Was getting a bit off topic... But you're right, probability of existence in either corner is pretty much meaningless at present, and does nothing to make belief in either more justifiable. Yes with technological increases, attack and subsequent annihilation by aliens, or the fullfillment of the book of Revelations either one might be proven. The way things stand however, belief in aliens has no more logical basis than belief in god.
Was getting a bit off topic... But you're right, probability of existence in either corner is pretty much meaningless at present, and does nothing to make belief in either more justifiable. Yes with technological increases, attack and subsequent annihilation by aliens, or the fullfillment of the book of Revelations either one might be proven. The way things stand however, belief in aliens has no more logical basis than belief in god.
actually VIC you are wrong here.
For instance, let's talk about a coin flip. 50% chance head and 50% chance tail, correct?
let's flip a coin... and dont' look at the outcome...
although we cannot know what the outcome is, we do know that there IS an outcome of head or tail. So, in terms of odds in this equation, either aliens DO exist, or they don't. Yes, we don't know the outcome, but there is an equal chance for both.
Then you, being sensible and witty, would tell me that God either exist or not (which is another 50% odd for each, right?)
Wrong!
Well, this is where it's gets tricky, because it's in the realm of logical fallacies. I forgot the term for this, but it's as defined: in binary opposition, you can't always deduce that A must be correct, since B is incorrect.
Example One: This room isn't black, therefore it must be white. (fallacy)
Example Two: There must exist or not exist a triangular object, which can fit perfectly inside a circle. (fallacy)
Example Three: It must be A, since it's not B (fallacy)
Do you see the pattern? In order for these A, or not-A examples to work, you must first prove that.
1. The possible outcome is based on destructive binary choices (like head or tail--you can't have 3/5 head and 2/5 tail)
2. The equation must be logical (can omnipotent God create a rock he can't lift?)
3. The assumed binaries must have defined parameters.
In God equation, these prerequisites break down.
1. we cannot determine if God exist or not exist are destructive binaries. Can't God, omnipotent being, exist, while not existing as well? There are so many problems here, ranging from omnipotence to omniscient issues... start reading St. Aquinas on.. if you wish to follow modern religious philosophies.
2. number 1 ultimately touches upon the logical choices of deciding whether God exists or not. again, I'll not go into details here
3. what exactly is the relationship between God existing and not existing. 9 to 1 ratio? 99 to 1 ratio? 25 to 75 ratio? what? or 0 to 100 ratio? (which simply means irrelevance).
You see in the coin flip example, we know that the 2 outcomes have 50% and 50% chances. We also know that the possiblility of an outcome is 100%. Therefore, when we flip a coin, we know that there is an outcome.
But in the case of A exist or not-A: that's unclear, since we dont' know the parameters of A. It's similar to me asking if a man with the head of Mr. Bush and the body of a cockroach, which also has x-ray vision exist or not exist in this world. Since we do not have a clear basis for hypothesis in the first place, we can't use the equation at all.
That's why odds and faith are two different things. Odds depend on parameters, faith depends on nothing but belief.
One difference is that God doesn't seem to be subject to the laws of physics. He can do things by "magic" it would seem. A believe in another form of intelligent life though doesn't actually violate the laws of physics though. So you could say one is scientific, the other isn't.
Faith both transcends and supplements logic. It is for the reasons I mentioned before that your faith is between you and 'God', not between you and me, you and a church, and so on.
Yes, you are wrong. There is no way you can say that there is a 50% probability of the existence of alien life. This claim is utterly ridiculous and ignores everything discussed in this thread. Either aliens exist or do not, same with God. We don't have the experience required to generate the weighting functions required to say how likely either is to actually exist, so any claims regarding relative probabilities are patently false.
I think that the point he was trying to make in this particular passage is that there IS a definite answer. If the bottom line was that alien life either exists or does not, does that not work out to either 100 percent (true) or 0 percent (false)? What means would we use to estimate the probability of alien life that wouldn't be as indefinite as the drake equation anyway?
You're right - it's either true or it's not, but that in no way implies 50-50 odds. By this logic, there would equally be 50-50 odds of God existing.
As I mentioned before, the Drake equation is mathematically correct. The problem is the arbitrary manner used to generate the coefficients, which could only truly be found from experimentation.
"The Drake Equation"
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
N* represents the number of stars in the Milky Way Galaxy
fp is the fraction of stars that have planets around them
ne is the number of planets per star that are capable of sustaining life
fl is the fraction of planets in ne where life evolves
fi is the fraction of fl where intelligent life evolves
fc is the fraction of fi that communicate
fL is fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations live
Compiling the data required to accurately complete this equation would seem be an unimaginably complicated task. BTW I'm not a math major, how do you know that this equation is mathematically correct?
Hehe... Exactly - there is no reasonable way to determine these coefficients. It's a 'best guess' sort of thing, which is inherently a faith-based matter. One can strive to make reasonable assumptions, but these assumptions are based on faith themselves.
As for how I know the equation is correct, it's simple probability. If you want the probability of multiple events all occurring, then you simply multiply the probability of each individual event by the probability of every other event. Each f represents the probability of one event, so multiplying all the f's together gives the total probability. This is just how you calculate odds in a lottery: if there are five balls drawn with numbers 1-50 and the balls are not replaced after being drawn, then the odds of hitting one particular combination is exactly f1*f2*f3*f4*f5=1/50*1/49*1/48*1/47*1/46.
Hmmm...If that's true then the drake equation seems rather obvious. I guess all Drake did was find the determining factors.
Edit: For easier reading.
Yeah, he basically came up with all the factors that were important, then postulated values based on what he considered 'reasonable' assumptions.
I can answer the original post is just a couple of words, and be 100 percent sure of the veracity of my claim.
I present that by definition, all beliefs are just that....beliefs. Look up the definition and it does not change. He who believes in Space Aliens, Living Elvis and God are all the same. How the belief affects his/her life is another discussion though.
I present that by definition, all beliefs are just that....beliefs. Look up the definition and it does not change. He who believes in Space Aliens, Living Elvis and God are all the same. How the belief affects his/her life is another discussion though.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
This approach is correct only if the events are independent (that is, the occurrence of one event has no effect on the probability of another event). If the probabilities are not independent, then you must use conditional probabilities.
To see this, consider the following puzzle:
Assume the a priori probability that it rains at any given instant in time is 50%. Two highly truthful individuals (each one randomly tells the truth 75% of the time and lies 25% of the time) look outside at the same instant. When asked, "Is it raining?", each one says, "Yes."
What is the probability that it is raining? (Answer below.)
The probability is NOT 9/16 (the answered you'd get if you just multiplied 3/4*3/4).
Why? Because given that the two individuals AGREE, it is impossible that one is lying and one is telling the truth. Thus, the individual probabilities of lying or telling the truth are no longer independent (Edit: That is, if one is lying, the other must be lying; if one is telling the truth, the other must be telling the truth).
The actual odds are:
(A priori fraction of the time where both individuals tell the truth)/(a priori fraction of the time where the individuals either both lie or both tell the truth)
= 3/4*3/4/(3/4*3/4 + 1/4*1/4) = 9/10
The primary difference is that the belief in "God" or (in some countries/timelines) "gods" is an attempt to "fill a void" in the human psyche.
What do I mean by that? Mankind is blessed (or cursed) with the power to reason and understand. When the human mind is presented with issues/scenarios/etc... it cannot fully comprehend, it will attempt to "fill the void". It does this by either eliminating information it cannot grasp, or by creating information to fill the gaps. It does this by quickly organizing the input into something it can understand.
Take a VERY simple example: II DDOONNTT LLIIKKEE TTOO DDEEBBAATTEE.
Or maybe this one: .etabed ot ekil tdon I
If you're like normal people, you can easily see "I don't like to debate" in the above series examples. Why? Because the human mind quickly organizes the letters to form something it can recognize. Obviously this is just a tip of the iceberg, but I can't post graphics here so....
My point is, the human mind "likes" when things fit into concepts/ideas/structures it can understand. If it cannot understand it, IT WILL ATTEMPT TO CREATE AN ANSWER TO IT. In this case, questions such as "How did we get here?", "Why are we here?", "What happens when we die?", "Why do bad things happen to good people?", "What came first, the Twinky or the cream-filling?"
Except for that last one, these questions can be answered by beliving in a "higher power(s)" that created us, that put us here for a purpose, and that good people will go to a "better place", and bad people will be condemned in an afterlife. Without a god, there is no answer for these questions, and you are left with a void. Therefore "god" and the "afterlife" are CRUTCHES people use to make it through life. It fills the void for them, and keeps them sane.
Another example is "Santa Claus". I'm sure I'll get flamed for comparing god to santa claus, but they are along the same thread. When you woke up as a kid, and saw a lot of presents under a tree, and were told by your parents that santa claus brought them because you were a "good kid", your mind accepted that. It answered the question of "how did the gifts get there?" They even had a story of where santa lived, and how he got to all the kids within the same night.
THE MIND WAS SATISFIED, SO IT LOOKED NO FURTHER FOR ANSWERS. Likewise, we are told a story about some type of god when we are young. A lot of people believe in the story because that is how they were taught, and because it answers some questions that otherwise would baffle the mind.
Another reason for beliving in a god is fear. The fear there is no afterlife. The fear that bad people won't pay for their wrongdoings. The fear that their lives are as trivial as an ants -- we're just here to live and die like the rest of the planet.
Conversely, the belief in aliens stems more from calculating probabilities, rather than trying to answer questions about our own existence. I'm sure there are some who "fear we are alone" in the universe, or who feel we were "put here by aliens". But the majority of those who think aliens may exist (or at some point existed) are merely playing the odds based on scientific research.
What do I mean by that? Mankind is blessed (or cursed) with the power to reason and understand. When the human mind is presented with issues/scenarios/etc... it cannot fully comprehend, it will attempt to "fill the void". It does this by either eliminating information it cannot grasp, or by creating information to fill the gaps. It does this by quickly organizing the input into something it can understand.
Take a VERY simple example: II DDOONNTT LLIIKKEE TTOO DDEEBBAATTEE.
Or maybe this one: .etabed ot ekil tdon I
If you're like normal people, you can easily see "I don't like to debate" in the above series examples. Why? Because the human mind quickly organizes the letters to form something it can recognize. Obviously this is just a tip of the iceberg, but I can't post graphics here so....
My point is, the human mind "likes" when things fit into concepts/ideas/structures it can understand. If it cannot understand it, IT WILL ATTEMPT TO CREATE AN ANSWER TO IT. In this case, questions such as "How did we get here?", "Why are we here?", "What happens when we die?", "Why do bad things happen to good people?", "What came first, the Twinky or the cream-filling?"
Except for that last one, these questions can be answered by beliving in a "higher power(s)" that created us, that put us here for a purpose, and that good people will go to a "better place", and bad people will be condemned in an afterlife. Without a god, there is no answer for these questions, and you are left with a void. Therefore "god" and the "afterlife" are CRUTCHES people use to make it through life. It fills the void for them, and keeps them sane.
Another example is "Santa Claus". I'm sure I'll get flamed for comparing god to santa claus, but they are along the same thread. When you woke up as a kid, and saw a lot of presents under a tree, and were told by your parents that santa claus brought them because you were a "good kid", your mind accepted that. It answered the question of "how did the gifts get there?" They even had a story of where santa lived, and how he got to all the kids within the same night.
THE MIND WAS SATISFIED, SO IT LOOKED NO FURTHER FOR ANSWERS. Likewise, we are told a story about some type of god when we are young. A lot of people believe in the story because that is how they were taught, and because it answers some questions that otherwise would baffle the mind.
Another reason for beliving in a god is fear. The fear there is no afterlife. The fear that bad people won't pay for their wrongdoings. The fear that their lives are as trivial as an ants -- we're just here to live and die like the rest of the planet.
Conversely, the belief in aliens stems more from calculating probabilities, rather than trying to answer questions about our own existence. I'm sure there are some who "fear we are alone" in the universe, or who feel we were "put here by aliens". But the majority of those who think aliens may exist (or at some point existed) are merely playing the odds based on scientific research.
I don't agree with the premise that science can be used to disprove the existence of either. The underlying logic of that is that science says that only things which can be proven, exist, which isn't a claim that any decent scientist would make.
I think the misunderstanding comes from the scientific method of not accepting a theory as valid without testing it experimentally, but this process isn't reversible, it doesn't mean that things that can't be tested are necessarily not true.
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
In addition to not liking to debate, you don't seem to like to read threads either.
Every point in your post has already been thoroughly addressed in this thread as typical pseudo-atheist nonsense. The kind of thing where you actively seek for something to be wrong while condemning those who seek for that same something to be right. Both activities fill this void you speak of.
The "It'd be an awful waste of space" argument is just the pretend disguise of logic for those alien faithful who hope and pray we're not alone.
And you apparently don't like to be enlightened.
First, let me clarify - I don't know if there is a god or if there are aliens. I'm open to the possibility that either may or may not exist. Call it a cop-out, I call it keeping an open mind.
You can dismiss my statements as "typical pseudo-atheist nonsense". And if you really need to believe in god to make it through your life, that's your perogative. However, I'm fairly certain there are very few people out there who believe in aliens to make it through life.
Again your mind and emotions are trying to justify your stance -- when dealing with close minded people, there is no reasoning. You obviously have a vendetta against people who believe in aliens but not god. My point was these beliefs (while possibly both unfounded), are based on different mindsets and psyches.
First, let me clarify - I don't know if there is a god or if there are aliens. I'm open to the possibility that either may or may not exist. Call it a cop-out, I call it keeping an open mind.
You can dismiss my statements as "typical pseudo-atheist nonsense". And if you really need to believe in god to make it through your life, that's your perogative. However, I'm fairly certain there are very few people out there who believe in aliens to make it through life.
Again your mind and emotions are trying to justify your stance -- when dealing with close minded people, there is no reasoning. You obviously have a vendetta against people who believe in aliens but not god. My point was these beliefs (while possibly both unfounded), are based on different mindsets and psyches.
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Try reading the thread, eh? I'm not attacking the position of believing in aliens or defending the position of believing in God, you assumptive jerk. I've demonstrated how believing in aliens cannot be justified from any hard scientific position. That believing in aliens requires faith similar to the faith required to believe in God.
If I may say so, the person with the closed mind must be you, or else you would not have come in here without having read the thread and making all these incorrect assumptions. I also like how you're making all these assumptions while tricking your own mind into thinking that my earlier post was one of emotion. It wasn't, except for annoyance at people who enter into a long thread without having even read the original post seemingly, and then claim I'm the one who doesn't like to be enlightened! :roll:
edit: btw, I agreed with much of your first post except for the use of Santa Claus (which was irrelevant) and the overgeneralization making all the people who believe in God look foolish while all the people who believe in aliens look grand and scientific. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are both foolish. People who believe in aliens are not "calculating probabilities". They're doing the same thing God believers do and hoping we're not alone. You really ought to consider your own personal prejudice on this subject before attacking what you think to be another's without cause.
Of course, you're right but given that he didn't know the very basic probability equation I didn't want to complicate the issue. I'm pretty sure what I said is true in this circumstance.
Try reading my post, eh?
I never said you were defending the position of believing in god. I said "And *IF* you really need to believe in god..."
I also said you have a vendetta -- take a look at your own posts:
"Just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy to all you fairy tale believers."
and...
"In other words, my thread here is about the blatant hypocrisy of those who believe in one unprovable absolute condemning another group that believes in a different unprovable absolute."
AGAIN, the belief in these two things do not originate from the same source. No one is taught they are going to a "hell" if they don't believe in aliens. No one sends "prayers" to aliens (I hope!) asking for a better life.
So AGAIN: "My point was these beliefs (while possibly BOTH UNFOUNDED), are based on different mindsets and psyches. "
I never said you were defending the position of believing in god. I said "And *IF* you really need to believe in god..."
I also said you have a vendetta -- take a look at your own posts:
"Just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy to all you fairy tale believers."
and...
"In other words, my thread here is about the blatant hypocrisy of those who believe in one unprovable absolute condemning another group that believes in a different unprovable absolute."
AGAIN, the belief in these two things do not originate from the same source. No one is taught they are going to a "hell" if they don't believe in aliens. No one sends "prayers" to aliens (I hope!) asking for a better life.
So AGAIN: "My point was these beliefs (while possibly BOTH UNFOUNDED), are based on different mindsets and psyches. "
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
Ok. Maybe you should try to portray your points with less prejudice, eh?
My vendetta is not against alien believers per se. It's against the AT pseudo-atheistic elite. I've made no bones about that. The people here on AT who proclaim how much they hate people who "believe in invisible magic people who live in the clouds" while they themselves do the same thing. Does that make sense? You're new here, CrimsonChaos, so you may not be aware of the hypocracy and illogic of these fine people on this board who attack anything and everything religious. They'd burn St. Peters if they could, despite its historical significance, simply for hate's sake.
And.. I'm sorry, but the belief does come from the same source. What you see as so different is not the core belief. Theism did not begin believing in Heaven and Hell. Those were concepts that came later. Ancient Jews did not believe in Heaven and Hell. But Christians, who came later and believe in the same god, do. Prayer is much the same, beginning first only with priests (Levites) being allowed to call upon God and not until Christ were all the faithful allowed to pray. Alienism has not yet evolved is all. The core belief, i.e. believing in superior being(s) out in the heavens who can save us, is the same.
My vendetta is not against alien believers per se. It's against the AT pseudo-atheistic elite. I've made no bones about that. The people here on AT who proclaim how much they hate people who "believe in invisible magic people who live in the clouds" while they themselves do the same thing. Does that make sense? You're new here, CrimsonChaos, so you may not be aware of the hypocracy and illogic of these fine people on this board who attack anything and everything religious. They'd burn St. Peters if they could, despite its historical significance, simply for hate's sake.
And.. I'm sorry, but the belief does come from the same source. What you see as so different is not the core belief. Theism did not begin believing in Heaven and Hell. Those were concepts that came later. Ancient Jews did not believe in Heaven and Hell. But Christians, who came later and believe in the same god, do. Prayer is much the same, beginning first only with priests (Levites) being allowed to call upon God and not until Christ were all the faithful allowed to pray. Alienism has not yet evolved is all. The core belief, i.e. believing in superior being(s) out in the heavens who can save us, is the same.
Yes I'm new to these forums. Posted a couple things over on the General Hardware once. So you're correct in saying I'm not familiar with the general population here.
I still don't agree with your last paragraph. To me, anyway, whether aliens exist is just curiosity. Much like I wonder what type of creatures (if any) reside in the deepest deepest depths of the oceans, I wonder what (if anything) exist in the farthest expanses of the universe.
The belief in a higher power (god) is much more than curiosity. It fulfills the need to understand life (and death). Obviously we aren't going to agree on this -- especially since you think we all have "gods". So I'll agree to disagree.
But I will say this -- on the flip-side, I think stories of alien ABDUCTIONS are ridiculous. It's as ridiculous to me as say... seeing holy visions. I find it interesting how all aliens seem to look like... well... humans. Two arms, two legs, standing upright, two eyes, fingers, a mouth, etc.... You would think we'd be more creative than that.
Of course, not dismissing that aliens may exist, just the stories that people are swept up into space ships and given the "once over". This is possibly more along the lines of religious belief -- the human mind convincing itself that some super alien race actually cares enough about us that they "fly" all the way over here to abduct us.
I still don't agree with your last paragraph. To me, anyway, whether aliens exist is just curiosity. Much like I wonder what type of creatures (if any) reside in the deepest deepest depths of the oceans, I wonder what (if anything) exist in the farthest expanses of the universe.
The belief in a higher power (god) is much more than curiosity. It fulfills the need to understand life (and death). Obviously we aren't going to agree on this -- especially since you think we all have "gods". So I'll agree to disagree.
But I will say this -- on the flip-side, I think stories of alien ABDUCTIONS are ridiculous. It's as ridiculous to me as say... seeing holy visions. I find it interesting how all aliens seem to look like... well... humans. Two arms, two legs, standing upright, two eyes, fingers, a mouth, etc.... You would think we'd be more creative than that.
Of course, not dismissing that aliens may exist, just the stories that people are swept up into space ships and given the "once over". This is possibly more along the lines of religious belief -- the human mind convincing itself that some super alien race actually cares enough about us that they "fly" all the way over here to abduct us.
um... I might have misrepresented myself. I wasn't referring to Aliens or God discussion... truthfully I don't give a shiz about them... But I was alluding to the fundamental difference between odds and faith as KK mentions. Odds depend on premise. Faith does not.
No you haven't, you've just been claiming you have since the first post. Again, the difference is their is a scientific basis for the possibility of alien life, not for the existance of God. You won't accept that (you sure keep ignoring it). Sadly, all of your posts don't read any different if you change the word god to 'Smurfs'.
Bill
Woah, who said anything about superior beings? We've been talking about the possibility of alien life, including micorbial... Trying to change the discussion again?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter