new research shows that this estimate is at least 10 times too low.

200 billion galaxies (conservatively) each with 400 billion stars (Milky way is considered a medium sized galaxy) yields 80 trillion stars.   80 trillion solar systems with the same laws of physics (not identical conditions - same laws) is an incomprehensibly vast green field.   And we have proof that life can indeed be found in this green field (i.e. life exists here).   

We are on a vast green field (80 trillion solar systems) and found a mushroom (life in one solar system).   We have explored the tiniest fraction of this green field (a cup of water out of the entire ocean) so we have just started our search.   You claim that the existence of a mushroom does not yield any information about the likelihood that at least one other mushroom exists on this vast green field.   I say that finding a mushroom is PROOF that the physics of the universe can host life and that when we include other information (the findings of cosmology) there is an incomprehensibly large set of potential hosts.  

This does not mean that there necessarily is life elsewhere only that it is more likely that it exists than not.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.3    3 days ago
The reason I'm commenting on this at all is that religious people are often characterized as non-rational believers who don't base their claims on evidence. Yet statements like "it is statistically likely" are presented as science when they aren't.

Religious belief is not based on evidence (where evidence = that which supports a scientific theory).  So, to be candid, it is irrational based on the meaning of the word.   Religious belief is based on other human beings making declarations of truth but failing (repeatedly for thousands of years) to establish evidence supporting the declarations.   And, much worse, never addressing the challenges to these declarations based on their contradictions and errors.

I suspect you want to try to bring science down to the level of religion to have a level playing field.   So you offer a contrived model and try to claim that we do not have sufficient information to make any statements whatsoever on the likelihood of life existing somewhere among 80 trillion solar systems.   As if the only thing we know is a mere count of 1 (number of known planets hosting life).    (see @1.4.4)

The belief, at this point, that there is other life out there is only that.

And now you are playing semantic games.   Who has stated a belief that extraterrestrial life actually exists?    We have no hard evidence that extraterrestrial life exists so to believe that it exists is irrational.   But we do have data that suggests extraterrestrial life is likely to exist.  (Does not mean that it does exist.)  The scientific assessment stops there.   To believe in ET would be religious.  That is not how science works.

A belief. It isn't backed up by evidence, without which one cannot build a statistical model. That is, it's simply a matter of faith. 

One cannot simply declare science to be a belief system.   You cannot declare estimates of the likelihood of life to a belief that extraterrestrial life actually exists.   That is intellectually dishonest.    Religious belief (as you tacitly admit) is highly flawed.   I predict that you will continue to be unsuccessful in your attempt to bring science down to the level of religion.

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.6  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.4    2 days ago
The problem is that you insist upon using a ridiculously simple statistical model.

Actually, I think I simply use the word as it is defined. Statistics is a branch of mathematics dealing with data collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation. You simply cannot build a statistical model on only one point of data. 

Finding life on Earth is the critical factor.

It seems to me that all that does is tell us life is possible. The more critical factor concerning what we are talking about is to find life elsewhere. 

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.7  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.5    2 days ago
I suspect you want to try to bring science down to the level of religion to have a level playing field.

Incorrect. Science doesn't concern God. Cannot deal with the issue. There is no way to make the fields relate. I wouldn't even try. 

Who has stated a belief that extraterrestrial life actually exists?

Irrelevant question. My statements concerned the accuracy of the statement that it is statistically more likely than not that at least one extraterrestrial life form exists. There is no statistical evidence to support this and is actually a statement of faith than statistics. If you believe that wrong, I ask you to present those statistics.  

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.6    2 days ago
It seems to me that all that does is tell us life is possible.

Yes.  That is indeed what it does.

The more critical factor concerning what we are talking about is to find life elsewhere. 

Yes.   We know that life is possible given the laws in place in our universe.   So we know that a mushroom can exist in our green field.   So we ask ourselves, how much of our green field have we seen?   The answer is that we have seen about 1 glass of water in an ocean.   Given the size of our green field, the amount that we have seen, coupled with the knowledge that our green field can indeed host mushrooms, how would you bet?:

If we searched the entire green field, would we:

  • never find another mushroom?
  • find at least one mushroom?

Place your bets.   Nobody knows the answer.   A smart better would consider everything we know and draw a conclusion.   And we know considerably more than "we have only found one planet hosting life".   Considerably more!

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.9  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.7    2 days ago
Incorrect. Science doesn't concern God. Cannot deal with the issue. There is no way to make the fields relate. I wouldn't even try. 

You misread my comment.   I was referring to your attempt to attribute to science the most profound weakness of religion - belief sans evidence.  

Irrelevant question.

LOL 

It is very relevant question given you made a point that people criticize religious views based on the belief foundation and that you wanted to show that 'science minded' people operate on belief too.   Your brought this up, not me:

Drak @1.4.3The reason I'm commenting on this at all is that religious people are often characterized as non-rational believers who don't base their claims on evidence. Yet statements like "it is statistically likely" are presented as science when they aren't. The belief, at this point, that there is other life out there is only that. A belief. It isn't backed up by evidence, without which one cannot build a statistical model. That is, it's simply a matter of faith. 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.10  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.8    2 days ago

All you offer is reasoning, not any statistical evidence. When do I get to see that? 

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.11  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.9    2 days ago
You misread my comment. I was referring to your attempt to attribute to science the most profound weakness of religion - belief sans evidence.

No, I did not misread. You claim statistical evidence when there is none. At least you have yet to provide any. Therefore, your "statistical" evidence is much more related to faith than actual science. In fact, nearly your whole view as to what constitutes reality is a position of faith. Faith that materialism is all that there is and the only valid method in determining reality. It is a hermetically sealed room from the inside. A constant demand that the supernatural be explained in terms of the natural, an oxymoron. You claim that it isn't impossible that the supernatural exists but at the same time demand that it be explained in the terms of the natural. I would suggest you look up the definition of supernatural. Perhaps then you may understand how illogical it is to do so. 

You dismiss belief as invalid because there is no scientific evidence. At the same time you claim that it is statistically more likely than not that there is other life out there when no such statistics exist. Since I don't believe you intended to lie, I can only assume that whatever you're looking at convinces you that life elsewhere is likely. Since it isn't based on evidence, it must be based on faith. 

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.12  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.8    2 days ago
Yes.   We know that life is possible given the laws in place in our universe. 

I don't think the laws we have defined as existing have anything to say about the possibility of life. We can say that life as we know it could not exist without those laws being what they are but there's nothing in those laws that suggest that life must, or is likely,  happen. That is, there's noting about the law of gravity or Newton's second law that says, because it is thus, life is inevitable. We know life is possible simply because it exists on our planet, not because of any laws we currently know about. 

Yes. We know that life is possible given the laws in place in our universe. So we know that a mushroom can exist in our green field. So we ask ourselves, how much of our green field have we seen? The answer is that we have seen about 1 glass of water in an ocean. Given the size of our green field, the amount that we have seen, coupled with the knowledge that our green field can indeed host mushrooms, how would you bet?:

You are attempting to conflate reasoning with statistics. I have no problem with your reasoning. I have a problem with you stating that statistics back up your reasoning. 

As to how I would bet, I would not bet at all, even if I were an atheist. It has nothing to do with faith on my part. We like to think that if life happened here it must have happened elsewhere. However, for all we know, assuming there are other universes, life may be so improbable that it only happens once in a million universes. Or it may be as common as sand on a seashore. We may, over the course of years, identify thousands of suitable planets that, in theory, should be capable of supporting life. However, all we are capable of currently is to come up with a statistical model of how many such planets may exist. We cannot come up with a statistical model of how many likely harbor life unless we plug in guesses based on assumptions rather than actual data. 

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.13  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.10    2 days ago
All you offer is reasoning, not any statistical evidence. When do I get to see that? 

First, are you implying that my reasoning is wrong?   Second, I have told you that your model is bad.   The model I use is based on solar systems, but we could easily take this to exoplanets or even habitable exoplanets.   It takes no effort to review statistical analysis according to this model.   Here is an example.;  here is another.   Studies are replete so I trust you can find others.  But, of course, they are using my model.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.14  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.11    2 days ago
No, I did not misread. You claim statistical evidence when there is none.

If you did not misread then you are reading what you wish rather than what I wrote.   Regardless, see TiG @1.4.13

Therefore, your "statistical" evidence is much more related to faith than actual science. 

Still trying to bring science down to the level of religion.   

In fact, nearly your whole view as to what constitutes reality is a position of faith. 

This should be interesting

Faith that materialism is all that there is and the only valid method in determining reality.

Incorrect.   That is not faith, that is following the evidence to where it leads.   Should we find evidence of some other credible method I will certainly consider it.

It is a hermetically sealed room from the inside. A constant demand that the supernatural be explained in terms of the natural, an oxymoron.

Problem is that you posit a supernatural based on nothing.   Demonstrate the supernatural and then complain when people dismiss it as pure fantasy.   Until then, supernatural is a mere concept - nor more credible than 'the force' in Star Wars.

You claim that it isn't impossible that the supernatural exists ...

Hold on there Drak, I made no such claim.   Theists do this often (I have noticed), translate 'I am not convinced' into 'it is not possible'.   

... but at the same time demand that it be explained in the terms of the natural.

We ask that it be demonstrated.   I think the reason ancients invented supernatural is to have an unfalsifiable posit in which to host their unsupportable arguments.   Sorry that you believe something that you admit cannot possibly be demonstrated.  Should make you wonder why you believe it, right?

I would suggest you look up the definition of supernatural. Perhaps then you may understand how illogical it is to do so. 

Well aware Drak.   But note how you 'added value' to what I have written in order to become confused.

You dismiss belief as invalid because there is no scientific evidence.

I do not believe there is a god.   However I would be thrilled if you have evidence to offer.   The hypothesis of a god is valid - it certainly is possible (note that I can say this and we do not even have a single data point) - but a scientific theory of god is not because there is zero supporting evidence, no falsifiability, no predictive qualities.

At the same time you claim that it is statistically more likely than not that there is other life out there when no such statistics exist. Since I don't believe you intended to lie, I can only assume that whatever you're looking at convinces you that life elsewhere is likely. Since it isn't based on evidence, it must be based on faith. 

Not sure what to do when someone ignores a rebuttal and continues to make the same point.   Also, be sure you read TiG @1.4.13


Bottom line, science follows the evidence to where it leads.   Religion leaps to wild explanations (totally unsupported) and then attempts to justify same.    You, in this case, think I am being unfair by not simply accepting as true your entirely unsupported posit of a supernatural aspect of reality.   You think it is wrong for me to expect evidence of the supernatural because the supernatural by definition cannot be evidenced.   And this is my problem?     

Again, if you cannot demonstrate the supernatural why do you believe it exists?

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.15  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.12    2 days ago
I don't think the laws we have defined as existing have anything to say about the possibility of life.

Do you think the universe can host life Drak?   Seriously, that is one premise I did not expect you to reject.

We can say that life as we know it could not exist without those laws being what they are but there's nothing in those laws that suggest that life must, or is likely,  happen.

I posited the laws of the universe only to establish that life can be hosted by our universe.   Hello?   

That is, there's noting about the law of gravity or Newton's second law that says, because it is thus, life is inevitable. We know life is possible simply because it exists on our planet, not because of any laws we currently know about. 

You are way off track here Drak.   This is so far from what I was saying I am just going to suggest you reread my words as written. 

You are attempting to conflate reasoning with statistics. I have no problem with your reasoning. I have a problem with you stating that statistics back up your reasoning. 

Wrong (yet again).   Here I am providing reasoning.   My responses did not limit themselves to statistics.   If I were offering statistics you would see a model, numbers, probabilities, etc.  And if you really want statistics for my model (your model is horrible) then see TiG @1.4.13

As to how I would bet, I would not bet at all, even if I were an atheist. It has nothing to do with faith on my part.

Okay fine.  Why bother responding at all then?   Just ignore my question.

We like to think that if life happened here it must have happened elsewhere. However, for all we know, assuming there are other universes, life may be so improbable that it only happens once in a million universes.

Possibly.   We go by the information we have.   We have statistical estimates of habitable exoplanets.   But we do not know everything and it certainly is possible that out of 80 trillion solar systems there are zero habitable exoplanets hosting life.   Sure, it is possible.  Not likely, but possible.

However, all we are capable of currently is to come up with a statistical model of how many such planets may exist. We cannot come up with a statistical model of how many likely harbor life unless we plug in guesses based on assumptions rather than actual data. 

A statistical model of how many habitable exoplanets might exist establishes the size of our green field.   We know that life is possible in the universe and, in particular, on planets we label as habitable.   There might be about 11 billion in our galaxy alone.    One galaxy out of hundreds of billions.    ( One mushroom found in a large green field and all we have explored at this point is a few inches. )

You do not want a statistical model, Drak, you are demanding hard evidence.   The best we have right now are estimates based upon our understanding of conditions conducive to life and the size and makeup of our universe.   But we have enough for someone to conclude that it is unlikely that out of 80 trillion solar systems - in a universe that demonstrably does host life - not a single life form exists on any cosmological body in the universe other than Earth.    We do not know for certain, but we certainly can make educated guesses based upon what we know.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.16  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.12    2 days ago

One final point.   I stated upfront that your model is terrible but maybe I need to demonstrate why.

You have a model consisting of one data point (life exists on Earth) - a count of one.   That is it.   And you claim (appropriately) that statistics cannot be based on a single data point.   Correct.   

Note that the question (in effect) is:   is there at least one form of life in the universe other than on planet Earth?

Your model requires that we answer that question with certainty to even get your second data point.   You have put forth a statistical model that requires the question be answered before the model can even start estimating probabilities (with a measly two data points even).

That is silly, right?

This article is based on my model - a statistical model based on exoplanets (and we can discuss habitable exoplanets too).

 
 
Gordy327
1.4.17  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.3    yesterday
Statistically, we are beginning to get an understanding of how many stars have planets.

A great very many, considering the billions and billions of planets orbiting billions of stars, among billions more of galaxies.

What we are statistically still on ground zero on is how many of them are likely to contain life because we are still stuck at a statistical sample of one concerning that.

Not quite. We already know the variety of environmental conditions under which life can exist. That's not even taking into consideration otherwise unknown types of life that might exist in completely different types of environments. Given all the different environments in which life can exist, then statistically, many planets may be capable of supporting life.

 To say that it is statistically likely based simply on one confirmed planet with life on it isn't actually based on statistics. 

It's likely based on what is currently known about life and hospitable environments for them. That's why we look to planets in their stars habitable zone and even towards planetary moons which may contain the necessary conditions for life.

Saying that there is likely to be other life out there based on what we know may be a reasoned statement,

It's very reasoned, and quite probable.

but it isn't one supported by any statistical model.

The earth itself is the model. It's the perfect model to use as well.

That doesn't translate to a statistical likelihood of them having life.

There's no guarantee that a planet within a star's habitable zone will have life. But it is the best place to start looking for life. If one looks at every planet within their stars hab zone, it is probable that there will be a planet which does have life.

  In order to do that you have to find some of those planets to actually have life on them.

That would be great. unfortunately, our current technology is insufficient to detect life at such long ranges.

The reason I'm commenting on this at all is that religious people are often characterized as non-rational believers who don't base their claims on evidence.

Whether one is religious or not is irrelevant. it's all about the evidence. Religion does not go by evidence, but rather by belief. It's an irrational position to hold. 

Yet statements like "it is statistically likely" are presented as science when they aren't.

They are presented as probabilities.

The belief, at this point, that there is other life out there is only that. A belief. It isn't backed up by evidence, without which one cannot build a statistical model. That is, it's simply a matter of faith.

As TiG pointed out, you seem to want to equate science with religion. Religion makes claims without any supporting evidence and calls it belief. Science does not do that. Science considers evidence and establishes a probability based on that evidence. Science will not rely solely on belief and stop there.

It seems to me that all that does is tell us life is possible.

It's not only possible, it's confirmed (here on earth). But since life is possible, and we know all the currently known possibilities (it's possible there are other unknown possibilities too) in which life can exist, it is therefore likely that life can exist elsewhere, if it is not yet confirmed.

The more critical factor concerning what we are talking about is to find life elsewhere.

Which is why we are looking. of course, it's also a big universe out there. But that doesn't mean there isn't a pin in the proverbial haystack.

Science doesn't concern God. Cannot deal with the issue. There is no way to make the fields relate. I wouldn't even try.

Good. Therefore, one cannot call science a belief then!

All you offer is reasoning,

You say that like it's a bad thing?

 In fact, nearly your whole view as to what constitutes reality is a position of faith.

Now that's funny.

Faith that materialism is all that there is and the only valid method in determining reality.

That is based on the current evidence and what the evidence shows.

It is a hermetically sealed room from the inside. A constant demand that the supernatural be explained in terms of the natural, an oxymoron.

Then the supernatural is irrelevant and little more than imagination.

You claim that it isn't impossible that the supernatural exists but at the same time demand that it be explained in the terms of the natural. I would suggest you look up the definition of supernatural. Perhaps then you may understand how illogical it is to do so.

If the supernatural does not connect with actual reality or cannot be detected in the natural world, there is no logical reason to assume there is such a realm. Thus, claiming the supernatural as a (as some people do) possibility, fact, or even a reality in itself is illogical. The idea of a supernatural realm or entity is not only illogical, it is also just a belief.

You dismiss belief as invalid because there is no scientific evidence.

Without evidence, there is no reason to consider mere belief as a valid reason, alternative,  or explanation. In terms of supernatural entities like god/s, there is no evidence so any such claim affirming god/s is not valid and is still only a belief. But everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want.

I don't think the laws we have defined as existing have anything to say about the possibility of life. We can say that life as we know it could not exist without those laws being what they are but there's nothing in those laws that suggest that life must, or is likely, happen.

Our universe is capable of and does support life. That is a given.

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.18  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.13    yesterday
First, are you implying that my reasoning is wrong?

No. In fact I said I have no problem with your reasoning. I haven't addressed your reasoning at all. I am addressing your claim that it is statistically more likely that life exists out there than not. I don't know how I can make that more plain. 

Second, I have told you that your model is bad.

I don't have a model. I don't understand why you can't get that. My whole point is that you cannot, repeat, cannot have a statistical model based on a sample of one. So why are you saying I am presenting a model???

The model I use is based on solar systems, but we could easily take this to exoplanets or even habitable exoplanets. It takes no effort to review statistical analysis according to this model. Here is an example.; here is another. Studies are replete so I trust you can find others. But, of course, they are using my model.

I reviewed your links and they were what I expected them to be. Generally, a statistical analysis of the number of exoplanets that, as far as we know, may be able to support life. This is actually an excellent example of statistical analysis. We not only have the criteria necessary to define our analysis but actual examples of exoplanets that seem to fit those criteria. So, what we can now do is come up with a statistical probability of a given star system to contain planets that should be capable of bearing life. I'm sure it's pretty rough at this stage but it should get better as more discoveries are made and our tech improves. 

What these links do not provide is a shred of statistical likelihood for the prevalence of exolife. The only thing that will do that is to find more life out there. We are building a statistical model of exoplanets because we are finding exoplanets upon which to build a statistical model. 

If you did not misread then you are reading what you wish rather than what I wrote.

Again, no. I am not trying to "attribute to science the most profound weakness of religion - belief sans evidence." I'm attributing faith concerning this subject to you, personally, not science. Your position that it is statistically more likely than not that there is exolife is scientifically unsupportable from a statistical position. There is not enough data to create a statistical model. I will remind you again about what statistics are.

the practice or science of collecting and analyzing numerical data in large quantities, especially for the purpose of inferring proportions in a whole from those in a representative sample.

What representative sample do we have? Right now, one planet with life. To have a statistical analysis you have to have a number greater than one. Since you are refusing to admit this, then clearly your position is more based on faith than science. 

Hold on there Drak, I made no such claim. Theists do this often (I have noticed), translate 'I am not convinced' into 'it is not possible'.

Try re-reading what you were responding to. 

Do you think the universe can host life Drak? Seriously, that is one premise I did not expect you to reject.

Since it does, I obviously do. Apparently you missed the point. You said:

We know that life is possible given the laws in place in our universe.

We do not know why life exists. The laws may decide what forms are possible but it doesn't dictate that it must exist. Or even that it can. It just has something to say about it if it does. So when you say we know life is possible given the laws in place in our universe, I think you misunderstand what those laws have to do with it. The laws might be slightly different but that wouldn't preclude life. It may mean whatever life existed might be different than what we know now. Do you understand what I am saying? Laws might determine what shape life takes, but they don't demand life. From your scientific perspective, we don't know what does. I, of course, believe I know what does.  

Your model requires that we answer that question with certainty to even get your second data point. You have put forth a statistical model that requires the question be answered before the model can even start estimating probabilities (with a measly two data points even).

Statistics can't be used to determine whether or not life is more or less likely on other planets. At least not the way you are trying to use it. Statistics uses actual data, actual numbers concerning what you are trying to analyze. It isn't going to answer the question as to whether life is more or less likely. It will model the prevalence of life if we find it elsewhere. You have to have actual numbers to plug in. You can't do a statistical analysis of a salmon run in a particular river without going out and getting the data for that analysis. 

So, yes, you have to answer the question of "is there other life out there" before you can even begin to build a statistical model concerning that life. You have to have numbers. You have to have data. Otherwise, it isn't statistics. 

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.18    yesterday
My whole point is that you cannot, repeat, cannot have a statistical model based on a sample of one. So why are you saying I am presenting a model???

LOL - other than you are presenting a model?   Your model has as its key (or only) metric a tally of known planets hosting life.   Your tally is currently at one.   You note that this is not going to work.   I agree.   Pick a better model.

What these links do not provide is a shred of statistical likelihood for the prevalence of exolife. The only thing that will do that is to find more life out there. We are building a statistical model of exoplanets because we are finding exoplanets upon which to build a statistical model. 

As noted, you have presented a condition in which we MUST find exolife in order to draw any inference on the likelihood of exolife.   You should see how silly it is to insist that we have no possible way of gauging the likelihood that we are not alone (i.e. at least one exolife exists) except to find an exolife.   

We must find an exolife before we can estimate the likelihood of finding an exolife!     jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.20  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.17    yesterday
Without evidence, there is no reason to consider mere belief as a valid reason, alternative,  or explanation

Most of the planet would disagree with you. What you are stating is a personal choice. Because someone believes something without physical evidence doesn't mean that belief is invalid. Requiring scientific evidence is your personal standard. There is no evidence that you can bring that invalidates belief in God. You are only stating that, without scientific evidence, you choose not to believe in God. 

Oh, and please don't boor me with an Ad Populum claim. The point isn't how many believe but that most find your criteria invalid. 

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.21  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.20    yesterday
Because someone believes something without physical evidence doesn't mean that belief is invalid.

Agreed.   It just means that the belief is unjustified.   

The point isn't how many believe but that most find your criteria invalid. 

Yup.   But we already know that believers believe that belief without evidence is okay.   Indeed religions insist that faith (belief without evidence) is something to which one should aspire.   Religion is comforting.

 
 
sandy-2021492
1.4.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.20    yesterday
Oh, and please don't boor me with an Ad Populum claim. The point isn't how many believe but that most find your criteria invalid. 

That doesn't make those criteria invalid.

I have to wonder how many people have been exposed to the concept of logical fallacies.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.23  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.18    23 hours ago
Laws might determine what shape life takes, but they don't demand life.

Correct.  My point was that the laws of our universe do indeed allow for life.   (My words did not get anywhere close to 'demand'.)   It is the green field analogy.   We have a green field within a relatively uniform environment.   If we find a mushroom at our feet we know that this green field has the means to host mushrooms.   Given that fact, we would naturally assume (rather than reject) that given the same basic conditions elsewhere in the green field there might be another mushroom.   If we can measure the size of the green field we have additional facts.   If we have an idea of at least some of the critical factors enabling a mushroom and the likelihood of those same factors elsewhere in the green field we have even more facts that we can use to estimate the likelihood of finding another mushroom (just one will do).

And, of course, the larger the green field the more likely we will find the necessary conditions that enable a mushroom to grow.


You insist, however, that one must first find another mushroom before one can even gauge the likelihood that another (just one will do) mushroom exists.    Obviously this is silly.

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.24  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.19    19 hours ago
As noted, you have presented a condition in which we MUST find exolife in order to draw any inference on the likelihood of exolife.   You should see how silly it is to insist that we have no possible way of gauging the likelihood that we are not alone (i.e. at least one exolife exists) except to find an exolife.

You must be speaking to someone else. That is, comments such as this aren't aimed at me but at someone who doesn't realize what you are attempting to do. I'm sure you don't think I'm stupid enough to buy this crap so you must be trying to convince anyone still following this thread. 

I have only focused on the fact that there is no statistical basis, no statistical data, that supports your claim that exolife is more likely than not. You made the claim that it is statistically more likely than not. Your problem is, there are no statistics that support this. So, instead you try to divert the conversation in such a way to make it seem we aren't talking about statistics but rather, a reasoned argument as to why you think it is more likely than not. I'm totally fine with your arguing on the basis of reason. But that isn't what you did. You claimed a scientific fact that doesn't exist. 

So, rather than play a game that doesn't work with me, why don't you present this statistical evidence that supports your claim that exolife is more likely than not or just admit that you were wrong? Why are you attempting to support and unsupportable position? Is it because that you can't present the evidence it shows that your position on the question reveals a position based more on faith than evidence? If so, why does that bother you? 

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.25  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.22    18 hours ago
That doesn't make those criteria invalid.

Correct. The problem is that there isn't any way to prove one way or the other, empirically speaking. So it is left to the individual to make the choice. If left there, there would be no argument. But the problem then becomes someone saying someone else's choice is invalid because they didn't make their choice according to that someone's criteria. That is, people like TiG or Gordy saying that someone else's beliefs are invalid because they don't meet TiG's or Gordy's criteria. Do you understand what I am saying? God either exists or He doesn't. It isn't necessary to satisfy someone else's criteria for belief or non-belief in that existence. 

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.26  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.22    18 hours ago
I have to wonder how many people have been exposed to the concept of logical fallacies.

I wonder how many people have been exposed to the concept of logic. (that should not be read as a criticism of your statement)

 
 
sandy-2021492
1.4.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.25    15 hours ago
That is, people like TiG or Gordy saying that someone else's beliefs are invalid because they don't meet TiG's or Gordy's criteria.

From TiG's comment:

Because someone believes something without physical evidence doesn't mean that belief is invalid.
Agreed.   It just means that the belief is unjustified.

This is a discussion board, Drakk.  If you come on here making statements that you can't support, your inability to support them will be remarked upon.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.28  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.24    13 hours ago
I'm sure you don't think I'm stupid enough to buy this crap so you must be trying to convince anyone still following this thread. 

I know you are not stupid, just driven to make a flawed point because you are tired of people noting that religious belief is unjustified and want to make it seem as though unjustified belief is part of science.   To justify unfounded belief as a good thing.   jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

On Statistics:

I have answered your challenges numerous times and have provided statistical analysis (TiG @1.4.13) about the likelihood of exolife.   I have also linked to it several times and noted that my two examples are merely two of many.   Anyone can Google around to find credible scientific analysis based on real data and, of course, augmented statistically.   To make this super obvious instead of just the links here are the titles (with links) of the articles (from TiG @1.4.13):

Statistical-likelihood Exo-Planetary Habitability Index (SEPHI)

Astronomers answer key question: How common are habitable planets?

These (and other statistical analyses of exolife) are based on habitable exoplanets (the numbers of which are estimated from the number of solar systems based on the number of galaxies and the number of stars per galaxy).    Habitability is based on element composition, proximity to the star, etc.   Lots of data go into these estimates and of course it is statistically based given we cannot literally visit exoplanets.

On Your Model:

You reject the statistical analysis I have linked to (and the one that I use in this article - estimated number of solar systems in the universe).   You claim that the only model that counts is yours.   Your model is based on known exolife.   That is, your critical metric is the count of planets that we know hold life.   You note that the only planet we know that has life is ours.   You then note that one cannot base a statistical model on one data point.   My rebuttal (since the very beginning) has been that your model is terrible.   It does not address the question at hand which is:

Is it likely that life exists outside of planet Earth?

Apparently you refuse to admit that it is absurd to put forth a model that requires we collect metrics on other planets that we KNOW have life before we can use a model to estimate the likelihood of finding exolife.    Per your model:  We must find exolife before we can estimate the likelihood of finding exolife!  

That is ridiculous Drakk.   Pick a different model.   

On Belief:

You are attempting to argue that belief in God should not be considered unfounded because even in science people believe that which is not evidenced.   That is incorrect.   Scientifically, belief in exolife is unfounded.   One should not believe in exolife.   One might, however, hold that exolife is more likely than not.   That position is supported by the following (my model):

  • Our universe, best we can tell, has uniform physics
  • The physics of our universe is capable of hosting life (Earth is the proof)
  • Our universe has something on the order of 80 trillion solar systems.  (The number is not really important, it is the magnitude that matters)
  • We continue to catalog habitable exoplanets.   Given the extremely tiny portion of the universe we have 'seen' what we have found suggests the universe is replete with habitable exoplanets.

Out of 80 trillion (or so) solar systems in a universe with consistent physics we muse about the possibility that even 1 of those solar systems hosts life.   You think it is more likely that in all 80 trillion solar systems we will not find life.   I think the metrics suggest that the likelihood that we are the only life in the universe is quite poor.

But, and this is key, I do not believe in exolife.   The correct position is that I do not know if exolife exists but the data suggests it is more likely than not.   

On God:

But this is ultimately all about belief in the Christian God.   At least that is what you have told us is your motivation.   My position on a sentient entity who created the known universe is that this is possible.   We exist thus we got here somehow, but we do not yet know how.   We cannot ruled out the possibility that we were created by a sentient entity so it remains possible.  

So a sentient creator is possible.

Now we turn to the Christian God.   This is a highly specific sentient creator described by an ancient errant book.    This God is highly attributed with personality, desires, emotions and plenty of stories.   All this information came from an era where people knew almost nothing about how nature works and were heavily vested in using gods to explain volcanoes, famine, storms, etc.   We can easily inspect the Bible (and other books) and find it (them) full of contradictions.   Even the definition of the biblical god is a contradiction at first glance:  an omniscient entity that is surprised by the disobedience of beings it (an omnipotent entity) created.

The Abrahamic god (in general) is a grand and highly specific claim.   It is a claim that bronze and iron age men were in direct contact with the grandest possible entity - a supernatural force that somehow interfaced with the natural.    Such grand and specific claims have endured for thousands of years without a shred of evidence.

And you think it is unfair for skeptics to expect evidence for such specific and grand claims.

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.29  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.27    12 hours ago
This is a discussion board, Drakk. If you come on here making statements that you can't support, your inability to support them will be remarked upon.

Not sure where this is coming from but presumably it has something to do with this quote:

Because someone believes something without physical evidence doesn't mean that belief is invalid.
Agreed. It just means that the belief is unjustified.

Since you don't explain what you mean I'll go with what seems to be your intent. Specifically, that what you quoted me as saying was unsupportable because I said someone else's beliefs are invalid because they don't meet TiG's or Gordy's criteria. You then point out that TiG agreed that it doesn't make it invalid. But did he actually agree or did he just say something and then immediately contradict what he said?

Consider. Validate and justify are synonyms. I could rewrite what I said as:

That is, people like TiG or Gordy saying that someone else's beliefs are unjustified because they don't meet TiG's or Gordy's criteria.

Do you see any significant difference in the meaning behind what I said? You are calling me out because I used the word "invalidate" instead of "justify" but it doesn't change the meaning of what I said at all. In either word, no one needs to validate or justify their belief in God according to someone else's criteria. They only have to do so according to their own. In essence, TiG didn't actually agree at all. He still stated that someone else's belief in God was invalid because it wasn't justified according to his criteria. 

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.30  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.29    12 hours ago
But did he actually agree or did he just say something and then immediately contradict what he said?

Good grief Drakk, I am not the subject and I do not appreciate you suggesting that I am lying (or, alternatively, that I am stupid to the point of contradicting myself).   

I do not have some special criteria for belief.   Belief sans evidence is unjustified; that is basic logic.   And by evidence I am indeed referring to that which would be considered evidence under the scientific method.   So 'my' criteria is very well established and generally practiced - not something I invented.

In either word, no one needs to validate or justify their belief in God according to someone else's criteria. 

True.   If someone believes that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is <10,000 years old they do not NEED to validate or justify their belief.   But they should realize that when those beliefs are discussed with others, it is perfectly fair for those beliefs to be challenged.    Especially when the claim is that those beliefs are true; no possibility of being wrong.

 
 
sandy-2021492
1.4.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.29    12 hours ago

"Valid" can also mean "acceptable".  Your beliefs are valid, in that they are acceptable.  They are not justified on the basis of fact or logic.

Semantics aside, I'm not quite sure why you'd expect that you can enter a discussion about logical fallacies, and not expect to have the fallacies in your own arguments pointed out.  If you reject such concepts as "argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy", then you are attempting to assert your own criteria on logical thinking.

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.32  Drakkonis  replied to  sandy-2021492 @1.4.31    10 hours ago

(sigh) The Ad Populum fallacy doesn't apply because I wasn't making the point that, since most people believe there is a God or gods, it must therefore be true that He or they exist. If I were, then I'd be guilty of an Ad Populum fallacy. I was simply making the point that most people reject the criteria TiG demands for justification or validation or any other synonym you want to use for holding those beliefs as valid. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
1.4.33  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.32    10 hours ago
I was simply making the point that most people reject the criteria TiG demands for justification or validation or any other synonym you want to use for holding those beliefs as valid. 

Then it's more of a throwaway statement than a point.  It really supports nothing.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.34  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.32    10 hours ago
I was simply making the point that most people reject the criteria TiG demands for justification or validation or any other synonym you want to use for holding those beliefs as valid. 

That is true.   Why that matters is another question.   

A highly specific claim of truth that the grandest possible entity is that which is described in the Bible is truly extraordinary.   It is a staggeringly bold declaration of certainty.   Why would you find it so surprising that those of us with skeptical minds find such a claim to be unsupported by the evidence (in fact countered by the evidence)?

The Ad Populum fallacy doesn't apply because I wasn't making the point that, since most people believe there is a God or gods, it must therefore be true 

What is the point of stating that most people believe in a God sans evidence other than to suggest that by sheer numbers of disagreement that my position (belief is not justified) is wrong?    Pretty much ad populum is it not?

 
 
Gordy327
1.4.35  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.20    9 hours ago
What you are stating is a personal choice.

What I am stating is a fact, regardless if someone chooses to accept it or not.

Because someone believes something without physical evidence doesn't mean that belief is invalid.

Without evidence, a belief is just a belief, and nothing more.

Requiring scientific evidence is your personal standard.

It's also a scientific standard. Are you suggesting it shouldn't be, or that belief alone should be on par with scientific evidence?

There is no evidence that you can bring that invalidates belief in God.

There's no evidence which validates it either. So there is no reason to accept any such belief as valid or true (except maybe for emotional comfort and/or delusion) until such evidence is forthcoming. 

You are only stating that, without scientific evidence, you choose not to believe in God. 

it's not really a choice. I am incapable of believing in something for which there is no evidence.

Oh, and please don't boor me with an Ad Populum claim.

Then don't make an ad populum fallacy.

. The point isn't how many believe but that most find your criteria invalid. 

My criteria is based on mathematical probability and the scientific method. Mere belief fails to meet that criteria. It basically settles for much less and largely on emotional comfort.

a reasoned argument as to why you think it is more likely than not.

A reasoned and logical argument was already given.

The problem is that there isn't any way to prove one way or the other, empirically speaking. So it is left to the individual to make the choice.

The problem is, some people prefer to make a choice based on what makes them feel more comfortable, rather than derived through logical analysis. 

That is, people like TiG or Gordy saying that someone else's beliefs are invalid because they don't meet TiG's or Gordy's criteria.

it doesn't meet scientific criteria. Therefore, such beliefs are unjustified.

God either exists or He doesn't. It isn't necessary to satisfy someone else's criteria for belief or non-belief in that existence.

Until there is evidence, there is no reason to assume god exists, unless one prefers emotional comfort. People can believe whatever they want. But without evidence, such belief is unjustified.

I was simply making the point that most people reject the criteria TiG demands for justification or validation or any other synonym you want to use for holding those beliefs as valid.

That's just another way of making an ad populum fallacy: arguing by numbers alone.

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.36  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.30    9 hours ago
Good grief Drakk, I am not the subject and I do not appreciate you suggesting that I am lying (or, alternatively, that I am stupid to the point of contradicting myself).

Actually, I just think you're too closed minded to see what you are doing. That you can't see that saying, true, they may be valid, but not justified, is a contradiction is an example of that. How can they be valid but not justified? If someone spends half an hour speaking about why they believe in God, how can it be said their belief is valid, but then say it isn't justified? If it isn't justified, how can it be valid?

I do not have some special criteria for belief. Belief sans evidence is unjustified; that is basic logic. And by evidence I am indeed referring to that which would be considered evidence under the scientific method. So 'my' criteria is very well established and generally practiced - not something I invented.

It isn't a question of whether you invented it or not. It is the way you apply it. For instance, presumably you know the difference between natural and supernatural yet you find no problem in demanding that the supernatural be proven with natural means. How does one do that, exactly? Further, you reject subjective experience simply because it can't be proven scientifically concerning the supernatural. If someone says they have a personal relationship with God you say it isn't justified because there's no scientific evidence for that relationship but don't explain why evidence is necessary for that relationship to exist. One may have a basis for not believing themselves that the other person's relationship exists but they can't say the other person's claim is invalid because the claimant themselves don't have any evidence that it doesn't. 

True. If someone believes that the Earth is flat or that the Earth is <10,000 years old they do not NEED to validate or justify their belief. But they should realize that when those beliefs are discussed with others, it is perfectly fair for those beliefs to be challenged. Especially when the claim is that those beliefs are true; no possibility of being wrong.

Apples and oranges. The Earth and it's age isn't God. These are natural things, not supernatural. Science can address such natural things. It can't address God. At least not directly. 

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.37  Drakkonis  replied to  Gordy327 @1.4.35    9 hours ago
It's also a scientific standard. Are you suggesting it shouldn't be, or that belief alone should be on par with scientific evidence?

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm telling you that science cannot be the standard when it comes to God. 

Science the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

What in that definition tells you that science can address the supernatural? But you guys completely ignore this fact. You instead just go right back into your circular reasoning. Basically, "Can science address the issue of God? No. Then how can you say God doesn't exist? Because there's no scientific evidence."

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.38  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.36    9 hours ago
Actually, I just think you're too closed minded to see what you are doing.

Try to focus on the topic and not on me.   I know it is easier to go personal or to jump on tangents but it is a counterproductive practice.

That you can't see that saying, true, they may be valid, but not justified, is a contradiction is an example of that.

Do you see how it may indeed be the case that there is a Star Wars like Force available to all living creatures?   Do you hold that such a belief is justified?   It might be correct (valid), but is the belief justified?

How can they be valid but not justified? If someone spends half an hour speaking about why they believe in God, how can it be said their belief is valid, but then say it isn't justified? If it isn't justified, how can it be valid?

Not (unqualified) valid - it might be valid.   One cannot declare that it is false.   Makes a big difference.    It might be the case that our universe was created by a powerful alien force operating in four dimensions of space and one of time.   That might be a valid (as in: turns out to be correct) belief (we currently do not know).   However, we have no justification for such a belief so it is unfounded.   Not knowing does not mean a belief is not true - it might be.

This is rather ironic.  You accuse me of being closed-minded yet you are trying to wedge through language where I am trying to accommodate your position (without compromising mine).   Makes me think that I really should play hardball with you on this.   (Not planning to, but damn Drakk this is an ugly ploy to watch.)

For instance, presumably you know the difference between natural and supernatural yet you find no problem in demanding that the supernatural be proven with natural means. 

My objective here is typically to illustrate the absurdity of people declaring certain knowledge (truth) of the supernatural given we are natural beings.   See?   A claim of supernatural interplay coupled with 'I cannot evidence this, of course, because it is dealing with the supernatural' is not very credible.  Do you see why?

Further, you reject subjective experience simply because it can't be proven scientifically concerning the supernatural.

If someone makes a claim, that claim is meaningless unless it can be evidenced.   That is nothing new either.   So if you were to claim that you can communicate with the supernatural but cannot demonstrate this to anyone, what value is your claim?   Why do you expect that such a claim would not be challenged?

If someone says they have a personal relationship with God you say it isn't justified because there's no scientific evidence for that relationship but don't explain why evidence is necessary for that relationship to exist.

If you posit that as objective truth (which you seem to do) then your posit is entirely unjustified.   It is simply your word.   If someone merely claims to have been abducted by aliens would you say that their claim is justified?   You might indeed have a personal relationship with a supernatural entity (God).   You might also just think you do.   Nobody knows because your claim is entirely subjective and personal - no evidence - no possible method of falsifiability.

One may have a basis for not believing themselves that the other person's relationship exists but they can't say the other person's claim is invalid because the claimant themselves don't have any evidence that it doesn't. 

Well now what should I say?  If I agree (again) that the person's claim might be valid (as in correct) are you going to come back again and claim that this is a contradiction?   jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif   You might be talking directly with God.   On the other hand, you might be just kidding yourself.   We have no evidence supporting your claim.   Given your claim is quite bold (directly communicating with the grandest possible entity - God) it is reasonable for me, et. al. to be skeptical until you can provide sufficient evidence.   And if you cannot provide said evidence then you should understand why we would remain skeptical.    

Apples and oranges. The Earth and it's age isn't God. These are natural things, not supernatural. Science can address such natural things. It can't address God. At least not directly. 

My analogy was about beliefs and justification of same.   

 
 
Drakkonis
1.4.39  Drakkonis  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.34    8 hours ago
What is the point of stating that most people believe in a God sans evidence other than to suggest that by sheer numbers of disagreement that my position (belief is not justified) is wrong?    Pretty much ad populum is it not?

You said:

Without evidence, there is no reason to consider mere belief as a valid reason, alternative, or explanation

I said:

Most of the planet would disagree with you. What you are stating is a personal choice. Because someone believes something without physical evidence doesn't mean that belief is invalid. Requiring scientific evidence is your personal standard. There is no evidence that you can bring that invalidates belief in God. You are only stating that, without scientific evidence, you choose not to believe in God.

There is nothing in that statement that says who is right and who is wrong. There is something in that statement that says most people choose a standard different from yours. I'll try to put it a different way. In my statement I was pointing out the problem with your statement by focusing on your views concerning this subject. Instead, we'll look at the other side of the coin, most people. You said, "there is no reason...." I was pointing out that most people feel they have reasons, they're just not yours. Do you understand now? I wasn't suggesting that they were right because of numbers, I was pointing out that most people feel they have perfectly valid beliefs in spite of your demand for evidence. I was also pointing out that you made a statement that only applies to people who think the way you do. That is not an Ad Populum fallacy. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
1.4.40  sandy-2021492  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.39    8 hours ago

So, they support their beliefs by holding them to a lower standard of credibility?

That's good to know.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.41  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.37    8 hours ago
What in that definition tells you that science can address the supernatural? But you guys completely ignore this fact. You instead just go right back into your circular reasoning. Basically, "Can science address the issue of God? No. Then how can you say God doesn't exist? Because there's no scientific evidence."

The problem is that the supernatural is simply a concept.   There is no objective evidence (scientific or otherwise) that the supernatural is anything more than the product of human imagination.

Worse though is that you claim to have certain knowledge of a supernatural entity - communicate with same - yet when it comes to evidence you claim that this is unreasonable for a supernatural entity.

Spelling it out.   If you (natural entity) can cross to the supernatural to engage with God (supernatural entity) then don't complain that it is unfair for us to ask for evidence.   Clearly your claim crosses the natural-supernatural bridge (in a rather substantial way) so delivering evidence on that bridge is not unreasonable.

The supernatural is, IMO, a very clever intellectual device designed to insulate God from logical scrutiny.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.42  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.39    8 hours ago
I was pointing out that most people feel they have perfectly valid beliefs in spite of your demand for evidence

That is not an interesting observation.   That is common, common knowledge.    Your statement then, as explained, offers no relevant or interesting information.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt - that you were making a point more profound than:  ice is cold.

 
 
Gordy327
1.4.43  Gordy327  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.37    7 hours ago
I'm telling you that science cannot be the standard when it comes to God. 

Mere belief is hardly a standard for anything. if science cannot demonstrate the existence of a god in the slightest, then there is no logical reason to assume or believe there is. God is therefore little more than collective imagination.

What in that definition tells you that science can address the supernatural? But you guys completely ignore this fact.

Not at all. The fact that the supernatural is outside the realm of science and the natural makes the supernatural (including god/s) completely irrelevant. It otherwise has no effect or place within our natural reality.

You instead just go right back into your circular reasoning.

Hardly.

Basically, "Can science address the issue of God? No. Then how can you say God doesn't exist? Because there's no scientific evidence."

That's like saying how can one say fairies do not exist, as there is no scientific evidence? But I doubt many people are going to claim or say fairies exist. How can anyone make a claim that god exists without evidence? They can't! Therefore, such beliefs are unjustified! Until it can be demonstrated with evidence that god might exist, there is no reason to assume or believe god does. 

Actually, I just think you're too closed minded to see what you are doing.

Sounds like you're projecting while making it personal.

How can they be valid but not justified?

It's about the evidence. A belief might  be valid (i.e. a "god' may have created the universe) but it is not justified without supporting empirical evidence. See the difference.

you find no problem in demanding that the supernatural be proven with natural means. How does one do that, exactly?

Why should any concept of a supernatural be accepted, much less declared as a reasonable explanation or even as fact, without evidence? 

Further, you reject subjective experience simply because it can't be proven scientifically concerning the supernatural.

See previous statement. Subjective experience is just that-subjective, and is not a valid or reliable source of evidence. 

If someone says they have a personal relationship with God you say it isn't justified because there's no scientific evidence for that relationship but don't explain why evidence is necessary for that relationship to exist.

I'd say that's nothing more than their own belief coupled with some emotional need or comfort, and possibly mental delusions or other psychological condition. it's basically a case of mind over matter.

Science can address such natural things. It can't address God. At least not directly.

As I said, then that means god and the supernatural are largely irrelevant, outside of fulfilling some emotional need.

 
 
TᵢG
1.4.44  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drakkonis @1.4.39    47 minutes ago

On a related note:

I accept (even offer) the possibility that a creator entity might exist.   I am not convinced of this (due to the lack of evidence) but that does not preclude the possibility.

Do you accept the possibility that there is no creator entity (no God)?

I seem to recall that you do accept the possibility that no God exists.  Is that faulty recall on my part?

 
 
sandy-2021492
2  sandy-2021492    3 weeks ago

Thank you for pointing out logical fallacies when you see them.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3  Hal A. Lujah    3 weeks ago

I've never been a big fan of philosophical musing.  When it comes to the concept of God, it seems like overkill.

Plain old common sense will do.  It doesn't take philosophy to understand the horror of any sentient entity who has no choice but exist for eternity.  Anyone who believes in such a ridiculous concept, should feel sorry for that entity, not rejoice it and organize their entire life around ways they think will appease said noncommunicative and invisible entity.  And how about the question of why such an entity would 'create' sooooo much stuff (ie the universe), just to serve the tiniest, most miniscule corner of it all?  How about the reality that we live in a finite space, but the 'infallible' and 'immutable' instructions from said entity are to procreate with abandon?  And why destroy every living being on the planet, just because of some trouble makers in one area of the world?  I could go on for days with more common sense questions that religionists refuse to honestly ask themselves.

 
 
Gordy327
3.1  Gordy327  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3    2 weeks ago
It doesn't take philosophy to understand the horror of any sentient entity who has no choice but exist for eternity.  Anyone who believes in such a ridiculous concept, should feel sorry for that entity, not rejoice it

That reminds me of an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, where the crew encounter a Q who wants to commit suicide because he has nothing life to see or experience after experiencing the entire universe.

Quinn [Q]: "You want me to prove to you that I suffer in terms that you can equate with pain or disease. Look at us. When life has become futile, meaningless, unendurable, it must be allowed to end. Can't you see, Captain? For us, the [pain and] disease is immortality."

Some people actually believe an eternal (immortal) afterlife in a mythical heaven will also be a paradise. It probably will be at first. But I doubt they can understand the true depth of what being immortal entails. 

 
 
TᵢG
3.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3    2 weeks ago
It doesn't take philosophy to understand the horror of any sentient entity who has no choice but exist for eternity. 

Agreed.

This article is pointing out a very poor argument that was made - one that equates the possibility of the most supreme possible entity (God) with the possibility of extraterrestrial life.   As if the likelihood of ET has something to do with the likelihood of God.

 
 
Gordy327
3.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.2    2 weeks ago
ne that equates the possibility of the most supreme possible entity (God) with the possibility of extraterrestrial life. 

We know certain individuals here who use that very same and illogical argument. Something along the lines of: "the existence of the universe (or you, earth, ect.) is proof of god." It's no different than when someone also says the proof of god was Jesus, who was (claimed to be) god made flesh. It's like some people just don't understand illogical arguments and statements.

 
 
TᵢG
3.2.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.1    2 weeks ago

It is possible, I suppose, that some minds are simply unable to think critically about certain topics.

 
 
Gordy327
3.2.3  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @3.2.2    2 weeks ago
I suppose, that some minds are simply unable to think critically about certain topics.

That's what happens with religious belief, along with emotional comforts, clouds the mind.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3.2.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Gordy327 @3.2.3    2 weeks ago

Religion exists because of the tendancy for emotion to trump reason.

 
 
Split Personality
4  Split Personality    2 weeks ago
Premise 3 is false because premise 2 is false.

Works for me every time.....

 
 
Trout Giggles
5  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago

Have any of you ever watched "Ancient Aliens"?

I watch it just for amusement. This past week they were discussing sacred places and what do Ancient Aliens have to do with it? My favorite segment was about Moses and Mt Sinai. Apparently an extraterrestrial gave Moses the 10 Commandments. Ok, that's cool but why would I even consider worshiping a God that is not divine (He's an Alien) and that God is so vain and arrogant that the first 4 (?) commandments are all about him?

Just throwing that out there. AA is one of my favorite programs to watch after I have a few beers

 
 
charger 383
5.1  charger 383  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 weeks ago

interesting show

 
 
JBB
5.2  JBB  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 weeks ago

In probably 74 a friend of my Dad's, a man I much admired at the time, gave me a copy of Ancient Astronauts. I was young and impressionable. Some of my theories back then make me cringe now. The same way I cringe for Jesus Freaks. There is nothing so irritating as a new true believer. Child evangelists are the stuff of nightmares. Worse than evil clowns even...

BTW, the man who gave me Ancient Astronauts is now the nearly ninety year olde crank everybody gets reams of crap from Info Wars shared from on Facebook. I finally had to unfriend him because he became such a nasty racist. What is it makes so many olde white guys turn into xenophobes? 

 
 
Skrekk
5.2.1  Skrekk  replied to  JBB @5.2    2 weeks ago
There is nothing so irritating as a new true believer.

Or as dangerous.    Converts tend to be the most zealous.

 
 
Dignitatem Societatis
5.3  Dignitatem Societatis  replied to  Trout Giggles @5    2 weeks ago
Apparently an extraterrestrial gave Moses the 10 Commandments.

Was that the burning bush rocket ship thing?

It was supposed to be 15, but Mel Brooks dropped one of the tablets. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
JohnRussell
6  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Where are these three premises coming from?  Was this on a website or in a book or video? What is the source. 

It seems like a cousin to a straw man argument to claim that pro-God folks are proposing these premises. 

 
 
TᵢG
6.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @6    2 weeks ago

Came from an argument made (off topic) in another article.   This article factored out the argument for on-topic discussion.   And, yes, the argument was made by a devout theist who has apparently decided to not weigh in.

 
 
Skrekk
6.1.1  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @6.1    2 weeks ago

What he seemed to be arguing was "what's the difference between a (currently) unprovable belief in ETs with a (currently) unprovable belief in a sky fairy, and why do you criticize the latter as irrational but not the former?" 

There were other points in that discussion but the central problem was that the people he was addressing the question to don't per se believe in the existence of ETs but rather the likelihood that extraterrestrial life exists in some form somewhere.    It also ignores that the probability of life elsewhere is supported by its existence here, something which cannot be said about "gods".     All that can really be said about the latter is that various cultures have firmly held beliefs in such creatures despite there being no actual evidence of such things independent of the artistic expression of those cultures.

 
 
TᵢG
6.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
What he seemed to be arguing was "what's the difference between a (currently) unprovable belief in ETs with a (currently) unprovable belief in a sky fairy, and why do you criticize the latter as irrational but not the former?" 

Yes, equating the probability one can calculate regarding ET with that of God.   That is, if one can state that it is reasonable to hold that ET is likely then it is ipso facto reasonable to hold that God is likely.   The key problem of course is that the probability of ET is based on empirical data (specifically the estimated number of exoplanets that are likely to be able to host life).   We know exoplanets exist and have a decent understanding of how many there are based on the number of galaxies, average number of stars per galaxy and our understanding of cosmology.

For God we have no data.   It really does not matter how many stars exist in the universe, no matter the number it gives us nothing upon which to calculate a God probability.

 
 
JohnRussell
6.2  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6    2 weeks ago

By definition GOD is a supernatural entity, E.T. may be exotic and originate in another part of the galaxy or universe, but is still originated within nature as we know it. 

I don't see how one can argue one way or the other about the correlation between the existence of two such disparate sets of entities, forces or beings. 

 
 
TᵢG
6.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    2 weeks ago
I don't see how one can argue one way or the other about the correlation between the existence of two such disparate sets of entities, forces or beings. 

Agreed.   There is no correlation.   That is precisely the problem with such an argument.

So if someone can, through some means of analysis, form an opinion on the likelihood of extraterrestrial life, that analysis says nothing about the likelihood of God.

 
 
Skrekk
6.2.2  Skrekk  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    2 weeks ago
By definition GOD is a supernatural entity

I'm hoping that someday someone will explain how this hypothetical "supernatural" entity interacts with the natural universe.    Is it all just magic and poofery or is there some underlying mechanism?

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
6.2.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2    2 weeks ago

Literally nothing defined as supernatural can be shown to actually exist.  For some strange reason, the most prolifically impossible supernatural concept (god(s)) gets more traction with humans than something like ghosts or Bigfoot.  

 
 
TᵢG
6.2.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @6.2.3    2 weeks ago
Literally nothing defined as supernatural can be shown to actually exist.

Yet somehow people know a God exists and have many tales of God’s adventures, expectations, plans and personality.

How can they possibly know these thing so ?

 
 
Gordy327
6.2.5  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.4    2 weeks ago
Yet somehow people know a God exists and have many tales of God’s adventures, expectations, plans and personality.

That's because god supposedly wrote a book (but forgot to autograph it) or "inspired" others to write a book about him. So of course they know. >sarc<

 
 
Freefaller
6.2.6  Freefaller  replied to  TᵢG @6.2.4    2 weeks ago
How can they possibly know these thing so ?

Lol you know the one word answer to that question.

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    2 weeks ago

I've never understood why the believers and nonbelievers spend so much time trying to disprove one another. It seem like such a waste of time.

I personally think they struggle to tolerate one another. Does anyone think they are going to change minds on the internet? 

One must ask who they are really  speaking too? I sense doubt in the arguments of both of these groups. That might explain why they aren't really talking to one another. It's fascinating in my opinion but not really about the actual debate.

I am more interested in the behavior of trying to convince oneself publicly.

 
 
TᵢG
7.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    2 weeks ago

It is all about the dialectic (not about changing the mind of one's debate opponent).    Clearly the existence of a supreme entity is a big deal - indeed the biggest deal.   It would overshadow everything.    It is an important question - that is why it has been debated for centuries.

 
 
Skrekk
7.1.1  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    2 weeks ago
Clearly the existence of a supreme entity is a big deal - indeed the biggest deal.

I'm the sort of atheist who thinks it would be a curiosity but largely irrelevant.

 
 
TᵢG
7.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

Not to me.   If we actually knew that our reality was the product of a sentient creator that would be staggering insight for every aspect of science.    It would also (no doubt) wreak havoc with the world's religions given this information could easily dismiss them all.

In my way of thinking, resolving the existence of 'God' would set the entire planet on its ear.

 
 
Skrekk
7.1.3  Skrekk  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.2    2 weeks ago
If we actually knew that our reality was the product of a sentient creator that would be staggering insight for every aspect of science. 

That part would be the curiosity.

Otherwise would it matter to you if such a creature existed, like would it change your behavior in any way?

 
 
TᵢG
7.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Skrekk @7.1.3    2 weeks ago
That part would be the curiosity.

Okay.   'Curiosity' seems mild to me.   I think it would change everything.

Otherwise would it matter to you if such a creature existed, like would it change your behavior in any way?

Knowledge only of its existence would not change my behavior.    (Well, I would spend zero time debating its existence .. that would be a change.)   However, if we learn more of this entity what we learn could easily affect my behavior.   Hell, my behavior is affected by weather patterns.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
7.1.5  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Skrekk @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

Even if there were a creator, why would anyone think it could monitor billions of humans simultaneously?  That’s the funniest thing about heaven to me.  Throughout the world, over 6,000 people die every hour.  Even if only 1% of people were pure enough to make it into heaven, if one thinks that they will actually meet god, then your introduction would last about one minute and you would never be able to meet with it again because it’s never ending job would be to welcome newbies.  What kind of pitiful existence is that?

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7.1.6  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @7.1.5    2 weeks ago

I think to really explore the existence of god or lack there of we really need someone to volunteer to be baptized by XXJefferson or Livefreeordie and walk the walk for awhile.

Try it out and then report back to us. 

 
 
Gordy327
7.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7.1.6    2 weeks ago

That sounds like Hell to me.

 
 
Skrekk
7.1.8  Skrekk  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7.1.6    2 weeks ago
I think to really explore the existence of god or lack there of we really need someone to volunteer to be baptized by XXJefferson or Livefreeordie and walk the walk for awhile.

The mere existence of such folks proves that there is no "god."

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7.1.9  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Skrekk @7.1.8    2 weeks ago

Come on Shrekk, we need you to go undercover!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

ArkansasHermit-too
Galen Marvin Ross
arkpdx
TTGA


58 visitors