• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What is the difference between believing in Aliens and believing in God?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: bsobel
Where is your examinable, testable, and verifiable evidence that life on Mars is provable? It's waiting there on Mars, right? You don't see the error in a recursive proof?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you are wrong. If he had said 'life exists on Mars', we just need to get there to prove it, you would be correct. He instead has said there may be life on Mars, and when we go test it we will know for sure. Very different concepts. Once we rule in or rule out Mars as having life, we'll go test the next rock.

Bill
Click to expand...
Exactly. OS was saying that life on Mars could be proven one way or another. It's provable. Just put equipment and, presumably men, too, up there.

The same cannot be done for a god. Where would one start?
Click to expand...
By God, the lot of you people need lessons in basic logic.

In the year 1500, proving life may exist on Mars was impossible. In the year 2005, that may no longer be true.

In the year 2005, proving that God may exist was impossible. In the year 20000000005, that may no longer be true.

Because something is not possible today does not mean it is not possible.

Unless one of you possesses a Scroll Of All-Knowing and can prove definitively otherwise, please, grasp this rather simple concept.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer the question.

Where would one start to prove that a god exists?

In the year 1500, scientists would have said send men there via some massive catapault or something and look around for life on Mars.

In year 200,000,005, how would you test for the existence of god? Where would you start? Send out radio signals requesting an interview? Smoke some new drug and meet up with him/her/it on some ethereal plane and ask questions?
Click to expand...
Your question is misdirected. I don't have to prove how it can or cannot be tested for. You or I don't know what is to come in the future. Maybe your descendant thirty generations forward will invent a God-o-Meter that requires human sacrifice every 10 minutes to function. All we have is what's known today. Today says we cannot prove or disprove the existence of alien life or God.

Personally, I'm of the belief that aliens do exist (though they haven't likely visited, my belief is that only a crackpot believes in flying saucers). I'm also of the belief that God as any organized religion today defines it does not exist. But I know enough about science to not declare these things as truth. They're unknowns. They're beliefs.
Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. Clearly I have exposed faith where its faithful purported that none existed, and will shortly be condemned of heresy. Thank you, gentlemen, you have proved my point. I would hope that you would learn from this experience, but my own personal experience, both on this board and with people of blind faith, tells me that will be very unlikely.
Click to expand...
I know I should have known people in P&N had this tenuous a grasp on logic, but it's worse than I thought. 😕
 
Originally posted by: OS
It's not testable to say that we can prove god existence a million years from now, and therefore, is not science.
Click to expand...
It's not testable to say that we can prove aliens exist fifty years from now, and therefore, is not science. If the universe is nearly as large as we think, there is no reasonable expectation of discovery of alien life in the next 50 years.
Originally posted by: Spencer278
But your statment would be wrong because if you count the moon then we have looked 2 places the earth and the moon. And because we haven't determined anything special about earth there is no reason to assume it is specail. It is not faith.
Click to expand...
faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

proof: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

That pretty much says it all. You have no proof that aliens exist. You believe that aliens exist without proof. Believing something without proof is the definition of faith. QED.
Originally posted by: conjur
In year 200,000,005, how would you test for the existence of god? Where would you start? Send out radio signals requesting an interview?
Click to expand...
:laugh::laugh::laugh:
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Heh. Clearly I have exposed faith where its faithful purported that none existed, and will shortly be condemned of heresy. Thank you, gentlemen, you have proved my point. I would hope that you would learn from this experience, but my own personal experience, both on this board and with people of blind faith, tells me that will be very unlikely.
Click to expand...

how nice of you to paint so many people on this board with such a nice, wide brush.

Maybe you should have just stated your agenda upfront so no one wastes their time in the future.

 
Originally posted by: yllus
Originally posted by: conjur
You didn't answer the question.

Where would one start to prove that a god exists?

In the year 1500, scientists would have said send men there via some massive catapault or something and look around for life on Mars.

In year 200,000,005, how would you test for the existence of god? Where would you start? Send out radio signals requesting an interview? Smoke some new drug and meet up with him/her/it on some ethereal plane and ask questions?
Click to expand...
Your question is misdirected. I don't have to prove how it can or cannot be tested for. You or I don't know what is to come in the future. Maybe your descendant thirty generations forward will invent a God-o-Meter that requires human sacrifice every 10 minutes to function. All we have is what's known today. Today says we cannot prove or disprove the existence of alien life or God.

Personally, I'm of the belief that aliens do exist (though they haven't likely visited, my belief is that only a crackpot believes in flying saucers). I'm also of the belief that God as any organized religion today defines it does not exist. But I know enough about science to not declare these things as truth. They're unknowns. They're beliefs.
Click to expand...
No, they are not misdirected. They are valid questions. If a god exists, surely there must be some mechanism by which to contact him. Direct prayer, standing atop Mt. Ararat on one foot on the 1st Tuesday of Passover, something.


Tell me how one would test for the existence of a god.


Test methods for the existence of alien life is rather apparent. We're just limited by our inability to get men and equipment to other planets or moons.


What would be the test methods to prove a god exists?
 
Originally posted by: yllus
No proof does not equal proof for or against. It simply states we do not currently possess the observatory powers needed to make a conclusion. The fact that you think otherwise is incredibly sad.
Click to expand...

You said:

Logically speaking, on the subject of belief there is no truly defensible position but that of agnosticism.
Click to expand...

Please answer this question:

Is it indefensible logically to say that there is no pink armada of attack pigs hiding behind Pluto?
Click to expand...

Before you go on about discrete mathamatics, maybe you can get basic logic down. 😉
 
YOU CAN'T PROVE WHETHER GOD EXISTS OR NOT. It's about your FAITH and conscience. God is different for every religious person. Some believe in the god of soil, others believe in Allah and others believe in the god of sun, etc.

These are pathetic arguments. We can verify the existence or not of aliens, but there is NO WAY we could do the same for god. We are not limited in our ability, but the question is, how do we measure someone's faith and belief system?

This argument over aliens and god is getting out of hand. We're talking about science and religion. Both have their place, but they cannot fuse together.
 
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Infohawk
There's more evidence for aliens. We know life exists on earth and that earth is one of an incomprehensible amount of worlds. This suggests that there is a chance there is alien life on other worlds. There is no such evidence for god.
Click to expand...
Drake Equation again. Speculative odds are not evidence. And oh btw the exact same evidence does exist for God.
Click to expand...
How are the odds speculative? Also, you don't seem to really understand what evidence is. Evidence in its loosest sense are facts that make something more likely to be true than not. Granted, this is not 100% evidence, but the Drake equation constitutes much more than any of the non-existant arguments for god.

All I would have to say is how could the universe be so grand perfect and there not be a Creator and I would have said the EXACT same thing that you just said in defense of your belief in aliens.
Click to expand...
These are completely different types of arguments.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
No, they are not misdirected. They are valid questions. If a god exists, surely there must be some mechanism by which to contact him. Direct prayer, standing atop Mt. Ararat on one foot on the 1st Tuesday of Passover, something.


Tell me how one would test for the existence of a god.


Test methods for the existence of alien life is rather apparent. We're just limited by our inability to get men and equipment to other planets or moons.


What would be the test methods to prove a god exists?
Click to expand...
We still are unable to test many of Einstein's hypotheses. Does that mean they're false, or is the shortcoming in our own ability to test them? Almost nothing he said could be experimentally verified until 20 years ago. Experimentation and verification of hypotheses is not something you can just sit down and figure out. The more complicated the hypothesis, the tougher it is to develop a testing mechanism.

Another example: Helmholtz (German physicist) published a paper in 1855 on how the eye focuses. He formed his hypotheses based on observation. Recently, after the advent of corneal topography, actual data has been collected surrounding his theory. Obviously, corneal topography could not have been dreamed of in the 1850's. Does that mean Helmholtz's theory was wrong, simply because he didn't have computer models to verify them? Obviously not. He may very well be wrong (too close to call at this point), but he is not wrong for the reasons you're suggesting.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
No, they are not misdirected. They are valid questions. If a god exists, surely there must be some mechanism by which to contact him. Direct prayer, standing atop Mt. Ararat on one foot on the 1st Tuesday of Passover, something.


Tell me how one would test for the existence of a god.


Test methods for the existence of alien life is rather apparent. We're just limited by our inability to get men and equipment to other planets or moons.


What would be the test methods to prove a god exists?
Click to expand...
We still are unable to test many of Einstein's hypotheses. Does that mean they're false, or is the shortcoming in our own ability to test them? Almost nothing he said could be experimentally verified until 20 years ago. Experimentation and verification of hypotheses is not something you can just sit down and figure out. The more complicated the hypothesis, the tougher it is to develop a testing mechanism.

Another example: Helmholtz (German physicist) published a paper in 1855 on how the eye focuses. He formed his hypotheses based on observation. Recently, after the advent of corneal topography, actual data has been collected surrounding his theory. Obviously, corneal topography could not have been dreamed of in the 1850's. Does that mean Helmholtz's theory was wrong, simply because he didn't have computer models to verify them? Obviously not. He may very well be wrong (too close to call at this point), but he is not wrong for the reasons you're suggesting.
Click to expand...

Knowing how to test and being able to test are different things. Like we know how to test for aliens we just can't execute the test. We don't know how to test for god becuase we don't know what god is or what god does.

People are using bad terminology. They should be talking about predicitions. What would happen if X theory is true. For aliens if they are true then we can expect to find some aliens on some rock in outerspace.
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Knowing how to test and being able to test are different things. Like we know how to test for aliens we just can't execute the test. We don't know how to test for god becuase we don't know what god is or what god does.

People are using bad terminology. They should be talking about predicitions. What would happen if X theory is true. For aliens if they are true then we can expect to find some aliens on some rock in outerspace.
Click to expand...
Einstein didn't know how to test all of his hypotheses, either. He simply hypothesized based on how he saw physics and left the rest as an exercise. Despite the work of the world's best physicists, they still don't know how to test all of them.
 
So, no one is willing to offer up at least ONE method which could be used to test for the existence of a god?



Figures.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Spencer278
Knowing how to test and being able to test are different things. Like we know how to test for aliens we just can't execute the test. We don't know how to test for god becuase we don't know what god is or what god does.

People are using bad terminology. They should be talking about predicitions. What would happen if X theory is true. For aliens if they are true then we can expect to find some aliens on some rock in outerspace.
Click to expand...
Einstein didn't know how to test all of his hypotheses, either. He simply hypothesized based on how he saw physics and left the rest as an exercise. Despite the work of the world's best physicists, they still don't know how to test all of them.
Click to expand...

Which theory?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
So, no one is willing to offer up at least ONE method which could be used to test for the existence of a god?



Figures.
Click to expand...

This question has been answered numerous times. Too bad you seem to ignore it.

There is a thing called faith and billions seem to have it.

We have just as many sightings of god as aliens by people all over the world. So how can you completely disregard one side and say that aliens must exist? Finding out whether aliens actually exist or not is much easier than finding god, since there is no scientific method. Yet we still have ZERO concrete evidence of aliens but a lot of speculation.

Don't disregard one side of the story when you completely back the other.

Figures.
 
Originally posted by: conjur
So, no one is willing to offer up at least ONE method which could be used to test for the existence of a god?



Figures.
Click to expand...
Can you offer me one method to test whether or not the speed of light varies with translational velocity?

Figures.

Any point you might have had is moot, as no one here is claiming that belief in God is not based on faith. The point is that the belief people have in aliens is faith-based.
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: conjur
So, no one is willing to offer up at least ONE method which could be used to test for the existence of a god?



Figures.
Click to expand...
Can you offer me one method to test whether or not the speed of light varies with translational velocity?

Figures.

Any point you might have had is moot, as no one here is claiming that belief in God is not based on faith. The point is that the belief people have in aliens is faith-based.
Click to expand...

The orginal question was "What is the difference between believing in Aliens and believing in God?" One difference is that you can't test for the God but you can test for Aliens.
 
Originally posted by: Spencer278
The orginal question was "What is the difference between believing in Aliens and believing in God?" One difference is that you can't test for the God but you can test for Aliens.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can test for God. Simply because no one has developed a methodology for doing so doesn't mean it can't be done. Do you believe in something simply because you can test for it? I can develop a test for pixie dust contamination - does that mean pixies exist?
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: Spencer278
The orginal question was "What is the difference between believing in Aliens and believing in God?" One difference is that you can't test for the God but you can test for Aliens.
Click to expand...
Maybe you can test for God. Simply because no one has developed a methodology for doing so doesn't mean it can't be done. Do you believe in something simply because you can test for it? I can develop a test for pixie dust contamination - does that mean pixies exist?
Click to expand...

Fine we currently don't have a method to test for god, but we do have a method to test for aliens
 
Ah I see, we have people here who completely back the alien theory yet they completely deny that god exists. Guess understanding that people actually have a faith in something is something they're not accustomed to. How hard has SETI tried to prove the existence of aliens?

Yet we have no hard evidence of aliens but we can guess they exist. The same applies for god. But instead of being a physical being, god is spiritual and those with faith believe in god.

Can't you people comprehend that?
 
Originally posted by: conjur
So, no one is willing to offer up at least ONE method which could be used to test for the existence of a god?



Figures.
Click to expand...
I already did long ago. The Second Coming of Christ. An event every bit as logically likely as finding alien life (or alien life finding us).

Those saying that we can test for alien life are deluding themselves from the actual argument. First, no such actual testing method exists at this time, and second, no matter how much we test were it possibile would not change the likelihood of aliens actually existing.

And I was not "hedging" anything, Conjur. I expected that this thread would lead to me be branded an infidel or heretic. By questioning the nature of your faith, it is vital to the integrity of your personal faith that you see me as an enemy to that faith, even when I have already said repeatedly in this thread that I believe in the possibility of alien life. As a matter of faith.
 
Originally posted by: Windogg
My cat
Click to expand...

:disgust:

Fine we currently don't have a method to test for god, but we do have a method to test for aliens
Click to expand...

What method we have to test for aliens? By going to other planets? If thats our method, get ready to spend hundreds of billions of dollars. Sending radio signals hasn't worked, so I guess we must physically be there on the planet in order to verify life. Or send our rovers.

You're right, there is no method to test for god because god lives in the heart of a person. Each person has a different image, different appreciation for god.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top