[video] Sagan brilliance

[mattx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_naQhynOg0

[MkII]

The possibility of life existing is about the same as the possibility of God existing. You can't dismiss one on the strength of the other.

[mavhc]

Of course I can, there's evidence for life existing

[MkII]

Nice. You dismiss an entity that denies evidence on the grounds of lacking evidence. Strike 2.

[Gatt]

Excellent video! Though whenever I hear Carl Sagen , I keep getting an image of Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving) in my head! lol

 

And as for the "Is there a God" and "Do Aliens Exist" debate, we should be open minded about both of these - I personally (IMHO) think that there is no god, and that there is extra-terrestrial life out there..

But until undeniable proof is given, I cannot say yes there is or No there is not - becasue there could very well be a god, and there might not be ET's..

 

I tend to think mor like Terry Pratchett with regards to gods - they exist as long as people believe in them - the more people believe, the more powerful the God, (ref: Small Gods) - Isn't that kinda how it happens here? Chritianity, Hindu, Islam, etc are all going strong, there are places of worship everywhere, but the older religions like the Roman, Greek & Norse gods, are now just folklore, or only taught as "religious history" - very few people (if any) now worship them, - yet they did centuries ago and were considered powerful gods.. now they are not so..

 

There is also little proof that alien life exists, people claim to have been abducted and are treated with either extreme sceptisim or as being "not right in the head".. yet considering how big space is, can we really say we are alone? Sagan didn't think so, hence why we have the Drake equation. Life has been found on Mars, yes its only Microbial life, but ilfe none the less..

 

We should be open to both sides - open to the possibility that God does (or doesn't) exist, and to the possibility that we are alone (or not alone) in the universe..

 

What we cannot do is say "Yes there is" or "no there isn't" - because we cannot PROVE it either way.. YET!..

[siuko]

They are two quite different questions, though. It would be interesting to hear what religion has to say if life was discovered elsewhere. What would it say?

 

They would quickly rewrite their religious literature to include it (I wonder how many times most have been rewritten for the benefit of the people in power)

[JJonas]

Pale blue dot with Carl Sagan's quote for those of you who have not seen it...

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Pale_Blue_Dot.png

"We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

 

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity -- in all this vastness -- there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It's been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we've ever known."

 

 

Kind of puts you in your place and makes you think.

[localzuk]

The possibility of life existing is about the same as the possibility of God existing. You can't dismiss one on the strength of the other.

 

The 2 are completely separate issues. With 'God' you require Faith. You can't prove God's existence and you can't disprove it. To a scientist that seems preposterous (indeed, to me it does) but to the religious it is not at all odd. The issue arrives when scientists try to prove or disprove this existence, or when religious people try to use science to do so. It will just end in failure and make all parties look like fools.

 

With aliens, we hypothesise based on observations. We've seen evidence that life could've lived on Mars etc... We have evidence that life could well exist on Titan, and other futher away exo-planets (based on the different frequencies of light seen coming from them). We can't, at this point, prove that life exists outside planet Earth but the evidence is compelling.

[jamesb]

With aliens, we hypothesise based on observations. We've seen evidence that life could've lived on Mars etc... We have evidence that life could well exist on Titan, and other futher away exo-planets (based on the different frequencies of light seen coming from them). We can't, at this point, prove that life exists outside planet Earth but the evidence is compelling.

 

We can also prove that (somewhat) intelligent life exists on Earth.

 

They would quickly rewrite their religious literature to include it http://cdn1.edugeek.net/images/smilies/biggrin.png (I wonder how many times most have been rewritten for the benefit of the people in power)

 

I believe (maybe incorrectly) that the Catholic church already has decided how intelligent extra-terrestrial life would relate to current religious beliefs. If I remember correctly the options are:

- noble savages: unaware of the religion and therefore innocent, but should be converted and saved as possible

- true innocents: essentially angels or tools of god

- tools of the adversary: self-explanatory

[MkII]

You'll have to show your workings, I'm afraid. I can't make that jump in logic.

God is ruled out by the improbability of him. Clearly the chance of life existing being the same probability yet still existing clearly nullifies the qualification.

 

That's not a real argument! If you state a case, the burden of proof is on you to offer evidence and proof, or least a hypothesis. To employ the fallacy of irrefutability is a sign of a weak argument, not a strong one.

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. As I (nor any Christian) make no claim I shoulder no burden.

[localzuk]

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. As I (nor any Christian) make no claim I shoulder no burden.

 

You made a claim:

 

The possibility of life existing is about the same as the possibility of God existing. You can't dismiss one on the strength of the other.

 

So, you're either saying that neither exist (which I have already said, can be proven to be incorrect), or that both exist. You are the claimant, and therefore the burden of proof lies with you.

[MkII]

@ jinnatonnix :

I mean you can't rule out God using that logic.

 

I don't claim that God exists, no. I believe that he does, through faith. Very different.

 

@localzuk :

I see no claim

[localzuk]

@localzuk :

I see no claim

 

You claim that the probability of life existing is the same as that of god existing. Not only is that a claim, but it is a very bold claim.

[MkII]

I think it was Richard Dawkins (if he wasn't copying someone else) that made the point about the improbability of god, as a means to dismiss the notion. All I'm saying is that this argument falls on it's face when the considering the equal improbability of life.

 

I'm not saying that because life exists, therefore God exists. I agree with you that nothing is provable. In my world view, I factor in God.

[jamesb]

God is ruled out by the improbability of him. Clearly the chance of life existing being the same probability yet still existing clearly nullifies the qualification.

 

They're completely unrelated probabilities. Whether one is true doesn't make the other more likely.

 

Throwing a triple six on three dice doesn't make it more likely that your next throw of three dice will be a triple six.

 

And the probability of life existing is 1. There is no way to quantify the probability of god existing since there is no statistically significant evidence

 

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. As I (nor any Christian) make no claim I shoulder no burden.

 

So you don't claim that god exists, you're just saying that he does? The moment you express your belief to others you are taking on the burden of proof. If I say I have a castle somewhere then wouldn't you expect me to somehow demonstrate it if I want you to believe me?

[MkII]

@ jinnatronnix :

Yeah I didn't say (or mean) it was true, just that you couldn't rule it out.

 

I think Christianity is logically coherent, and is the current end point of religious consideration. It currently withstands scrutiny, but that's not saying it can't be improved.

 

@jamesb :

I didn't say it made anything more likely. In a universe without either the probability of either occurring would be infinitesimally small.

 

I'm not saying that he does, I'm saying that I believe that he does, through faith. God is not demonstrable > which is why faith is required.

Edited August 2, 2010 by MkII

[localzuk]

I think Christianity is logically coherent, and is the current end point of religious consideration. It currently withstands scrutiny, but that's not saying it can't be improved.

 

How can you say that you think Christianity is logically coherent, and that it withstands scrutiny? There is a vast array of evidence that neither is true! What you should be saying is that you have faith that it is correct.

[jamesb]

Yeah I didn't say (or mean) it was true, just that you couldn't rule it out.

 

I think Christianity is logically coherent, and is the current end point of religious consideration. It currently withstands scrutiny, but that's not saying it can't be improved.

 

Any theory withstands scrutiny if you accept the axioms it is based on. Since in the case of religion those axioms are a matter of belief, any believer of any religion will believe it stands up to scrutiny, and their belief in the theory will be as justifiable as any other believer's, of any religion.

 

Since the foundation of any system cannot be proven through the system itself (mathematics is the best example of this) there is no way to prove or disprove the system if you are a believer. Since the axiom itself is intrinsically untestable (as far as we currently know) all that can be done is to put forward evidence, none of which can be conclusive.

[MkII]

@ jinnatronnix :

Yes you're right I joined a few atheist forums to follow my interest in the subject.

 

@ Localzuk :

There is no evidence to the contrary (The subject is theology & not science).

 

@ jamesb :

I like that. You assume that all religions are equally developed, and I don't think they are. Only Christianity achieves directness with God where others achieve this through temporary sacrifice. Buddhism is another kettle of fish which I don't think goes near to the completeness of Christianity. Lacking belief is also a world view subject to the same limitations.

[jamesb]

@ jinnatronnix :@ Localzuk :

There is no evidence to the contrary (The subject is theology & not science).

 

There is no evidence in favour either. Flying Cosmic Teapot argument.

 

@ jamesb :

I like that. You assume that all religions are equally developed, and I don't think they are. Only Christianity achieves directness with God where others achieve this through temporary sacrifice. Buddhism is another kettle of fish which I don't think goes near to the completeness of Christianity. Lacking belief is also a world view subject to the same limitations.

 

I don't assume that all religions are equally developed at all - I state that they are all equally valid, all being internally consistent (to a degree, and interpretation covers a huge variety of sins) and all being based upon axioms which have to be accepted on faith and cannot be tested.

 

I'm glad that you have such a clear understanding of all the various religions, well enough to know that only yours is the right one which allows you to speak directly to god. Unfortunately there are many, many religions which allow for a direct interface with $deity including several variants of paganism. Meanwhile there are variants of Christianity which consider there to be intermediaries between man and god.

 

Also claiming that you have direct contact with god through your religion makes it no more or less valid than any other - unless you can demonstrate that link in a way which can be tested in order to test the fundamental axiom of religion by an objective viewer.

 

Finally your comment about lacking belief - you are correct in that a non-believer (which by your view includes all non-Christians who do not subscribe to your specific interpretation) is still accepting an axiom on which they are basing their world view. However their fundamental assumption does not require so many leaps of faith to accept - no claims are made of an untestable being or beings somehow supervising all things without involvement in the system.

[MkII]

@ jamesb :

Flying cosmic Teapot : God is not demonstrable

 

What is the point then? Answer: positivity.

 

Yes I've studied a lot of religions and I can say for myself that none are as developed as Christianity. That's how I can believe Christianity to be true for myself. No doubt someone more academic than myself could demonstrate this to you.

 

Faith, in the Christian context, is the acceptance of information believed to be true.

 

What claims are made? Logical conclusions are drawn. In one scenario, everything emanates from god, in another, it doesn't. In Christianity God is supervising and is involved.

[featured_spectre]

As he is in Judaism and Islam as well....

[jamesb]

@ jamesb :

Flying cosmic Teapot : God is not demonstrable

 

What is the point then? Answer: positivity.

 

Accepting claims without demonstrable proof is commonly considered foolish. If you are happy to do so, then I have $6 000 000 in a bank in Nigeria which I am happy to share with you should you help me transfer it out of the country. Your expenses will be minimal, and more than compensated by the money coming in.

 

Yes I've studied a lot of religions and I can say for myself that none are as developed as Christianity. That's how I can believe Christianity to be true for myself. No doubt someone more academic than myself could demonstrate this to you.

 

Christianity is split into thousands of different variants and interpretations. Which of these, precisely is more developed? Additionally how are you defining development? Christianity is not the oldest religion, so what makes it so much more developed than any other?

 

Faith, in the Christian context, is the acceptance of information believed to be true.

 

You forgot to add - without evidence.

 

What claims are made? Logical conclusions are drawn. In one scenario, everything emanates from god, in another, it doesn't. In Christianity God is supervising and is involved.

 

Logical conclusions? Christianity is, in your opinion, well-developed and therefore is automatically correct? You are not drawing logical conclusions from available data, you are drawing a logical conclusion given the assumption that a deity exists. Since that is not a testable theory any conclusions drawn from it are also untestable and in dispute.

 

As for claims - you are claiming that Christianity is true. That is quite a clear claim. I am simply claiming that it is no more true, or testable, than any other religion. This does not necessarily equate to saying that all religions are invalid, or that there is not one correct and true religion. It is neither an endorsement or a condemnation of religion, but simply pointing out that no particular viewpoint based upon an article of faith is any more valid than any other.

[MkII]

Accepting claims without demonstrable proof is commonly considered foolish. If you are happy to do so, then I have $6 000 000 in a bank in Nigeria which I am happy to share with you should you help me transfer it out of the country. Your expenses will be minimal, and more than compensated by the money coming in.

Welcome to logical fallacies r us. You can search for evidence of the non evidential all you like. Me, I'll stick with common sense thanks

 

Christianity is split into thousands of different variants and interpretations. Which of these, precisely is more developed? Additionally how are you defining development? Christianity is not the oldest religion, so what makes it so much more developed than any other?

Christianity as a whole is more developed. I'm sure you're aware of the development of world religions, and the aspects of Christianity which borrow heavily from those. Time doesn't make something more developed. A more complete and logical coherence does.

 

You forgot to add - without evidence.

What do you call the information that it's based upon then?

 

Empirical evidence doesn't apply, unless you insist on thinking fallaciously.

 

Logical conclusions? Christianity is, in your opinion, well-developed and therefore is automatically correct? You are not drawing logical conclusions from available data, you are drawing a logical conclusion given the assumption that a deity exists. Since that is not a testable theory any conclusions drawn from it are also untestable and in dispute.

No, Christianity is not automatically correct in my opinion. It's essential, and inherent, that we work that out for ourselves. Now on the different subject of belief in God, yes this is an assumption built on faith as defined above; and necessarily contestable and permanently disputable.

 

As for claims - you are claiming that Christianity is true. That is quite a clear claim. I am simply claiming that it is no more true, or testable, than any other religion. This does not necessarily equate to saying that all religions are invalid, or that there is not one correct and true religion. It is neither an endorsement or a condemnation of religion, but simply pointing out that no particular viewpoint based upon an article of faith is any more valid than any other.

I trust that it is true, yes. I claim that it's true for me. That being personal. I don't claim that it's true for you. I see it as superior: being positive against a neutral. I've not said that other world views are invalid. I've merely observed the weakness of those positions in relation to my own. I could believe no other way, and I don't think you could either... if you did you'd believe in something you weren't convinced of.

[jamesb]

Welcome to logical fallacies r us. You can search for evidence of the non evidential all you like. Me, I'll stick with common sense thanks

 

Uh...

 

So wait, you're now trying to use the argument that because there is no evidence, that's evidence? But you've already said that god supervises and is involved in the universe. Involvement requires action, action requires a result, therefore involvement means that there should be evidence.

 

Christianity as a whole is more developed. I'm sure you're aware of the development of world religions, and the aspects of Christianity which borrow heavily from those. Time doesn't make something more developed. A more complete and logical coherence does.

 

A more complete and logical coherence would not then fragment into so many different sects with individual beliefs - the authenticity of the tenets would be self-evident through logical evaluation. Segmentation denotes that the religion is not coherent.

 

What do you call the information that it's based upon then?

 

Empirical evidence doesn't apply, unless you insist on thinking fallaciously.

 

I call it faith - not based on any information. As for empirical evidence you appear to be arguing the same way as me - that there is no proof, no empirical evidence, no justification, just faith. Faith relies on the acceptance of a theory despite the lack of evidence.

 

And for your last statement about thinking fallaciously, basing decisions on empirical evidence is not thinking fallaciously I'm afraid to say. I'm not quite sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm not even sure if your arguments are still coherent here.

 

No, Christianity is not automatically correct in my opinion. It's essential, and inherent, that we work that out for ourselves. Now on the different subject of belief in God, yes this is an assumption built on faith as defined above; and necessarily contestable and permanently disputable.

 

So Christianity is not automatically correct, it is just better and more developed?

 

You cannot separate the issue of belief in $deity from religion itself. Therefore any arguments which apply to the existence of $deity apply to the validity of religion. The practices of a religion itself can be argued about separately, but still can only be valid if the base assumption that $deity exists is true.

 

I trust that it is true, yes. I claim that it's true for me. That being personal. I don't claim that it's true for you. I see it as superior: being positive against a neutral. I've not said that other world views are invalid. I've merely observed the weakness of those positions in relation to my own. I could believe no other way, and I don't think you could either... if you did you'd believe in something you weren't convinced of.

 

So you don't claim that it's true for anyone else, just that anyone who believes differently from you is inferior and arguing from a weaker position? I'm sorry to say that I've not really noticed any strength in your arguments, or really any true arguments. Your claims seem to be centralised around -

 

- I believe, therefore $diety is

- My particular sect of Christianity is more developed (by my definition), therefore it is superior

 

Please correct me if I've somehow missed something more solid in your arguments.