Your being an Atheist poses the possibility that you are poking fun of this Forum. If by chance you have actually witnessed a UFO let’s report that to the proper authorities. Once we have resolved that issue then, and only then should we worry about their religion.
No, you really were not. But apparently because you do not understand my paradigm, for reasons that escape me. I’m trying to think how to paraphrase it.
You not understanding it does not mean that it is “a shockingly illogical, inconsistent position”
You are still confusing doubt and the positive assertion that something does not exist. I both doubt God exists and entertain the possibility that God exists, and likewise for alien life.
And yet so so simple.
Thank you Tonyrey!A convincing post, Gary.
Indeed.And yet so so simple.
I will find some info for you within today and tomorrow. In one post, I believe you said youve looked over many FOIA documents, and still did not find anything that leads you to believe anything is going on…am I correct? You do not find it strange there is the amount of these documents regarding UFOs/ aliens to suggest ‘something’ is indeed going on? If there was truly nothing to it, I doubt there would be as many documents that mention the topic, or the number of ‘blacked out’ information on such documents.
Neat!No it isn’t. Really, after all this, you still do not understand such a simple point?
I have not asserted the existence of intelligent alien life, only its possibility and probability. Since you are asserting that we should not consider the possibility of alien life, yet should assume the existence of God:
Good Evening PR Merger: It was not my intent to prove the existence of intelligent alien life, but only to point out the likelihood of it.
.
The emergence of conscious sentient life is a mystery, as is the Big Bang or any other theory about how anything came to be. What is clear is that while the universe likes novelty, it builds novelty and diversity out of common building blocks that are existent everywhere, and the basic template is observable and replicated in every outcome, no matter how diversely these outcomes present themselves. The same elements and compounds that exist on earth exist elsewhere. What produces one outcome as opposed to another is environment, and similar environments produce similar reactions to elements everywhere. If plants and animals developed on earth, they are likely to so the same on planets, moons and other bodies with environments similar to earth. Of course, how consciousness interacts with sentient life is perhaps another thing altogether. For instance, is a biological body necessary, for consciousness to exist? I don’t think we know that for certain. Therefore, I would be interested not only in finding life on other planets, I would be interested in finding consciousness there, and I wonder what it would look like and how it experiences the world around it.
I suppose in a C.S. Lewis styled mid-world if that is what Eden is, the first two rational beings could have started there and then somehow gradually fell to the rest of the planets. But IDK.
So, you believe in the possibility without any evidence.
Be careful, Dr. Taffy.
But that is begging the question, isn’t it, friend?
I don’t really see how postulating on the likelihood of something necessitates presenting irrefutable proof. I simply detailed how it is that I think it’s likely, to wit you said what I offered was nonsense, however, you didn’t explain how it was nonsense. I then asked if you would explain your reasoning on how what I proposed was nonsense, and to that end, I am still asking you to explain that if you would. What is the flaw in the logic that the observable world is fractal in nature, expressed as repeating patterns producing novelty and diversity that is nonetheless rooted in an original or primary design or pattern than can be seen in all subsequent permutations? That is some of the reasoning by which I speculate that life likely exists elsewhere, so the question back to you is to explain how that is nonsense.
That it is possible to have intelligent alien life is quite different in quantity and quality than stating that it is likely that there is intelligent alien life
Mike, the first link I clicked on said this: “We couldn’t find that page”
Good Evening PR Merger: I cited a good deal more than the fact that the universe is large. What I offered was what I judge to be a rather sensible assessment of the probabilities based on observable behavior in nature. Repeating patterns in creation are seen throughout the world we live in, as well as in the observable universe. You continually ask for evidence of the probability or likelihood of life on other planets and I have pointed out what I feel to be substantial evidence in things we can plainly see, namely, nature. To simply say that it is not a sound argument for a high probability is not a counterpoint, nor does it suggest any evidence to the contrary in direct relation to the points I have raised. The way to refute an idea is to discredit the assertion either with logic that opposes the point or to show how the logic is flawed. This is what you would need to do in order to put these ideas to rest. So again I ask, how is the logic I have offered flawed?That it is possible to have intelligent alien life is quite different in quantity and quality than stating that it is likely that there is intelligent alien life
Of the former, I say: sure.
Of the latter, I say: show me the proof. Show me the evidence. Show me where. Show me how. Show me why.
Reasoning that “It’s a really, really big universe out there” is just not…
well, just not a very compelling nor convincing argument to me.
It is not flawed, necessarily. It is simply conjecture. And the “likelihood” part is where you make a huge leap.
