Atheists and Aliens
Yomama Sophat
Therion Ware <tw...@exterminator.net> wrote:
> Not really. As I see it a deity (or Deity) is a completely different
> kettle of fish to an alien, whose basically just another form of
life.
> If here, using the principle of mediocrity, why not there? This is a
> fairly small jump, but to believe in an omni-everything eternal God
is
> a massive leap that has nothing to base the leap on.
You don't believe in aliens, do you? I'd like to see you prove their
existence.
Aliens are a substitute for God, as Spielberg knows well. SETI is a
substitute for religion. And almost as effective in finding proof.
Charles Fiterman
Yomama Sophat wrote:
>
> Therion Ware <tw...@exterminator.net> wrote:
> > Not really. As I see it a deity (or Deity) is a completely different
> > kettle of fish to an alien, whose basically just another form of
> life.
> > If here, using the principle of mediocrity, why not there? This is a
> > fairly small jump, but to believe in an omni-everything eternal God
> is
> > a massive leap that has nothing to base the leap on.
>
> You don't believe in aliens, do you? I'd like to see you prove their
> existence.
I'm statisticly as sure of their existence as I can be. I simply look at
the size of the universe, number of stars etc. Most life is Archea,
single celled organisms without nuclei. We've found them as much as
two miles deep living in rock. We've found them in such diverse
conditions
that most of the solar system now seems suited to life as we now know
it. A few years ago I felt there could be no life near X-ray stars,
double stars etc. I've rejected that and can even imagine a supernova
spreading life.
> Aliens are a substitute for God, as Spielberg knows well. SETI is a
> substitute for religion. And almost as effective in finding proof.
Actually you don't need aliens to have gods, look up lowercase god
in your dictionary. You will find most of them are small statues
and exist. Gods also include Earth, Sun, Wind and Sky which I learned
about from a Pima Shaman as a child. And they include absolute rulers
like Kim Jung Il. He isn't called a god he's called Beloved Leader
but that's the proper term of adoration for the god Kim Jung Il.
What makes me an atheist is not denying the existence of some poorly
defined god or other but not having any gods. The line one definition
in the dictionary of atheist is godless.
Craig L. Hodder
Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote in article
<343125...@geodesic.com>...
> Yomama Sophat wrote:
> >
> > Therion Ware <tw...@exterminator.net> wrote:
{snip}
> > You don't believe in aliens, do you? I'd like to see you prove their
> > existence.
>
> I'm statisticly as sure of their existence as I can be.
My personal opinions on the issue aside, the entire argument presented here
is no closer to proof than anything the theists produce.
I simply look at
> the size of the universe, number of stars etc. Most life is Archea,
> single celled organisms without nuclei. We've found them as much as
> two miles deep living in rock. We've found them in such diverse
> conditions
> that most of the solar system now seems suited to life as we now know
> it. A few years ago I felt there could be no life near X-ray stars,
> double stars etc. I've rejected that and can even imagine a supernova
> spreading life.
Here are arguments by chance, by number, by wonder, and even simple
conjecture presented as "proof." Very similar to theists, and no more
logically sound. The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no proof,
and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
anywhere but here. Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
must therefore not exist.
>
> > Aliens are a substitute for God, as Spielberg knows well. SETI is a
> > substitute for religion. And almost as effective in finding proof.
This is one of the best parallels I've seen drawn in a looong time. Not
entirely accurate, but still very well made.
Craig
--
Knowledge is fixed in time, whereas, knowing is continual. Knowledge
comes from a source, from an accumulation, from a conclusion, while
knowing is a movement.
--Bruce Lee
Scott F. Johnson
In article <3430E5...@fbc.org>, yom...@fbc.org says...
> You don't believe in aliens, do you? I'd like to see you prove their
> existence.
>
> substitute for religion. And almost as effective in finding proof.
>
Uh? We can observe that life has developed on this planet - the fact that
you are reading this is proof enough of that fact. It is not a grand
"leap of faith" to postulate that life could have developed somewhere
else in the universe as well. The idea that we are the only intelligent
life in the universe, given the shear enormity of it, is nothing short of
arrogance.
As for aliens being a substitute for god, I don't believe in god. I also
do not "believe in" aliens, however I am willing to accept that
intelligent life could have possibly developed elsewhere in the universe.
I am not willing to accept the possibility that there is an all-powerful
being which created us and the rest of the universe in 6 days 8000 years
ago.
-Cheers
-Scott F. Johnson
------
PGP key: http://www.pgp.com/keyserver
Craig L. Hodder
Scott F. Johnson <sjoh...@comcat.com> wrote in article
<MPG.e9b0bd7d...@news.comcat.com>...
> In article <3430E5...@fbc.org>, yom...@fbc.org says...
>
> > You don't believe in aliens, do you? I'd like to see you prove their
> > existence.
> >
> > Aliens are a substitute for God, as Spielberg knows well. SETI is a
> > substitute for religion. And almost as effective in finding proof.
> >
>
> Uh? We can observe that life has developed on this planet - the fact that
> you are reading this is proof enough of that fact. It is not a grand
> "leap of faith" to postulate that life could have developed somewhere
> else in the universe as well. The idea that we are the only intelligent
> life in the universe, given the shear enormity of it, is nothing short of
> arrogance.
Arrogant, yes. But rational and logical, given the standard atheistic
logical model which requires proof (which must be testable and repeatable,
using the scientific method) of any positive assertion. Arguing that the
magnitude of the universe means that there are aliens is like saying that
because of the wonder of the workings of the universe there must be a god
who created it. It's bunk for the theist, it's bunk for you.
> As for aliens being a substitute for god, I don't believe in god. I also
> do not "believe in" aliens, however I am willing to accept that
> intelligent life could have possibly developed elsewhere in the universe.
> I am not willing to accept the possibility that there is an all-powerful
> being which created us and the rest of the universe in 6 days 8000 years
> ago.
How about the possibility that an all powerful being *was* the "spark" that
created the first strand of potential life material in the primordial ooze
some 600 million years or so ago? Would that be acceptable? If not, why
not? If you will accept the possibility of aliens based on a logical
fallacy (something akin to Pascal's Wager, no less), then you should be
able to accept the idea I just put forward.
Charles Fiterman
Craig L. Hodder wrote:
> I simply look at
> > the size of the universe, number of stars etc. Most life is Archea,
> > single celled organisms without nuclei. We've found them as much as
> > two miles deep living in rock. We've found them in such diverse
> > conditions
> > that most of the solar system now seems suited to life as we now know
> > it. A few years ago I felt there could be no life near X-ray stars,
> > double stars etc. I've rejected that and can even imagine a supernova
> > spreading life.
>
> Here are arguments by chance, by number, by wonder, and even simple
> conjecture presented as "proof." Very similar to theists, and no more
> logically sound. The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no proof,
> and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
> anywhere but here. Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
> must therefore not exist.
I don't have absolute proof and didn't claim to. I have sound
statistical
evidence. And in fact we have found evidence of life on mars.
Life exists on earth, it must have happened by some natural process.
It looks like physical law is the same everywhere. There are a lot
of planets. It is therefore logical to think the same natural processes
that created life here created it elsewhere.
This argument became far stronger as we learned about Archea. A few
years ago it looked like life required a very narrow band of conditions
to survive and this band was so narrow that only Earth and maybe Europa
fit the conditions. We've now found life living in rock two miles deep
at 90 degrees Celcus. Life as we know it can live on all but Venus and
I'm not so sure about Venus.
If life comes from natural processes and can live in such a wide band
of conditions it is logical to expect a lot of it and it looks like
we've found it on Mars. To assume otherwise is to assume life didn't
come from natural processes but requries some kind of miracle.
Neal Wilson
> Yomama Sophat wrote:
> >
> > Therion Ware <tw...@exterminator.net> wrote:
> > > Not really. As I see it a deity (or Deity) is a completely different
> > > kettle of fish to an alien, whose basically just another form of
> > life.
> > > If here, using the principle of mediocrity, why not there? This is a
> > > fairly small jump, but to believe in an omni-everything eternal God
> > is
> > > a massive leap that has nothing to base the leap on.
> >
> > You don't believe in aliens, do you? I'd like to see you prove their
> > existence.
>
> I'm statisticly as sure of their existence as I can be. I simply look at
> the size of the universe, number of stars etc. Most life is Archea,
> single celled organisms without nuclei. We've found them as much as
> two miles deep living in rock. We've found them in such diverse
> conditions
> that most of the solar system now seems suited to life as we now know
> it. A few years ago I felt there could be no life near X-ray stars,
> double stars etc. I've rejected that and can even imagine a supernova
> spreading life.
>
> > Aliens are a substitute for God, as Spielberg knows well. SETI is a
> > substitute for religion. And almost as effective in finding proof.
>
> Actually you don't need aliens to have gods, look up lowercase god
> in your dictionary. You will find most of them are small statues
> and exist. Gods also include Earth, Sun, Wind and Sky which I learned
> about from a Pima Shaman as a child. And they include absolute rulers
> like Kim Jung Il. He isn't called a god he's called Beloved Leader
> but that's the proper term of adoration for the god Kim Jung Il.
>
> What makes me an atheist is not denying the existence of some poorly
> defined god or other but not having any gods. The line one definition
> in the dictionary of atheist is godless.
Hmm... my dictionary defines god in such a way that it is simply a state
of mind. If twisted, it says that anybody who cares to proclaim themself
as a god is free to do so and be correct as long as they believe it. And
people ask me why I've contorted the english language so much for
communication that does not have to be understood by the general...
Neal Wilson
The Weasel is your friend.
Neal Wilson
In article <01bccdcf$07c13c40$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder"
<clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
> Here are arguments by chance, by number, by wonder, and even simple
> conjecture presented as "proof." Very similar to theists, and no more
> logically sound. The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no proof,
> and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
> anywhere but here. Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
> must therefore not exist.
>
Ugh... You believe in logic!? Are you insane? Logic is purely a creation
of the human mind. It rests only on its axioms and without them it
crumbles. Do not deify the meanest joke played on the human race in
recorded history. Logic proves nothing. Here's an example. Did you ever
try to prove the concept of logic? In order to effectively argue against
it, you must use it. In order to defend it, you must first assume that it
exists. Eliminate the axioms and what do you have left? Sure, call me
crazy, but look at the groups this thread is posted to.
Neal Wilson
In article <01bccdcf$dbdd0270$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder"
<clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
> Scott F. Johnson <sjoh...@comcat.com> wrote in article
> <MPG.e9b0bd7d...@news.comcat.com>...
> > In article <3430E5...@fbc.org>, yom...@fbc.org says...
> >
> > > You don't believe in aliens, do you? I'd like to see you prove their
> > > existence.
> > >
> > > Aliens are a substitute for God, as Spielberg knows well. SETI is a
> > > substitute for religion. And almost as effective in finding proof.
> > >
> >
> > Uh? We can observe that life has developed on this planet - the fact that
>
> > you are reading this is proof enough of that fact. It is not a grand
> > "leap of faith" to postulate that life could have developed somewhere
> > else in the universe as well. The idea that we are the only intelligent
> > life in the universe, given the shear enormity of it, is nothing short of
>
> > arrogance.
>
> Arrogant, yes. But rational and logical, given the standard atheistic
> logical model which requires proof (which must be testable and repeatable,
> using the scientific method) of any positive assertion. Arguing that the
> magnitude of the universe means that there are aliens is like saying that
> because of the wonder of the workings of the universe there must be a god
> who created it. It's bunk for the theist, it's bunk for you.
>
I'm guessing you're a theist. You believe in the God of Science. No, I
won't expand on that using your bunk logic.
Rev Chuck
Neal Wilson wrote:
>
> In article <01bccdcf$07c13c40$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder"
> <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Here are arguments by chance, by number, by wonder, and even simple
> > conjecture presented as "proof." Very similar to theists, and no more
> > logically sound. The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no proof,
> > and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
> > anywhere but here. Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
> > must therefore not exist.
> >
>
> Ugh... You believe in logic!? Are you insane? Logic is purely a creation
> of the human mind. It rests only on its axioms and without them it
> crumbles. Do not deify the meanest joke played on the human race in
> recorded history. Logic proves nothing. Here's an example. Did you ever
> try to prove the concept of logic? In order to effectively argue against
> it, you must use it. In order to defend it, you must first assume that it
> exists. Eliminate the axioms and what do you have left? Sure, call me
> crazy, but look at the groups this thread is posted to.
>
> The Weasel is your friend.
Logic can only prove that an argument's conclusion is derived validly from
its premises. The premises can, of course, be total bullshit, and the
argument can be logical.
Paranoia = logical reasoning, defective input.
Rev Chuck
Neal Wilson wrote:
>
> In article <01bccdcf$dbdd0270$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder"
> The Weasel is your friend.
We prefer to call it reason.
Neal Wilson
I see nothing reasonable about it. Of course, I'm not known to many as a
reasonable person. (Oh, and watch the cracks about paranoia)
Craig L. Hodder
Neal Wilson <wil...@execpc.com> wrote in article
<wilcafe-3009...@obica-7.mdm.prk.execpc.com>...
> I'm guessing you're a theist. You believe in the God of Science. No, I
> won't expand on that using your bunk logic.
BZZZZT! Oh, I'm sorry, Neal... The correct question was "what is an
agnostic or skeptic?" Let's go to Double Jeopardy now, and see if you can
get yourself out of the negative area before Final Jeopardy...
Craig
Craig L. Hodder
Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote in article
> Craig L. Hodder wrote:
>
> > I simply look at
> > > the size of the universe, number of stars etc. Most life is Archea,
> > > single celled organisms without nuclei. We've found them as much as
> > > two miles deep living in rock. We've found them in such diverse
> > > conditions
> > > that most of the solar system now seems suited to life as we now know
> > > it. A few years ago I felt there could be no life near X-ray stars,
> > > double stars etc. I've rejected that and can even imagine a supernova
> > > spreading life.
> >
> > Here are arguments by chance, by number, by wonder, and even simple
> > conjecture presented as "proof." Very similar to theists, and no more
> > logically sound. The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no
proof,
> > and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
> > anywhere but here. Thus, using standard logical models, alien life
forms
> > must therefore not exist.
>
> I don't have absolute proof and didn't claim to.
Actually, you said: "> I'm statisticly as sure of their existence as I can
be." This is equivalent to making a positive assertion that life exists
elsewhere. A positive claim requires proof.
I have sound
> statistical
> evidence. And in fact we have found evidence of life on mars.
Actually, we found what could be evidence of life that existed (past tense,
very important to note that) on Mars. We have yet to find evidence of any
life that IS in existence (present tense), or evidence of any life that
"succeeded," and evolved past the microbial level. What we have is
evidence of a "failure" on Mars, and nothing more.
>
> Life exists on earth, it must have happened by some natural process.
> It looks like physical law is the same everywhere. There are a lot
> of planets. It is therefore logical to think the same natural processes
> that created life here created it elsewhere.
No, it's not. That statement is no more logical than this one: "Look
around you, at the things that are here, and the wonder of them. These
*must* have been made by a god, and surely could not have evolved on it's
own." Both statements are based on the argument by wonder, a logical
fallacy. You even slip one other logical fallacy in there, argument by
numbers... "There are a lot of planets." That's equivalent to saying that
"there are a lot of people who believe in a god." Neither is proof, even
statistically, that the premise is any more than a wild fancy. According
to the logical model, we must therefore conclude that there is no life
extant on other worlds, due to the absence of any kind of evidence.
>
> This argument became far stronger as we learned about Archea. A few
> years ago it looked like life required a very narrow band of conditions
> to survive and this band was so narrow that only Earth and maybe Europa
> fit the conditions. We've now found life living in rock two miles deep
> at 90 degrees Celcus. Life as we know it can live on all but Venus and
> I'm not so sure about Venus.
Venus, if I am not mistaken, is capable of destroying materials far
stronger than nature has made in the past (titanium alloys, for example).
It did so many times when humans sent probes there. Thus, there is no
reason to think that life would exist there.
In regards to Archea, I must admit I am new to the term. I also would be
interested in where the life we found two miles deep was? Earth, I
presume? However, I must say this. YOu still lack evidence of any
logically acceptable sort. Just because it happens here, in this
environment, doesn't mean it will happen anywhere else. It doesn't even
make it probable, but it does make a case for the _possibility_ of it.
Just as not being able to know makes a case for the _possibility_ of a
deity.
>
> If life comes from natural processes and can live in such a wide band
> of conditions it is logical to expect a lot of it and it looks like
> we've found it on Mars. To assume otherwise is to assume life didn't
> come from natural processes but requries some kind of miracle.
No, once more. We found evidence of life that "failed" on Mars, a set of
fossils. We have no evidence that life will "succeed" in any but the
relatively narrow band of conditions available on earth ("narrow" in
comparison to the myriad possibilities out there). To assume that just
because it happened here means it would happen (or has happened) elsewhere
(outside of the ranges that we have here, that is) is without basis in
logic. The possibility exists, perhaps, but the probability is slim and
none... just as the possibility of a deity is.
Mats Andtbacka
Craig L. Hodder, in <01bccdcf$dbdd0270$9201a8c0@clhpc>:
[...]
>>else in the universe as well. The idea that we are the only intelligent
>>life in the universe, given the shear enormity of it, is nothing short of
>>arrogance.
>Arrogant, yes. But rational and logical, given the standard atheistic
>logical model which requires proof (which must be testable and repeatable,
>using the scientific method)
you don't understand atheism or contemporary atheistic philosophy, you
seem confused on philosophy of science, and if you'd equate aliens
with deity you don't understand the concept of deity. do me a favour?
shut the fuck up.
--
"Yes i'm lonely..."
_Yer Blues_, Lennon / McCartney
Stix
Neal Wilson posted the following to alt.atheism:
>I'm guessing you're a theist. You believe in the God of Science. No, I
>won't expand on that using your bunk logic.
Fuck me drunk! ANOTHER trolling moron!
Christ, these fucking idiots are like flies.
<<PLONK>>
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Charles Fiterman
Craig L. Hodder wrote:
>
> Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote in article
> <343156...@geodesic.com>...
> > Craig L. Hodder wrote:
> Actually, you said: "> I'm statisticly as sure of their existence as I can
> be." This is equivalent to making a positive assertion that life exists
> elsewhere. A positive claim requires proof.
>
> I have sound
> > statistical
> > evidence. And in fact we have found evidence of life on mars.
>
> Actually, we found what could be evidence of life that existed (past tense,
> very important to note that) on Mars. We have yet to find evidence of any
> life that IS in existence (present tense), or evidence of any life that
> "succeeded," and evolved past the microbial level. What we have is
> evidence of a "failure" on Mars, and nothing more.
What we found was evidence of dead organisms on a rock that had been
blasted out of Mars and landed in Antartica thousands of years ago.
Not much would survive those events. Given the places we found life
here if it ever existed on Mars it does now. Suppose we found a
dead astronaut with records that showed he came from some distant
star. Would you say we have found evidence of a "failure" of life
on that star, the astronaut was dead after all.
> > Life exists on earth, it must have happened by some natural process.
> > It looks like physical law is the same everywhere. There are a lot
> > of planets. It is therefore logical to think the same natural processes
> > that created life here created it elsewhere.
>
> No, it's not. That statement is no more logical than this one: "Look
> around you, at the things that are here, and the wonder of them. These
> *must* have been made by a god, and surely could not have evolved on it's
> own." Both statements are based on the argument by wonder, a logical
> fallacy. You even slip one other logical fallacy in there, argument by
> numbers... "There are a lot of planets." That's equivalent to saying that
> "there are a lot of people who believe in a god." Neither is proof, even
> statistically, that the premise is any more than a wild fancy. According
> to the logical model, we must therefore conclude that there is no life
> extant on other worlds, due to the absence of any kind of evidence.
I've never seen gods that we didn't create out of our own nightmares
and hatreds. Most of them are small statues so I have seen gods. I've
never seen a god create only destroy. Kim Jung Il is clearly a god
by his place in his society so I have seen a god destroy.
But I've seen lots of things created by natural processes and know
them to be the same everywhere. Gods are very local by comparison.
We have evidence for rock on the moons of Jupiter. We know that rock
plus well known physical processes will make sand and have seen sand
on the Earth, Mars and our moon. I presume sand not only on the moons
of Jupiter but on unknown worlds in galaxys unseen. I defend this
reasoning.
There are numbers so large that no one has ever thought of them and
never will. Every one of those numbers is greater than 100. I cannot
give a single example of this statement being true but I will defend
its truth anyway.
> Venus, if I am not mistaken, is capable of destroying materials far
> stronger than nature has made in the past (titanium alloys, for example).
> It did so many times when humans sent probes there. Thus, there is no
> reason to think that life would exist there.
You're talking about the surface, very little of the volume of Venus
is exposed to the atmosphere. An X-ray star would kill any life as
we know it on the surface of a rearby planet. But a few inches of
rock would stop X-rays very well. I regard life on Venus as unlikely
but life does seem to find a way. If it was ever there I would bet
it survives.
Chris Nelson
In article <01bccdcf$07c13c40$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote in article
><343125...@geodesic.com>...
>> I simply look at
>> the size of the universe, number of stars etc. Most life is Archea,
>> single celled organisms without nuclei. We've found them as much as
>> two miles deep living in rock. We've found them in such diverse
>> conditions
>> that most of the solar system now seems suited to life as we now know
>> it. A few years ago I felt there could be no life near X-ray stars,
>> double stars etc. I've rejected that and can even imagine a supernova
>> spreading life.
>
>Here are arguments by chance, by number, by wonder, and even simple
>conjecture presented as "proof." Very similar to theists, and no more
>logically sound. The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no proof,
>and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
>anywhere but here.
But there *is* evidence, which is more than can be said for theists.
There is no evidence to support the existence of gods, but there is evidence
to support the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Evidence:
1. Life exists on Earth.
Life has recently been found in places on Earth previously thought
inhospitable, such as near deep sea volcanic vents. This increases the scope
of conditions in which life can, uh, live.
2. The universe is big.
The galaxy itself contains 100 billion stars (Monty Python's _The Meaning of
Life_ :) ) or maybe 400 billion stars (Carl Sagan's _Contact_). And there are
billyuns and billyuns (again, Carl Sagan) of galaxies out there. Recently
planets have been discovered orbiting other stars (check the listings
under www.yahoo.com/Science/Astronomy/Extrasolar_Planets), indicating that
planetary formation is common. Some of these billions upon billions of planets
must have conditions suitable for life of some kind. It is possible that Mars
once harbored life eons of years ago when its climate was warmer and wetter,
and Jupiter's moon Europa appears to be a likely candidate for
extraterrestrial life...all the ingredients are there. And if intelligent life
can happen on Earth, it can certainly happen elsewhere in the universe.
This is certainly not *proof* of life elsewhere, but it shows that the
probability for it is quite high.
I have seen *no* evidence to support the existence of gods, however.
>Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
>must therefore not exist.
Statistical induction is not a standard logical model?
Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
Heh V. Sarcasm
Stix <st...@ozemail.com.au> plonked:
> Fuck me drunk! ANOTHER trolling moron!
>
> Christ, these fucking idiots are like flies.
Wonder what's attracting all these flies?
Jay Mehaffey
On 30 Sep 97 18:40:35 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"
<clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
>
>Scott F. Johnson <sjoh...@comcat.com> wrote in article
><MPG.e9b0bd7d...@news.comcat.com>...
>> In article <3430E5...@fbc.org>, yom...@fbc.org says...
>>
>> > You don't believe in aliens, do you? I'd like to see you prove their
>> > existence.
>> >
>> > Aliens are a substitute for God, as Spielberg knows well. SETI is a
>> > substitute for religion. And almost as effective in finding proof.
>> >
>>
>> Uh? We can observe that life has developed on this planet - the fact that
>
>> you are reading this is proof enough of that fact. It is not a grand
>> "leap of faith" to postulate that life could have developed somewhere
>> else in the universe as well. The idea that we are the only intelligent
>> life in the universe, given the shear enormity of it, is nothing short of
>
>> arrogance.
>
>Arrogant, yes. But rational and logical, given the standard atheistic
>logical model which requires proof (which must be testable and repeatable,
>using the scientific method) of any positive assertion. Arguing that the
Not at all. A good atheist looks at the available evidence and proof
and then comes to a conclusion. There is no proof that life exists
elsewhere but nor is there proof that their isn't. What evidence is
available suggests that god doesn't exist, while for alien life it
suggests that it does. In both cases though it is mearly evidence and
in the case of alien life rather poor evidence at that.
>magnitude of the universe means that there are aliens is like saying that
>because of the wonder of the workings of the universe there must be a god
>who created it. It's bunk for the theist, it's bunk for you.
The arguments are only superficially similar. Those that believe that
the existance of alien life is probably are using a statistical
argument to show that the odds of no other life existing are very
slim. Theists are saying that because I can't imagine a universe
working without god then god must exist.
>> As for aliens being a substitute for god, I don't believe in god. I also
>> do not "believe in" aliens, however I am willing to accept that
>> intelligent life could have possibly developed elsewhere in the universe.
>
>> I am not willing to accept the possibility that there is an all-powerful
>> being which created us and the rest of the universe in 6 days 8000 years
>> ago.
>
>How about the possibility that an all powerful being *was* the "spark" that
>created the first strand of potential life material in the primordial ooze
>some 600 million years or so ago? Would that be acceptable? If not, why
>not? If you will accept the possibility of aliens based on a logical
>fallacy (something akin to Pascal's Wager, no less), then you should be
>able to accept the idea I just put forward.
When it is believed for the wrong reasons (and there are a fair number
of them) it's usually closer to argument from personal increduality.
Believing that aliens must exist just because they can't imagine the
unverse being that empty.
Just to be clear about my posistion, I think the odds of no other life
existing are quite small, but that most statistical assesments of how
many alien civilizations exist are too optimistic.
I think you may be making the mistake here of thinking that because
some people believe something without good evidence then that thing
must be wrong. This is in fact, just as bad as those that think it is
true.
Jay Mehaffey
My opinions, not my companies, duh.
Craig L. Hodder
Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
<60u2rl$o...@composer.inav.net>...
> In article <01bccdcf$07c13c40$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder"
<clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
> >Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote in article
> ><343125...@geodesic.com>...
>
{snipped}
>
> But there *is* evidence, which is more than can be said for theists.
Really? Where? I've yet to see any. There's plenty of speculation, but
no proof or evidence of alien life extant.
>
> There is no evidence to support the existence of gods, but there is
evidence
> to support the existence of extraterrestrial life.
Sure there is. Like what? Even one piece of concrete evidence? I doubt
it.
>
> Evidence:
>
> 1. Life exists on Earth.
Fact, but not evidence for life NOT on earth.
>
> Life has recently been found in places on Earth previously thought
> inhospitable, such as near deep sea volcanic vents. This increases the
scope
> of conditions in which life can, uh, live.
But still limits them severely, when compared with the full range of
possibilities.
>
> 2. The universe is big.
Argument by incredulity, anyone?
{snipped argument by incredulity}
> This is certainly not *proof* of life elsewhere, but it shows that the
> probability for it is quite high.
No, it shows that there is a possibility. Not probability, and surely not
certainty.
>
> I have seen *no* evidence to support the existence of gods, however.
Nor have I yet seen evidence of alien life extant in the universe.
>
> >Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
> >must therefore not exist.
>
> Statistical induction is not a standard logical model?
Itis an argument, but not a proof. Also, statistics depend on relatively
finite numbers. You can do statistics with infinity, but then you get
meaningless drivel.
Statistics is not proof, particularly when it is the only method by which
the possibility even exists, while all other models conclude with "alien
life does not exist."
>
>
>
>
> Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
>
Craig L. Hodder
Jay Mehaffey <JMeh...@mail.cdsgroup.com> wrote in article
<34325f74....@news.zippo.com>...
> On 30 Sep 97 18:40:35 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"
> <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
{snip}
> >Arrogant, yes. But rational and logical, given the standard atheistic
> >logical model which requires proof (which must be testable and
repeatable,
> >using the scientific method) of any positive assertion. Arguing that
the
>
> Not at all. A good atheist looks at the available evidence and proof
> and then comes to a conclusion. There is no proof that life exists
> elsewhere but nor is there proof that their isn't. What evidence is
> available suggests that god doesn't exist, while for alien life it
> suggests that it does. In both cases though it is mearly evidence and
> in the case of alien life rather poor evidence at that.
Waitaminit. "there is no proof that life exists elsewhere but nor is there
proof that their isn't" and later "what evidence is available... suggests
that it does." Is it just me, or is there something inherently missing in
that logic??? "There's no proof that it does not," and so therefore,
"evidence... suggests that it does." Nope, that fails the rationality
test, on stage one.
>
> >magnitude of the universe means that there are aliens is like saying
that
> >because of the wonder of the workings of the universe there must be a
god
> >who created it. It's bunk for the theist, it's bunk for you.
>
> The arguments are only superficially similar. Those that believe that
> the existance of alien life is probably are using a statistical
> argument to show that the odds of no other life existing are very
> slim. Theists are saying that because I can't imagine a universe
> working without god then god must exist.
No, more correctly, the theist may be operating from a similar statistical
setup that uses god as an explanation for what is not known, and probably
will never be known. In both cases, it is a statistical argument based on
no facts, just conjecture. "Imagination" enters into it when it's under
attack from people who would see theism discredited, and that slight Ad
Hominem attack is very useful in doing that.
The only time that "no other life" becomes a probability is when the
"infinity" idea is entered into the equations. Something on the same level
of "given infinite time and a piano, a monkey will play one of Beethoven's
symphonies." Bunk. Adding the infinite to an equation to make it work is
not a solution, it's a cop-out.
{snip}
> >not? If you will accept the possibility of aliens based on a logical
> >fallacy (something akin to Pascal's Wager, no less), then you should be
> >able to accept the idea I just put forward.
>
> When it is believed for the wrong reasons (and there are a fair number
> of them) it's usually closer to argument from personal increduality.
> Believing that aliens must exist just because they can't imagine the
> unverse being that empty.
Correct.
>
> Just to be clear about my posistion, I think the odds of no other life
> existing are quite small, but that most statistical assesments of how
> many alien civilizations exist are too optimistic.
Odds are not proof, nor evidence. Also, odds cannot be made without at
least a ballpark set of figures. Using "infinity" as a ball park makes
anything possible, if not probable, using "odds" and "statistics." No,
something better than that has to be put forward.
>
> I think you may be making the mistake here of thinking that because
> some people believe something without good evidence then that thing
> must be wrong. This is in fact, just as bad as those that think it is
> true.
This, in fact, is the precise standpoint that is put forward by many
atheists. Atheist : "There is no proof of god, and so I say god does not
exist... you bear the burden of proving it to me." It is precisely
parralell to what I am claiming: "There is no proof of alien life extant,
and so I say it does not exist. You bear the burden of proving it to me."
Craig L. Hodder
Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote in article
> Craig L. Hodder wrote:
> >
> > Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote in article
> > <343156...@geodesic.com>...
> > > Craig L. Hodder wrote:
>
> > Actually, you said: "> I'm statisticly as sure of their existence as I
can
> > be." This is equivalent to making a positive assertion that life
exists
> > elsewhere. A positive claim requires proof.
> >
> > I have sound
> > > statistical
> > > evidence. And in fact we have found evidence of life on mars.
> >
> > Actually, we found what could be evidence of life that existed (past
tense,
> > very important to note that) on Mars. We have yet to find evidence of
any
> > life that IS in existence (present tense), or evidence of any life that
> > "succeeded," and evolved past the microbial level. What we have is
> > evidence of a "failure" on Mars, and nothing more.
>
> What we found was evidence of dead organisms on a rock that had been
> blasted out of Mars and landed in Antartica thousands of years ago.
> Not much would survive those events. Given the places we found life
> here if it ever existed on Mars it does now. Suppose we found a
> dead astronaut with records that showed he came from some distant
> star. Would you say we have found evidence of a "failure" of life
> on that star, the astronaut was dead after all.
You miss the point, maybe intentionally. We found evidence of
micro-organisms that *may* have somehow been preserved in stone and
remained recognizable after being blown off Mars, and then making it
through orbital re-entry and impact on earth. Given that, and the fact
that no evidence similar to what was found in Antarctica was found on Mars,
I'd say it's more likely that the micro-organism was fossillized
terrestrially (sp?). And if the organism in the fossil was the predecessor
of some life that is extant on Mars now, why has it not been detected? No,
if there was life on Mars, it isn't there anymore.
As to the Astronaut example. You missed the point of "failure." I use
"failure" to denote a failure to evolve and flourish, as life here has. A
reduction to extinction, if you will. That is what I mean by "failure" or
"success." Obviously, a dead astronaut would be an example of "success,"
at least a partial one, because his species evolved and flourished enough
to at least attain space travel.
{snip}
> I've never seen gods that we didn't create out of our own nightmares
> and hatreds. Most of them are small statues so I have seen gods. I've
> never seen a god create only destroy. Kim Jung Il is clearly a god
> by his place in his society so I have seen a god destroy.
And I've never seen aliens, except on the big screen and at theme parks.
But I fail to see how this somehow proves the existence of aliens.
>
> But I've seen lots of things created by natural processes and know
> them to be the same everywhere. Gods are very local by comparison.
> We have evidence for rock on the moons of Jupiter. We know that rock
> plus well known physical processes will make sand and have seen sand
> on the Earth, Mars and our moon. I presume sand not only on the moons
> of Jupiter but on unknown worlds in galaxys unseen. I defend this
> reasoning.
And this means what exactly to the rather fragile thing called life?
Several of the "well known" processes that make rocks into sand are absent
on our own moon, and yet "the surface is very fine grained, almost like a
powder..." (Those were the words transmitted to earth by the first man on
the moon) The presence or absence of sand obviously does not equate to the
presence or absence of life. You need better reasoning.
>
> There are numbers so large that no one has ever thought of them and
> never will. Every one of those numbers is greater than 100. I cannot
> give a single example of this statement being true but I will defend
> its truth anyway.
I will accept the truth of the statement "Every one of those numbers
("those" indicating "numbers so large that no one has ever thought of them
and never will) is greater than 100." I don't try to undo such basic
mathematical precepts. So what's your point, and how does that tie into
alien life? Or is this another appeal to the "infinity" principle?
>
> > Venus, if I am not mistaken, is capable of destroying materials far
> > stronger than nature has made in the past (titanium alloys, for
example).
> > It did so many times when humans sent probes there. Thus, there is no
> > reason to think that life would exist there.
>
> You're talking about the surface, very little of the volume of Venus
> is exposed to the atmosphere. An X-ray star would kill any life as
> we know it on the surface of a rearby planet. But a few inches of
> rock would stop X-rays very well. I regard life on Venus as unlikely
> but life does seem to find a way. If it was ever there I would bet
> it survives.
Uh huh. Just like if the "rock from Mars" holds fossils from Mars, then
there's still life there. Sure. I get it. Your choice to believe a
delusion, but it is your choice and I'll respect it as such, no matter how
wrong it is.
Raymot
In article <01bccdcf$dbdd0270$9201a8c0@clhpc>, clho...@mlh-services.com says...
>The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no proof,
> and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
> anywhere but here. Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
> must therefore not exist.
I don't know a lot about these standard logical models, but if
you can reach that conclusion from thoses premises, they
can't be very rational.
Raymot
======
Brisbane, Australia
rmot...@powerup.com.au
http://www.powerup.com.au/~rmottare/
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Neal Wilson
I know, it's inane cross posting. All who read this and respond to this
thread, please remove alt.paranoia from the list of groups recieving this
thread. (What'd Stix eat today that put it in such a bad mood?)
Stix
Craig L. Hodder posted the following to alt.atheism:
(choose some groups)
>This, in fact, is the precise standpoint that is put forward by many
>atheists. Atheist : "There is no proof of god, and so I say god does not
>exist... you bear the burden of proving it to me." It is precisely
>parralell to what I am claiming: "There is no proof of alien life extant,
>and so I say it does not exist. You bear the burden of proving it to me."
Oh crap - it's not even *close* to being parallel, let alone precisely.
"god" is alleged to be the *creator* of the entire universe, an ethereal,
perfect being with all sorts of magic powers and omni-attributes who's
supposed to reign over the universe - Earth seemingly in particular - who
has control over human destiny, and will allegedly judge dead humans.
The existence of alien life is based on the undisputable fact that life
*does* exist on at least on planet and that given the squillions of other
planets in the vastness of the cosmos it's highly likely that life exists
elsewhere.
No magical, extraordinary claims. Just that if life *did* arise on one
planet by purely natural means there's nothing to suggest it can't or
hasn't arisen on other planets.
Chris Nelson
In article <01bcce9f$14b21bb0$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
>Waitaminit. "there is no proof that life exists elsewhere but nor is there
>proof that their isn't" and later "what evidence is available... suggests
>that it does." Is it just me, or is there something inherently missing in
>that logic??? "There's no proof that it does not," and so therefore,
>"evidence... suggests that it does." Nope, that fails the rationality
>test, on stage one.
No, it doesn't fail the rationality test...it's what's known as an "inductive
argument." We're not talking conclusive proof, we're talking likelihoods --
degrees of support for a conclusion.
It's not "There's no proof that it does not, and so therefore, evidence
suggests that it does."
Instead, it's "There's no proof that it does not, *however*, evidence
suggests that it does."
Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
Craig L. Hodder
Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
<60v5b6$8...@composer.inav.net>...
> In article <01bcce9f$14b21bb0$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder"
<clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
{snipped}
> It's not "There's no proof that it does not, and so therefore, evidence
> suggests that it does."
>
> Instead, it's "There's no proof that it does not, *however*, evidence
> suggests that it does."
What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
universe other than here.
Craig L. Hodder
Stix <stixR...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in article
<343e0ff7...@news.ozemail.com.au>...
> Craig L. Hodder posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> (choose some groups)
>
> >This, in fact, is the precise standpoint that is put forward by many
> >atheists. Atheist : "There is no proof of god, and so I say god does
not
> >exist... you bear the burden of proving it to me." It is precisely
> >parralell to what I am claiming: "There is no proof of alien life
extant,
> >and so I say it does not exist. You bear the burden of proving it to
me."
>
> Oh crap - it's not even *close* to being parallel, let alone precisely.
No, on the contrary, it IS parallell... perhaps not precisely. I may have
mis-chosen my wording on that, but it IS parallell.
>
> "god" is alleged to be the *creator* of the entire universe, an ethereal,
> perfect being with all sorts of magic powers and omni-attributes who's
> supposed to reign over the universe - Earth seemingly in particular - who
> has control over human destiny, and will allegedly judge dead humans.
Actually, you're specifying the Christian/Catholic/Islamic (?) Deity. What
of the others that don't fit that particular mold you've built? I did not
specify in my drawing of a parallel that I was referring to any specific
deity, just "a" deity. And in that, is where the parallel rests. *Any*
deity is faced with the requirement for proof before credence is given to
it. The same applies to Aliens; there must be Proof (not fallacious
arguments, but evidence) of their existence before any credence can be
given.
>
> The existence of alien life is based on the undisputable fact that life
> *does* exist on at least on planet and that given the squillions of other
> planets in the vastness of the cosmos it's highly likely that life exists
> elsewhere.
So, "It happened once, so it *has* to happen again?" A fallacious
argument. If you take into account all the possibilities, the
"probability" you (plural here, referring to all the persons who are
arguing that aliens *do* exist) harp on is not as large as you think.
There's also too many unknowns involved to make an accurate "statistical
analysis" of the "odds."
>
> No magical, extraordinary claims. Just that if life *did* arise on one
> planet by purely natural means there's nothing to suggest it can't or
> hasn't arisen on other planets.
Excepting that that is the combination of two logical fallacies: Argument
by numbers and argument by incredulity. There is no evidence of alien life
extant in the universe, and so until such evidence is presented it must be
assumed to be a false idea. (again, paralell to "there is no evidence of a
deity (note, I did not specify the Christian Deity as you seem to imply is
the only one that is involved, Stix), and so until such evidence is
presented, it must taken as a false idea" of the typical atheist)
Charles Fiterman
Craig L. Hodder wrote:
> Excepting that that is the combination of two logical fallacies: Argument
> by numbers and argument by incredulity. There is no evidence of alien life
> extant in the universe, and so until such evidence is presented it must be
> assumed to be a false idea. (again, paralell to "there is no evidence of a
> deity (note, I did not specify the Christian Deity as you seem to imply is
> the only one that is involved, Stix), and so until such evidence is
> presented, it must taken as a false idea" of the typical atheist)
Let me separate the issues. First life is the result of natural
processes,
and we see some life. There is nobody who says there is no life anywhere
in the universe because we see it here. We have reason to believe that
physical law is the same everywhere so if there is life here and lots of
places like here there is a very good chance of life elsewhere.
This is like saying there is sand elsewhere in the universe. Sand is the
result of well defined physical processes and we see some sand. I can't
be sure there is sand somewhere in the galaxy Andromeda but it seems
like a very good bet. And the more galaxys there are and the more stars
per galaxy the better a bet it becomes. I think the odds of there being
no sand anywhere in the universe but earth are very small indeed. The
odds never become 100% but they get as close as you could reasonably
want.
Now as to gods. I think we see some gods and most are small statues.
They
are the result of social and psychological processes so if there is life
elsewhere in the universe and some becomes intelligent there is a good
chance there are gods elsewhere in the universe. This is not a vital
scientific conclusion. It is like saying there may be child molesters
on the galaxy Andromeda because child molesters are the result of
natural processes and we see some here.
Most people have a more restrictive notion of gods than I do. I only
expect a thing to be treated as a god before I call it one and regard
things like Kim Jung Il as gods on this basis even though they don't
claim the title. In general these people say, on the basis of their
more restrictive notion, that they see no gods or very likely there
are none. To them gods are not the result of physical processes and
may be the origin of all physical processes. Since we see no gods
by their understanding of the term the size of the universe makes
little difference.
Jay Mehaffey
On 1 Oct 97 19:23:53 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"
<clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jay Mehaffey <JMeh...@mail.cdsgroup.com> wrote in article
><34325f74....@news.zippo.com>...
>> On 30 Sep 97 18:40:35 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"
>> <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>>
>
>{snip}
>
>> >Arrogant, yes. But rational and logical, given the standard atheistic
>> >logical model which requires proof (which must be testable and
>repeatable,
>> >using the scientific method) of any positive assertion. Arguing that
>the
>>
>> Not at all. A good atheist looks at the available evidence and proof
>> and then comes to a conclusion. There is no proof that life exists
>> elsewhere but nor is there proof that their isn't. What evidence is
>> available suggests that god doesn't exist, while for alien life it
>> suggests that it does. In both cases though it is mearly evidence and
>> in the case of alien life rather poor evidence at that.
>
>Waitaminit. "there is no proof that life exists elsewhere but nor is there
>proof that their isn't" and later "what evidence is available... suggests
>that it does." Is it just me, or is there something inherently missing in
>that logic??? "There's no proof that it does not," and so therefore,
>"evidence... suggests that it does." Nope, that fails the rationality
>test, on stage one.
You've missed the point entirely. There is a huge difference between
proof (in this case an alien) and evidence (apparent biological
contamination). It is not the lack of proof that provides evidence.
Rather in the face of no proof on either side we have to look at what
evidence is available.
>>
>> >magnitude of the universe means that there are aliens is like saying
>that
>> >because of the wonder of the workings of the universe there must be a
>god
>> >who created it. It's bunk for the theist, it's bunk for you.
>>
>> The arguments are only superficially similar. Those that believe that
>> the existance of alien life is probably are using a statistical
>> argument to show that the odds of no other life existing are very
>> slim. Theists are saying that because I can't imagine a universe
>> working without god then god must exist.
>
>No, more correctly, the theist may be operating from a similar statistical
>setup that uses god as an explanation for what is not known, and probably
There is no such statistical setup. Theists from time to time try to
make such an argument but it's impossible. You can't make a
statisical argument if you can't at least given a resonable range of
probablility to something.
The most common statistical arguments forwarded by theists apply to
either the big bang or to abiogenisis. In the first case the there
simply is no basis for the argument because the probability of this
universe occuring could be anything from 0 to 100%. And in the
second, the theists invariably mangle the odds to overstate the
improbability.
>will never be known. In both cases, it is a statistical argument based on
>no facts, just conjecture. "Imagination" enters into it when it's under
>attack from people who would see theism discredited, and that slight Ad
>Hominem attack is very useful in doing that.
Any argument has to be based on facts to be usefull. The difference
between a statistical argument and a proof is that a statistical
argument contains steps that can only be know to a fairly imprecise
level and/or lead to conclusions that are less then 100%.
>The only time that "no other life" becomes a probability is when the
>"infinity" idea is entered into the equations. Something on the same level
>of "given infinite time and a piano, a monkey will play one of Beethoven's
>symphonies." Bunk. Adding the infinite to an equation to make it work is
>not a solution, it's a cop-out.
But the monkey will, given enough time. In any infinite sequence of
random numbers any finite sequence of numbers will occure at some
point. The longer the finite sequence the longer you have to look,
but it is there.
>{snip}
>
>> >not? If you will accept the possibility of aliens based on a logical
>> >fallacy (something akin to Pascal's Wager, no less), then you should be
>> >able to accept the idea I just put forward.
>>
>> When it is believed for the wrong reasons (and there are a fair number
>> of them) it's usually closer to argument from personal increduality.
>> Believing that aliens must exist just because they can't imagine the
>> unverse being that empty.
>
>Correct.
>
>>
>> Just to be clear about my posistion, I think the odds of no other life
>> existing are quite small, but that most statistical assesments of how
>> many alien civilizations exist are too optimistic.
>
>Odds are not proof, nor evidence. Also, odds cannot be made without at
>least a ballpark set of figures. Using "infinity" as a ball park makes
>anything possible, if not probable, using "odds" and "statistics." No,
>something better than that has to be put forward.
Scientists who use the statistical argument don't talk about infinity.
They talk about the vast number of stars in the universe.
Non-scientific people often convert this into infinity when talking
about it, but they are being inaccurate in doing so.
As for odds not being evidence or proof consider this. Two bets, the
first gives you a 10% chance of doubling your money, the second a 90%
chance. If odds don't provide evidence then there would be no way to
evaluate which bet was better.
>> I think you may be making the mistake here of thinking that because
>> some people believe something without good evidence then that thing
>> must be wrong. This is in fact, just as bad as those that think it is
>> true.
>
>This, in fact, is the precise standpoint that is put forward by many
>atheists. Atheist : "There is no proof of god, and so I say god does not
>exist... you bear the burden of proving it to me." It is precisely
>parralell to what I am claiming: "There is no proof of alien life extant,
>and so I say it does not exist. You bear the burden of proving it to me."
Possibly, but both of the people here are being fairly imprecice. An
atheist should say "There is no proof of god, thus I don't believe god
exists." A strong atheist goes further, using the evidence against
god to try to disprove it's existance.
You are taking the strong anti-alien posistion, but without any
evidence that aliens don't exist. This is rather difficult posistion
to support, because unlike gods, there is some feeble evidence that
alien life probably exists.
Chris Nelson
In article <01bccf48$daa6f120$9201a8c0@clhpc>, "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
>
>Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
><60v5b6$8...@composer.inav.net>...
><clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>>
>
>{snipped}
>
>> It's not "There's no proof that it does not, and so therefore, evidence
>> suggests that it does."
>>
>> Instead, it's "There's no proof that it does not, *however*, evidence
>> suggests that it does."
>
>What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
>universe other than here.
>
>Craig
Life existing on Earth is evidence that life is *possible* elsewhere, and the
fact that there are quintillions of stars in the universe suggests that it is
*likely* that there exist or have existed other environments in which life has
developed at some point in the history of the universe.
If I said, "Life exists elsewhere," my claim would be based on faith. However,
I am saying, "It is likely that life of some kind exists elsewhere in this
vast universe."
Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
Mats Andtbacka
David B. Greene, in <611vkb$d7q$6...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>:
>stixR...@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>>Fuck me drunk! ANOTHER trolling moron!
>>Christ, these fucking idiots are like flies.
> ^^^^^^
> Funny how an atheist call upon a savior!
he also called for an act of sexual intercourse. *twice*, even. funny
how i don't see you taking him literally on that one.
David B. Greene
>>I'm guessing you're a theist. You believe in the God of Science. No, I
>>won't expand on that using your bunk logic.
>Fuck me drunk! ANOTHER trolling moron!
>Christ, these fucking idiots are like flies.
^^^^^^
Funny how an atheist call upon a savior!
Dave Greene
Dennis A. Schmitz
Neal Wilson
In article <343536AE...@positron.net>, "Dennis A. Schmitz"
<dsch...@positron.net> wrote:
> David B. Greene wrote:
> >
> > stixR...@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
> > >Neal Wilson posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> > >>I'm guessing you're a theist. You believe in the God of Science. No, I
> > >>won't expand on that using your bunk logic.
> >
> > >Fuck me drunk! ANOTHER trolling moron!
> >
> > >Christ, these fucking idiots are like flies.
> > ^^^^^^
> > Funny how an atheist call upon a savior!
>
> It's just a swear word, God damn it!
Be careful what dieties you call on...
Craig L. Hodder
Jay Mehaffey <JMeh...@mail.cdsgroup.com> wrote in article
<3433aeee....@news.zippo.com>...
> On 1 Oct 97 19:23:53 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"
> <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
{snip}
> >Waitaminit. "there is no proof that life exists elsewhere but nor is
there
> >proof that their isn't" and later "what evidence is available...
suggests
> >that it does." Is it just me, or is there something inherently missing
in
> >that logic??? "There's no proof that it does not," and so therefore,
> >"evidence... suggests that it does." Nope, that fails the rationality
> >test, on stage one.
>
> You've missed the point entirely. There is a huge difference between
> proof (in this case an alien) and evidence (apparent biological
> contamination). It is not the lack of proof that provides evidence.
Actually, unless I am mistaken (a distinct possibility), evidence provides
proof. Without evidence there can be no proof, right?
>
> Rather in the face of no proof on either side we have to look at what
> evidence is available.
Which is? Thus far, we have *zero* evidence that there is life in
existence on worlds other than earth.
>
> >>
> >> >magnitude of the universe means that there are aliens is like saying
> >that
> >> >because of the wonder of the workings of the universe there must be a
> >god
> >> >who created it. It's bunk for the theist, it's bunk for you.
> >>
> >> The arguments are only superficially similar. Those that believe that
> >> the existance of alien life is probably are using a statistical
> >> argument to show that the odds of no other life existing are very
> >> slim. Theists are saying that because I can't imagine a universe
> >> working without god then god must exist.
> >
> >No, more correctly, the theist may be operating from a similar
statistical
> >setup that uses god as an explanation for what is not known, and
probably
>
> There is no such statistical setup. Theists from time to time try to
> make such an argument but it's impossible. You can't make a
> statisical argument if you can't at least given a resonable range of
> probablility to something.
My point precisely. "Infinity" is *not* a "reasonable range" to work
within. Infinite space, time, and number are *not* suited to statistical
reasoning.
{snip}
> >Odds are not proof, nor evidence. Also, odds cannot be made without at
> >least a ballpark set of figures. Using "infinity" as a ball park makes
> >anything possible, if not probable, using "odds" and "statistics." No,
> >something better than that has to be put forward.
>
> Scientists who use the statistical argument don't talk about infinity.
> They talk about the vast number of stars in the universe.
> Non-scientific people often convert this into infinity when talking
> about it, but they are being inaccurate in doing so.
When you use the term "vast numbers of stars" and then don't give a set
number, one has to assume "infinity." For example, using Carl Sagan, what
number, exactly, does "billyuns and billyuns" indicate? If we have no
number to operate from, and use vague terms like "vast numbers" or
"inconceivably large," we must then use "infinity." But none of those
terms are useful in statistics or calculating odds. In a more scientific
means, let's look at what we know. We know that there is not currently
life on the moon. Beyond that, we can't be 100% certain. So, therefore,
using the numbers that we *do* have, we arrive at 50% of the known worlds
in the universe having life. This would lead us to think that there is a
50% chance of finding it on every world we come across, which is evidently
not the case, as we have 8 other (maybe 9) worlds, and a whole scad of
moons, that have no evidence of life (to our current knowledge). We (our
solar system) may be incredibly unlucky because we've lost to the 50% odds
in most cases, or we could say that the statistics that can be drawn with
our current knowledge is unacceptable. I choose the latter, and state that
there is no evidence of alien life extant, and no way to even estimate the
probability of it, and so the existence of said aliens must remain a
negative until evidence to support their existence becomes available.
>
> As for odds not being evidence or proof consider this. Two bets, the
> first gives you a 10% chance of doubling your money, the second a 90%
> chance. If odds don't provide evidence then there would be no way to
> evaluate which bet was better.
True enough. But when if one of the factors in calculating those odds was
the term "infinity," or in your usage "vast numbers?" How then would you
have arrived at a percentage that would be useful? You can't. That's my
point. Saying that the infinite (or the "vast numbers") makes it possible
does not provide any proof or evidence whatsoever.
>
> >> I think you may be making the mistake here of thinking that because
> >> some people believe something without good evidence then that thing
> >> must be wrong. This is in fact, just as bad as those that think it is
> >> true.
> >
> >This, in fact, is the precise standpoint that is put forward by many
> >atheists. Atheist : "There is no proof of god, and so I say god does
not
> >exist... you bear the burden of proving it to me." It is precisely
> >parralell to what I am claiming: "There is no proof of alien life
extant,
> >and so I say it does not exist. You bear the burden of proving it to
me."
>
> Possibly, but both of the people here are being fairly imprecice. An
> atheist should say "There is no proof of god, thus I don't believe god
> exists." A strong atheist goes further, using the evidence against
> god to try to disprove it's existance.
>
> You are taking the strong anti-alien posistion, but without any
> evidence that aliens don't exist. This is rather difficult posistion
> to support, because unlike gods, there is some feeble evidence that
> alien life probably exists.
No, actually I am taking the stance that alien life is possible, but there
is no evidence to prove it, and so it cannot be made fact either way. It's
been said, time and again, that you cannot prove a negative. Thus, if I
were to adopt the stance you say I have, I would not have to support it,
but rather I would have to be provided with proof that alien life exists.
Jared Selengut
In article <34326F...@geodesic.com>, c...@geodesic.com wrote:
> Craig L. Hodder wrote:
> >
> > Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote in article
> > <343156...@geodesic.com>...
> > > Craig L. Hodder wrote:
>
> > Actually, you said: "> I'm statisticly as sure of their existence as I can
> > be." This is equivalent to making a positive assertion that life exists
> > elsewhere. A positive claim requires proof.
> >
> > I have sound
> > > statistical
> > > evidence. And in fact we have found evidence of life on mars.
> >
> > Actually, we found what could be evidence of life that existed (past tense,
> > very important to note that) on Mars. We have yet to find evidence of any
> > life that IS in existence (present tense), or evidence of any life that
> > "succeeded," and evolved past the microbial level. What we have is
> > evidence of a "failure" on Mars, and nothing more.
>
> What we found was evidence of dead organisms on a rock that had been
> blasted out of Mars and landed in Antartica thousands of years ago.
> Not much would survive those events. Given the places we found life
> here if it ever existed on Mars it does now. Suppose we found a
> dead astronaut with records that showed he came from some distant
> star. Would you say we have found evidence of a "failure" of life
> on that star, the astronaut was dead after all.
>
This is all backwards; Earth has been extensively terraformed by life.
It's obvious even from space that there is too much oxygen and the
continents are an unnatural green color. And long term observers would see
that there has been a thermostat effect at work modifying the climate, I
think.
If there was life on Mars countless years ago, I _agree_ that it would
still be there--but since there is no obvious evidence of massive
modification of the surface and atmosphere of the planet, I turn your
reasoning around to conclude that the fossils must be misinterpreted. I
don't believe life would survive in "scattered oases" as some put it. And
I read the paper on the fossils, and it didn't convince me. I'm more
optimistic about Titan and Europa than I am about Mars, quite frankly...
Nobody knows how life starts in the first place. Once it does, experience
shows it's very durable and adaptable. But all one can say about
extraterrestials is maybe they exist, and maybe not until we either find
one or succeed in abiogenesis in a lab.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Selengut
==================================================================
Mike Dickson
In article <343916a4...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> lo...@my.sig4address wrote...
> Cows aren't gentle? Have you been attacked by a cow recently? ;-)
There speaketh one who has never been through a divorce.
Mike Dickson, Black Cat Software Factory, Musselburgh, Scotland, EH21 6NL
mi...@blackcat.demon.co.uk - Fax 0131-653-6124 - Columnated Ruins Domino
Chris Nelson
In article <614dfm$n0j$2...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
>"Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
>>universe other than here.
Uh, I didn't write the above. I responded to it in a subsequent post.
>The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
>course at this time it does not.
>
>Dave Greene
>
Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
Chris Nelson
When? Oh, do you mean during the Apollo missions when for brief periods of
time there were humans (i.e. life) on the moon?
:)
Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
Unknown
>>The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
>>course at this time it does not.
The only life that existed on the moon was human life.
Unknown
On 4 Oct 1997 15:06:06 GMT, John Caballero <Edib...@mail.utexas.edu>
wrote:
>
>All true, but I wasn't talking about evidence. As of yet, there's no
>proof that life exists anywhere but on this planet. To believe otherwise
>is to exercise faith. Remember faith is essentially belief without proof.
>
Taken to the extreme, all knowledge (except for the knowledge
of our own existence -- Cogito ergo sum) is based on faith. We believe
evidence is either true or false on faith, because there is no way to
prove that our senses are accurate.
Blackguard
da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) guessed:
>
> "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
> >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
>
> >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
> >universe other than here.
>
> The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
> course at this time it does not.
>
Sure Dave. Life existed on the moon. Right. Okay. No problem. Uhhhhm
just a small problem with that. Actually several.
There's no evidence.
There's no atmosphere.
There's no freaking way life could ever have existed on the moon.
(Unless it's in a form totally, and I mean totally alien to our concept
of life.)
So are you actually serious about this or are you just trolling?
Blackguard
#869
Magenta
"Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> doth speak:
>Here are arguments by chance, by number, by wonder, and even simple
>conjecture presented as "proof." Very similar to theists, and no more
>logically sound. The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no proof,
>and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
>anywhere but here. Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
>must therefore not exist.
What standard logical models would that be? What logic would cause you
to conclude that if our limited scientific knowledge cannot find proof
of something that it must mot exist? We do not yet have positive
scientific proof that any planets exist beyond our solar system. Does
that mean that mo planets exist? Before our science reached the point
to determine that Neptune and Pluto existed did they not exist? Did
they just come into existence at the instant they were perceived?
There is NO logical conclusion that if we do not have evidence for
something it does not exist, that is nonsense. Lack of evidence CAN
indicate a lack of substance OR a lack in our abilities to gather
evidence. EITHER ONE of those conclusions is logical.
The Universe is vast. It is rather ego-centric, and rather religious,
to conclude we are the only planet with life on it. YOur arguments are
the ones similar to theists- their vanity was so great that humanity
must be unique and placed on a pedestal. The earth must be the center
of the universe, humans must be the only form of inelegant life in the
universe, we could not have evolved from beasts. It is an argument
from self-aggrandizement.
--
+----- Peace & Love, ----+- Magenta (dash) 7 (at) JUNO (dot) com ----+
| /| /| _ _ _ _-|-_ |"There are more things in heaven and earth,|
| / |/ |(_|(_|(/_| )|(_| |...Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." |
|_________ _/ __________|_________________--[Hamlet Act I: Scene V]_|
Jeff Candy
lo...@my.sig4address (Magenta) writes:
|> What standard logical models would that be? What logic would cause you
|> to conclude that if our limited scientific knowledge cannot find proof
|> of something that it must mot exist? We do not yet have positive
|> scientific proof that any planets exist beyond our solar system.
Yes we do. For example, in late 1996, Lick Observatory announced
that 2 planets have been discovered -- one in the constellation
Virgo and the other in Ursa Minor. The detection method is solar
orbit perturbation, not direct observation.
|> There is NO logical conclusion that if we do not have evidence for
|> something it does not exist, that is nonsense. Lack of evidence CAN
|> indicate a lack of substance OR a lack in our abilities to gather
|> evidence. EITHER ONE of those conclusions is logical.
Unfortunately, this has little to do with human god-claims -- despite
numerous and desperate attempts by the god-soaked to apply such a
justification argument. There is a preponderance of evidence to
show that god-myths are man-made, and thus false.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Candy (179) http://mildred.ph.utexas.edu/~candy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kirby
Jeff Candy wrote:
>
> lo...@my.sig4address (Magenta) writes:
>
> |> What standard logical models would that be? What logic would cause you
> |> to conclude that if our limited scientific knowledge cannot find proof
> |> of something that it must mot exist? We do not yet have positive
> |> scientific proof that any planets exist beyond our solar system.
>
> Yes we do. For example, in late 1996, Lick Observatory announced
> that 2 planets have been discovered -- one in the constellation
> Virgo and the other in Ursa Minor. The detection method is solar
> orbit perturbation, not direct observation.
So the planets must have formed in late 1996, because any statement is
false until it is proven correct. :-)
> |> There is NO logical conclusion that if we do not have evidence for
> |> something it does not exist, that is nonsense. Lack of evidence CAN
> |> indicate a lack of substance OR a lack in our abilities to gather
> |> evidence. EITHER ONE of those conclusions is logical.
>
> Unfortunately, this has little to do with human god-claims -- despite
> numerous and desperate attempts by the god-soaked to apply such a
> justification argument. There is a preponderance of evidence to
> show that god-myths are man-made, and thus false.
You must explain what you mean when you say that "god-myths are
man-made." Aren't all theories "man-made" as well?
Cheers,
Peter #16
Peter Kirby
Magenta wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Yet we have evidence that life exists. We have no evidence that god(s)
> exist at all. From that alone it is logical to conclude that if
> something exists somewhere, and all of the building blocks for that
> something exist everywhere, then that something is likely to exist
> somewhere else.
Huh? Therefore it is likely that there is an exact replica of each and
every person on Earth somewhere else. And it is likely that they have
replicas as well. And of course there are more replicas, and more
replicas, and more...
Cheers,
Peter #16
Stix
Craig L. Hodder posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Stix wrote...
>> Oh crap - it's not even *close* to being parallel, let alone precisely.
>No, on the contrary, it IS parallell... perhaps not precisely.
Nope. It's not parallel at all.
> I may have mis-chosen my wording on that, but it IS parallell.
Nah. Alien life is parallel to Earth life in that they're both merely
physical life, and we know that physical life exists. But what's a "deity,"
and what reason do we have to believe one or more exists?
>> "god" is alleged to be the *creator* of the entire universe, an ethereal,
>> perfect being with all sorts of magic powers and omni-attributes who's
>> supposed to reign over the universe - Earth seemingly in particular - who
>> has control over human destiny, and will allegedly judge dead humans.
>Actually, you're specifying the Christian/Catholic/Islamic (?) Deity.
Uh huh, I see, so you're leaving "deity" as some undefined thingumy then,
are you? And just how does the existence of this undefined thingumy
parallel the possibility of the existence of extra terrestrial life?
> What of the others that don't fit that particular mold you've built? I did not
>specify in my drawing of a parallel that I was referring to any specific
>deity, just "a" deity. And in that, is where the parallel rests.
There's still no parallel, and if you've ditched the christianic/islamic
deity, which deity are you implying? Define "deity." Alien life is simply
defined as life "not from Earth."
> *Any* deity
Any what? What is it you refer to when you say "deity?"
> is faced with the requirement for proof before credence is given to it.
Unless you define "deity" alleged proofs for its existence are incoherent.
> The same applies to Aliens;
Nope.
> there must be Proof (not fallacious arguments, but evidence) of their existence
> before any credence can be given.
Only if someone's making the positive assertion, "aliens exist." I'm not
doing that.
>> The existence of alien life is based on the undisputable fact that life
>> *does* exist on at least on planet and that given the squillions of other
>> planets in the vastness of the cosmos it's highly likely that life exists
>> elsewhere.
>So, "It happened once, so it *has* to happen again?" A fallacious
>argument.
Good thing I didn't make that argument then, huh? Strawmen are fallacious
arguments.
> If you take into account all the possibilities, the
>"probability" you (plural here, referring to all the persons who are
>arguing that aliens *do* exist) harp on is not as large as you think.
Arguing it's *likely* that alien life exists, not that it *does* exist,
based on the observation that life definitely exists on at least one
planet. Possibly two. If the Mars rock *does* contain fossilized primordial
life, your <cough> "argument" dries up and blows away.
>There's also too many unknowns involved to make an accurate "statistical
>analysis" of the "odds."
Uh huh, care to offer some of these unknowns that allow you to make that
conclusive claim, or are you happy to sit with argument by assertion?
>> No magical, extraordinary claims. Just that if life *did* arise on one
>> planet by purely natural means there's nothing to suggest it can't or
>> hasn't arisen on other planets.
>Excepting that that is the combination of two logical fallacies: Argument
>by numbers and argument by incredulity.
Heh heh, get a grip, Craig. There's no logical fallacies, not numbers nor
incredulity. Arguing from numbers would entail me saying, "lots of people
believe aliens exist, therefore they do," and argument from incredulity
would entail me saying, "I can't accept that alien life doesn't exist,
therefore it does." I've said neither.
> There is no evidence of alien life extant in the universe,
But there *IS* absolutely conclusive evidence that *life itself* exists on
at least one planet in the universe. As there has been NOTHING presented to
suggest that it's impossible for life to exist elsewhere, it is reasonable
to speculate that it does, or at least that it may.
> and so until such evidence is presented it must be
>assumed to be a false idea.
You're missing the point - seemingly deliberately. There is nothing magical
nor mystical nor fallacious about speculating about the existence of extra
terrestrial life. On the contrary, it's theistically geocentric to assume
that life can only exist on our tiny piddling planet.
> again, paralell to "there is no evidence of a deity
It's not even close to being parallel.
>note, I did not specify the Christian Deity as you seem to imply is
>the only one that is involved, Stix
No, you leave "deity" undefined, killing your own "parallel."
> and so until such evidence is
>presented, it must taken as a false idea" of the typical atheist
Take a deep breath and think about it, Craig. What possible reason do you
have to reject the *possibility* of extra terrestrial life? *Your* argument
is one from ignorance/incredulity - akin to saying, "there's no evidence
that oxygen exists on any other planet, so until evidence is presented it
must be assumed to be a false idea." But why? We >> know << that oxygen
exists on at least one planet, and unless you inject a theistic
presupposition - namely that Earth is somehow special or privileged - there
is nothing whatsoever to suggest it doesn't or can't exist elsewhere.
Your undefined deity, on the other hand, is entirely different. We've yet
to see *ANY* evidence that whatever it is you refer to when you say "deity"
exists *ANYWHERE* at all. Life has been observed, so we know it definitely
exists. If it definitely exists somewhere, where's the reasoning to suggest
it can't exist somewhere else?
David B. Greene
"Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
>What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
>universe other than here.
The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
course at this time it does not.
Dave Greene
John Caballero
In article <3433BB...@ttacs.ttu.edu> Paul G. Wenthold,
qe...@ttacs.ttu.edu writes:
>> Good point. As I have said several times, I recognize that the existence
>> of alien life is possible and the existence of God isn't. The point I was
>> trying to make is, since there is no proof that God exists and there is
>> no proof that alien life exists, to believe in the existence of either
>> requires the same thing: faith. Granted, belief in God takes way more
>> faith than belief in alien life, but the difference is quantitative, not
>> qualitative.
>
>One could argue that life on earth is evidence for life elsewhere in the
>universe. Besides, there _is_ evidence for life on other planets. I
>wouldn't consider it overwhelming evidence, but it is evidence.
All true, but I wasn't talking about evidence. As of yet, there's no
proof that life exists anywhere but on this planet. To believe otherwise
is to exercise faith. Remember faith is essentially belief without proof.
- John
Edib...@mail.utexas.edu
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~john/
Article title found in a popular PC magazine: "Plug and Play - How to
Make It Work"
raven1
And your evidence that life ever existed on the moon is....?
>
> Dave Greene
--
Remove "NOSPAM" from address to reply.
"Let the Four Winds blow your mind."
-- "Four Winds", The Kind
Paul G. Wenthold
John Caballero wrote:
>
> In article <3433BB...@ttacs.ttu.edu> Paul G. Wenthold,
> qe...@ttacs.ttu.edu writes:
> >> Good point. As I have said several times, I recognize that the existence
> >> of alien life is possible and the existence of God isn't. The point I was
> >> trying to make is, since there is no proof that God exists and there is
> >> no proof that alien life exists, to believe in the existence of either
> >> requires the same thing: faith. Granted, belief in God takes way more
> >> faith than belief in alien life, but the difference is quantitative, not
> >> qualitative.
> >
> >One could argue that life on earth is evidence for life elsewhere in the
> >universe. Besides, there _is_ evidence for life on other planets. I
> >wouldn't consider it overwhelming evidence, but it is evidence.
>
> All true, but I wasn't talking about evidence. As of yet, there's no
> proof that life exists anywhere but on this planet. To believe otherwise
> is to exercise faith. Remember faith is essentially belief without proof.
>
And you are creating a strawman. My original claim was that belief
in life on other planets, or the likelihood thereof, is not the same as
belief in god because we know that the probability of life existing
in the universe is finite, while we have no such knowledge regarding
the existence gods. How you turn that into "proof of life
on other planets" is beyond me.
Faith: belief held despite the absense of logical proof or material
evidence.
Yes, essentially it is "belief without proof" but outside of math,
absolute proof is pretty much not available. A proponderance of
evidence make make certain things pretty much irrefutable
(ie atomic theory) but it's not anything like a mathematical
proof.
Contrast the definition of 'faith' given above (it's actually
the one I pulled from my old Am Her dic) with a definition
for empericism: belief held on the basis of logical proof
or material evidence.
In this way, faith and empericism are both subsets of belief, and
differ in the way in which that belief is derived.
There is material evidence (life can form on earth, evidence for life on
mars)
for life on other planets. That makes such a belief emperical, and not
based on faith.
paul
Justin M Skoczek
4OGn Sat, 4 Oct 1997, Chris Nelson wrote:
> In article <614dfm$n0j$2...@nntp4.u.washington.edu>, da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu wrote:
>
> >The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
> >course at this time it does not.
> >
> >Dave Greene
Umm... This is not that simple--you cannot prove that life has never
existed on the moon, so we dont really know that it is a fact. Its an
assumption. Really... the moon is kinda old and we `dont know where its
been', dont u think?
> When? Oh, do you mean during the Apollo missions when for brief periods of
> time there were humans (i.e. life) on the moon?
>
> :)
>
> Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
>
Youre right... twas life on ze moon...
-justin
Brian S
David B. Greene <da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu> wrote:
> stixR...@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
> >Neal Wilson posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> >>I'm guessing you're a theist. You believe in the God of Science. No, I
> >>won't expand on that using your bunk logic.
>
> >Fuck me drunk! ANOTHER trolling moron!
>
> >Christ, these fucking idiots are like flies.
> ^^^^^^
> Funny how an atheist call upon a savior!
Jesus H Christ! Read that sentence again boy. Maybe you should
sign up for a remedial English class...
--
Brian Seckold
"I entreat you, my brothers, remain true to the earth, and
do not believe those who speak to you of superterrestrial hopes!
They are poisoners...They are despisers of life." - F. Nietzsche.
Brian S
David B. Greene <da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu> wrote:
> "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
> >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
>
> >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
> >universe other than here.
>
> The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
> course at this time it does not.
>
> Dave Greene
Any credibility you may have had, has just been well and truly
flushed. Life has never existed on the moon. Not now, not in the past.
The moon has never had a significant atmosphere. The moon has never had
significant deposits of liquid water. Shall I continue?
--
Brian Seckold - bseckold(at)mail(dot)usyd(dot)edu(dot)au
Magenta
ca...@mildred.etc (Jeff Candy) doth speak:
>lo...@my.sig4address (Magenta) writes:
>
>|> What standard logical models would that be? What logic would cause you
>|> to conclude that if our limited scientific knowledge cannot find proof
>|> of something that it must mot exist? We do not yet have positive
>|> scientific proof that any planets exist beyond our solar system.
>
>Yes we do. For example, in late 1996, Lick Observatory announced
>that 2 planets have been discovered -- one in the constellation
>Virgo and the other in Ursa Minor. The detection method is solar
>orbit perturbation, not direct observation.
I'm not an astronomer, but I recall reading that other scientists have
challenged those results, so the jury is still out. But as far as my
point is concerned it does not mater either way.
>|> There is NO logical conclusion that if we do not have evidence for
>|> something it does not exist, that is nonsense. Lack of evidence CAN
>|> indicate a lack of substance OR a lack in our abilities to gather
>|> evidence. EITHER ONE of those conclusions is logical.
>
>Unfortunately, this has little to do with human god-claims -- despite
>numerous and desperate attempts by the god-soaked to apply such a
>justification argument. There is a preponderance of evidence to
>show that god-myths are man-made, and thus false.
Exactly!
Magenta
>> Rather in the face of no proof on either side we have to look at what
>> evidence is available.
>
>Which is? Thus far, we have *zero* evidence that there is life in
>existence on worlds other than earth.
Yet we have evidence that life exists. We have no evidence that god(s)
exist at all. From that alone it is logical to conclude that if
something exists somewhere, and all of the building blocks for that
something exist everywhere, then that something is likely to exist
somewhere else. That line of thought does not support the notion of
god(s), since none were shown to exist at all.
>> There is no such statistical setup. Theists from time to time try to
>> make such an argument but it's impossible. You can't make a
>> statisical argument if you can't at least given a resonable range of
>> probablility to something.
>
>My point precisely. "Infinity" is *not* a "reasonable range" to work
>within. Infinite space, time, and number are *not* suited to statistical
>reasoning.
Then don't use "infinity" as the range. If you would like, let's limit
to just those stars that we know to exist. Not just the ones we see
with the naked eye, but all of the stars, all of the galaxies that we
can see with our most powerful telescopes like the Hubble. Let's
pretend that only the stars we specifically know exist are the ones
that exist, and there are no stars that we have not seen. How many
stars would that be exactly? Are there any astronomers here? I am sure
that the number is much larger than "billions of billions".
>> >Odds are not proof, nor evidence. Also, odds cannot be made without at
>> >least a ballpark set of figures. Using "infinity" as a ball park makes
>> >anything possible, if not probable, using "odds" and "statistics." No,
>> >something better than that has to be put forward.
>>
>> Scientists who use the statistical argument don't talk about infinity.
>> They talk about the vast number of stars in the universe.
>> Non-scientific people often convert this into infinity when talking
>> about it, but they are being inaccurate in doing so.
>
>When you use the term "vast numbers of stars" and then don't give a set
>number, one has to assume "infinity." For example, using Carl Sagan, what
>number, exactly, does "billyuns and billyuns" indicate?
that is spelled billions of billions.
one billion is 1,000,000,000. multiply that by 1,000,000,000 and you
get a billion billion. Multiply that by any number greater than two
and you get billions of billions. That is a BIG number, but it is not
too big to grasp. I have four gigs of hard disk space. That is also a
big number, but it's full. ;-)
>If we have no
>number to operate from,
x > 2.e+18.
>and use vague terms like "vast numbers" or
>"inconceivably large," we must then use "infinity."
Those are a text shorthand for x > 2.e+18.
>But none of those
>terms are useful in statistics or calculating odds. In a more scientific
>means, let's look at what we know. We know that there is not currently
>life on the moon.
Who says so? How do you know this to be a fact? Where is the proof for
this assertion?
>Beyond that, we can't be 100% certain.
We can't be 100% certain there is no life on the moon,
we can't be 100% certain there is no life 2 miles deep in the earth's
crust. From what I read recently about water existing on the sun, we
can't be 100% certain there is no life on the sun, just that if there
is, there would be no way for us to interact with it.
>So, therefore,
>using the numbers that we *do* have, we arrive at 50% of the known worlds
>in the universe having life.
How did you get this? You used a sample of two to get a 50%? Now that
is really bad statistics.
>This would lead us to think that there is a
>50% chance of finding it on every world we come across, which is evidently
>not the case, as we have 8 other (maybe 9) worlds, and a whole scad of
>moons, that have no evidence of life (to our current knowledge).
Notice the qualifier "to our current knowledge". On that phrase the
entire argument rests. To our current knowledge, we have not even
absolutely isolated any other planets other than the ones in our solar
system.
And where is this "maybe 9" from? You give more credibility to a
planet X theory than life on other planets?
>We (our
>solar system) may be incredibly unlucky because we've lost to the 50% odds
>in most cases, or we could say that the statistics that can be drawn with
>our current knowledge is unacceptable. I choose the latter, and state that
>there is no evidence of alien life extant, and no way to even estimate the
>probability of it, and so the existence of said aliens must remain a
>negative until evidence to support their existence becomes available.
Incorrect- the existence of said aliens remains an UNKNOWN until
evidence to support their existence becomes available. Not a
"negative", but an UNKNOWN.
Before the invention of the train, the brightest scientific minds of
the time believed the human body could not withstand speeds greater
than 30mph. They thought that at such speeds the lungs and heart would
collapse. They had no evidence that human beings would survive at such
speeds, because it had never occurred. Their conclusions about lung
collapse were perfectly reasonable based on the knowledge of the time,
wouldn't you say?
If you were a doctor of that time, would you put yourself in the camp
that says that humans would die from speeds greater than 30mph, or the
camp that said that we just don't know what would happen.
>> As for odds not being evidence or proof consider this. Two bets, the
>> first gives you a 10% chance of doubling your money, the second a 90%
>> chance. If odds don't provide evidence then there would be no way to
>> evaluate which bet was better.
>
>True enough. But when if one of the factors in calculating those odds was
>the term "infinity," or in your usage "vast numbers?"
x > 2.e+18.
>How then would you
>have arrived at a percentage that would be useful? You can't. That's my
>point. Saying that the infinite (or the "vast numbers") makes it possible
>does not provide any proof or evidence whatsoever.
>> You are taking the strong anti-alien posistion, but without any
>> evidence that aliens don't exist. This is rather difficult posistion
>> to support, because unlike gods, there is some feeble evidence that
>> alien life probably exists.
>
>No, actually I am taking the stance that alien life is possible, but there
>is no evidence to prove it, and so it cannot be made fact either way.
Key point- "it cannot be made fact either way."
>It's
>been said, time and again, that you cannot prove a negative.
True.
>Thus, if I
>were to adopt the stance you say I have, I would not have to support it,
>but rather I would have to be provided with proof that alien life exists.
Wrong.
Just because something is not proven does not mean it is untrue, just
unproven.
And, being agnostic, my beliefs on aliens are consistent with my
beliefs on god(s), except that aliens are far, far, far more likely
than god(s) to the point that they are downright probable.
Magenta
Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> doth speak:
>Magenta wrote:
>>
>[snip]
>>
>> Yet we have evidence that life exists. We have no evidence that god(s)
>> exist at all. From that alone it is logical to conclude that if
>> something exists somewhere, and all of the building blocks for that
>> something exist everywhere, then that something is likely to exist
>> somewhere else.
>
>Huh? Therefore it is likely that there is an exact replica of each and
>every person on Earth somewhere else. And it is likely that they have
>replicas as well. And of course there are more replicas, and more
>replicas, and more...
Not specific people, just the concept of life in general.
David B. Greene
raven1 <rav...@planet.NOSPAMearthcom.net> wrote:
>David B. Greene wrote:
>> "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>> >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
>> >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
>> >universe other than here.
>> The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
>> course at this time it does not.
>And your evidence that life ever existed on the moon is....?
You're not a rocket scientist, are you, raven?
Dave Greene
Peter Kirby
Magenta wrote:
>
> Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> doth speak:
>
> >Magenta wrote:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> exist at all. From that alone it is logical to conclude that if
> >> something exists somewhere, and all of the building blocks for that
> >> something exist everywhere, then that something is likely to exist
> >> somewhere else.
> >
> >every person on Earth somewhere else. And it is likely that they have
> >replicas as well. And of course there are more replicas, and more
> >replicas, and more...
>
> Not specific people, just the concept of life in general.
Why?
Your principle was: "If something exists somewhere, and all of the
building blocks for that something exist everywhere, then that something
is likely to exist somewhere else." This applies to the specific
people, specific computers, specific newspapers, specific cities,
specific countries, specific planets, specific galaxies, etc.
Cheers,
Peter #16
William H Dorin IV
David B. Greene wrote:
> Blackguard <N...@spam.com> wrote:
> >da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) guessed:
> >> "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
> >> >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
>
> >> >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
> >> >universe other than here.
>
> >> The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
> >> course at this time it does not.
>
> >Sure Dave. Life existed on the moon. Right. Okay. No problem. Uhhhhm
> >just a small problem with that. Actually several.
> > There's no evidence.
> > There's no atmosphere.
> > There's no freaking way life could ever have existed on the moon.
> >(Unless it's in a form totally, and I mean totally alien to our concept
> >of life.)
>
> >So are you actually serious about this or are you just trolling?
>
> You're not a rocket scientist, are you, Blakie?
Pithy, Dave, but insufficient. I have seen NO reliable evidence suggesting
life existed on the moon, so, as a good scientist, I'm taking the null
hypothesis. Please, if you have 'reliable' evidence, direct me to it.
p.s. I AM a rocket scientist.
Wm.
Magenta
William H Dorin IV <ri...@no.spam.please.ttacs.ttu.edu> doth speak:
He's just being bitchy.
He is referring to the astronauts.
Blackguard
> Dave Greene spewed:
> Blackguard <N...@spam.com> wrote:
> >da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) guessed:
> >> "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
> >> >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
>
> >> >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
> >> >universe other than here.
>
> >> The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
> >> course at this time it does not.
>
> >Sure Dave. Life existed on the moon. Right. Okay. No problem. Uhhhhm
> >just a small problem with that. Actually several.
> > There's no evidence.
> > There's no atmosphere.
> > There's no freaking way life could ever have existed on the moon.
> >(Unless it's in a form totally, and I mean totally alien to our concept
> >of life.)
>
>
> You're not a rocket scientist, are you, Blakie?
>
quietly go away now, please don't insult me like that again.
[sarcasm mode off]
No I'm not. And from your post I'm guessing that neither are you. My
science deals in Computers and the like. But my question to you is :
What's your point?
Here you are saying that life existed on the moon. Okay. Educate us on
what type, how it looked, how long ago it lived, etc. Until then you're
no better than the other trolls in this newsgroup so do us a favour and
just go away.
David B. Greene
Blackguard <N...@spam.com> wrote:
>da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu (David B. Greene) guessed:
>> "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>> >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
>> >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
>> >universe other than here.
>> The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
>> course at this time it does not.
>Sure Dave. Life existed on the moon. Right. Okay. No problem. Uhhhhm
>just a small problem with that. Actually several.
> There's no evidence.
> There's no atmosphere.
> There's no freaking way life could ever have existed on the moon.
>(Unless it's in a form totally, and I mean totally alien to our concept
>of life.)
>So are you actually serious about this or are you just trolling?
You're not a rocket scientist, are you, Blakie?
Dave Greene
Peter Kirby
Magenta wrote:
>
> Peter Kirby <ki...@SPAM.earthlink.net> doth speak:
>
> >Magenta wrote:
> >>
> >[snip]
> >>
> >> exist at all. From that alone it is logical to conclude that if
> >> something exists somewhere, and all of the building blocks for that
> >> something exist everywhere, then that something is likely to exist
> >> somewhere else.
> >
> >every person on Earth somewhere else. And it is likely that they have
> >replicas as well. And of course there are more replicas, and more
> >replicas, and more...
>
> Not specific people, just the concept of life in general.
Why?
Your principle was: "If something exists somewhere, and all of the
building blocks for that something exist everywhere, then that something
is likely to exist somewhere else." This applies to the specific
people, specific computers, specific newspapers, etc.
Cheers,
Peter #16
Neal Wilson
In article <34459642...@news.mindspring.com>, (Rodney Munch) wrote:
> On 4 Oct 1997 15:06:06 GMT, John Caballero <Edib...@mail.utexas.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> >All true, but I wasn't talking about evidence. As of yet, there's no
> >proof that life exists anywhere but on this planet. To believe otherwise
> >is to exercise faith. Remember faith is essentially belief without proof.
> >
>
> Taken to the extreme, all knowledge (except for the knowledge
> of our own existence -- Cogito ergo sum) is based on faith. We believe
> evidence is either true or false on faith, because there is no way to
> prove that our senses are accurate.
There are some groups that would state that the cogito is also based on
the faith in ones own existance. After all, prove to me that I exist. Do I
exist because you can read my message? No, that is based on the senses
that cannot be proven accurate and it is also based on the assumption that
anybody else exists, and to confirm this, I must rely on sensory input
which cannot be proven accurate. Once you start doubting, you can't stop.
Once you stop doubting, you can't think. Prove to yourself that you exist.
Do your thoughts mean that you exist? Are you simply a collection of
thoughts completely torn from all form? Do you exist if you stop thinking?
This question brings us to the question of what a thought is. What is a
thought? Find a definition of a thought that does not rely on meaningless
artificial inventions of the human mind. I haven't found one yet. If there
are no definitions that don't rely on nonsense, what keeps cogito ergo sum
as knowlege not based on faith? Before brushing this off as the rantings
of some random nut who doesn't know what he's talking about and is simply
spouting nonsense, consider it for a moment. Seriously try to deny all
your beliefs including the belief that you exist. What you find may
surprise you. If not, try it again.
Neal Wilson
The Weasel is your friend.
Neal Wilson
In article <616drn$m...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, lo...@my.sig4address
(Magenta) wrote:
> "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> doth speak:
>
> >Here are arguments by chance, by number, by wonder, and even simple
> >conjecture presented as "proof." Very similar to theists, and no more
> >logically sound. The fact remains, that there is no evidence, no proof,
> >and no testable and repeatable experiments to prove that life exists
> >anywhere but here. Thus, using standard logical models, alien life forms
> >must therefore not exist.
>
> What standard logical models would that be? What logic would cause you
> to conclude that if our limited scientific knowledge cannot find proof
> of something that it must mot exist? We do not yet have positive
> scientific proof that any planets exist beyond our solar system. Does
> that mean that mo planets exist? Before our science reached the point
> to determine that Neptune and Pluto existed did they not exist? Did
> they just come into existence at the instant they were perceived?
>
No, the instance they are percieved, the probability wave of thier
existance collapsed from our point of view. Up until that point, you can't
know if Pluto existed or not. Just ask my cat.
Chris Nelson
In article <61amh7$l...@rc1.vub.ac.be>, apa...@rc4.vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) wrote:
>Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
>: Uh huh, I see, so you're leaving "deity" as some undefined thingumy then,
>: are you? And just how does the existence of this undefined thingumy
>: parallel the possibility of the existence of extra terrestrial life?
>
>By definition. We define deity as extra terrestrial life et voi-
>la.
Why would we want to do a silly thing like that? Are you saying that if we
find a living microbe on Mars, that microbe would be a deity?
Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
Jay Mehaffey
On 3 Oct 97 13:30:08 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"
<clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>
>
>Jay Mehaffey <JMeh...@mail.cdsgroup.com> wrote in article
><3433aeee....@news.zippo.com>...
>> On 1 Oct 97 19:23:53 GMT, "Craig L. Hodder"
>> <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>>
>
>{snip}
>
>> >Waitaminit. "there is no proof that life exists elsewhere but nor is
>there
>> >proof that their isn't" and later "what evidence is available...
>suggests
>> >that it does." Is it just me, or is there something inherently missing
>in
>> >that logic??? "There's no proof that it does not," and so therefore,
>> >"evidence... suggests that it does." Nope, that fails the rationality
>> >test, on stage one.
>>
>> You've missed the point entirely. There is a huge difference between
>> proof (in this case an alien) and evidence (apparent biological
>> contamination). It is not the lack of proof that provides evidence.
>
>Actually, unless I am mistaken (a distinct possibility), evidence provides
>proof. Without evidence there can be no proof, right?
Actually "proof" in it's purest sense exists only in mathmatics. In
the real world there is no way to be sure that at some point it's not
all an elaborate fraud.
After all, the aliens might just be animitronics created by Disney to
push there latest space move.
>> Rather in the face of no proof on either side we have to look at what
>> evidence is available.
>
>Which is? Thus far, we have *zero* evidence that there is life in
>existence on worlds other than earth.
Even if you ignore the evidence of martian life (which has moderate
value in my opinion) and comets (which have shown some weak evidence),
there is one line of argument that is difficult to refute.
It starts by realizing that the question isn't best phrased "Is there
life on worlds other then the earth?", because that very question
suggests a special status for the earth.
The question is better phrased "What is the rate of occurance of life
in the universe?" We have exactly one example, the earth. But there
is no reason to think the earth is unique. Given that it becomes
easier to believe that life does exist elseware rather then life
exists here and only here.
>{snip}
>
>> >Odds are not proof, nor evidence. Also, odds cannot be made without at
>> >least a ballpark set of figures. Using "infinity" as a ball park makes
>> >anything possible, if not probable, using "odds" and "statistics." No,
>> >something better than that has to be put forward.
>>
>> Scientists who use the statistical argument don't talk about infinity.
>> They talk about the vast number of stars in the universe.
>> Non-scientific people often convert this into infinity when talking
>> about it, but they are being inaccurate in doing so.
>
>When you use the term "vast numbers of stars" and then don't give a set
>number, one has to assume "infinity." For example, using Carl Sagan, what
>number, exactly, does "billyuns and billyuns" indicate? If we have no
>number to operate from, and use vague terms like "vast numbers" or
>"inconceivably large," we must then use "infinity." But none of those
Your still mistaking casual arguments for formal arguments. Carl
Sagan was perfectly capable of presenting the formal form of the
argument. But normally he didn't because he spent his time making
science available to the population at large.
>terms are useful in statistics or calculating odds. In a more scientific
>means, let's look at what we know. We know that there is not currently
>life on the moon. Beyond that, we can't be 100% certain. So, therefore,
>using the numbers that we *do* have, we arrive at 50% of the known worlds
The moon isn't a world, nor is it remotly suitable for life.
>in the universe having life. This would lead us to think that there is a
>50% chance of finding it on every world we come across, which is evidently
That would suggest a 50% chance of life only to those ignorant of
science.
>not the case, as we have 8 other (maybe 9) worlds, and a whole scad of
>moons, that have no evidence of life (to our current knowledge). We (our
>solar system) may be incredibly unlucky because we've lost to the 50% odds
>in most cases, or we could say that the statistics that can be drawn with
>our current knowledge is unacceptable. I choose the latter, and state that
>there is no evidence of alien life extant, and no way to even estimate the
>probability of it, and so the existence of said aliens must remain a
Scientist have made various estimates of the probablility, each with
various underlying assumtions that could be questioned. They all
predict that there should be a quite large number of life forms in the
universe.
>negative until evidence to support their existence becomes available.
So your saying that until presented with evidence that the alien life
doesn't exist? Do you support the space program or SETI?
>> As for odds not being evidence or proof consider this. Two bets, the
>> first gives you a 10% chance of doubling your money, the second a 90%
>> chance. If odds don't provide evidence then there would be no way to
>> evaluate which bet was better.
>
>True enough. But when if one of the factors in calculating those odds was
>the term "infinity," or in your usage "vast numbers?" How then would you
>have arrived at a percentage that would be useful? You can't. That's my
>point. Saying that the infinite (or the "vast numbers") makes it possible
>does not provide any proof or evidence whatsoever.
There is a huge difference between "vast numbers" and "infinite." And
if you can state what the "vast number" is when putting together the
argument then it can work.
>> >> I think you may be making the mistake here of thinking that because
>> >> some people believe something without good evidence then that thing
>> >> must be wrong. This is in fact, just as bad as those that think it is
>> >> true.
>> >
>> >This, in fact, is the precise standpoint that is put forward by many
>> >atheists. Atheist : "There is no proof of god, and so I say god does
>not
>> >exist... you bear the burden of proving it to me." It is precisely
>> >parralell to what I am claiming: "There is no proof of alien life
>extant,
>> >and so I say it does not exist. You bear the burden of proving it to
>me."
>>
>> Possibly, but both of the people here are being fairly imprecice. An
>> atheist should say "There is no proof of god, thus I don't believe god
>> exists." A strong atheist goes further, using the evidence against
>> god to try to disprove it's existance.
>>
>> You are taking the strong anti-alien posistion, but without any
>> evidence that aliens don't exist. This is rather difficult posistion
>> to support, because unlike gods, there is some feeble evidence that
>> alien life probably exists.
>
>No, actually I am taking the stance that alien life is possible, but there
>is no evidence to prove it, and so it cannot be made fact either way. It's
>been said, time and again, that you cannot prove a negative. Thus, if I
>were to adopt the stance you say I have, I would not have to support it,
>but rather I would have to be provided with proof that alien life exists.
Given what we currently know it can't be made fact either way. But
given what I know of the evidence and probability leads me to believe
that if there isn't life out there then my current understanding of
the universe is wrong.
Incidently, in some cases you can prove a negative. But in most cases
it's impossible.
Jay Mehaffey
My opinions, not my companies, duh.
Earthquake Girl
Magenta wrote:
>
> ca...@mildred.etc (Jeff Candy) doth speak:
>
> >part refers to the characters: e.g., gentle cows and talking moths.
>
> Cows aren't gentle? Have you been attacked by a cow recently? ;-)
Stephanie? Where arrrrreeee yooooouuuuuuu?
vic
--
Folds, thrusts, and overturned beds are
all common in zones of orogeny
Magenta
Blackguard <N...@spam.com> doth speak:
>Here you are saying that life existed on the moon. Okay. Educate us on
>what type,
Homo Sapiens.
>how it looked,
A few of them, all white males, I believe in their 30's at the time,
but I could be wrong.
>how long ago it lived,
28 years ago, then they came to earth!
>etc. Until then you're
>no better than the other trolls in this newsgroup so do us a favour and
>just go away.
He is being a bastard and pulling your chain, and you fell for it.
Magenta
Questioner of the questionable <waita...@fbc.org> doth speak:
>Neal Wilson <wil...@execpc.com> wrote:
>>There are some groups that would state that the cogito is also based on
>>the faith in ones own existance. After all, prove to me that I exist.
>Prove to whom?
Funny! :-)
Antoon Pardon
Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: Craig L. Hodder posted the following to alt.atheism:
: >Stix wrote...
: >> Oh crap - it's not even *close* to being parallel, let alone precisely.
: >No, on the contrary, it IS parallell... perhaps not precisely.
: Nope. It's not parallel at all.
Of course it is. You just have to define it that way.
: > I may have mis-chosen my wording on that, but it IS parallell.
: Nah. Alien life is parallel to Earth life in that they're both merely
: physical life, and we know that physical life exists. But what's a "deity,"
: and what reason do we have to believe one or more exists?
Because we can always define one of those alien species as god
should we wish to.
: >> "god" is alleged to be the *creator* of the entire universe, an ethereal,
: >> perfect being with all sorts of magic powers and omni-attributes who's
: >> supposed to reign over the universe - Earth seemingly in particular - who
: >> has control over human destiny, and will allegedly judge dead humans.
: >Actually, you're specifying the Christian/Catholic/Islamic (?) Deity.
: Uh huh, I see, so you're leaving "deity" as some undefined thingumy then,
: are you? And just how does the existence of this undefined thingumy
: parallel the possibility of the existence of extra terrestrial life?
By definition. We define deity as extra terrestrial life et voi-
la.
: > What of the others that don't fit that particular mold you've built? I did not
: >specify in my drawing of a parallel that I was referring to any specific
: >deity, just "a" deity. And in that, is where the parallel rests.
: There's still no parallel, and if you've ditched the christianic/islamic
: deity, which deity are you implying? Define "deity." Alien life is simply
: defined as life "not from Earth."
: > *Any* deity
: Any what? What is it you refer to when you say "deity?"
Anything at all, as long as that allows the theist to say the
atheists were wrong.
--
All opinions expressed herein are currently under revision
==========================================================
Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre
==========================================================
Questioner of the questionable
Neal Wilson <wil...@execpc.com> wrote:
> There are some groups that would state that the cogito is also based
on
> the faith in ones own existance. After all, prove to me that I exist.
Prove to whom?
Charles Fiterman
Chris Nelson wrote:
>
> In article <61amh7$l...@rc1.vub.ac.be>, apa...@rc4.vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) wrote:
> >Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
>
> >: are you? And just how does the existence of this undefined thingumy
> >: parallel the possibility of the existence of extra terrestrial life?
> >
> >By definition. We define deity as extra terrestrial life et voi-
> >la.
>
> find a living microbe on Mars, that microbe would be a deity?
You are confusing lower case god and the Judeo Christian god.
A lower case god is anything that gets treated as a god in any
society and religion. There are plenty of those around, small
statues, mountains, the sun, various rulers. None of the gods
I've actually seen is an extra terrestrial being though several
are extra terrestrial objects. As an atheist I only claim they
aren't mine. The line one definition of atheist is godless.
The Judeo Christian god is an ET and a big one. When I think there
is good reason to expect life outside the universe, I don't mean
that, I mean stuff a lot like what we have here. Unlike
Christians I have a range opinion modes not just absolute belief.
I can think things have various degrees of probability and don't
regard that as a personal failure. I don't even think error is
sin. My opinions change quite regularly.
Antoon Pardon
Chris Nelson (cris...@see.signature.for.domain) wrote:
: In article <61amh7$l...@rc1.vub.ac.be>, apa...@rc4.vub.ac.be (Antoon Pardon) wrote:
: >Stix (stixR...@ozemail.com.au) wrote:
: >: Uh huh, I see, so you're leaving "deity" as some undefined thingumy then,
: >: are you? And just how does the existence of this undefined thingumy
: >: parallel the possibility of the existence of extra terrestrial life?
: >
: >By definition. We define deity as extra terrestrial life et voi-
: >la.
: Why would we want to do a silly thing like that? Are you saying that if we
: find a living microbe on Mars, that microbe would be a deity?
Well it seems the sort of thing to do if you just want to proof
the atheists wrong.
John Caballero
In article <34391A0B...@cs.ualberta.ca> Necromancer,
joa...@cs.ualberta.ca writes:
>> Once you stop doubting, you can't think. Prove to yourself that you exist.
>
I think you're putting de horse before Descartes.
----------------------
John Caballero
edib...@mail.utexas.edu
http://ccwf.cc.utexas.edu/~john/
Article title found in a popular PC magazine: "Plug and Play - How to
Make It Work"
Dennis A. Schmitz
> > >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
> > >universe other than here.
> > The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
> > course at this time it does not.
> Any credibility you may have had, has just been well and truly
> flushed. Life has never existed on the moon. Not now, not in the past.
> The moon has never had a significant atmosphere. The moon has never had
> significant deposits of liquid water. Shall I continue?
Please try to keep up. It is a fact that, in the past, life did exist on
the moon, furthermore, it is probable that it will again exist on the
moon.
--
Later, http://www.ecsd.com/~den
den mailto:den...@ecsd.com
Joe Long
>Brian S wrote:
>> David B. Greene <da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> > "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
>> > >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
>> > >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
>> > >universe other than here.
>> > The simple fact is that, in the past, life did exist on the moon. Of
>> > course at this time it does not.
>> Any credibility you may have had, has just been well and truly
>> flushed. Life has never existed on the moon. Not now, not in the past.
>> The moon has never had a significant atmosphere. The moon has never had
>> significant deposits of liquid water. Shall I continue?
Boy, do some people lead with their chin.
Neil Armstrong. Buzz Aldrin. Shall I continue?
--
Joe Long
jlong at mti d0t net
http://www.mti.net business
http://www.rnbw.com personal
Stix
Dennis A. Schmitz posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Please try to keep up. It is a fact that, in the past, life did exist on
>the moon,
Evidence? Or are we just meant to believe this "fact" at face value?
> furthermore, it is probable that it will again exist on the moon.
Reasoning for this probability? Or are we just meant to believe it at face
value?
Stix
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Mysticism is a disease of the mind."
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Jim Sarbeck
In article <34434f15...@news.ozemail.com.au>,
stixR...@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
: Dennis A. Schmitz posted the following to alt.atheism:
:
: >Please try to keep up. It is a fact that, in the past, life did exist on
: >the moon,
:
: Evidence? Or are we just meant to believe this "fact" at face value?
:
: > furthermore, it is probable that it will again exist on the moon.
:
: Reasoning for this probability? Or are we just meant to believe it at face
: value?
It was in all the papers. 1969 was the first sighting. I think they
arrived from a nearby planet.
Regards,
Jim Sarbeck
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Chris Dollin
William H Dorin IV <ri...@no.spam.please.ttacs.ttu.edu> writes:
David B. Greene wrote:
> You're not a rocket scientist, are you, Blakie?
Pithy, Dave, but insufficient. I have seen NO reliable evidence suggesting
life existed on the moon, so, as a good scientist, I'm taking the null
hypothesis. Please, if you have 'reliable' evidence, direct me to it.
p.s. I AM a rocket scientist.
Did you never watch the Apollo moon landings, then?
PS David is being a tease.
--
Regards, | ``"I can't suit myself," said Weinbaum, a little petulantly.
Kers. | "I work for the Government".'' - Blish, "The Quincunx of Time".
Chris Dollin
In article <34381D...@spam.com> Blackguard <N...@spam.com> writes:
> Dave Greene spewed:
> You're not a rocket scientist, are you, Blakie?
Oooooh! Good one Davie! I can tell I'm not in your league so I'll just
quietly go away now, please don't insult me like that again.
[sarcasm mode off]
No I'm not. And from your post I'm guessing that neither are you. My
science deals in Computers and the like. But my question to you is :
What's your point?
Here you are saying that life existed on the moon. Okay. Educate us on
what type, how it looked, how long ago it lived, etc. Until then you're
no better than the other trolls in this newsgroup so do us a favour and
just go away.
Dave was being teasingly literal, but, to answer you, the life in question
consisted of male adult humans, and the most notable time was July 1969.
Chris Nelson
>Please try to keep up. It is a fact that, in the past, life did exist on
>the moon, furthermore, it is probable that it will again exist on the
>moon.
Yeah, yeah, we know. The life you refer to is *human* life, in the form of
human explorers on the moon. Ha ha ha, very funny. This is getting tiring.
Chris Nelson (domain: ia.net)
Dennis A. Schmitz
Stix wrote:
> Dennis A. Schmitz posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >Please try to keep up. It is a fact that, in the past, life did exist on
> >the moon,
> Evidence? Or are we just meant to believe this "fact" at face value?
I spoke to one of the life forms that was on the moon and I saw some
very difficult to fake photographic evidence of it. Of course you don't
have to believe it if you don't want to.
> > furthermore, it is probable that it will again exist on the moon.
> Reasoning for this probability? Or are we just meant to believe it at face
> value?
Because the moon would be a great place to take your clients to if you
wanted to impress them. Capitalism, boy!
Stix
Jim Sarbeck posted the following to alt.atheism:
>Stix wrote:
>: Dennis A. Schmitz posted the following to alt.atheism:
>: >Please try to keep up. It is a fact that, in the past, life did exist on
>: >the moon,
>: Evidence? Or are we just meant to believe this "fact" at face value?
>It was in all the papers. 1969 was the first sighting. I think they
>arrived from a nearby planet.
Ok, I get it now. Stupid games. Humans were there, thus life existed on the
moon - worded so it sounded like he meant indigenous life.
<sigh>
The mensa morons are cross posting so I guess I should have realized.
<shakes head, despondent>
Do we hand out kewpie dolls to the mensa heroes now?
John Caballero
In article <344d3c3b....@news.mti.net> Joe Long, j...@mti.net writes:
>> "There has never existed life indigenous to the moon."
>
>Who sez that's "as it should be?"
Somebody who got embarassed by being caught up in a game of words and is
too proud to admit it.
- John
Edib...@mail.utexas.edu
Earthquake Girl
Stix wrote:
>
> Jim Sarbeck posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> >Stix wrote:
>
> >: Dennis A. Schmitz posted the following to alt.atheism:
>
> >: >Please try to keep up. It is a fact that, in the past, life did exist on
> >: >the moon,
>
> >: Evidence? Or are we just meant to believe this "fact" at face value?
>
> >It was in all the papers. 1969 was the first sighting. I think they
> >arrived from a nearby planet.
>
> Ok, I get it now. Stupid games. Humans were there, thus life existed on the
> moon - worded so it sounded like he meant indigenous life.
That's what you get for posting stupid blanket statements.
> Do we hand out kewpie dolls to the mensa heroes now?
Yes. And chocolate chip cookies. We like chocolate.
Earthquake Girl
Chris Nelson wrote:
>
> In article <343BA9C7...@positron.net>, "Dennis A. Schmitz" <dsch...@positron.net> wrote:
>
> >moon.
>
> human explorers on the moon. Ha ha ha, very funny. This is getting tiring.
Then killfile us. Everyone else does.
Rufus T. Firefly
Earthquake Girl wrote:
>
> Stix wrote:
> >
> > Jim Sarbeck posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> > >Stix wrote:
> >
> > >: Dennis A. Schmitz posted the following to alt.atheism:
> >
> > >: >the moon,
> >
> > >: Evidence? Or are we just meant to believe this "fact" at face value?
> >
> > >It was in all the papers. 1969 was the first sighting. I think they
> > >arrived from a nearby planet.
> >
> > Ok, I get it now. Stupid games. Humans were there, thus life existed on the
> > moon - worded so it sounded like he meant indigenous life.
>
> That's what you get for posting stupid blanket statements.
>
> > Do we hand out kewpie dolls to the mensa heroes now?
>
> Yes. And chocolate chip cookies. We like chocolate.
No, hookers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H, uhhh, CD play^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
I guess cookies will do.
--
David Schmitz
Baby you and me were never meant to be,
So maybe think of me once and a while.
--
http://www.ecsd.com/~david
Joe Long
stixR...@ozemail.com.au (Stix) wrote:
>Jim Sarbeck posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>Stix wrote:
>>: Dennis A. Schmitz posted the following to alt.atheism:
>>: >Please try to keep up. It is a fact that, in the past, life did exist on
>>: >the moon,
>>: Evidence? Or are we just meant to believe this "fact" at face value?
>>It was in all the papers. 1969 was the first sighting. I think they
>>arrived from a nearby planet.
>Ok, I get it now. Stupid games. Humans were there, thus life existed on the
>moon - worded so it sounded like he meant indigenous life.
><sigh>
>The mensa morons are cross posting so I guess I should have realized.
><shakes head, despondent>
>Do we hand out kewpie dolls to the mensa heroes now?
My, but these guys are a bunch of sticks-in-the-mud. No sense of humor
a'tall, and get downright bitchy when they're the butt of the joke.
Sophie Deschamps
Brian S <ch...@the.sig.4address> a écrit dans l'article
<199710041...@mp-10-38.mp.usyd.edu.au>...
> David B. Greene <da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> > "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
> > >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
> >
> > >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
> > >universe other than here.
Actualy, there is no significative evidence. But it is illogical to
pretend that earth is the only place were intelligente life form lives.
Do you realize what does infinity means? Universe is infini! There's no
logical reason to pretend that universe has edges!
And, compared to any other solar system and any other planet in the
universe, its not more special here than anywhere else.
Of course, we did not found yet another planet like earth in our galaxy ,
but its because we dont have the technology to see it.
Pride is the best word to resume the mentality of these who pretend that WE
are alone in the universe.
It reminds me a funny story:
2 fishs in a lake are talking togeter.
The first one say to the second one: "do you think that theres other fishs
like us in other lakes?"
the second one answer him: "can we reach theses lakes? NO! So there's no
other fishs in other lakes! ;-))))))
anthropocentrism is the master word here! ;-)
Stephanie Smilay
On Wed, 08 Oct 1997 13:43:00 -0500, in rec.org.mensa Earthquake Girl
<vsch...@positron.net> wrote:
>Jonathon Hayes wrote:
>>
>> Earthquake Girl (vsch...@positron.net) wrote:
>> > Magenta wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ca...@mildred.etc (Jeff Candy) doth speak:
>> > >
>> > > >Or, to put it another way, "god myths are fiction". The man-made
>> > > >part refers to the characters: e.g., gentle cows and talking moths.
>> > >
>> > > Cows aren't gentle? Have you been attacked by a cow recently? ;-)
>>
>> > Stephanie? Where arrrrreeee yooooouuuuuuu?
>>
>> Well, she's right... Cows aren't gentle... :P
>
>Yes, as Steph would tell you, they can be downright vicious. Especially
>the ones with horns.
We ought to set up a controlled experiment. It may be that the
hornless ones *seem* less vicious when in fact they merely have less
weaponry.
Earthworms, though, they're pretty gentle. I wonder why Zeus only
lusted after large animals?
>
>But apparently Steph's incommunicado or has killed this thread :o)
Y'all have 400 messages a *day*. I am, as they say, only human.
Stephanie
http://www.ecsd.com/~stephani
My real address is stephani at ecsd dot com
Rasmus Gjesdal
Isn't it about time we label all cults which demand that others believe as
they,
or that state they are the only one's with the correct answers as
anti-social
since history demonstrates that they time and time again have employed
their
religious beliefs as an excuse for inhumane acts?
--
Freethinker
Atheist #700
Norway
------------------------------------
http://home.sn.no/~rgjesdal/
Theists can be likened to a rock rolling down a hill.
All they see is that the hill is passing them by,
They do not know what got the hill to move so
they believe in an allmighty roller!
hesp...@clark.net wrote in article <61n7sc$2...@clarknet.clark.net>...
> Stephanie Smilay (st...@ecsd.com) wrote:
> : I wonder why Zeus only lusted after large animals?
>
> <muses> He has *big* equipment?
>
> #%^>
>
> E*
> --
> SPAMers: Don't write to me using a phony E-mail return address.
> My mail reader will delete your messages automatically.
> *-------*--------*
>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
*
> * "Without my love you'll never be. In some way I'll always find you."
-GME *
>
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
*
>
>
>
hesp...@clark.net
G. Mark Stewart
hesp...@clark.net wrote:
: <muses> He has *big* equipment?
Didn't he turn into a goose at one time to do some chick named
Persephone or something? If you're a goose, everyone's got bigger
stuff than you.
GM("Hey, Baby, What's Your <HONK> Sign?")S
http://www.svs.com/users/gmark
hesp...@clark.net
G. Mark Stewart (gm...@grayfox.svs.com) wrote:
: hesp...@clark.net wrote:
: : Stephanie Smilay (st...@ecsd.com) wrote:
: : : I wonder why Zeus only lusted after large animals?
:
: : <muses> He has *big* equipment?
:
: Didn't he turn into a goose at one time to do some chick named
: Persephone or something?
No. To have maid that Maid would have made Hades mad as Hades.
: If you're a goose, everyone's got bigger stuff than you.
Not bigger than Zeus's! That's why they call it "goosing".
: GM("Hey, Baby, What's Your <HONK> Sign?")S
LOL! That quacked me up Mark!
Neal Wilson
In article <01bcd616$2959b220$06e14382@compaq-presario>, "Rasmus Gjesdal"
<rgje...@online.no> wrote:
> Isn't it about time we label all cults which demand that others believe as
> they,
> or that state they are the only one's with the correct answers as
> anti-social
> since history demonstrates that they time and time again have employed
> their
> religious beliefs as an excuse for inhumane acts?
>
I'll start with Science as the #1 cult followed by various forms of
Christianity.
Neal Wilson
The Weasel is your friend.
Neal Wilson
In article <01bcd5b8$63bc12e0$d672fdcf@dephi>, "Sophie Deschamps"
<sn...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> Brian S <ch...@the.sig.4address> a écrit dans l'article
> <199710041...@mp-10-38.mp.usyd.edu.au>...
> > David B. Greene <da...@XOUT.u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > "Craig L. Hodder" <clho...@mlh-services.com> wrote:
> > > >Chris Nelson <cris...@see.signature.for.domain> wrote in article
> > >
> > > >What evidence? Show me some that indicates that life is extant in the
> > > >universe other than here.
>
> Actualy, there is no significative evidence. But it is illogical to
> pretend that earth is the only place were intelligente life form lives.
>
> Do you realize what does infinity means? Universe is infini! There's no
> logical reason to pretend that universe has edges!
>
Really? I thought that the universe was finite. I don't suppose that an
infinite universe could expand. Umm... Wait, what order of infinity was
that?