Kathleen

Question Two

  
By:  Kathleen  •  Vacations  •  2 weeks ago  •  73 comments

Question Two

If humanity was put on trial by an advanced race of aliens, how would you defend humanity and argue for its continued existence?

Please be polite, thank you.

Tags

jrBlog - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Kathleen
1  author  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

What are your thoughts about this?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Kathleen @1    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

I say "Send Them Back"!

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Drakkonis
1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Kathleen @1    2 weeks ago

Speaking from a purely scientific point of view, it would probably be pointless to try unless we understood the alien's morality first. For all we know, they would consider not euthanizing less than perfect children evil or getting caught with a pickle was a death sentence.

Or their morality would be so alien we couldn't understand it. We could be arguing our best parts of ourselves,  not realizing that to the aliens, we are damning ourselves. It may be that to be moral in their eyes, we need to submit ourselves as a slave race, as they are obviously gods. 

Also, what authority, other than superior tech, would they have for placing themselves as judges over us in the first place? If they could do that, what was wrong with the imperial proclivities of the West during the 19th and 20th centuries? 

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.2.1  author  Kathleen  replied to  Drakkonis @1.2    2 weeks ago

Well I think the whole point of this article would be, how would you defend humanity. What would you say as a lawyer. What things would you say to talk up humans? The aliens were more less a metaphor.

 
 
 
Freedom Warrior
1.3  Freedom Warrior  replied to  Kathleen @1    2 weeks ago

 That’s a false premise, I don’t see any reason why we would have to defend anything. 

 If they can’t take a joke fuck ‘em.

 
 
 
Enoch
2  Enoch    2 weeks ago

Dear Friend Kathleen: I would base my argument on the value of diversity.

The more varied the life forms in the universe, the greater the pool of knowledge, virtue and types of intelligence from which to draw for the greater good.

The universe isn't a static entity.

Bio-diversity of a survival strategy, not only for a genus and species.

Also for all life forms.

What makes on type King and Queen of the hill in one set of circumstances make drop them to the pit of the valley in another.

"Life will find a way".

The more the merrier.

Good Question.

Thanks for posing it.

P&AB.

Enoch.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.1  author  Kathleen  replied to  Enoch @2    2 weeks ago

Thank you Enoch, I thought it had a great message to it. 

Thank you for your post.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

Plastic.  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  TᵢG @3    2 weeks ago

I suppose I would argue that we are a work in progress and that the aliens should continue to observe our evolution.   Hard to say where we will end up, but it is possible we will be net good for the universe.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.1.1  author  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    2 weeks ago

I hope so, over the course of history I beg to differ though.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4  Dean Moriarty    2 weeks ago

If they look like Barbarella I would try for a plea bargain with admission of guilt and volunteer my service as a sex slave. 

384

 
 
 
MUVA
5  MUVA    2 weeks ago

I would tell them mind their own business right before they vaporized me.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    2 weeks ago

South Park Did it, South Park Did it !

 
 
 
squiggy
6.1  squiggy  replied to  It Is ME @6    2 weeks ago

Marsh also hid the space cash which led to the nuking of Finrand and the quarantining of the planet. That bastard.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    2 weeks ago

I'd ask the Aliens if they had anything to do with meddling in our election.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

The existence of humanity can be traced back to the beginning of the universe through an unbroken chain of events that could not have happened any other way.  Humanity's existence is directly linked to creation of the universe.  Whether by deliberate intent of a god or by causality governed by immutable natural laws, humanity was meant to exist from the first moment of creation.

Humanity exists because humanity is supposed to exist.  What happened happened and could not have happened any other way.  

Judging humanity would require an understanding of the purpose for creating the universe.  But was there a purpose for creating the universe?  Was the existence of humanity and aliens intended by a creator to serve a purpose?  How can aliens judge humanity (or humans judge humanity) without understanding a purpose for the existence of humanity?

IMO defending humanity against judgement by aliens would require faith in an understanding of purpose and how humanity and aliens share that purpose.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1  author  Kathleen  replied to  Nerm_L @8    2 weeks ago

All these things could very well be, but we have a responsibility and we need to take a hard look at ourselves sometimes.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Kathleen @8.1    2 weeks ago
All these things could very well be, but we have a responsibility and we need to take a hard look at ourselves sometimes.

Fulfilling a responsibility requires faith in an understanding of purpose.  Otherwise how would we know if humanity has fulfilled its responsibilities?

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.2  author  Kathleen  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

What about The Golden Rule? I don’t think you need any purpose to abide that. We are well aware of right and wrong, we just don’t follow it.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.2    2 weeks ago
What about The Golden Rule? I don’t think you need any purpose to abide that. We are well aware of right and wrong, we just don’t follow it.

Isn't the Golden Rule a statement of purpose?

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.4  author  Kathleen  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

I don’t think it is. You don’t have to have a purpose to be kind to each other, do you?

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.5  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.1    2 weeks ago
Otherwise how would we know if humanity has fulfilled its responsibilities?

How do you know that humanity has any responsibilities, any more than a caterpillar or ant has responsibilities?

The only responsibility of any life that I'm aware of is to try to survive and procreate to spread its genes, as a species - the individual doesn't particularly matter.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.4    2 weeks ago
I don’t think it is. You don’t have to have a purpose to be kind to each other, do you?

Being kind to each other defines a purpose.  The purpose is to be kind to each other.

Space rocks, stars, and planets have no need to be kind to each other.  They simply exist as they exist and behave as they behave without awareness of each other or concern for each other.  Space rocks, stars, and planets simply exist.  Space rocks, stars, and planets interact each other and affect each other but they don't need any purpose.

 
 
 
katrix
8.1.7  katrix  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.6    2 weeks ago

Humans don't require a purpose, either, other than that of all living creatures - for the species as a whole to survive.

Being kind to each other can provide an advantage for survival of the species but isn't a purpose for existing.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  katrix @8.1.5    2 weeks ago
The only responsibility of any life that I'm aware of is to try to survive and procreate to spread its genes, as a species - the individual doesn't particularly matter.

That is a requirement for continued existence.

Aliens have placed humanity on trial to determine if humanity should be allowed to continue to exist.  Humanity needs to provide a defense that allows continued survival as a species.

What defense would convince aliens that humanity should continue to survive, procreate, and spread its genes as a species?

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.9  author  Kathleen  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.6    2 weeks ago

So you are saying you have to have a purpose to be kind? What kind of purpose? 

Hopefully you are not expecting for a reward. That would defeat the purpose if there is one.

I think that you really don’t ‘need’ a purpose for anything. You can just do it for nothing.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.9    2 weeks ago
So you are saying you have to have a purpose to be kind?

No, I am saying that being kind IS the purpose.  The purpose of being kind is to be kind.

The purpose of expecting a reward is to receive a reward.  

The purpose of defending humanity placed on trial by aliens is to continue the existence of humanity.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.11  author  Kathleen  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.10    2 weeks ago

Okay, then how would you defend the human race?

That was my original question to begin with.

Since you have to have a purpose, it is to keep the human race existing. 

Now, how would you defend it?

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.12  author  Kathleen  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.8    2 weeks ago

That’s the question I am asking you too.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.13  author  Kathleen  replied to  Nerm_L @8.1.3    2 weeks ago

Maybe for some people, but not with everyone.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.14  Nerm_L  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.11    2 weeks ago
Okay, then how would you defend the human race?

That was my original question to begin with.

Since you have to have a purpose, it is to keep the human race existing. 

Now, how would you defend it?

Yes, that's the tricky question.  As I stated, I think the only viable defense of humanity would require explaining a purpose for humanity.

If the purpose of humanity is to continue to exist by surviving, procreating, and spreading its genes then humanity isn't really distinguishable from any other form of life on the planet.  Aliens exterminating humanity wouldn't really change anything in that context since other forms of life also fulfill that purpose.  Cockroaches pursue the same purpose of continuing to exist yet that doesn't stop attempts to exterminate them.

So, I don't believe explaining a purpose of continuing to exist driven by evolutionary biology would be a viable defense of humanity.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.15  Nerm_L  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.12    2 weeks ago
That’s the question I am asking you too.

What distinguishes humanity from other forms of life on the planet?

Humans can learn and retain knowledge and communicate that knowledge across generations.  Humans are readily adaptable to changing circumstances.  Humans understand cause and effect which allows humans to predict future events to a limited extent.  Humans can think in the abstract beyond what their senses tell them.  Humans are builders and creators.

Humanity possesses godlike traits and characteristics that distinguishes humanity from other life forms on the planet.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.1.16  Nerm_L  replied to  Kathleen @8.1.13    2 weeks ago
Maybe for some people, but not with everyone.

As I stated in @8.1.15, humanity possesses godlike traits and characteristics that distinguishes humanity from other life forms on the planet.

My defense of humanity is that the purpose of humanity is to become more godly.  By that I don't mean that the gods of any religions are the models.

Humanity has made considerable progress becoming more godly in a short period of time compared to other forms of life on the planet.  Humans are aware of morality, benevolence, and peaceful coexistence and is making progress through trial and error, if nothing else.  To be sure, humanity still has much to learn and much to improve about itself.  But humanity is capable of learning and improving; our history really does show that.  We only have difficulty grappling with time scales.

Yes, I would defend humanity using the purpose of becoming more godly.  Humanity may not yet be godly but humanity is progressing toward that goal in fits and starts.  Humanity isn't perfect by any defensible argument but humanity does strive to improve itself.  Given time humanity would be a positive influence on the affairs of the universe.  Humans are a young species and should not be judged by the failures of humanity but rather by the potential of humanity to become more godly.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8    2 weeks ago
Whether by deliberate intent of a god or by causality governed by immutable natural laws, humanity was meant to exist from the first moment of creation.

How do you know the physics of our universe is strictly deterministic?   That is what is required for your claim to be true.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2    2 weeks ago
How do you know the physics of our universe is strictly deterministic?   That is what is required for your claim to be true.

The past is immutable.  Humanity exists.  Whatever happened since the Big Bang so that humanity exists really did happen.  And whatever happened could not have happened any other way.

Humanity exists.  The physics of our universe describes and explains an unbroken chain of events from the first moment of creation that could not have happened any other way.

Humanity exists.  Whatever possibilities that may have prevented humanity's existence have all been eliminated.

There isn't any need to know whether or not physics is strictly deterministic.  Humanity exists.  That is an observable, irrefutable fact.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.2  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.1    2 weeks ago
Whatever happened since the Big Bang so that humanity exists really did happen. 

Yeah, what is ... is.      jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

And whatever happened could not have happened any other way.

You do not know that.   We know the path that was taken but do not know that there were no alternatives .   If the physics of our universe is deterministic then the path that was taken was the only possible path.    If not , you cannot possibly know that it ' could not have happened any other way '.

So, again, how do you know the physics of our universe is strictly deterministic?

We now what did happen; we do not know if some other path could have happened.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.2    2 weeks ago
Yeah, what is ... is.     

Yes, what is cannot be anything other than what is.

You do not know that.   We know the path that was taken but do not know that there were no alternatives.   If the physics of our universe is deterministic then the path that was taken was the only possible path.   If not, you cannot possibly know that it 'could not have happened any other way'.

Yes, I do know that because humanity exists.  Science has explained that there were other possibilities and other alternatives.  Science has explained that there were a large number of events since the Big Bang that could have prevented the existence of humanity.  

Humanity exists.  Any and all other possibilities and alternatives did not happen and did not prevent the existence of humanity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.3    2 weeks ago
Humanity exists.  Any and all other possibilities and alternatives did not happen and did not prevent the existence of humanity.

You did not read my comment carefully.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.5  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.4    2 weeks ago
You did not read my comment carefully.

Yes I did.  Any and all other possibilities and alternatives did not happen and did not prevent the existence of humanity.

What happened really did happen.

Could humanity's existence have resulted from a different chain of events?  Non sequitur without evidence of humanity existing by a different chain of events.  

The existence of humanity is direct, observable, irrefutable evidence that what happened happened and could not have happened any other way.  Disproving that claim would require finding an alien species identical to humanity that exists by a different chain of events.  Do you have such evidence?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.6  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.5    2 weeks ago
What happened really did happen.

Yes, Nerm, that is true.   I agreed with you on the obvious point you made.   

Could humanity's existence have resulted from a different chain of events?  Non sequitur without evidence of humanity existing by a different chain of events.  

'Could' is different from 'did' and most definitely different from 'could not'.   You claimed 'could not' and I asked how you could possible know that.  'Did' does not mean 'could not'.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.6    2 weeks ago
'Could' is different from 'did' and most definitely different from 'could not'.   You claimed 'could not' and I asked how you could possible know that.  'Did' does not mean 'could not'.

Are you suggesting that the claim should be altered to "what happened happened and could have happened other ways"?  Do you have evidence to support that alteration?

Are you suggesting that the claim should be altered to "what happened happened and we don't know if what happened could have happened any other way".  We do have very good evidence for what happened, can you show that evidence is inaccurate?

The available evidence that alternatives did not occur supports a definitive 'could not'.  Can you provide evidence that a definitive 'could not' is inappropriate?  I am certainly willing to withdraw the definitive 'could not' claim if evidence can be provided.  Until such evidence is provided, I stand by my claim that "what happened happened and could not have happened any other way".

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.7    2 weeks ago
Until such evidence is provided, I stand by my claim that "what happened happened and could not have happened any other way".

You made the claim thus you have the burden of evidence.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.9  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.8    2 weeks ago
You made the claim thus you have the burden of evidence.

The burden of evidence is to refute a claim.  The available evidence supports the claim because the evidence describes what did happen.  Do you have evidence that what happened did not happen?  Do you have evidence that different chains of events resulted in the same outcome?

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.10  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.9    2 weeks ago
The burden of evidence is to refute a claim. 

Quoting to give that little gem some more air time.

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.11  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.10    2 weeks ago
Quoting to give that little gem some more air time.

The burden of evidence really is to refute a claim. As you well know, science develops hypotheses and theories from evidence; however, the burden of evidence is to refute the hypotheses and theories.  Science doesn't use evidence to prove anything. 

The burden of proof for a hypothesis or theory is how theology uses evidence.  The burden of proof applies to moral questions.

The claim "what happened happened and could not have happened any other way" is supported by an enormous body of scientific research and knowledge.  The claim really is supported by a body of evidence too large to recite here.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.12  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.11    2 weeks ago
The burden of evidence really is to refute a claim.

Giving this extremely obvious illustration of making up nonsense rules more air time.

As you well know, science develops hypotheses and theories from evidence; however, the burden of evidence is to refute the hypotheses and theories.  Science doesn't use evidence to prove anything. 

The burden in science is to evidence the hypothesis or theory.    If you ridiculous rule were true then anyone could claim anything and it would be deemed true unless someone could provide evidence to show it wrong.  jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

So here is a fine illustration of the nonsense on which you are stubbornly doubling-down:

I claim that our universe was created by a 5 dimensional entity named 'Nermus Magnus' and Nermus uses it as we would use an aquarium.

By your rule, my claim is true until you can show evidence that refutes it.

Good luck.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.13  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.12    2 weeks ago
I claim that our universe was created by a 5 dimensional entity named 'Nermus Magnus' and Nermus uses it as we would use an aquarium.

Refuting the claim would require evidence.  I couldn't just declare the claim is wrong or that I don't believe or accept the claim.  I could demand that the claim has been made based on evidence (a prima facie requirement) and I could demand to see the evidence.  But demanding evidence would not allow me to dictate what evidence is required.

A burden of proof would require evidence but that is not limited to direct evidence or physical evidence.  The evidence could include indirect or non-physical evidence such as circumstantial evidence, analogical evidence, anecdotal evidence, or testimonial evidence.  (For example, the fine-tuning argument could be presented as evidence the universe was created.)

Once evidence has been provided to support the claim then I can only refute the claim or the supporting evidence with contradictory evidence.  I can't just declare the provided evidence is nonsense; it's necessary to produce contradictory evidence.

Obviously a claim made without supporting evidence could be easily refuted by contradictory evidence.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.14  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.13    2 weeks ago
Refuting the claim would require evidence. 

Yes, Nerm, we all know that.  But you are arguing that a ridiculous claims such as 'Nermus Maximus' does not bear the burden of evidence but rather those who disagree with the claim are the ones who must disprove it with evidence.   I cannot imagine that you actually believe what you are trying to sell.

I can't just declare the provided evidence is nonsense; it's necessary to produce contradictory evidence.

No, but you can do this:  when someone makes a claim, you can challenge them to back up the claim.   The individual who makes a claim bears the burden of evidence.   If you were instead to make a counter-claim then you bear the burden of evidence for the counter-claim.   Both would bear a burden for each of their claims.


Now, that established, you made a claim and I asked you how you knew that your claim was true.   Note that I simply asked you to explain yourself ("how do you know this?").  I did not pose a counter-claim.

See how this works?

In short, if you make a claim, you bear the burden of evidence.   

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.15  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.14    2 weeks ago
Now, that established, you made a claim and I asked you how you knew that your claim was true.   Note that I simply asked you to explain yourself ("how do you know this?").  I did not pose a counter-claim.

And I addressed the prima facie requirement for evidence in @8.2.7.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.16  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.15    2 weeks ago

Who do you think you are fooling?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.2.17  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @8.2.16    2 weeks ago
Who do you think you are fooling?

You disagree with the body of scientific evidence and knowledge?

Would it help if I restated the contention?

Humanity exists as the result of an unbroken chain of events since the Big Bang that was not possible by any alternative chain of events.

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.2.18  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @8.2.17    2 weeks ago
Would it help if I restated the contention?

No, because I understood your point from your first comment.   You, however, choose to not acknowledge my rebuttal (or do not understand what I wrote).   It is boring reading you paraphrase your opening point as if repeating the same claim makes it clearer or more convincing.

So you will need to play this game with someone else.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @8    2 weeks ago
Humanity exists because humanity is supposed to exist.

" Supposed to is part of a modal verb phrase meaning expected to or required to . Although suppose to crops up frequently in casual speech and writing, it should not be used in that sense. Suppose (without the d ) should only be used as the present tense of the verb meaning to assume (something to be true) ."

https://www.grammarly.com/blog/supposed-to/

It is quite the assumption to believe that we were "expected to" exist since that presupposes a prime mover does exist who "expected us" when so far there is no empirical evidence of such.

defending humanity against judgement by aliens would require faith in an understanding of purpose

And therein lies the problem since there is no consensus on either the supposed designer or their possible purpose. Having "faith" in one belief inherently means you reject all others with zero evidence to support any of the theories presented so far.

If aliens did make themselves known to us we would likely have a hard time disproving any of the aliens ideas on the purpose of life in the universe, we couldn't even effectively reject their conjecture that humans purpose was to be livestock for their alien children to feed upon and they've just come by to harvest the planet of high calorie human brains.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.3.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.3    2 weeks ago
" Supposed to is part of a modal verb phrase meaning expected to or required to . Although suppose to crops up frequently in casual speech and writing, it should not be used in that sense. Suppose (without the d ) should only be used as the present tense of the verb meaning to assume (something to be true) ."

Humanity exists.  The existence of humanity is not a supposition; it's an observable, irrefutable fact.  Would humanity exist if it was not supposed to exist?

If aliens did make themselves known to us we would likely have a hard time disproving any of the aliens ideas on the purpose of life in the universe, we couldn't even effectively reject their conjecture that humans purpose was to be livestock for their alien children to feed upon and they've just come by to harvest the planet of high calorie human brains.

Isn't the Golden Rule a statement of purpose?  The Golden Rule has been stated many ways, in many cultures, by many theologians and secular philosophers.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
8.3.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @8.3.1    2 weeks ago
Would humanity exist if it was not supposed to exist?

Of course it could, we could just be one of the many subjectively "happy accidents" that allowed life to exist, no purpose necessary. If you claim there is a purpose, you have to prove who or what developed that purpose. Otherwise it's mere conjecture.

Isn't the Golden Rule a statement of purpose?

Not really. The golden rule is merely a human invention that allows disparate groups and individuals to live in relative harmony since treating others as you want to be treated is a simple way to tell someone to put yourself in someone else's shoes, to understand that what happens to one human could happen to all humans so if something is harmful to one human then we shouldn't do it to any human or we're asking it to be done to ourselves.

 
 
 
katrix
8.3.3  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.3.2    2 weeks ago
we could just be one of the many subjectively "happy accidents" that allowed life to exist, no purpose necessary

Even if there were a god - why would there necessarily be any purpose to our existence? What would that purpose be?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
8.3.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @8.3.2    2 weeks ago
Of course it could, we could just be one of the many subjectively "happy accidents" that allowed life to exist, no purpose necessary. If you claim there is a purpose, you have to prove who or what developed that purpose. Otherwise it's mere conjecture.

Humanity exists as a result of an unbroken chain of events that could not have occurred in any other manner since the Big Bang and that chain of events has mostly been described and explained by science.  The existence of humanity is a direct result of the Big Bang.

Since humanity exists then all other possibilities which would have prevented the existence of humanity were eliminated.  Humanity is not a possibility; humanity exists as an observable, irrefutable fact. 

Hypothesizing that 'aliens' equivalent to humanity exists in the universe is based upon the fact of humanity's existence and a supposition that the unbroken chain of events resulting in humanity's existence is not unique to humanity.  Hypothesizing the existence of aliens is based upon humanity's existence not being the result of a happy accident.  If the existence of humanity is the result of a happy accident then humanity is likely alone in the universe.

The question of intent or purpose for the existence of humanity cannot be answered by observing humanity or observing the chain of events resulting in the existence of humanity.  The existence of the humanity is a direct result of the Big Bang.  Was the Big Bang intended for a purpose?  IMO science cannot answer that question.

 
 
 
charger 383
9  charger 383    2 weeks ago

plead not guilty due to poor instructions

 
 
 
Ozzwald
10  Ozzwald    2 weeks ago

Build a wall to keep out those pesky aliens.

Trump_Space_Wall.jpg?fit=758%2C474&ssl=1

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.1  author  Kathleen  replied to  Ozzwald @10    2 weeks ago

My husband liked this even though he thinks like me about politics.  That’s all though, no more mention of it.. : )

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

Maybe the aliens are worse than we are, so perhaps we should be judging them.  Most of the SciFi movies and novels make aliens considerably more evil than we are, usually trying to destroy us, eat us, enslave us, etc., except perhaps in the novel and movie "Contact", and in that one although the aliens were SO beyond us that they had the ability to destroy us, they allowed us to continue to evolve. As it was said in the movie "Contact", if there weren't other life forms in the universe, "it would be an awful waste of space".

 
 
 
Ozzwald
11.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11    2 weeks ago
Most of the SciFi movies and novels make aliens considerably more evil than we are, usually trying to destroy us, eat us, enslave us, etc.

But they're so cute!

_dsc9072-et-mtsyd-2012.jpg?crop=0,0.0345120809alf1.jpg2ba8698b79439589fdd2b0f7218d8b07.jpg?ito

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.1.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ozzwald @11.1    2 weeks ago

Oh, I forgot about E.T.

 
 
 
Kathleen
12  author  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

Remember, the aliens were more less used as an example. 

The real question is:  How would you talk up the human race, what is so great about us and the way we lived all during history?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
12.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Kathleen @12    2 weeks ago

Well, I would say we're a little more evolved that animals, but we still have a long way to go before all of humanity is civilized.

 
 
 
Kathleen
12.1.1  author  Kathleen  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @12.1    2 weeks ago

I agree....

 
 
 
dave-2693993
12.2  dave-2693993  replied to  Kathleen @12    2 weeks ago
what is so great about us and the way we lived all during history?

We survived and arguably evolved more than our competition.

As for the aliens, I would take there position as hostile.

That said I would present to them the best of The Three Stooges, Abbott and Costello, George Carlin, Steve Martin, et al, oh can't forget Jen and Brad (please don't tell me you don't know who the are..lol).

If the aliens don't get it, hell nuke 'em and their hostile attitude. If you are going to go down, go down with an argument, dang it.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
13  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

Jennifer Aniston and Brad Pitt - not exactly Abbot and Costello.

https://video.tudou.com/v/XNzkzOTA0ODUy.html?spm=a2h0k.8191414.0.0&from=s1.8-1-1.2

 
 
 
dave-2693993
13.1  dave-2693993  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13    2 weeks ago

Who's on first is hilarious.

Wrong Jen and Brad.

Can you find vids of Jenny Davies and Bradly Holmes? Especially the older ones.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
13.1.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  dave-2693993 @13.1    2 weeks ago
Who's on first is hilarious.

I showed my son that when he was going through that "anything older than me is lame" phase.  He couldn't imagine that anything filmed in black and white could be funny.

He laughed and laughed.  Some attitude adjustments can be fun.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
13.1.2  dave-2693993  replied to  sandy-2021492 @13.1.1    2 weeks ago

I am so glad he enjoyed it.

It was a light bulb moment in his life.

Good for him.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
13.1.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  dave-2693993 @13.1    2 weeks ago

There is a video of Brad pulling a prank on Jenny that he's leaving her, but it took so long to move along I don't have the time to sit and wait through all the long pauses.

 
 
 
dave-2693993
13.1.4  dave-2693993  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @13.1.3    2 weeks ago

In actuality the whole JaLo (sp?) thing bypassed be. Doubt I could relate.

If you can find the other Jen and Brad, look for:

  • She doesn't understand the weather, and
  • The pizza problem