Some Christian fundamentalists: no extraterrestrial intelligence

[bilby]

Obligatory XKCD:



(Source)

 

[fromderinside]

Obligatory XKCD:

View attachment 6403

(Source)

Now that's lazy. Poked prev on the autopilot comic and wallah. I like the comic though. Do you, would you, be my explorer ...

 

[Learner]

But then you started making claims about limitations on science being significant in resolving such debates. And offered some studies that don't appear to stand up to scrutiny. And kind of odd, really, bringing up OOBE studies in what you say is a debate about whether or not a god or gods created the world. Proving that we have souls would not be proof of a deity. Or of an afterlife.

I regret bringing it up. I was just typing, from the top of my head answering posts. C.Tart just came to mind. I just mean,there are limitations detecting the argued unseen non physical,dark matter,souls or any other theorised invisible entitiy.

Perhaps your right. If it were proven we did have souls this would not mean proof of a deity or afterlife. It would mean though, that we would have no clue and are far off from knowing.

Um, no, it doesn't.
As far as 'either way,' the burden is on the people claiming that the divine exists and that they can describe its nature.

To some its plausible to look into. If it is, I will then make the claim.

Well, then the 100% reliable study does not, yet, promote evidence of a non-physical existence. As long as any of the study's results can be explained by the functions of a working brain, then it's not required that we add a 'soul' to the experiment in order to explain it.

Sounds sensible. There are still studies going on and people devising methods.

The same military that spent money trying to weaponize Frisbees.
And experimented with cocaine on soldiers.
And marched army units through the blast area of a nuclear bomb.
A lot of military research shows more money than sense. That fact that they looked into it is not compelling. Show some positive results?
But again, if there ARE positive results in Remote Viewing, that's not evidence of a soul. Just something the brain can maybe do that we didn't know about before.That kinda sets off alarms in my head, Learner.

I agree there not being evidence of a soul. I suppose its regarded as people who have been remote viewing, never claim to see themselves from outside their bodies as to those who claim having had OOBE or NDE say they have seen their physical selves while floating or standing nearby.

 

[Learner]

You think i'm after 'glory?'

I'm after god.

Apologies,consider it retracted. I am so used to those types on another site I used to be on.

 

[Learner]

Believe me, if anyone could demonstrate any PSI abilities in controlled experiments the
scientific community would be all over it. It would rock several science disciplines and
scientists in those disciplines would be be all over it trying to be the first to publish.
There is nothing that a scientist wants more than to upset and "correct" the currently
accepted understandings of their fields. This is how scientists become famous not by
verifying what is already believed. This is one of the reasons that the group of hospitals
I mentioned earlier conducted the decades long study into OBE - they wanted to find
something that would make a name for themselves but they were/are good enough scientists to insist on valid, controlled testing. Princeton University dropped their EGG project
after years of no evidence, however true believers picked up the project and claim that
what they named the "Global Consciousness Project" is proving a "global mind" but anyone
looking at their analysis sees bias in data selection and an intentional lack of "blinding" of those doing the analysis.

I had talked to a friend of mine who had also seen the Tart method over here. I asked him if he remembered the results. Like me he thought that the results were surprising and thought quite promising but neither of us remember anyone back then saying it was 100% reliable to be honest. I never followed up even though it was fascinating untill 10 years or so I came across Charles Tart. I found Dr.Tarts site and he had published his papers which is where I got the 100% reliable from. Neither my friend or I remembered who did the demonstration shown here.My friend pointed out to me; I must have put these two events together assuming this the very same test. Wiki maybe right after all.

James Randi offered a million dollars to anyone who could demonstrate PSI ability in a
controlled experiment up until he retired last year. There were quite a few who apparently
really thought they had the ability and accepted the challenge - none of them were able to
demonstrate the abilities they believed they had when there were controls in place.

I've been a fan of Randi especially dealing with charletans and fakes. There was a complaint mind you,by a Dr. Rupert Sheldrake.

 

[Learner]

[Whether or not it is plausible for a creator or whether everything came by chance.

Where does the alleged great cosmic magician come from, if not here by chance?

The old creator canard says you can't have a universe and intelligence and design unless something makes it. And then contradicts itself by saying there was already something here that was infinitely more complex already that made the universe. That argument is less than lame. It's rather amazing an adult human brain could somehow find it satisfying.

Yep joedad I can see why this may seem contradicting, if of course the only thing we know is the experience of linear. It is very reasonable to suggest a theory that the great cosmos magician or just 'cosmos' if prefered,could have always been about, especially where the concept of time and distance would be non-linear outside the field an 'always was'.

 

[bilby]

Obligatory XKCD:

View attachment 6403

(Source)

Now that's lazy. Poked prev on the autopilot comic and wallah. I like the comic though. Do you, would you, be my explorer ...

Which autopilot comic? The comic after this one on the XKCD site is this one:



There is no word 'wallah'; from context and experience, I am guessing you might have intended to say 'voilà!', the French interjection meaning literally 'look there', used to indicate 'Here it is!'

Could you perhaps explain what, exactly, about my post you consider to be lazy?

 

[lpetrich]

I thought that this was worth an update to this thread.

From back in 2014: Creationist Ken Ham calls to end space program because aliens are going to hell anyway.

But a few days ago:
Ken Ham repeats his view that there's no life beyond Earth
noting
E.T., Phone Hell? Creationist Ken Ham Says Jesus Can't Save Space Aliens | HuffPost UK

Ken Ham on Twitter: "In a biblical worldview, ..." / Twitter

In a biblical worldview, we don’t expect alien life to exist. The Bible tells us Earth was formed to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18), and the other celestial bodies were created for signs, seasons, days, and years (Genesis 1:14). It was to Earth that Jesus came to save us, not to another planet to save another race of beings. An understanding of the gospel makes it clear that salvation through Christ is only for the Adamic race—human beings who are all descendants of Adam. "The heavens are the Lord’s heavens, but the earth he has given to the children of man (Psalm 115:16).

 

[lpetrich]

The Vast Majority of Atheists Believe in Intelligent Life on Other Planets

Do aliens exist, in some form? The less religious you are, the more likely you are to accept that possibility, according to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center.

and
Religious Americans are less likely to believe intelligent life exists on other planets, Pew says - The Washington Post
note
Religious Americans less likely to believe intelligent life exists beyond Earth | Pew Research Center

The numbers:

• % of U.S. adults who say their best guess is that intelligent life ___ exist on other planets
• does, does, no answer
• % of U.S. adults who say that UFOs reported by people in the military are ___ evidence of intelligent life outside Earth
• definitely/probably, definitely/probably not / no answer

• US Adults: 65 - 34 - 2 --- 51 - 47 - 2
• Protestant: 51 - 47 - 2 --- 45 - 52 - 3
  • White evangelical: 40 - 58 - 2 --- 35 - 62 - 3
  • White non-evangelical: 65 - 34 - 1 --- 53 - 45 - 2
  • Black: 55 - 44 - 1 --- 53 - 45 - 2
• Catholic: 67 - 31 - 1 --- 61 - 37 - 2
• Unaffiliated: 80 - 19 - 1 --- 52 - 46 - 1
  • Atheist: 85 - 15 - 0 --- 31 - 69 - 1
  • Agnostic: 85 - 15 - 0 --- 49 - 51 - 0
  • Nothing in particular: 77 - 22 - 1 --- 59 - 39 - 2
• Attend religious services...
  • Weekly or more often: 44 - 54 - 2 --- 38 - 58 - 3
  • Monthly/yearly: 66 - 33 - 1 --- 53 - 45 - 1
  • Seldom/never: 75 - 23 - 1 --- 56 - 42 - 2
• Religion is...
  • Very important: 49 - 49 - 2 --- 44 - 53 - 3
  • Somewhat important: 70 - 29 - 1 --- 59 - 39 - 2
  • Not too important: 78 - 21 - 1 --- 58 - 40 - 2
  • Not at all important: 83 - 16 - 1 --- 49 - 50 - 1
• Pray...
  • Daily: 54 - 44 - 2 --- 48 - 50 - 3
  • Weekly: 64 - 34 - 2 --- 54 - 43 - 3
  • A few times a month: 72 - 27 - 0 --- 57 - 41 - 2
  • Seldom/never: 80 - 19 - 1 --- 52 - 47 - 1

 

[lpetrich]

Interesting that the ones most skeptical about purported UFO evidence are evangelical Protestants and atheists.

Least to most ET believers, with belief about UFO evidence:

• White evang Prot: 40 --- 35 (5)
• Black Prot: 55 --- 53 (2)
• White non-evang Prot: 65 --- 53 (12)
• Catholic: 67 --- 61 (6)
• NiP: 77 --- 59 (18)
• Agnostic: 85 --- 49 (36)
• Atheist: 85 --- 31 (54)

What might make a difference between the various sorts of unaffiliated people? Do the agnostics and atheists do more thinking about their beliefs? Are atheists more committed to skepticism than the others?

It's interesting that the more actively nonreligious ones, the agnostics and atheists, are much more skeptical about UFOs than the religious ones, even the less actively nonreligious ones, the NiP's.

Turning to degrees of religiosity,

• Attend religious services...
  • Weekly or more often: 44 --- 38 (6)
  • Monthly/yearly: 66 --- 53 (13)
  • Seldom/never: 75 --- 56 (19)
• Religion is...
  • Very important: 49 --- 44 (5)
  • Somewhat important: 70 --- 59 (11)
  • Not too important: 78 --- 58 (20)
  • Not at all important: 83 --- 49 (34)
• Pray...
  • Daily: 54 --- 48 (6)
  • Weekly: 64 --- 54 (10)
  • A few times a month: 72 --- 57 (15)
  • Seldom/never: 80 --- 52 (28)

 

[Keith&Co.]

What might make a difference between the various sorts of unaffiliated people? Do the agnostics and atheists do more thinking about their beliefs? Are atheists more committed to skepticism than the others?

I think part of it might be that we want it to be true.
Every atheist i have met (that i know of) is a scifi fan, not necessarily a nerd. Aliens would be cool.
BUT
Ever the skeptics, we examine stories we want to be true more closely than others. We've been burned by just that.

 

[bilby]

What might make a difference between the various sorts of unaffiliated people? Do the agnostics and atheists do more thinking about their beliefs? Are atheists more committed to skepticism than the others?

I think part of it might be that we want it to be true.
Every atheist i have met (that i know of) is a scifi fan, not necessarily a nerd. Aliens would be cool.
BUT
Ever the skeptics, we examine stories we want to be true more closely than others. We've been burned by just that.

If there's no other life in the universe, then that would make Earth extraordinary and very special.

Nothing we have observed about Earth suggests that it is unique - the universe is a big place, so there ought to be billions of planets with a similar primary star, size, composition, and orbit. Even such less common features as our single large moon must be replicated elsewhere just in our galaxy, and therefore must be replicated billions of times in the universe.

If the arising of intelligent life is a million times less likely than winning the lottery, it should still have been expected to happen many times, based on our observations of the size and composition of the universe.

It may not be possible to be certain that there's life elsewhere than on Earth, but it would nonetheless be foolish to believe that there is not.

And that's before we consider the maxim that anything Ken Ham declares to be certain, is almost guaranteed to be wrong.

Exactly what form alien life might take, or where it might be found, is really hard to say. But while it's really hard to pick the winner of the Grand National, or the Melbourne Cup, or the Kentucky Derby, it is still reasonable to guess that there will be a winner.

And that prediction remains reasonable even if you are stuck on a remote island with no communication whatsoever with the outside world. I no more need to observe aliens in order to sensibly and reasonably conclude that they exist, than I need to watch the Melbourne Cup to conclude that the winner was a horse.

 

[excreationist]

......About the argument that a mostly-uninhabited universe would go to waste, GB argues that God can do whatever he wants to. BTW, in the 18th cy., many people believed that the other planets were inhabited because God would not let them go to waste by being uninhabited......

I believe in a kind of "God" and that the universe probably exists as an approximated simulation. If cost was an issue then CPU usage would be minimized by minimizing what is closely observed. Only having intelligent life in our solar system is far less CPU intensive than if there was intelligent life in every solar system. It would be a waste to simulate stars with 10⁵⁷ atoms precisely when people wouldn't be able to tell if it was just approximated....

 

[steve_bank]

To say there are probably other life on other planets has become part of mainstream science and especially popular science.

The idea that ET is here is another issue, largely colored by scifi.

The term flying saucer was coined by a pilot who in the 40s saw something around Mt Rainer he called a saucer like object, 'since then scifi spaceships were mostly saucer like.

I do not think being atheist equates to skepticism and rationality.

There was a British poll on relgion that found that atheist and theist alike do not fit into neat categories. One can identify as atheist but believe in astrology. The conclusion was that asking if one is atheist or theist was a useless exercise.

An athest might believe in ghosts.

Longtime atheists on the forum are skeptical atheists, perhaps an atheist subcategory.

5 or 6 years ago I was having a conversation with an atheist active in the local atheist community. When we parted he said 'Enjoy being hedonis'. I replied why do you think being atheist makes me hedonist?

 

[atrib]

What might make a difference between the various sorts of unaffiliated people? Do the agnostics and atheists do more thinking about their beliefs? Are atheists more committed to skepticism than the others?

I think part of it might be that we want it to be true.
Every atheist i have met (that i know of) is a scifi fan, not necessarily a nerd. Aliens would be cool.
BUT
Ever the skeptics, we examine stories we want to be true more closely than others. We've been burned by just that.

If there's no other life in the universe, then that would make Earth extraordinary and very special.

Nothing we have observed about Earth suggests that it is unique - the universe is a big place, so there ought to be billions of planets with a similar primary star, size, composition, and orbit. Even such less common features as our single large moon must be replicated elsewhere just in our galaxy, and therefore must be replicated billions of times in the universe.

If the arising of intelligent life is a million times less likely than winning the lottery, it should still have been expected to happen many times, based on our observations of the size and composition of the universe.

It may not be possible to be certain that there's life elsewhere than on Earth, but it would nonetheless be foolish to believe that there is not.

And that's before we consider the maxim that anything Ken Ham declares to be certain, is almost guaranteed to be wrong.

Exactly what form alien life might take, or where it might be found, is really hard to say. But while it's really hard to pick the winner of the Grand National, or the Melbourne Cup, or the Kentucky Derby, it is still reasonable to guess that there will be a winner.

And that prediction remains reasonable even if you are stuck on a remote island with no communication whatsoever with the outside world. I no more need to observe aliens in order to sensibly and reasonably conclude that they exist, than I need to watch the Melbourne Cup to conclude that the winner was a horse.

I agree with everything you said. Best that we can see, we live in a universe with several hundred billion galaxies, each with several hundred billion star systems (on average). I think life is abundant in the universe. While intelligent life is far less likely to develop, based on everything we know about the history of complex life on our planet, just based on the numbers alone I would speculate that intelligent life is also abundant in the universe, although not to the same scale as life.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If there's no other life in the universe, then that would make Earth extraordinary and very special.

Nothing we have observed about Earth suggests that it is unique - the universe is a big place, so there ought to be billions of planets with a similar primary star, size, composition, and orbit. Even such less common features as our single large moon must be replicated elsewhere just in our galaxy, and therefore must be replicated billions of times in the universe.

If the arising of intelligent life is a million times less likely than winning the lottery, it should still have been expected to happen many times, based on our observations of the size and composition of the universe.

It may not be possible to be certain that there's life elsewhere than on Earth, but it would nonetheless be foolish to believe that there is not.

And that's before we consider the maxim that anything Ken Ham declares to be certain, is almost guaranteed to be wrong.

Exactly what form alien life might take, or where it might be found, is really hard to say. But while it's really hard to pick the winner of the Grand National, or the Melbourne Cup, or the Kentucky Derby, it is still reasonable to guess that there will be a winner.

And that prediction remains reasonable even if you are stuck on a remote island with no communication whatsoever with the outside world. I no more need to observe aliens in order to sensibly and reasonably conclude that they exist, than I need to watch the Melbourne Cup to conclude that the winner was a horse.

I agree with everything you said. Best that we can see, we live in a universe with several hundred billion galaxies, each with several hundred billion star systems (on average). I think life is abundant in the universe. While intelligent life is far less likely to develop, based on everything we know about the history of complex life on our planet, just based on the numbers alone I would speculate that intelligent life is also abundant in the universe, although not to the same scale as life.

I watched a current video on supermassive black holes and the narrator made the statement that there are two trillion galaxies in the observable universe. That's a lot of science experiments concocting life.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

......About the argument that a mostly-uninhabited universe would go to waste, GB argues that God can do whatever he wants to. BTW, in the 18th cy., many people believed that the other planets were inhabited because God would not let them go to waste by being uninhabited......

I believe in a kind of "God" and that the universe probably exists as an approximated simulation. If cost was an issue then CPU usage would be minimized by minimizing what is closely observed. Only having intelligent life in our solar system is far less CPU intensive than if there was intelligent life in every solar system. It would be a waste to simulate stars with 10⁵⁷ atoms precisely when people wouldn't be able to tell if it was just approximated....

That video link you posted in another thread claimed that it would take a CPU the size of the moon to do the job at its most basic lever. To do the better job would take a CPU the size of Jupiter.

 

[excreationist]

That video link you posted in another thread claimed that it would take a CPU the size of the moon to do the job at its most basic lever. To do the better job would take a CPU the size of Jupiter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58

6:17

multiply those numbers together and you get 10^34 - 10^37 binary operations
to simulate all of human history.​

6:35

So how long would that take to compute for a super advanced civilization?
Well Bostrom uses Robert Bradbury's estimate
that a computer the size of a large planet
a so-called Jupiter brain
would be capable of performing 10 to the power of 42 operations per second.
In other words it will be capable of simulating the entire mental lives
of all humans in history
a million times over every single second.​

 

[bilby]

That video link you posted in another thread claimed that it would take a CPU the size of the moon to do the job at its most basic lever. To do the better job would take a CPU the size of Jupiter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58

6:17

multiply those numbers together and you get 10^34 - 10^37 binary operations
to simulate all of human history.​

6:35

So how long would that take to compute for a super advanced civilization?
Well Bostrom uses Robert Bradbury's estimate
that a computer the size of a large planet
a so-called Jupiter brain
would be capable of performing 10 to the power of 42 operations per second.
In other words it will be capable of simulating the entire mental lives
of all humans in history
a million times over every single second.​

It would take almost a whole second just to ping one side of the processor from the other, assuming a straight line path; and about three seconds for a path following the surface. I suspect that the sheer size of the system would make it far slower than these estimates, which depend on the communications latency between disparate parts of the processor being negligible.

And that's before we consider the need to make it out of unobtanium for it to survive its own gravitational field (gas giants are generally low density objects, and yet Jupiter is still almost heavy enough to become a star; A silicon sphere the size of Jupiter would have some significant structural issues at its centre, and cooling would be a bitch).

 

[excreationist]

It would take almost a whole second just to ping one side of the processor from the other, assuming a straight line path; and about three seconds for a path following the surface. I suspect that the sheer size of the system would make it far slower than these estimates, which depend on the communications latency between disparate parts of the processor being negligible.

I think it would be more likely for simulations to be in computers and set-top boxes rather than lots being put into a Jupiter-sized planet. But anyway....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmVOV7xvl58
5:19

It's been estimated that the entire operation of a single brain could be simulated​

with somewhere between 100 trillion to a hundred quadrillion binary operations​

for every second of time that the brain experiences.​

Bostrom argues that it doesn't take anywhere near that much computing power to then simulate an external environment​

with the fidelity needed to fool the virtual brain at its environment is real.​

That's about 100 PetaFLOPS (assuming FLOPS are the same as binary operations).
Current computers that are that fast or more.... ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_performance_by_orders_of_magnitude