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

[pilryu]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: SlitheryDee
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.

You've totally skimmed over my explanation. I'll keep it short, you can look up my explanation again, if you aren't satisfied.

Pure mathematical odds are based on a premise, which means that you can determine (in the coin case) 50-50 odds. And there is a definite answer as "slitherydee" puts it.

However, God's existence doesn't derive from a logical premise. So, it's irrelevant to put it in terms of mathematical equation. I think my example was the existence of Mr. Bush with the body of a cockroach, who can fly over Antarctica while singing, "Who let the dog out." Does this particular Mr. Bush exist? The answer is irrelevant, because the question itself is irrelevant.

Which fundamentally leads to the following answer.

If this alien equation is based on logically developed fundamentals, then there is an "odd" of this particular even happening. But then again, that's highly arbitrary--precisely the reason why philosophers disagree all the time (not about the alien issue, but what constitutes a fundamental).

But in the God case, many would argue that it lacks a building fundamental, therefore, it's less of an "odd" issue than "faith" issue.

I hope this clarifies my point.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: pilryu
You've totally skimmed over my explanation. I'll keep it short, you can look up my explanation again, if you aren't satisfied.

Pure mathematical odds are based on a premise, which means that you can determine (in the coin case) 50-50 odds. And there is a definite answer as "slitherydee" puts it.

However, God's existence doesn't derive from a logical premise. So, it's irrelevant to put it in terms of mathematical equation. I think my example was the existence of Mr. Bush with the body of a cockroach, who can fly over Antarctica while singing, "Who let the dog out." Does this particular Mr. Bush exist? The answer is irrelevant, because the question itself is irrelevant.

Which fundamentally leads to the following answer.

If this alien equation is based on logically developed fundamentals, then there is an "odd" of this particular even happening. But then again, that's highly arbitrary--precisely the reason why philosophers disagree all the time (not about the alien issue, but what constitutes a fundamental).

But in the God case, many would argue that it lacks a building fundamental, therefore, it's less of an "odd" issue than "faith" issue.

I hope this clarifies my point.

No, I perfectly understand your position, but that doesn't mean it's right. As I've said probably 50 times in this thread, there is just as much basis for believe in God as for belief in aliens. The only 'scientific' basis one could offer for either is actually knowing how life began here on Earth. Since this is not yet known, either divine creation or abiogenesis is equally good as a scientific explanation. I think the point is that you say IF the Drake equation is based on logically develped fundamentals, it is correct. While this is true, the IF in this case is false, so that can be punted out the window.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bsobel

The core belief, i.e. believing in superior being(s) out in the heavens who can save us, is the same.

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?

Even the discovery of microbial alien life is supposed to "give us clues" about how life on earth began, right? I could close my case on this.

But SETI is not about finding microbial alien life, now is it?

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
so you are telling me that if some time in the future that we determine how life began and it shares some similarities with abiogenesis but has some distinct differences you wouldn't say that abiogenesis contained some truth? You were the one that said there were lots of alternatives - so let's hear some. If abiogenesis is so weak shouldn't there be many other weak theories that aim to answer the question? Have you observed electrons? No? I guess believing in electricity is an act of faith.

The basic premise of abiogenesis, that life formed from X + Y + Z, is either true or not. We can dilly-dally around with the details until the cows come home, but that has naught to do with the validity of the underlying premise.

I have observed electricity. I understand its principles and how it works. I feel them when I touch something. Visual observation is not the only mechanism for offering scientific proof, but the results of electron activity can be seen visibly as well as felt. In fact, it is the basis for all the senses. Maybe you can choose another example, as that one is probably the single easiest to refute.

I can see this is going nowhere with you. You obviously want to put religion and scientific thought on the same playing field but I'm going to be un-PC and say that's BS as they aren't even close. Seeing still isn't believing. I have the ability to accept theories (and their limitations) for what they are without being a doubting Tommunist

I am a scientist. I know that an unproven theory cannot be accepted without faith. For example, I have my own theory that I'm testing right now at work. I think I know how the eye focuses, but I could be wrong. Thus, my belief in my own theory at this point is based on faith. It may be based on the observations I have made about particular parts of the eye's mechanisms, physics, material science, and so on, but these constituents are not sufficient in and of themselves to verify my theory. Thus, I must work to achieve data to test my theory. Note I say TEST: a scientist works to test a hypothesis, not prove or disprove, as these are nothing but a show of bias in favor of your own theory. I can have faith in my theory without evidence, but it remains unproven until I have tested it.

I don't think you know what faith is based on what you are saying here. You aren't blindly (no pun intented) accepting how the human eye works. The "faithful" to a religion don't do this kind of question. If someone tomorrow came up with a new theory of how electromagnitism works and the old version of the theory was tossed out I'd be perfectly okay with that. Try changing the bible and see how that goes over

All your arguments rely on you to have faith in your senses and understanding - so I guess you have faith in that but the assumptions you make regarding science are not faith. Assuming that something is true for practical purposes isn't like faith as assumptions are based on reasoning, studies, facts, etc.

BTW - could I have your whole resume too? I mean - since what you do for work makes your statements so much more worthwhile it would be useful to me to have all the information. Degrees, work experience, etc. Since that's what matters I guess I should just go find the person with the most impressive looking job/education or whatever and just see what they think and go for it. That would be so much easier!!!

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Vic
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?

Saying there are aliens requires a little "faith" but believing in God requires a whole lot more. Saying that there is the possibility of other intelligent life requires no faith at all. Saying there is possibly a God requires still a little faith I think. In the end there is at least some science behind believing in aliens and there is none behind believing in God. I don't think anyone can chance my mind on that one - so I suppose it's time for me to exit this thread.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Vic
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?

Saying there are aliens requires a little "faith" but believing in God requires a whole lot more. Saying that there is the possibility of other intelligent life requires no faith at all. Saying there is possibly a God requires still a little faith I think. In the end there is at least some science behind believing in aliens and there is none behind believing in God. I don't think anyone can chance my mind on that one - so I suppose it's time for me to exit this thread.

Just goes to show what little you know of science. You believe in one completed unsubstantiated myth and think it "scientific" while condeming another as an unsubstantiated myth. I guess it really ain't just a river in Egypt.

Regardless, I am not interested in changing anyone's faith. That's not what this thread is about nor ever was. Believe as you will (how many times do I have to say that?).

 

[Vic]

Hmmm... thinking back on the movie Contact, I watched it again recently. It touched on one thing that I liked, which is the misconception that science can solve everything. Of course it can't, but many people want to think it can. Who knows why they think that, we live in a world full of science and its technological marvels and people are just as unhappy and miserable as ever. Part of this problem is that science only deals with that which can be weighed, measured, and observed, and thinks that anything that cannot be weighed, measured, or observed does not exist. We should know differently.
Here's a nice part of the movie:


ELLIE
Hey, I?ve got one for you.
PALMER
What have you got?
ELLIE
Occam's Razor, you ever heard of it?
PALMER
Hackem?s Razor, sounds like some slasher movie.
ELLIE
No, Occam's Razor, it?s a basic scientific principle. And it says, all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
PALMER
Make sense to me.
ELLIE
Alright. So what?s more likely (Palmer puts his jacket around Ellie), thank you...
PALMER
You?re welcome.
ELLIE
...An all powerful and mysterious God created the Universe, and then decided not to give any proof of his existence, or that he simply doesn?t exist at all, and that we created him so that we didn?t have to feel so small and alone?
PALMER
I don?t know. I couldn?t imagine living in a world where God didn?t exist. I wouldn?t want to.
ELLIE
How do you know your not deluding yourself? As for me, I?d need proof.
PALMER
Proof. Did you love your father?
ELLIE
Huh?
PALMER
Your Dad, did you love him?
ELLIE
Yes, very much.
PALMER
Prove it.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Tommunist

Originally posted by: Vic
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?

Saying there are aliens requires a little "faith" but believing in God requires a whole lot more. Saying that there is the possibility of other intelligent life requires no faith at all. Saying there is possibly a God requires still a little faith I think. In the end there is at least some science behind believing in aliens and there is none behind believing in God. I don't think anyone can chance my mind on that one - so I suppose it's time for me to exit this thread.

Just goes to show what little you know of science. You believe in one completed unsubstantiated myth and think it "scientific" while condeming another as an unsubstantiated myth. I guess it really ain't just a river in Egypt.

Regardless, I am not interested in changing anyone's faith. That's not what this thread is about nor ever was. Believe as you will (how many times do I have to say that?).

Just goes to show what little you know of reading comprehension. I never said what my personal beliefs are. I was just making the point that at least in the case of believing in aliens there is some circumstantial evidence/science to back up the believers (just to make this clear - THIS DOES NOT MEAN I AM SAYING THERE IS PROOF OF ALIENS). There is no documented circumstantial evidence for God. Again - this comparison shouldn't even be made because one is talking about something in real world realm and the other is talking about something in the spiritual realm.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: Vic
Hmmm... thinking back on the movie Contact, I watched it again recently. It touched on one thing that I liked, which is the misconception that science can solve everything. Of course it can't, but many people want to think it can. Who knows why they think that, we live in a world full of science and its technological marvels and people are just as unhappy and miserable as ever. Part of this problem is that science only deals with that which can be weighed, measured, and observed, and thinks that anything that cannot be weighed, measured, or observed does not exist. We should know differently.
Here's a nice part of the movie:


ELLIE
Hey, I?ve got one for you.
PALMER
What have you got?
ELLIE
Occam's Razor, you ever heard of it?
PALMER
Hackem?s Razor, sounds like some slasher movie.
ELLIE
No, Occam's Razor, it?s a basic scientific principle. And it says, all things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the right one.
PALMER
Make sense to me.
ELLIE
Alright. So what?s more likely (Palmer puts his jacket around Ellie), thank you...
PALMER
You?re welcome.
ELLIE
...An all powerful and mysterious God created the Universe, and then decided not to give any proof of his existence, or that he simply doesn?t exist at all, and that we created him so that we didn?t have to feel so small and alone?
PALMER
I don?t know. I couldn?t imagine living in a world where God didn?t exist. I wouldn?t want to.
ELLIE
How do you know your not deluding yourself? As for me, I?d need proof.
PALMER
Proof. Did you love your father?
ELLIE
Huh?
PALMER
Your Dad, did you love him?
ELLIE
Yes, very much.
PALMER
Prove it.

if this is to become a philosophy question we might as well stop b/c technically speaking if one can't make assumptions about anything nothing can be proven - it's a fruitless road to go down and should only be brought up as a counter-point to someone attempting to use it.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I don't think you know what faith is based on what you are saying here. You aren't blindly (no pun intented) accepting how the human eye works. The "faithful" to a religion don't do this kind of question. If someone tomorrow came up with a new theory of how electromagnitism works and the old version of the theory was tossed out I'd be perfectly okay with that. Try changing the bible and see how that goes over

Yes, I don't know what faith is, despite having posted its definition about 30 times in this thread. For the sake of tradition, I will do so again. Definitions from Merriam-Webster.com:

faith: 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

proof: 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE

So, you see, there is no proof for aliens. Believing in aliens without proof is, by definition, faith. QED.

All your arguments rely on you to have faith in your senses and understanding - so I guess you have faith in that but the assumptions you make regarding science are not faith. Assuming that something is true for practical purposes isn't like faith as assumptions are based on reasoning, studies, facts, etc.

I have proof that my senses work in a non-random fashion. I already covered this and can demonstrate it mathematically. Assuming that something is true when you have a proverbial mountain of evidence to support it isn't assuming anything - it's simply accepting fact. This does not require faith, per the definitions posted above.

BTW - could I have your whole resume too? I mean - since what you do for work makes your statements so much more worthwhile it would be useful to me to have all the information. Degrees, work experience, etc. Since that's what matters I guess I should just go find the person with the most impressive looking job/education or whatever and just see what they think and go for it. That would be so much easier!!!

Trying to mock me for your own lack of understanding accomplishes nothing except to demonstrate the trend of your own jackassery.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
if this is to become a philosophy question we might as well stop b/c technically speaking if one can't make assumptions about anything nothing can be proven - it's a fruitless road to go down and should only be brought up as a counter-point to someone attempting to use it.

It is your use of assumptions that are not based on fact that are demonstrative of faith-based reasoning. This is the entire point.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
I don't think you know what faith is based on what you are saying here. You aren't blindly (no pun intented) accepting how the human eye works. The "faithful" to a religion don't do this kind of question. If someone tomorrow came up with a new theory of how electromagnitism works and the old version of the theory was tossed out I'd be perfectly okay with that. Try changing the bible and see how that goes over

Yes, I don't know what faith is, despite having posted its definition about 30 times in this thread. For the sake of tradition, I will do so again. Definitions from Merriam-Webster.com:

faith: 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

proof: 1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2 obsolete : EXPERIENCE

So, you see, there is no proof for aliens. Believing in aliens without proof is, by definition, faith. QED.

All your arguments rely on you to have faith in your senses and understanding - so I guess you have faith in that but the assumptions you make regarding science are not faith. Assuming that something is true for practical purposes isn't like faith as assumptions are based on reasoning, studies, facts, etc.

I have proof that my senses work in a non-random fashion. I already covered this and can demonstrate it mathematically. Assuming that something is true when you have a proverbial mountain of evidence to support it isn't assuming anything - it's simply accepting fact. This does not require faith, per the definitions posted above.

BTW - could I have your whole resume too? I mean - since what you do for work makes your statements so much more worthwhile it would be useful to me to have all the information. Degrees, work experience, etc. Since that's what matters I guess I should just go find the person with the most impressive looking job/education or whatever and just see what they think and go for it. That would be so much easier!!!

Trying to mock me for your own lack of understanding accomplishes nothing except to demonstrate the trend of your own jackassery.

i think number of posts in an internet political forum is inversly proportional to level of "jackassery" apparently you don't have anything better to do.

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Tommunist
if this is to become a philosophy question we might as well stop b/c technically speaking if one can't make assumptions about anything nothing can be proven - it's a fruitless road to go down and should only be brought up as a counter-point to someone attempting to use it.

It is your use of assumptions that are not based on fact that are demonstrative of faith-based reasoning. This is the entire point.

Since you apparently have a lot of time you should go through and start pointing out assumptions not based on fact so I can either accept what you say or defend myself point by point - if I were to just believe or deny what you say that would require me to have faith in you, the level of which is decreasing all the time....

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
i think number of posts in an internet political forum is inversly proportional to level of "jackassery" apparently you don't have anything better to do.

So your opinion is more valid than mine simply because you have a lower post count? Your logic is impeccable.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Tommunist
if this is to become a philosophy question we might as well stop b/c technically speaking if one can't make assumptions about anything nothing can be proven - it's a fruitless road to go down and should only be brought up as a counter-point to someone attempting to use it.

Are you saying that emotions, particularly love, do not exist? I know for a fact that love does exist. But we shouldn't go down that road because it can't be proven. Well... neither, my friend, can aliens be proven.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic
I know for a fact that love does exist. But we shouldn't go down that road because it can't be proven.

Emotions are chemical reactions. We can measure them in many cases. Scientists for example have seen that after sex, women's bodies release a chemical that bonds them to their mate. But go on pretending nothing can be proven if you must.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic
I know for a fact that love does exist. But we shouldn't go down that road because it can't be proven.

Emotions are chemical reactions. We can measure them in many cases. Scientists for example have seen that after sex, women's bodies release a chemical that bonds them to their mate. But go on pretending nothing can be proven if you must.

:roll: I'm not saying "nothing" can be proven. I'm saying that there are certain things that cannot be proven, and that by purely scientific means never will be. Who is pretending?

 

[Infohawk]

So what is "proof" to you? You don't seem to think alien life can be proven, or that emotions can be proven. What DO you think can be proven? (And yes I exagerrated when I said you didn't think anything could be proven).

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Emotions are chemical reactions. We can measure them in many cases. Scientists for example have seen that after sex, women's bodies release a chemical that bonds them to their mate. But go on pretending nothing can be proven if you must.

Can you quantify love? If not, then you can't measure it. Without such measurements, you can't prove its existence.

 

[sixone]

"Believing in" and "having faith in" are NOT the same. If the difference is not evident to you, you'll never find an adequate answer to your question.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Emotions are chemical reactions. We can measure them in many cases. Scientists for example have seen that after sex, women's bodies release a chemical that bonds them to their mate. But go on pretending nothing can be proven if you must.

Can you quantify love? If not, then you can't measure it. Without such measurements, you can't prove its existence.

Love is more of a psychological construct or status than one of the other emotions like fear or happiness. There are no love potions but chemicals cause fear and happiness.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sixone
"Believing in" and "having faith in" are NOT the same. If the difference is not evident to you, you'll never find an adequate answer to your question.

Faith is a form of belief.

Faith

belief

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sixone
"Believing in" and "having faith in" are NOT the same. If the difference is not evident to you, you'll never find an adequate answer to your question.

Faith is a form of belief.

Faith

belief

Right, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Read kierkegaard. He's a Christian. And yet he understands what faith is.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Emotions are chemical reactions. We can measure them in many cases. Scientists for example have seen that after sex, women's bodies release a chemical that bonds them to their mate. But go on pretending nothing can be proven if you must.

Can you quantify love? If not, then you can't measure it. Without such measurements, you can't prove its existence.

Love is more of a psychological construct or status than one of the other emotions like fear or happiness. There are no love potions but chemicals cause fear and happiness.

Only high school brats, and not real scientists, claim that we know everything about everything, or that it is even possible that we will ever do so.

When your ego is more important than the truth, the facts will never be important to you. Remember that.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sixone
"Believing in" and "having faith in" are NOT the same. If the difference is not evident to you, you'll never find an adequate answer to your question.

Faith is a form of belief.

Faith

belief

Right, faith is belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Read kierkegaard. He's a Christian. And yet he understands what faith is.

I understand very well what faith is. And its importance and dangers to humanity. What I'm trying to do is explain faith to people who wrongly believe that they live without it.