What do you believe without evidence? If anything.

Penn

jank wrote: »

You don't believe in God I presume because there is no proof or evidence, yet you believe in life on other planets but there is no proof or evidence of that either. In short you are taking a leap of faith in this matter.

And you're taking a jump to conclusions.

Logically, it makes sense that there would be some form of life on other planets given the size of the universe and how it was all created ultimately from the same point. It is completely within the realms of possibility. There is no proof or evidence, but it's definitely possible given what we currently know about the universe.

Logically, God does not make sense because it is supernatural, therefore outside of the realms of what we consider to be the natural world. There is no proof or evidence, but it defies what we consider to be natural laws, which means it is far less likely. Possible, but unlikely given what we do currently know about the universe.

Is believing in life on other planets a leap of faith? Maybe, but not in the same context as believing in God being a leap of faith.

TheChizler

jank wrote: »

I agree but on the same token one should be at least open to a God who created the universe if they are open to those thoughts.

In other words EVERYONE should at least be agnostic if they are going to entertain thoughts of extraterritorial life.

If you are an atheist than one should have the same logic and mindset to say that because there is no proof, therefore one lacks the belief in extraterritorial life, yet not many do that.

In other words people are not rational or consistent with their logic.

There's no inconsistency as agnosticism and atheism operate on two entirely different planes, one is about knowledge and the other is about belief, two very different things.

On the aliens front the only thing claimed to be known is that life can originate. It can definitely happen once, so there's no reason why it can't happen again, you know that it can happen (it did once) and believe that it can either happen again or not. The mechanism exists. On the God front no such mechanism has been shown to exist, therefore the above is inverted, you don't know that it can happen, but again you can believe either way.

The extent and reasonableness of those beliefs then depends on probability based on what we have observed.

Zillah

kylith wrote: »

What do I believe without evidence? I believe that my dogs love me.

Unless you have very strange dogs I bet they give evidence of their love every day. Is a dog's exuberant joy at your arrival any less clear an indication of affection than a lover saying "I love you"? Every brain is an island which receives messages through the senses, I don't think the words people say are inherently more reliable than the behaviour of an animal.

dlofnep

robindch wrote: »

Frank Drake is the guy you're looking for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Well aware of the Drake Equation

kylith

Zillah wrote: »

Unless you have very strange dogs I bet they give evidence of their love every day. Is a dog's exuberant joy at your arrival any less clear an indication of affection than a lover saying "I love you"? Every brain is an island which receives messages through the senses, I don't think the words people say are inherently more reliable than the behaviour of an animal.

You can't know know, though, can you, without being able to actually communicate with them. They could just be very skilled manipulators.

Zillah

kylith wrote: »

You can't know know, though, can you, without being able to actually communicate with them. They could just be very skilled manipulators.

You're getting into epistemological nihilism here. How can we know anything? Based on my interactions with my dog - how he consistently responds to my behaviour, and how those responses change depending on my behaviour - I consider it a form of communication. Why do we need words to "actually communicate"? Regardless, you have no way of knowing that a person who says nice things to you isn't also just a skilled manipulator.

There is a point where scepticism rams its face into solipsism - just before that point is where I conclude that my parents and my dog likely have genuine affection for me.

That or we all live in The Matrix, and like, who knows what's real maaaan...

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Unless you have very strange dogs I bet they give evidence of their love every day.

Without wishing to become too pedantic, it's fairer to say that dogs reliably demonstrate behavior which humans interpret as "love". It's an open question in cognitive psychology whether the dogs are simply responding involuntarily as they've been natured/nurtured to, or whether they're voluntarily demonstrating something at, or close to, what humans interpret as friendship or love. In general, researchers in animal behavior are loath -- frequently to the point of considerable anger -- to ascribe any human qualities to animals.

Zillah wrote: »

I don't think the words people say are inherently more reliable than the behaviour of an animal.

Honest Signalling Theory looks at both:

http://octavia.zoology.washington.edu/handicap/honest_intro_02.html

Doctor DooM

robindch wrote: »

Without wishing to become too pedantic, it's fairer to say that dogs reliably demonstrate behavior which humans interpret as "love". It's an open question in cognitive psychology whether the dogs are simply responding involuntarily as they've been natured/nurtured to, or whether they're voluntarily demonstrating something at, or close to, what humans interpret as friendship or love. In general, researchers in animal behavior are loath -- frequently to the point of considerable anger -- to ascribe any human qualities to animals.Honest Signalling Theory looks at both:

As much as anthropomorphism is frowned upon by researchers, for the subject we are talking about here I don't think there's any word better than love in the English language for my dog's consistent behaviour in my presence.

Is love in humans not involuntary anyway? You can't chose who you love and don't. Well I can't, anyway, it'd make things much easier if I could.

Zillah

robindch wrote: »

In general, researchers in animal behavior are loath -- frequently to the point of considerable anger -- to ascribe any human qualities to animals.

I agree with the notion in principle, but how far do we take it? If I see an animal screeching and writhing as someone stabs it with a knife am I guilty of ascribing human qualities to an animal if I claim it is experiencing "pain"? Why do we get a monopoly on affection?

Zillah

Zillah wrote: »

I agree with the notion in principle, but how far do we take it? If I see an animal screeching and writhing as someone stabs it with a knife am I guilty of ascribing human qualities to an animal if I claim it is experiencing "pain"? Why do we get a monopoly on affection?

I take the fact that a dog can mourn the death of a companion or an owner as evidence of a dog's ability to feel and demonstrate affection. Several years ago one of our two dogs died; the one that died was the mother of the other, and both had lived together constantly for 11 years. After the death, the remaining dog visually and vocally mourned his loss for a solid two months: he cried every day and night, became lethargic, refused to leave his kennel, refused food, when he did eat he would often vomit afterwards, and he shunned company. If a dog can feel such sadness then a belief in a dog's ability to feel love and affection, both for its owner and companions, is a justified belief, as far as I'm concerned. Without the ability to feel affection it would not make sense to possess the ability to feel great sadness for a loss; the latter presupposes the former.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

The fact the we exist doesn't mean that there are aliens out there, nor does it mean that god exists.

The existence of life had no implications as regards the existence of god or otherwise. The fact is that there is no examples of supernatural phenomena whatsoever - not a one. Therefore you're extrapolating from absolutely nothing - a complete blank.

Chuck Stone

Being a Dyslexian* I sometimes lie in bed at night wondering if dog loves me.



*May not be from the planet Dyslex.

joseph brand

jank wrote: »

I agree but on the same token one should be at least open to a God who created the universe if they are open to those thoughts.

In other words EVERYONE should at least be agnostic if they are going to entertain thoughts of extraterritorial life.

If you are an atheist than one should have the same logic and mindset to say that because there is no proof, therefore one lacks the belief in extraterritorial life, yet not many do that.

In other words people are not rational or consistent with their logic.

I think you're getting mixed up. There's a big difference between, having an open mind that somehow crazy as it seems a god who looked like a man with a beard created the whole universe and decided to just put sentient life on Earth, and following organised religion. Blind faith indeed. Organised religion which comes with a plethora of dogmatism, prejudice, hatred, ignorance, selfishness and delusion.

By all means, have your little beliefs in a father-figure in the sky, who watches over you, to see if you're 'naughty or nice'. Just keep them out of schools and politics. Fair is fair.


@OP; I believe those old wives tales are a load of crap. Umbrella opened in the house, black cat under ladder, broken mirror, etc. They seems harmless enough, but I know a person who is serious about them, and it's not funny.

nagirrac

Nodin wrote: »

The existence of life had no implications as regards the existence of god or otherwise. The fact is that there is no examples of supernatural phenomena whatsoever - not a one. Therefore you're extrapolating from absolutely nothing - a complete blank.

Don't forget that everything we have ever observed as a species and had no explanation for at the time was "supernatural" until we came up with a theory to explain it. Our understanding of the reality we observe is still very incomplete (are there parallel universes, 8 dimensions, is the universe holographic, etc) and it is likely there will be a major breakthrough in our understanding of reality long before we discover any evidence of life elsewhere in the universe or evidence of the existance / non-existance of God. My assumption is based on the progress we have made on understanding reality and the lack of progress in the other two areas.

Penn

joseph brand wrote: »

@OP; I believe those old wives tales are a load of crap. Umbrella opened in the house, black cat under ladder, broken mirror, etc. They seems harmless enough, but I know a person who is serious about them, and it's not funny.

They annoy me. They're so engrained in people that going against any of them causes weird looks. I moved out of home on a Saturday and was told it was bad luck and how you're not supposed to move on a Saturday. Just pure nonsense where someone once moved house on a Saturday, something bad happened to them and someone else said "Well, I guess we're not supposed to move house on Saturdays... It's bad luck!"

Besides which, if you can't move on a Saturday, and Sunday is a day of rest (because most people I know who believe that sort of stuff are religious), then I'd have to take a day off work to do it, and that's just stupid.

nagirrac

Zillah wrote: »

Unless you have very strange dogs I bet they give evidence of their love every day. Is a dog's exuberant joy at your arrival any less clear an indication of affection than a lover saying "I love you"? Every brain is an island which receives messages through the senses, I don't think the words people say are inherently more reliable than the behaviour of an animal.

"Cats look down on you, dogs look up to you, but pigs look you in the eye as equals" Winston Churchill

"No man should be allowed to be President who does not understand pigs or has not been around a manure pile" Harrry Truman

We have a lot to learn from animals, they are just as fascinating as ourselves.

Turtwig

nagirrac wrote: »

"Cats look down on you, dogs look up to you, but pigs look you in the eye as equals" Winston Churchill

"No man should be allowed to be President who does not understand pigs or has not been around a manure pile" Harrry Truman

We have a lot to learn from animals, they are just as fascinating as ourselves.

Totally off topic but look up octopuses they're awesome and so under appreciated by the general public. Seriously, if it wasn't for their lifestyle requirements we'd definitely be keeping them as pets.

kylith

Zillah wrote: »

I agree with the notion in principle, but how far do we take it? If I see an animal screeching and writhing as someone stabs it with a knife am I guilty of ascribing human qualities to an animal if I claim it is experiencing "pain"? Why do we get a monopoly on affection?

I'm not questioning a dog's ability to feel affection, I'm just saying that I can't know that they have affection for me rather than are conditioned to behave in a certain way, or that they actually don't like me at all but have worked out that since I feed them they'd better act like they do.

I fully believe that they feel affection toward me, and I know for a fact that one of them likes me better than my OH.

Doctor DooM

Jernal wrote: »

Totally off topic but look up octopuses they're awesome and so under appreciated by the general public. Seriously, if it wasn't for their lifestyle requirements we'd definitely be keeping them as pets.

They're amazing creatures. Apparently, some of the most intelligent on the planet.

I saw the lad in the Bray aquarium tear into a puzzle once, was intriguing.

Nodin

nagirrac wrote: »

Don't forget that everything we have ever observed as a species and had no explanation for at the time was "supernatural" until we came up with a theory to explain it. Our understanding of the reality we observe is still very incomplete (are there parallel universes, 8 dimensions, is the universe holographic, etc) and it is likely there will be a major breakthrough in our understanding of reality long before we discover any evidence of life elsewhere in the universe or evidence of the existance / non-existance of God. My assumption is based on the progress we have made on understanding reality and the lack of progress in the other two areas.

Its unlikely in the extreme we will ever discover intelligent life, and only slightly less unlikely we'd discover evidence of life at all, given the distances involved. Thats the harsh reality of it.

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

Totally off topic but look up octopuses they're awesome and so under appreciated by the general public. Seriously, if it wasn't for their lifestyle requirements we'd definitely be keeping them as pets.

...all well and good till they start tentacling the wimmin folk. I mean I'm liberal, but there has to be some lines that aren't crossed....

nagirrac

Doctor DooM wrote: »

They're amazing creatures. Apparently, some of the most intelligent on the planet.

Paul being the supreme example. The fact that he was English and picked Germany to beat England put him in an footballing intelligence category above all of the English media and most English fans

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

Its unlikely in the extreme we will ever discover intelligent life, and only slightly less unlikely we'd discover evidence of life at all, given the distances involved. Thats the harsh reality of it.

I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll find intelligent life (more likely that intelligent life will find us!). But I think we'll find life in the solar system. I'd actually be willing to make a substantial bet on that. Enceladus ftw!:)

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

...all well and good till they start tentacling the wimmin folk. I mean I'm liberal, but there has to be some lines that aren't crossed....

Mmmmm, all those suckers.......:p

Nodin

Obliq wrote: »

Mmmmm, all those suckers.......:p

Japan is the place for you.

Obliq

Nodin wrote: »

Japan is the place for you.

I may eat the food that gets placed on me. I haven't enough manners for Japan.

Nodin

Jernal wrote: »

I think it's extremely unlikely that we'll find intelligent life (more likely that intelligent life will find us!). But I think we'll find life in the solar system. I'd actually be willing to make a substantial bet on that. Enceladus ftw!:)

I had the notion that it was Europa that was favoured, but that notion may well be Arthur C Clarkes fault...

Bannasidhe

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Being a Dyslexian* I sometimes lie in bed at night wondering if dog loves me.



*May not be from the planet Dyslex.

I lie in bed at night fighting the dogs for space.

Zombrex

al28283 wrote: »

I didnt say anything about universes where Earth is not the only planet with life.

You responded to a post that didn't mention infinity at all. You appeared to be making the assertion that if the universe (or multiverse) is infinite it must be full of and infinite number of universes where Earth is the only planet with life.

The problem with that is that you cannot fill up infinity. You can't say that the multiverse is full of an infinite number of universes where Earth is the only planet with life and thus no other universes can exist. All possible other universes can and will exist, including ones where Earth is not the only planet with life. There is no cap on infinity.

Ronagig

ok I'm just going to agree with the post that said their washing machine was a portal to a sock eating dimension (I think?) although I did have a dream where the socks were in fact escaping to the homeworld. Where in secret they were planning a rescue operation to get their matching other - How else will they have sock babies?????