Quote: Pete @ July 3 2008, 9:46 PM BSTOK, on the basis of probability i strapped it down and dissected it (video on You Tube later)
Still not found my dog though ???
Bet the fourlegged alien ate it. Check its stomach.
Aliens Page 10
This was my fave thread for a long time - what happened to it? Is Perry really the only one on BSG who's had an alien experience? Pah.
People got too moody.
To me the weird thing here is the flexibility of people's logic. Which demonstrates our beliefs are often not derived from fact and evidence (as we'd like to believe ... because evidence lend a certain amount of intellectual gravitas over the opposing side) but rather we choose to believe something that suits our personal tastes and then retroactively find evidence that supports our case.
It's interesting to watch opposing groups say (for instance) "but there's no evidence FOR God". And the counter being, "Yes, but there's no evidence AGAINST God." And then to see those same sides switch defence with "but there's no evidence FOR aliens". And, "Yes, but there's no evidence AGAINST aliens."
To use the defence, "We don't know enough to prove / disprove ... God / aliens." is not a proof to justify your personal beliefs. If we admit we don't know everything about the universe then to decide you believe in God or aliens is personal preference. Making a decision in absence of all the facts is indefensible from a logical point-of-view. The only logical choice is to say the answer is (under our current knowledge), unanswerable.
If you don't believe in God for the percieved lack of evidence then that scepticism should remain when confronted with the percieved lack of evidence for aliens, and vice versa. That the scepticism doesn't remain, shows that we as people choose rather than have our beliefs imposed on us by the evidence. By it's very nature, the debate is doomed to be cyclical.
As to God being E.T? That's just to do with your choice of tag and the way you define it. Some groups label this entity as Yahweh, Allah, or alien. The tag is immaterial and something imposed subjectively. What matters is the objective nature of this being - if it exists - because that remains the same, whatever the man-made tag. So Perry is right in that God could be labelled an alien (if we use his particular definition of the term) but that's really no comfort if that alien exists in the biblical (or any other religious view's) form.
I still don't think the possibility of a God and the possibility of aliens existing is comparable.
There is proof of other planets, stars, galaxies. We haven't been there yet to find out if they're inhabited, but we can see them, so there is proof, and therefore likelihood.
Whereas with god, no proof, no likelihood.
So, while what Slag says does make perfect sense in general, I just don't think the two are at all comparable.
(though slag wasn't really comparing the two, but the way we talk about the two.)
Quote: zooo @ July 5 2008, 5:58 PM BSTI still don't think the possibility of a God and the possibility of aliens existing is comparable.
There is proof of other planets, stars, galaxies. We haven't been there yet to find out if they're inhabited, but we can see them, so there is proof, and therefore likelihood.
Whereas with god, no proof, no likelihood.
So, while what Slag says does make perfect sense in general, I just don't think the two are at all comparable.
(though slag wasn't really comparing the two, but the way we talk about the two.)
Agreed; it seems unlikely and arrogant to assume that there isn't ANY life whatsoever somewhere in the huge vastness of the universe; there must be, even if its just mindless bugs or vegetation, or whatever. As for a God, knickers to that idea. People worshipped trees, then realsied that was nonsense, so worshipped the sun, until they worked out what that was; what better than an invisible force that can never be proven one way or the other-you have to go on blind faith! That's a pretty good trick to pull.
Quote: SlagA @ July 5 2008, 5:51 PM BSTTo me the weird thing here is the flexibility of people's logic. Which demonstrates our beliefs are often not derived from fact and evidence (as we'd like to believe ... because evidence lend a certain amount of intellectual gravitas over the opposing side) but rather we choose to believe something that suits our personal tastes and then retroactively find evidence that supports our case.
It's interesting to watch opposing groups say (for instance) "but there's no evidence FOR God". And the counter being, "Yes, but there's no evidence AGAINST God." And then to see those same sides switch defence with "but there's no evidence FOR aliens". And, "Yes, but there's no evidence AGAINST aliens."
To use the defence, "We don't know enough to prove / disprove ... God / aliens." is not a proof to justify your personal beliefs. If we admit we don't know everything about the universe then to decide you believe in God or aliens is personal preference. Making a decision in absence of all the facts is indefensible from a logical point-of-view. The only logical choice is to say the answer is (under our current knowledge), unanswerable.
If you don't believe in God for the percieved lack of evidence then that scepticism should remain when confronted with the percieved lack of evidence for aliens, and vice versa. That the scepticism doesn't remain, shows that we as people choose rather than have our beliefs imposed on us by the evidence. By it's very nature, the debate is doomed to be cyclical.
As to God being E.T? That's just to do with your choice of tag and the way you define it. Some groups label this entity as Yahweh, Allah, or alien. The tag is immaterial and something imposed subjectively. What matters is the objective nature of this being - if it exists - because that remains the same, whatever the man-made tag. So Perry is right in that God could be labelled an alien (if we use his particular definition of the term) but that's really no comfort if that alien exists in the biblical (or any other religious view's) form.
A - almost an A*, but you didn't write f**k off in there anywhere.
Quote: SlagA @ July 5 2008, 5:51 PM BSTTo use the defence, "We don't know enough to prove / disprove ... God / aliens." ... The only logical choice is to say the answer is (under our current knowledge), unanswerable.
Are the two not one and the same...?
In any case, what zooo and Matthew are getting at is correct; whilst there is no solid evidence for or against either, given the fact that we are here, it seems entirely plausible that there would be life on other planets. And that's not subjective - we are here. Religious persons could argue that there is equal possibility that there is a God, but we don't actually have anything comparable in the way that planetary lifeforms are.
Quote: Matthew Stott @ July 5 2008, 6:01 PM BSTAgreed; it seems unlikely and arrogant to assume that there isn't ANY life whatsoever somewhere in the huge vastness of the universe; there must be, even if its just mindless bugs or vegetation, or whatever. As for a God, knickers to that idea. People worshipped trees, then realsied that was nonsense, so worshipped the sun, until they worked out what that was; what better than an invisible force that can never be proven one way or the other-you have to go on blind faith! That's a pretty good trick to pull.
Physics says that there it's quite likely there is life elsewhere in the universe - the universe is huge and the possibility of all the right elements coming together on a planet to create life isn't prohibitively small (it happened here!). I think the question is more if it can find us and then reach us or visa versa. The universe is billions of light years across. On top of that, we've only been on this planet for a tiny time, and in the universe for an even more miniscule amount of time.
Quote: zooo @ July 5 2008, 5:58 PM BSTI still don't think the possibility of a God and the possibility of aliens existing is comparable.
There is proof of other planets, stars, galaxies. We haven't been there yet to find out if they're inhabited, but we can see them, so there is proof, and therefore likelihood.
Whereas with god, no proof, no likelihood.
So, while what Slag says does make perfect sense in general, I just don't think the two are at all comparable.
(though slag wasn't really comparing the two, but the way we talk about the two.)
True, you can work out the probability of there being aliens, but you can't do that for a god.
Quote: SlagA @ July 5 2008, 5:51 PM BSTTo me the weird thing here is the flexibility of people's logic. Which demonstrates our beliefs are often not derived from fact and evidence (as we'd like to believe ... because evidence lend a certain amount of intellectual gravitas over the opposing side) but rather we choose to believe something that suits our personal tastes and then retroactively find evidence that supports our case.
It's interesting to watch opposing groups say (for instance) "but there's no evidence FOR God". And the counter being, "Yes, but there's no evidence AGAINST God." And then to see those same sides switch defence with "but there's no evidence FOR aliens". And, "Yes, but there's no evidence AGAINST aliens."
To use the defence, "We don't know enough to prove / disprove ... God / aliens." is not a proof to justify your personal beliefs. If we admit we don't know everything about the universe then to decide you believe in God or aliens is personal preference. Making a decision in absence of all the facts is indefensible from a logical point-of-view. The only logical choice is to say the answer is (under our current knowledge), unanswerable.
If you don't believe in God for the percieved lack of evidence then that scepticism should remain when confronted with the percieved lack of evidence for aliens, and vice versa. That the scepticism doesn't remain, shows that we as people choose rather than have our beliefs imposed on us by the evidence. By it's very nature, the debate is doomed to be cyclical.
As to God being E.T? That's just to do with your choice of tag and the way you define it. Some groups label this entity as Yahweh, Allah, or alien. The tag is immaterial and something imposed subjectively. What matters is the objective nature of this being - if it exists - because that remains the same, whatever the man-made tag. So Perry is right in that God could be labelled an alien (if we use his particular definition of the term) but that's really no comfort if that alien exists in the biblical (or any other religious view's) form.
Cheers Slag - sensible and erudite as usual.
I brought the God / alien thing up only because my Catholic friend was very disturbed and actually angry by the suggestion that God is an alien. His reaction always puzzled me because he couldn't offer any argument to the contrary. He actually left the room saying "You won't rock my faith". I was shocked because that was never my intention.
We were having another theological conversation one time about Hell, (which he totally believes in). I asked him why does God send "bad" people to Hell, and his simple answer was that they have wasted their lives and that makes God angry. So I asked him something along the lines of "But I thought God was meant to be all-knowing and all-seeing? Surely the instant we're born, God being God must KNOW how we're going to turn out, good or bad, so how can he be angered by something he knew was going to happen all along?"
Again, my friend wasn't happy with that question. I think he came back with something like God giving us free will, but that suggests that God DOESN'T know everything, which suggests that God is a flawed being, which is impossible according to Christianity. It screws with my head.
Back on the topic of aliens, the Vatican have recently come out and said it's now okay to believe in them, and they are our "Space Brothers" Link here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7399661.stm
Quote: SlagA @ July 5 2008, 5:51 PM BSTTo me the weird thing here is the flexibility of people's logic. Which demonstrates our beliefs are often not derived from fact and evidence (as we'd like to believe ... because evidence lend a certain amount of intellectual gravitas over the opposing side) but rather we choose to believe something that suits our personal tastes and then retroactively find evidence that supports our case.
It's interesting to watch opposing groups say (for instance) "but there's no evidence FOR God". And the counter being, "Yes, but there's no evidence AGAINST God." And then to see those same sides switch defence with "but there's no evidence FOR aliens". And, "Yes, but there's no evidence AGAINST aliens."
To use the defence, "We don't know enough to prove / disprove ... God / aliens." is not a proof to justify your personal beliefs. If we admit we don't know everything about the universe then to decide you believe in God or aliens is personal preference. Making a decision in absence of all the facts is indefensible from a logical point-of-view. The only logical choice is to say the answer is (under our current knowledge), unanswerable.
If you don't believe in God for the percieved lack of evidence then that scepticism should remain when confronted with the percieved lack of evidence for aliens, and vice versa. That the scepticism doesn't remain, shows that we as people choose rather than have our beliefs imposed on us by the evidence. By it's very nature, the debate is doomed to be cyclical.
As to God being E.T? That's just to do with your choice of tag and the way you define it. Some groups label this entity as Yahweh, Allah, or alien. The tag is immaterial and something imposed subjectively. What matters is the objective nature of this being - if it exists - because that remains the same, whatever the man-made tag. So Perry is right in that God could be labelled an alien (if we use his particular definition of the term) but that's really no comfort if that alien exists in the biblical (or any other religious view's) form.
Whereas I agree with what you're saying, I don't think your point is universally true.
I think sometimes people do veer towards whatever makes more sense to them, whether they like the implications of that or not.
I for one just want to get closer to the truth, no matter what that turns out to be - I just want to know it.
If it turns out that the likeliest and most logical scenario is that we live to be put through hell and then go on to an eternity of torture for the amusement of some sadistic entity, that's clearly not what I hope will happen but if I feel it's more likely the truth I will go with it.
If we don't know all the hard facts the only thing we can do is make educated/reasoned guesses based on what little knowledge we do actually have.
I think in the abscence of hard science it's useful to argue these things out philosophically, so long as one does so with an open-mindedness and not a stubbornness or refusal to be seen as wrong.
I think if religion made sense people wouldn't have to believe in it. Interesting link Perry!
Quote: Simon Stratton @ July 5 2008, 6:22 PM BSTI think if religion made sense people wouldn't have to believe in it.
That's quite good.
Quote: ian_w @ July 5 2008, 6:21 PM BSTWhereas I agree with what you're saying, I don't think your point is universally true.
I think sometimes people do veer towards whatever makes more sense to them, whether they like the implications of that or not.
I for one just want to get closer to the truth, no matter what that turns out to be - I just want to know it.
If it turns out that the likeliest and most logical scenario is that we live to be put through hell and then go on to an eternity of torture for the amusement of some sadistic entity, that's clearly not what I hope will happen but if I feel it's more likely the truth I will go with it.
If we don't know all the hard facts the only thing we can do is make educated/reasoned guesses based on what little knowledge we do actually have.
I think in the abscence of hard science it's useful to argue these things out philosophically, so long as one does so with an open-mindedness and not a stubbornness or refusal to be seen as wrong.
Surely it doesn't matter and it's best not to know. For example - if you knew when you were going to die, you'd spend your life thinking, 'oh my god, I've only got X years left! I'll never get to do that thing I wanted to do, I might as well get pissed'. Same goes for living your life thinking about what happens after you die.
Quote: Perry Nium @ July 5 2008, 6:19 PM BSTHe actually left the room saying "You won't rock my faith".
The fact he left the room strongly suggests that his faith was 'rocked'!
Quote: Perry Nium @ July 5 2008, 6:19 PM BSTAgain, my friend wasn't happy with that question. I think he came back with something like God giving us free will, but that suggests that God DOESN'T know everything, which suggests that God is a flawed being, which is impossible according to Christianity. It screws with my head.
There is, I find, a very limited amount of logic or sense with any religion - the Catholic church even less so than probably any other.
Ask him why he's subserviant to some gimp in Rome, and see what he says. 