Question for Theists

[Danmac]

I think it's a possibility. but in that case, I think fairies are possible, and leprechauns. The question should be, do I think it's probable? And the answer is NO!

There are many things that raise the possibility that a God exists. Absolute truth being one of them.

 

[Danmac]

Also, before we move on, do you concede that you misunderstood what being an atheist means and that I've never made the claim that you said I'd made?

If you are saying that a god may exist, then I was wrong about your personal interpretation of atheism. If you say that a god cannot possibly exist then I cannot concede. I do know atheists that say a god cannot possibly exist.

 

[jarofthoughts]

On the other hand, science cannot rule out the possibility that a God exists, or they would have done so already.

I'm not sure where you get this conviction from. Science is fully prepared to admit that we don't know everything yet, otherwise we would stop doing science.

In fact, science is branching out into the paranormal.

Could you elaborate as to what you mean by this please?

 

[jarofthoughts]

If you are saying that a god may exist, then I was wrong about your personal interpretation of atheism. If you say that a god cannot possibly exist then I cannot concede. I do know atheists that say a god cannot possibly exist.

As I said, that depends entirely on the definition of the god in question. For instance, we know that the Norse god Thor does not exist, at least not as described in the Norse myths because we now understand the mechanisms that cause thunder and lightning.

But that being said, you really should read the link to the text I wrote. It explains exactly what both an atheist and a theist really is and why everyone is also either an agnostic or a gnostic with respect to their beliefs (or lack thereof).

I try to think about things scientifically and in that respect I am for all intents and purposes an agnostic about just about anything. That does not, however, mean that I consider there to be an even 50/50 chance that there is a god, that there are faeries or any of the above.

 

[Danmac]

I'm not sure where you get this conviction from. Science is fully prepared to admit that we don't know everything yet, otherwise we would stop doing science.

Science has made no case for or against God.

Could you elaborate as to what you mean by this please?

Science is investigating the Spirit realm.
Llewellyn Worldwide - Articles: The Paranormal: A New Science of the 21st Century

 

[Danmac]

As I said, that depends entirely on the definition of the god in question. For instance, we know that the Norse god Thor does not exist, at least not as described in the Norse myths because we now understand the mechanisms that cause thunder and lightning.

But that being said, you really should read the link to the text I wrote. It explains exactly what both an atheist and a theist really is and why everyone is also either an agnostic or a gnostic with respect to their beliefs (or lack thereof).

I try to think about things scientifically and in that respect I am for all intents and purposes an agnostic about just about anything. That does not, however, mean that I consider there to be an even 50/50 chance that there is a god, that there are faeries or any of the above.

I do agree that many religions are a bit "whacked", if I may use that term. I too am quite skeptical when it comes to religion as there are many wolves in sheep's clothing out to devour the sheep. My belief in God is the result of very thorough study, and deep Spiritual experience. I would expect you to be skeptical of my claims, because I am often skeptical od claims that concern religion, at least to some degree. I refused to consider the idea a of God until i was 37 years old.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Science has made no case for or against God.

Science has made no case for or against unicorns, faeries and dragons either.
I assume you believe they exist as well?

Science is investigating the Spirit realm.
Llewellyn Worldwide - Articles: The Paranormal: A New Science of the 21st Century

Yeah, that looks credible...
Seriously, THIS is your source?
THIS is what you call science?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Yeah, that looks credible...
Seriously, THIS is your source?
THIS is what you call science?

What would you call it then LOL?

It is quite clear that the website deals with paranormal research, which although a subject often laughed at and scoffed at by imbeciles is nethertheless a serious enterprise for serious scientists.

Here is some science taken from that website:

''String theory is a relatively new idea that states that particles existing in the universe do not lie at zero dimension points, but are on building blocks or lines called strings. This theory unifies the forces of nature into a single one and tells that all of creation is linked together. The “vibration” of a string at a particular frequency determines if that particle is to be an electron, photon, or any other bit of matter. The force that causes the string to vibrate may come from another universe. In order for one string not to interfere with another when it is vibrating, something like a membrane may separate them. A string can be opened or closed; open strings are linear, while closed strings can fold space creating a multitude of dimensions.

In the 1990s, Dr. Edward Witten found evidence that String Theory can predict the existence of a universe with eleven dimensions; this is called the M theory. Many recent developments in the field led to the idea that the universe could have has many as 26 dimensions. The hope of scientists is that String Theory will be able to unify all the known forces and particles into a single theory of “all and everything.”

Strings interact by splitting and joining. The annihilation of two closed strings into a single closed string can cause changes to the dimensional state of space. Multiple closed strings can be connected to make tunnels that, in theory, can transport you to another part of the universe or even to one of the theoretical twenty-six dimensions. This is one way in which dimensional wormholes or windows can be formed. Look at it this way: if you have two lengths of string crossing over each other, each string would represent a part of the physical universe. If we bend the strings to form a loop we can merge both dimensions together, and twisting each string can bring us to different levels or, in the case of the cosmos, different dimensions. Each part of the string could actually vibrate at a different rate, which would mean “time” as we know it would progress in a different manner depending where you are located on the string.

If our universe has twenty-six dimensions, we as three-dimensional beings have very little awareness of them. If intelligent beings do exist in some of these dimensions and if they come into our universe we humans would not be able to perceive them as they truly are. This could be the reason why so many different reports of UFOs exist. Each witness is trying to understand what he or she saw by identifying it with something with which they are familiar or could accept. However, the truth may be that UFOs and other types of paranormal phenomena are things we cannot possibly fully understand since we have no real understanding of their part of the universe. An analogy to this hypothesis would be a group of present-day scientists traveling back in time to the 14th century to explain to the great scientific minds of the day the state of the universe, that our Earth orbits the sun and there are other worlds out there besides our tiny planet. Surely, they would be considered mad or even heretical.''

Now please jarofthoughts point out the non science above..if you have no argument against the above hypothesis kindly desist from making a fool of yourself...that head slap smiley is one I find highly insulting even though it is directed at Danmac...it remains an insult to all researchers of the paranormal and other phenomena.

 

[jarofthoughts]

What would you call it then LOL?

Perhaps, NOT science?

Here is a quote from the same article:

" I try to use science as much as possible when conducting an investigation, but since we are dealing with what I believe is a new branch of science our instruments and the so-called scientific method breaks down when researching these so-called borderline sciences. "

Or how about this one:

"A very high percentage of the witnesses who had a paranormal experience (High Strangeness Report) had active or dormant psychic abilities..."

Let's add to that that the site also features articles on Alchemy, Angels and Spirits, Astral Projection, Astrology, Auras and Chakras, Crystal Healing, and my personal favorite, how to create a Dream Pillow.

Yup. Good, serious, scientific source right there...

It is quite clear that the website deals with paranormal research, which although a subject often laughed at and scoffed at by imbeciles is nethertheless a serious enterprise for serious scientists.

Right... How many peer reviewed articles on the paranormal can you dig up for me? What about UFOs?

Here is some science taken from that website:

''String theory...''

Just because someone can site stuff from a random science-book they've read doesn't mean that they are doing science. If that was true then Deepak Chopra would be an esteemed Quantum Physicist.

Now please jarofthoughts point out the non science above..if you have no argument against the above hypothesis kindly desist from making a fool of yourself...

Again, just because an article quotes/sites a piece of science that happens to be correct doesn't mean that the article is scientific.

that head slap smiley is one I find highly insulting even though it is directed at Danmac...it remains an insult to all researchers of the paranormal and other phenomena.

How about providing some evidence that there even is such a thing as the paranormal first? (definition of paranormal from Oxford Dictionaries Online)

Look, when those guys have caught their first UFO... When we have scientific evidence that psychics are real... When someone can bring a ghost into a lab for testing... THEN I'll eat those words, and THEN I'll remove the facepalm smiley. Until then you'll just have to live with it.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Perhaps, NOT science?

Here is a quote from the same article:

" I try to use science as much as possible when conducting an investigation, but since we are dealing with what I believe is a new branch of science our instruments and the so-called scientific method breaks down when researching these so-called borderline sciences. "

Right... How many peer reviewed articles on the paranormal can you dig up for me? What about UFOs?

Again, just because an article quotes/sites a piece of science that happens to be correct doesn't mean that the article is scientific.

How about providing some evidence that there even is such a thing as the paranormal first? (definition of paranormal from Oxford Dictionaries Online)

Look, when those guys have caught their first UFO... When we have scientific evidence that psychics are real... When someone can bring a ghost into a lab for testing... THEN I'll eat those words, and THEN I'll remove the facepalm smiley. Until then you'll just have to live with it.

You failed to accept the premise of the string theory quote...that we are limited by our dimensional frame of reference...so thus is our ability to measure and scientifically quantify and qualify.

When the guy says...I try to use science as much as possible when conducting an investigation, but since we are dealing with what I believe is a new branch of science our instruments and the so-called scientific method breaks down when researching these so-called borderline sciences...

That is what he is talking about...observational limitiation, temporal and physical.

Clearly if you think that a lack of peer reviewed articles regarding the UFO phenomenon is equatable to their non existence then you have will problems in the future...empirical evidence doesn't have to be scientifically obtained, but it can be mathematically scrutinised or otherwise validated...if 10 million americans say they have seen UFO's and or ETs then statistically speaking it is unlikely all of them are lying insane or are seeing weather balloons...yes there are a lot of nuts..but mathematically speaking they wont all be...and reports of UFOs come from pilots, police officers, US airforce radar operators, Royal airforce radar operators, Russian airforce radar operators....and my own mother of course.

But none of that is laboratory testable...because of our limitations and our science is limited to the observational extent of the confines of the observable universe...we just get fleeting glimpses and some rather good if baffling photographs of course.

Remember..string theory..and dimensional frames of reference..which again I ask you to argue against

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Bring a ghost into a lab?

Hmm well has it been tried?

 

[jarofthoughts]

You failed to accept the premise of the string theory quote...that we are limited by our dimensional frame of reference...so thus is our ability to measure and scientifically quantify and qualify.

[/I]That is what he is talking about...observational limitiation, temporal and physical.

But none of that is laboratory testable...because of our limitations and our science is limited to the observational extent of the confines of the observable universe...we just get fleeting glimpses and some rather good if baffling photographs of course.

Remember..string theory..and dimensional frames of reference..which again I ask you to argue against

Just because we don't know what something is doesn't mean that we get to inject whatever we like into it. Remember what the "U" in UFO stands for.

As for String Theory (Or M-Theory if you like) that is at the moment a purely mathematical concept with no experimental and evidential backing. It is very interesting and according to some, very promising, but again, that doesn't mean that one gets to inject whatever meaning one feels like into the concept. The eleven dimensions arrived at in M-Theory are mathematically driven and not something we can observe or test at present. And for the author to inject what amounts to a very interesting but unproven concept of physics into his own notions of why the haven't found those damn aliens yet is pure speculation and has not scientific backing on his part.

In other words, he is not doing science here.

But, hey, maybe he's hardcore when it comes to making Dream Pillows?

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Who says we havent found the damn aliens exactly?

And what do you mean by 'found'?

M theory may not be an accurate model...that is irrelevant...but it illustrates the point well that was why it was presumably cited...we are locked in the box within the observable universe and so is our capacity to measure objectively (in fact subjectively always)...physics has taught us one thing..it has many layers.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Bring a ghost into a lab?

Hmm well has it been tried?

Step One: Provide evidence that there even is such a thing as a ghost.

Step Two: I'll think about how to do that best while you take care of step one.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Who says we havent found the damn aliens exactly?

Science.

And what do you mean by 'found'?

Obtained scientific evidence that they exist, and more importantly, that they are to "blame" for UFO sightings.
I'm not saying there are no aliens (such a waste of space the universe would be if we were the only ones), but as of yet, we have no evidence of aliens.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Science.

Well...who representing science says this...obviously science itself is not an anthropomorphic entity that can talk and reason.

Obtained scientific evidence that they exist, and more importantly, that they are to "blame" for UFO sightings.
I'm not saying there are no aliens (such a waste of space the universe would be if we were the only ones), but as of yet, we have no evidence of aliens.

So basically you are saying all witnesses are mad or lying or mistaken and all images and radar images and photographs cannot possibly reveal flying objects that are evidently of not human origin due to their phenomenal aspects and cannot be explained by mundane/natural effects?
Despite the correlation of details about UFOs being consistant around the world...from culture to culture?

Out of all of them?

On what basis would this be?

Science?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well...who representing science says this...obviously science itself is not an anthropomorphic entity that can talk and reason.

Science can be seen as a body of work, a collection of evidence, theories based on that evidence and in conclusion knowledge, however tentative.
We do not have scientific evidence of these aliens, hence we haven't found them yet.

So basically you are saying all witnesses are mad or lying or mistaken and all images and radar images and photographs cannot possibly reveal flying objects that are evidently of not human origin due to their phenomenal aspects and cannot be explained by mundane/natural effects?
Despite the correlation of details about UFOs being consistant around the world...from culture to culture?

Even if we accept the premise that (some of) these people have given accurate accounts, have not been misled, have not misunderstood what they saw, are not lying, or were not delusional in some way, that still doesn't amount to evidence of aliens. At best it amounts to (scant) evidence of some lights or possibly objects in the sky.

Out of all of them?

On what basis would this be?

Science?

In science eye witness accounts are ranked as the lowest form of evidence and is thus not given much weight. And even, as mentioned above, if we were to take them at face value, they would not amount to evidence of aliens.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

The drake equation suggests (conservatively) that in our galaxy alone there may be up to five thousand civilizations similar (a few centuries ahead or behind) to ours and about 1000 at the technological level which makes us look like savages.

So the chances of us being visited (by the ''high techs'') are in fact substantial...that is based on scientific observations...mainly cosmology.

 

[jarofthoughts]

The drake equation suggests (conservatively) that in our galaxy alone there may be up to five thousand civilizations similar (a few centuries ahead or behind) to ours and about 1000 at the technological level which makes us look like savages.

So the chances of us being visited (by the ''high techs'') are in fact substantial...that is based on scientific observations...mainly cosmology.

The Drake Equation has several variables that are as of yet unconfirmed and thus have little statistical value. Any serious cosmologist will tell you that it is speculative and lacking in empirical backing, if for nothing else then the fact that when it comes to planets that harbour life we have a statistical basis of ONE from which to work. Again, I'm in no way saying that there are no aliens civilizations in our galaxy, but to postulate, based on the Drake Equation that people seeing strange lights in the sky are witnessing aliens visiting Earth is a very big stretch.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

The Drake Equation has several variables that are as of yet unconfirmed and thus have little statistical value. Any serious cosmologist will tell you that it is speculative and lacking in empirical backing, if for nothing else then the fact that when it comes to planets that harbour life we have a statistical basis of ONE from which to work. Again, I'm in no way saying that there are no aliens civilizations in our galaxy, but to postulate, based on the Drake Equation that people seeing strange lights in the sky are witnessing aliens visiting Earth is a very big stretch.

We have a statistical basis of one life harbouring planet per solar system, not one life harbouring planet per universe...that would be incredibly stupid.
Your denials are boring jar of thoughts...you in one breath say that the variables in the equation are unreliable (even though I choose the most conservative and generally agreed upon parameters of which any cosmologist could inform you of and they are not speculative they are thought out approximations based on observational evidence) and you in another breath accept that alien civilizations most likely exist in our galaxy...if you had any understanding of cosmology you wouldnt doubt it.

Your arguments are increasingly illogical and tedious.

You can deny that aliens have ever visited this world all you like...but you have no logical argument to demonstrate why that should be the case.

If you are saying the Drake Equation is crap then allow me to take you through it...and in each step of the equation you voice your reasoning for your denial?

Sound good?