Some Christian fundamentalists: no extraterrestrial intelligence

[Learner]

Could you clarify? Science is a search - that is all it is. Once science understands enough about a particular thing it becomes engineering and science moves on searching for other answers.

Apologies skepticalbip, I was refering to Atheists in the science community. With great respect to them I merely wanted to say that they will not not want to bother searching this particular area regarding whether or not there is evidence of a maker.

It depends on what you want to get nearer to. Physicists, "soley", are getting us nearer to an understanding of quite a bit in this universe.

Of course I would agree with you. The point I make is; Being that the universe and nature is the subject matter to look out for evidence of a creator or otherwise. The subject matter is also studied,documented and covered by varied expertise of many fields,adding to the pool of knowledge.

 

[bilby]

Apologies skepticalbip, I was refering to Atheists in the science community. With great respect to them I merely wanted to say that they will not not want to bother searching this particular area regarding whether or not there is evidence of a maker.

Most of them already have - that's why they are atheists.

It depends on what you want to get nearer to. Physicists, "soley", are getting us nearer to an understanding of quite a bit in this universe.

Of course I would agree with you. The point I make is; Being that the universe and nature is the subject matter to look out for evidence of a creator or otherwise. The subject matter is also studied,documented and covered by varied expertise of many fields,adding to the pool of knowledge.

Scientists look out for evidence that their hypotheses are flawed. If there is evidence for a creator, they would seek it out; Scientists love nothing more than proving that their colleagues are wrong.

And of course, there are many theist scientists; and there have been many, many attempts, by both atheists and theists, to find evidence to support a wide range of religious positions - all of which have, so far, failed miserably.

In fact, theology is probably the single field of study upon which the greatest effort has been wasted trying to find evidence for counterintuitive propositions, and in repeating over and over tests the results of which are already known, in the vain hope of uncovering a shred of solid evidence for a creator, or an answerer of prayers, or an assister of armies, or any one of the myriad roles that theists have claimed for their Gods. As a species, we have put VAST energies into looking for Gods, and all we have to show for it is piss weak arguments with broken logic; anecdotes of dubious worth; and descriptions of God that have steadily become less powerful and important, as science has found explanations for events previously believed to be caused by the divine.

A millennium ago, most people were certain that God would turn out to be the explanation for almost all of the unexplained phenomena they encountered. Today, most of those phenomena have been explained, and so far, not ONE has turned out to actually be due to the Gods. Of course, there remain some things we cannot explain; but given the track record of the God hypothesis, it would be crazy to bet on 'God' turning out to be the correct answer to any of our remaining questions.

Scientists don't shy away from proposing 'God' as an answer because they are atheists; they do so because they have tried that answer in the past, and every single time they did, they turned out to be wrong.

 

[Learner]

Most of them already have - that's why they are atheists

Yes indeed. Its not easy once reaching a stumbling block.

Scientists look out for evidence that their hypotheses are flawed. If there is evidence for a creator, they would seek it out; Scientists love nothing more than proving that their colleagues are wrong.

I hope they had the tools when they were seeking God out.

These things happen . I guess finding flaws does help improve the methods.

 

[skepticalbip]

Apologies skepticalbip, I was refering to Atheists in the science community. With great respect to them I merely wanted to say that they will not not want to bother searching this particular area regarding whether or not there is evidence of a maker.

I'm sorry, I missed that that is what you were looking for.

However, for that question you are looking to the wrong specialty for an answer. Science only deals with what is observable or measurable. It is philosophy that deals with your question and philosophers have been arguing among themselves for thousands of years over the answer and are no closer to a consensus than when they started - and are unlikely to ever agree in the future.

It depends on what you want to get nearer to. Physicists, "soley", are getting us nearer to an understanding of quite a bit in this universe.

Of course I would agree with you. The point I make is; Being that the universe and nature is the subject matter to look out for evidence of a creator or otherwise. The subject matter is also studied,documented and covered by varied expertise of many fields,adding to the pool of knowledge.

See the response above.

 

[bilby]

Yes indeed. Its not easy once reaching a stumbling block.

Scientists look out for evidence that their hypotheses are flawed. If there is evidence for a creator, they would seek it out; Scientists love nothing more than proving that their colleagues are wrong.

I hope they had the tools when they were seeking God out.

These things happen . I guess finding flaws does help improve the methods.

What 'tools' do you think they might have lacked?

Science is, fundamentally, about finding flaws. That's what science IS. A search for flaws in our understanding.

 

[beero1000]

Yes indeed. Its not easy once reaching a stumbling block.

Scientists look out for evidence that their hypotheses are flawed. If there is evidence for a creator, they would seek it out; Scientists love nothing more than proving that their colleagues are wrong.

I hope they had the tools when they were seeking God out.

These things happen . I guess finding flaws does help improve the methods.

On the contrary - unlike in much of the past, today we have the tools to pretty definitively reject the hypothesis of a creator. That's progress and it's why religion is becoming a vestigial institution.

 

[Learner]

And of course, there are many theist scientists; and there have been many, many attempts, by both atheists and theists, to find evidence to support a wide range of religious positions - all of which have, so far, failed miserably.

In fact, theology is probably the single field of study upon which the greatest effort has been wasted trying to find evidence for counterintuitive propositions, and in repeating over and over tests the results of which are already known, in the vain hope of uncovering a shred of solid evidence for a creator, or an answerer of prayers, or an assister of armies, or any one of the myriad roles that theists have claimed for their Gods.

It is too early yet to suggest final conclusions. We are currently finding the best way with new propulsion methods to travel to Mars and beyond. If we haven't done so so far then we haven't yet the know how, to start to quantify something outside physical law hence right tools. The knowledge is ongoing and more is yet to be aquired

As a species, we have put VAST energies into looking for Gods, and all we have to show for it is piss weak arguments with broken logic; anecdotes of dubious worth; and descriptions of God that have steadily become less powerful and important, as science has found explanations for events previously believed to be caused by the divine.

The only thing that has been explained and answered were poor propositions in the first place.

A millennium ago, most people were certain that God would turn out to be the explanation for almost all of the unexplained phenomena they encountered. Today, most of those phenomena have been explained, and so far, not ONE has turned out to actually be due to the Gods. Of course, there remain some things we cannot explain; but given the track record of the God hypothesis, it would be crazy to bet on 'God' turning out to be the correct answer to any of our remaining questions.

We know a lot more than we new then. A theory of a creator is a valid theory by the examples of the theory of the big bang or the theory of black holes and dark matter. Invisible but it is believed to be there like is a creator could equally by the perception of the way the universe and nature is working. Not by Faith

Scientists don't shy away from proposing 'God' as an answer because they are atheists; they do so because they have tried that answer in the past, and every single time they did, they turned out to be wrong.

Agreed but is that every test tested ? Do the inquisitve now stop looking because this is the conclusion the ultimate finality ? The conclusion that God does not exist is premature.

 

[bilby]

It is too early yet to suggest final conclusions. We are currently finding the best way with new propulsion methods to travel to Mars and beyond. If we haven't done so so far then we haven't yet the know how, to start to quantify something outside physical law hence right tools. The knowledge is ongoing and more is yet to be aquired

As a species, we have put VAST energies into looking for Gods, and all we have to show for it is piss weak arguments with broken logic; anecdotes of dubious worth; and descriptions of God that have steadily become less powerful and important, as science has found explanations for events previously believed to be caused by the divine.

The only thing that has been explained and answered were poor propositions in the first place.

A millennium ago, most people were certain that God would turn out to be the explanation for almost all of the unexplained phenomena they encountered. Today, most of those phenomena have been explained, and so far, not ONE has turned out to actually be due to the Gods. Of course, there remain some things we cannot explain; but given the track record of the God hypothesis, it would be crazy to bet on 'God' turning out to be the correct answer to any of our remaining questions.

We know a lot more than we new then. A theory of a creator is a valid theory by the examples of the theory of the big bang or the theory of black holes and dark matter. Invisible but it is believed to be there like is a creator could equally by the perception of the way the universe and nature is working. Not by Faith

Scientists don't shy away from proposing 'God' as an answer because they are atheists; they do so because they have tried that answer in the past, and every single time they did, they turned out to be wrong.

Agreed but is that every test tested ? Do the inquisitve now stop looking because this is the conclusion the ultimate finality ? The conclusion that God does not exist is premature.

That depends on what you mean by 'God'. The conclusion that the Gods described by every religion in human history do not exist is far from premature. If something exists that is worthy of the label 'God', then it is certainly very different from anything so far proposed. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to rule out the existence of any God, if that word includes the common attributes assigned to Gods - supernatural influence over human affairs; and/or the existence of an intelligence that started the universe, for example - then it is far from premature to conclude that such things are completely imaginary, and cannot be compatible with observed reality.

For supernatural entities to exist would require our best scientific theories to be not just flawed, but completely wrong. But we have checked, and they are not.

Of course, most people are unawre of this; and think that their favourite fantasy is still possible; But that's their mistake. They are no more justified in their beliefs than are Amazonian tribesmen who think an eclipse is caused by a demon eating the sun - they are only able to continue to be wrong because they are ignorant of the science that shows why they are wrong - and that's true of pretty much everybody in the world today. Most people know little or no quantum mechanics or relativity; little or no physics, chemistry or biology; little or no cosmology, geology or astronomy - and yet they feel qualified to state that Gods are still possible. That's just ignorance on their part - excusable in remote tribes with little access to modern science, but merely a sign of laziness in people with access to the Internet.

It's a case of "I haven't bothered to find out, but I am sure that if I did, it would turn out that I am correct". Well, sorry, but if you think a God or Gods are real entities, then you should have put in the effort to find out, because they are NOT.

- - - Updated - - -

It is too early yet to suggest final conclusions. We are currently finding the best way with new propulsion methods to travel to Mars and beyond. If we haven't done so so far then we haven't yet the know how, to start to quantify something outside physical law hence right tools. The knowledge is ongoing and more is yet to be aquired

As a species, we have put VAST energies into looking for Gods, and all we have to show for it is piss weak arguments with broken logic; anecdotes of dubious worth; and descriptions of God that have steadily become less powerful and important, as science has found explanations for events previously believed to be caused by the divine.

The only thing that has been explained and answered were poor propositions in the first place.

A millennium ago, most people were certain that God would turn out to be the explanation for almost all of the unexplained phenomena they encountered. Today, most of those phenomena have been explained, and so far, not ONE has turned out to actually be due to the Gods. Of course, there remain some things we cannot explain; but given the track record of the God hypothesis, it would be crazy to bet on 'God' turning out to be the correct answer to any of our remaining questions.

We know a lot more than we new then. A theory of a creator is a valid theory by the examples of the theory of the big bang or the theory of black holes and dark matter. Invisible but it is believed to be there like is a creator could equally by the perception of the way the universe and nature is working. Not by Faith

Scientists don't shy away from proposing 'God' as an answer because they are atheists; they do so because they have tried that answer in the past, and every single time they did, they turned out to be wrong.

Agreed but is that every test tested ? Do the inquisitve now stop looking because this is the conclusion the ultimate finality ? The conclusion that God does not exist is premature.

That depends on what you mean by 'God'. The conclusion that the Gods described by every religion in human history do not exist is far from premature. If something exists that is worthy of the label 'God', then it is certainly very different from anything so far proposed. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to rule out the existence of any God, if that word includes the common attributes assigned to Gods - supernatural influence over human affairs; and/or the existence of an intelligence that started the universe, for example - then it is far from premature to conclude that such things are completely imaginary, and cannot be compatible with observed reality.

For supernatural entities to exist would require our best scientific theories to be not just flawed, but completely wrong. But we have checked, and they are not.

Of course, most people are unawre of this; and think that their favourite fantasy is still possible; But that's their mistake. They are no more justified in their beliefs than are Amazonian tribesmen who think an eclipse is caused by a demon eating the sun - they are only able to continue to be wrong because they are ignorant of the science that shows why they are wrong - and that's true of pretty much everybody in the world today. Most people know little or no quantum mechanics or relativity; little or no physics, chemistry or biology; little or no cosmology, geology or astronomy - and yet they feel qualified to state that Gods are still possible. That's just ignorance on their part - excusable in remote tribes with little access to modern science, but merely a sign of laziness in people with access to the Internet.

It's a case of "I haven't bothered to find out, but I am sure that if I did, it would turn out that I am correct". Well, sorry, but if you think a God or Gods are real entities, then you should have put in the effort to find out, because they are NOT.

 

[Learner]

I'm sorry, I missed that that is what you were looking for.

However, for that question you are looking to the wrong specialty for an answer. Science only deals with what is observable or measurable. It is philosophy that deals with your question and philosophers have been arguing among themselves for thousands of years over the answer and are no closer to a consensus than when they started - and are unlikely to ever agree in the future.

lol quite true.It is interesting and I wonder what they would have argued about then if they had come across the science we have to day? Their thinking would no doubt be influenced by modern science yet they'd still argue about what would happen to an individual if they time travelled.

 

[Learner]

On the contrary - unlike in much of the past, today we have the tools to pretty definitively reject the hypothesis of a creator. That's progress and it's why religion is becoming a vestigial institution.

Or The tools today rejects the proposition within the boundaries of the testing method.
I agree with the institution bit.

 

[Learner]

You'll have to forgive me Bilby,

Its coming to 6am here in the UK . Eyes are burning. Havent done this for sometime thanks for posting

Later all

 

[Learner]

That depends on what you mean by 'God'. The conclusion that the Gods described by every religion in human history do not exist is far from premature. If something exists that is worthy of the label 'God', then it is certainly very different from anything so far proposed. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to rule out the existence of any God, if that word includes the common attributes assigned to Gods - supernatural influence over human affairs; and/or the existence of an intelligence that started the universe, for example - then it is far from premature to conclude that such things are completely imaginary, and cannot be compatible with observed reality.

I was refering to something along the lines of some concious agent or creator if you will. I do understand what you mean with the implications of using the term God with its biblical association.
I am taken to the idea as for one example (in my admitted limited logic) Observing compatbility with reality, I see mechanisms, mechanical functionality,throughout.

For supernatural entities to exist would require our best scientific theories to be not just flawed, but completely wrong. But we have checked, and they are not.

We are have trouble at the moment trying to detect dark matter. However recently (without changing the topic).There is a claim as you know that science has apparently found 'gravitational waves'. It does tell you theres still time for conclusions.

Of course, most people are unawre of this; and think that their favourite fantasy is still possible; But that's their mistake. They are no more justified in their beliefs than are Amazonian tribesmen who think an eclipse is caused by a demon eating the sun - they are only able to continue to be wrong because they are ignorant of the science that shows why they are wrong - and that's true of pretty much everybody in the world today. Most people know little or no quantum mechanics or relativity; little or no physics, chemistry or biology; little or no cosmology, geology or astronomy - and yet they feel qualified to state that Gods are still possible. That's just ignorance on their part - excusable in remote tribes with little access to modern science, but merely a sign of laziness in people with access to the Internet.

I agree with you about believing those fantasies. You have named the varied fields I was talking about. Combined plus other information can validate each other depending on particular tests. Is all I really meant to say all along.( Stating the obvious). You can not dismiss other individuals having 'logic and common sense' even if they do not study those fields of science. Their input can be useful seeing from outside without certain rules where the experts can concentrate and be imersed into their scopes in their repected expertise.

It's a case of "I haven't bothered to find out, but I am sure that if I did, it would turn out that I am correct". Well, sorry, but if you think a God or Gods are real entities, then you should have put in the effort to find out, because they are NOT.

I think we have both been trying to find out. Parallell to those philosophers we will keep arguing

 

[Learner]

I'll go back to the topic. I know two Christians who sort of believe in extraterrestrials. Both say to me these are really fallen angels. Not all Christians I know say this. Like the head line of the thread others don't.

 

[skepticalbip]

I was refering to something along the lines of some concious agent or creator if you will. I do understand what you mean with the implications of using the term God with its biblical association.
I am taken to the idea as for one example (in my admitted limited logic) Observing compatbility with reality, I see mechanisms, mechanical functionality,throughout.

The idea of a creator god that just started everything then stepped out to let everything continue, evolve, develop, no longer being involved (Deism) is a philosophical concept that doesn't contradict any of our current scientific understanding that I am aware of. However, the active, involved gods described by any of the worlds religions can't exist if our scientific understandings are valid - and, by all evidence, our understandings are valid. On the other hand, there is no evidence or reason to postulate a deistic god other than for some people it just feels good philosophically.

For supernatural entities to exist would require our best scientific theories to be not just flawed, but completely wrong. But we have checked, and they are not.

We are have trouble at the moment trying to detect dark matter. However recently (without changing the topic).There is a claim as you know that science has apparently found 'gravitational waves'. It does tell you theres still time for conclusions.

We didn't just happen to stumble into finding gravitational waves. The very specific and expensive attempt to detect them was a test of the theory of relativity. If the theory that explains so much of the universe was correct then they should exist as one of the effects. The search was essentially an experiment trying to test and possibly falsify the theory. That particular prediction of the theory of relativity was apparently verified as correct.

 

[Learner]

The idea of a creator god that just started everything then stepped out to let everything continue, evolve, develop, no longer being involved (Deism) is a philosophical concept that doesn't contradict any of our current scientific understanding that I am aware of. However, the active, involved gods described by any of the worlds religions can't exist if our scientific understandings are valid - and, by all evidence, our understandings are valid. On the other hand, there is no evidence or reason to postulate a deistic god other than for some people it just feels good philosophically.

I understand and acknowledge what you say. Even religion has an interest from the perspective as to why they have this belief. Example if the historic version of scriptures did exist without the miracles,Romans records names ,dates and places.and how does this tie in with anything we know today which you know has been done and is continuing. I'm sure we have all seen many people coming up with theories like Erich Van Daniken. I did find it intresting some years ago but his ideas were debunked by a Christian explaining why without using his religion.
Collectively in large as fantastic as theories are; we can at least investigate and continue debunking flawed ideas until that moment or that revelation appears.

We didn't just happen to stumble into finding gravitational waves. The very specific and expensive attempt to detect them was a test of the theory of relativity. If the theory that explains so much of the universe was correct then they should exist as one of the effects. The search was essentially an experiment trying to test and possibly falsify the theory. That particular prediction of the theory of relativity was apparently verified as correct.

Indeed. Science will keep improving as time goes by. IMO there will eventually be a limitation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'll go back to the topic. I know two Christians who sort of believe in extraterrestrials. Both say to me these are really fallen angels. Not all Christians I know say this. Like the head line of the thread others don't.

Sometimes I long for the days when I thought like a child, when my world was only as big as the very limited knowledge I possessed. For example I remember when I equated the universe with our solar system. I think this must be how many adults view their environment.

 

[skepticalbip]

I understand and acknowledge what you say. Even religion has an interest from the perspective as to why they have this belief. Example if the historic version of scriptures did exist without the miracles,Romans records names ,dates and places.and how does this tie in with anything we know today which you know has been done and is continuing. I'm sure we have all seen many people coming up with theories like Erich Van Daniken. I did find it intresting some years ago but his ideas were debunked by a Christian explaining why without using his religion.
Collectively in large as fantastic as theories are; we can at least investigate and continue debunking flawed ideas until that moment or that revelation appears.

We didn't just happen to stumble into finding gravitational waves. The very specific and expensive attempt to detect them was a test of the theory of relativity. If the theory that explains so much of the universe was correct then they should exist as one of the effects. The search was essentially an experiment trying to test and possibly falsify the theory. That particular prediction of the theory of relativity was apparently verified as correct.

Indeed. Science will keep improving as time goes by. IMO there will eventually be a limitation.

While it is certainly true that we continue to learn more and more, I doubt humanity will ever run out of new things to learn. This belief is well founded by the fact that, when we learn more about some subject, we discover there is more that we don't understand that we had previously had no idea that existed for us not to understand (the unknown unknowns). We now know that there is a hell of a lot that we don't know (our known unknowns) while five hundred years ago humanity thought they knew pretty much everything there was to know. In addition, if the history of life tells us anything then it tells us that humanity only has a finite amount of time left.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I was refering nearer to deducing sensible indications of a creator,...or otherwise.

Science, as a method, is kinda limited in topics of the supernatural. The question of supernatural beings is beyond science. But there are ways to validate some of the claims that believers in the various creators make.
Or the believers have the opportunity to provide evidence for some of their claims.

For example, many creationists insist that there's an upper limit to how much a species can change, or evolve, thus the limit proves the concept of all life being descended from common ancestry is disproven, and the only remaining possibility for the diversity of life on the planet is a divine creator.

Or, well... It WILL be disproven, once someone provides evidence for this upper limit. Or even a good, scientific reason to think that such a limit exists.

Lacking that, science can just keep on without having to worry about "sensible indications of a creator." As long as the science keeps working without one.

Science on the whole come short in the paradoxes that violates natural law.

Forgive me, but in my experience, there are mighty few actual paradoxes for natural law unless one assumes a divine power in the first place, or assumes the problem in the first place (such as the limit on evolutionary diversity above).
Can you give an eample of a paradox for natural law that's an actual problem for scientists?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yes indeed. Its not easy once reaching a stumbling block.

Kinda pompous, what?
Can we also refer to the assumption that there ARE creator gods as a 'stumbling block?'
A belief that held science back for a long time?

Not the only one. A belief that epilepsy was demonic possession certainly kept treatments in the dark ages for a long time.
A belief that one caught the Black Plague from the breath, rather than from the bites of fleas, retarded development in that arena, too.
And many people insisted that AIDS was a punishment from God for far too long in an otherwise civilized age.

All in all, we can't really point to anything as 'ignorance' unless and until we find the right answer, which allows us to better frame previous beliefs (or disbeliefs).

So once there's some sound reason to think that a creator exists, then we can see which religions were right, which were fools, which evidence was sound and which was inappropriately ignored.

Of course, Self-Mutation used to insist that there was a God, but He didn't want anyone to have evidence for Him, so He had hidden it all. One had to have faith based on the complete lack of evidence. SM didn't consider that, in a universe where an omnipotent being removed all the reasonable evidence for His existence, then atheism was the most reasonable conclusion to come to.

 

[Learner]

Sometimes I long for the days when I thought like a child, when my world was only as big as the very limited knowledge I possessed. For example I remember when I equated the universe with our solar system. I think this must be how many adults view their environment.

Believe me joedad, I know exactly what you mean!