Satan is having an easy time of it!

[BashfulAnthony]

The same as theism.

There are at least arguments for it.  Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.

I actually think life elsewhere, is much more likely, than there being a God.

It's just a matter of time I think, perhaps as the robots get better.

Whether that life evolves creatures like us, rather than the other creatures on our planet in the past ( who as far as we know didn't enquire about the universe ) I'm more unsure about.

The enquiring minds of human beings and their ability to pursue science, might be an incredibly remote possibility.

We have no evidence of God that falls outside the human experience, not that can't be seen or interpreted any other way.

That's the problem.

We know there is life on Earth, so it's likely there is life elsewhere.

It doesn't follow at all, Rose.  We have Manchester United on Earth, but that doesn't mean there's another one somewhere else - it's to be hoped not, anyway!

[BashfulAnthony]

The same as theism.

There are at least arguments for it.  Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.

I actually think life elsewhere, is much more likely, than there being a God.

It's just a matter of time I think, perhaps as the robots get better.

Whether that life evolves creatures like us, rather than the other creatures on our planet in the past ( who as far as we know didn't enquire about the universe ) I'm more unsure about.

The enquiring minds of human beings and their ability to pursue science, might be an incredibly remote possibility.

We have no evidence of God that falls outside the human experience, not that can't be seen or interpreted any other way.

That's the problem.

We know there is life on Earth, so it's likely there is life elsewhere.

It doesn't follow at all, Rose.  We have Manchester United on Earth, but that doesn't mean there's another one somewhere else - it's to be hoped not, anyway!

Not quite, that would be more like thinking we would find human beings somewhere else.

It's possible another species has a sport which involves kicking something around that involves teams 😀😉

There is zero evidence for any kind of life, even primitive life, like Man U. supporters!   

[BashfulAnthony]

The same as theism.

There are at least arguments for it.  Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.

I actually think life elsewhere, is much more likely, than there being a God.

It's just a matter of time I think, perhaps as the robots get better.

Whether that life evolves creatures like us, rather than the other creatures on our planet in the past ( who as far as we know didn't enquire about the universe ) I'm more unsure about.

The enquiring minds of human beings and their ability to pursue science, might be an incredibly remote possibility.

We have no evidence of God that falls outside the human experience, not that can't be seen or interpreted any other way.

That's the problem.

We know there is life on Earth, so it's likely there is life elsewhere.

It doesn't follow at all, Rose.  We have Manchester United on Earth, but that doesn't mean there's another one somewhere else - it's to be hoped not, anyway!

Not quite, that would be more like thinking we would find human beings somewhere else.

It's possible another species has a sport which involves kicking something around that involves teams 😀😉

There is zero evidence for any kind of life, even primitive life, like Man U. supporters!   

There is proof that life can exist though, because it exists here, although we have no proof of life elsewhere YET, I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate it could exist elsewhere even if it was a sort of algae.

😉🌹

Again, no evidence.

[floo]

The same as theism.

There are at least arguments for it.  Other life is totally without any, even faintly, verifiable evidence.

I actually think life elsewhere, is much more likely, than there being a God.

It's just a matter of time I think, perhaps as the robots get better.

Whether that life evolves creatures like us, rather than the other creatures on our planet in the past ( who as far as we know didn't enquire about the universe ) I'm more unsure about.

The enquiring minds of human beings and their ability to pursue science, might be an incredibly remote possibility.

We have no evidence of God that falls outside the human experience, not that can't be seen or interpreted any other way.

That's the problem.

We know there is life on Earth, so it's likely there is life elsewhere.

It doesn't follow at all, Rose.  We have Manchester United on Earth, but that doesn't mean there's another one somewhere else - it's to be hoped not, anyway!

Not quite, that would be more like thinking we would find human beings somewhere else.

It's possible another species has a sport which involves kicking something around that involves teams 😀😉

There is zero evidence for any kind of life, even primitive life, like Man U. supporters!   

There is proof that life can exist though, because it exists here, although we have no proof of life elsewhere YET, I don't think it is unreasonable to speculate it could exist elsewhere even if it was a sort of algae.

😉🌹

Whilst as yet we have no substantial evidence that there are other life forms on other planets, I would find it very hard to believe that our planet is the only one to host life. 

[wigginhall]

I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism.   Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation.  It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot.   Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.   

I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'.  Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe.  I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.

An interesting thought.

Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.

Usually at this point I apologise for ''pissing on one's bonfire'' but since it's Wigginhall, I won't be.

I think you pissed on yourself there.   How you get from life occurring in a very large very old universe to the anthropocentric, beats me.   I would think that it's the theistic use of fine tuning which is human-centred. 

It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life.   Why not just produce it ab initio?

[Leonard James]

It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life.   Why not just produce it ab initio?

Your thinking is dangerously logical at times, Wiggy! 

[Shaker]

I think you pissed on yourself there.   How you get from life occurring in a very large very old universe to the anthropocentric, beats me. I would think that it's the theistic use of fine tuning which is human-centred. 

It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life.   Why not just produce it ab initio?

What else is there for the theist but the hasty flight into the warm and loving embrace of mystery?

[Shaker]

Again, no evidence.

Interesting.

Life = abundant evidence of it in one place in the universe and strong though not yet conclusive suggestions of the necessary conditions and components elsewhere in the cosmos; strong arguments based upon these and upon a probabilistic basis; theist's reply: "no evidence."

God = no coherent definition. Absolutely no evidence whatever, anywhere, ever, at all. Theist's reply: "I'll take it as true anyway."

You couldn't make it up (until somebody does).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I was amused the other day to come across fine tuning as an argument for atheism.   Well, it's not really an argument, but a kind of confirmation.  It goes, that if there is no God, we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old, in order to allow all kinds of combinations of elements to occur, before the jackpot.   Well, hello, the universe seems to be very large and very old.   

I suppose it's a variation on 'the universe looks exactly as it should if there were no God'.  Or another version: things fitting to their environment is exactly what you would expect in a non-intelligent universe.  I don't know who came up with this, but it is a bit of a giraffe.

An interesting thought.

Which of course suffers fatally from being completely anthropocentric
Vis ''we would expect life to occur in a universe that is very large and very old,''.

Usually at this point I apologise for ''pissing on one's bonfire'' but since it's Wigginhall, I won't be.

I think you pissed on yourself there.   How you get from life occurring in a very large very old universe to the anthropocentric, beats me.   I would think that it's the theistic use of fine tuning which is human-centred. 

It beats me why an omnipotent God would use billions of years, and billions of galaxies, with billions of stars, to produce life.   Why not just produce it ab initio?

It's good that God has confounded you....after all I did by spotting your anthropocentric bollocks.

[Shaker]

Anthropocentric ... you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.

In fact I'm bleeding sure of it.

[Shaker]

It doesn't follow at all, Rose.

She didn't say that it follows.

Try again, this time I hope basing your comments on what was actually written and not on what you wanted to be written.

[BashfulAnthony]

Again, no evidence.

Interesting.

Life = abundant evidence of it in one place in the universe and strong though not yet conclusive suggestions of the necessary conditions and components elsewhere in the cosmos; strong arguments based upon these and upon a probabilistic basis; theist's reply: "no evidence."

God = no coherent definition. Absolutely no evidence whatever, anywhere, ever, at all. Theist's reply: "I'll take it as true anyway."

You couldn't make it up (until somebody does).

There is no evidence for life elsewhere, none.  End of.  There is at least an argument for the existence of God, even though you may not subscribe to it, in your sadly closed outlook.  It is possible to make up people with your mind-set:  but it's called, "having nightmares."

[Shaker]

There is no evidence for life elsewhere, none.  End of.

No; there is indirect evidence that the components of life as we know exists elsewhere other than Earth.

Life has a coherent definition; a god does not and never has had. We would know what life elsewhere would look like if we found it and are able to look for it on that basis; the same doesn't apply to a god.

There is at least an argument for the existence of God, even though you may not subscribe to it, in your sadly closed outlook.

There are no arguments worthy of the name of argument.

[BashfulAnthony]

There is no evidence for life elsewhere, none.  End of.

No; there is indirect evidence that the components of life as we know exists elsewhere other than Earth.

Life has a coherent definition; a god does not and never has had. We would know what life elsewhere would look like if we found it and are able to look for it on that basis; the same doesn't apply to a god.

There is at least an argument for the existence of God, even though you may not subscribe to it, in your sadly closed outlook.

There are no arguments worthy of the name of argument.

Really?  But nothing worthy of the name of argument!     

[Shaker]

Really?

Yes, really. It's easily findable online.

But nothing worthy of the name of argument! 

Plenty worthy of argument; yet again you're confusing argument with evidence.

[BashfulAnthony]

Really?

Yes, really. It's easily findable online.

But nothing worthy of the name of argument! 

Plenty worthy of argument; yet again you're confusing argument with evidence.

There is no evidence for life elsewhere, only hypothetically.  You do not accept such an approach for religion, then why would it be acceptable for extra-terrestrial life?  Which bit of "no" is giving you a problem?

[Shaker]

There is no evidence for life elsewhere, only hypothetically.

Yes, I know.

You do not accept such an approach for religion, then why would it be acceptable for extra-terrestrial life?  Which bit of "no" is giving you a problem?

I explained why in my previous posts, but just for you I'll give the same answer all over again in slightly shorter words. We know what it means to look for life (and when I say life, I mean only the sort with which we're already familiar, never mind other potential kinds). On that basis we have good ideas about where to look for it. We know what it would mean to find it - we would know it and recognise it when we found it. Gods? Nah.

[BashfulAnthony]

There is no evidence for life elsewhere, only hypothetically.

Yes, I know.

You do not accept such an approach for religion, then why would it be acceptable for extra-terrestrial life?  Which bit of "no" is giving you a problem?

I explained why in my previous posts, but just for you I'll give the same answer all over again in slightly shorter words. We know what it means to look for life (and when I say life, I mean only the sort with which we're already familiar, never mind other potential kinds). On that basis we have good ideas about where to look for it. We know what it would mean to find it - we would know it and recognise it when we found it. Gods? Nah.

Give me some, any, evidence for life elsewhere.  That's what this is about, though you seem to be finding some difficulty following.  You usually attempt to side-track:  so, in simple English: s h o w   s o m  e   e v i d e n c e.

[Shaker]

Give me some, any, evidence for life elsewhere.  That's what this is about, though you seem to be finding some difficulty following.  You usually attempt to side-track:  so, in simple English: s h o w   s o m  e   e v i d e n c e.

There isn't any.

I've said so repeatedly, on this thread and on others where this issue has arisen.

That being the case I don't know why you're struggling as much as you obviously are.

What I've also said - and if you didn't get the point about there being no direct evidence, you won't have grasped this either - is that there's a fairly clear and comprehensive definition of life as we know it, in fact a definition so workable that as far as technology c. 2015 allows we've been able to look for it for the past few years.

So we have (a) a definition of the kind of life with which we're familiar and (b) the means of beginning to look for it beyond Earth and (c) indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it are not unusual extra-terrestrially and (d) a strong probabilistic argument, drawing on sound science (i.e. astronomy; cosmology; biology; astrobiology etc.), that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth.

Everything that goddists don't have, in other words.

[BashfulAnthony]

Give me some, any, evidence for life elsewhere.  That's what this is about, though you seem to be finding some difficulty following.  You usually attempt to side-track:  so, in simple English: s h o w   s o m  e   e v i d e n c e.

There isn't any.

I've said so repeatedly, on this thread and on others where this issue has arisen.

That being the case I don't know why you're struggling as much as you obviously are.

What I've also said - and if you didn't get the point about there being no direct evidence, you won't have grasped this either - is that there's a fairly clear and comprehensive definition of life as we know it, in fact a definition so workable that as far as technology c. 2015 allows we've been able to look for it for the past few years.

So we have (a) a definition of the kind of life with which we're familiar and (b) the means of beginning to look for it beyond Earth and (c) indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it are not unusual extra-terrestrially and (d) a strong probabilistic argument, drawing on sound science (i.e. astronomy; cosmology; biology; astrobiology etc.), that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth.

Everything that goddists don't have, in other words.

You are talking palpable nonsense, and merely unsubstantiated hypothesis.  There is not a "a strong probabilistic argument."  You can say that till the cows come home.  But there is not a shred of actual evidence, despite decades of search.

"... indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it..."  is another way of admitting, "there is no evidence."


"...that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth."   Again, a meaningless statement without some actual evidence to support it, and not mere hypothesis.

[Shaker]

You are talking palpable nonsense

Nope.

and merely unsubstantiated hypothesis.

A hypothesis, by definition, has to be testable, which extra-terrestrial life is and a god isn't.

There is not a "a strong probabilistic argument."

Yes there is. Obviously you're unaware of it.

"... indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it..."  is another way of admitting, "there is no evidence."

It's a way of saying indirect evidence.

"...that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth."  Again, a meaningless statement without some actual evidence to support it, and not mere hypothesis.

See previous response with regard to what a hypothesis actually is instead of what you think it is.

[BashfulAnthony]

You are talking palpable nonsense

Nope.

and merely unsubstantiated hypothesis.

A hypothesis, by definition, has to be testable, which extra-terrestrial life is and a god isn't.

There is not a "a strong probabilistic argument."

Yes there is. Obviously you're unaware of it.

"... indirect evidence that the basics of life as we know it..."  is another way of admitting, "there is no evidence."

It's a way of saying indirect evidence.

"...that life of some sort is almost certain to exist elsewhere in the cosmos other than on Earth."  Again, a meaningless statement without some actual evidence to support it, and not mere hypothesis.

See previous response with regard to what a hypothesis actually is instead of what you think it is.

Well done for sticking to your unverifiable position, despite its glaring weakness:  ie, lack of evidence, which you cannot supply.  End of.

[Shaker]

I'll remember that the next time you wibble on about God or Jesus or Shrek or whatever it is.

[BashfulAnthony]

I'll remember that the next time you wibble on about God or Jesus or Shrek or whatever it is.

Here'a bit of "wibble," then:


"In recent years we’ve witnessed the rise of a vocal atheist community, particularly on the Internet.  Some are angry and condescending towards people of faith, some not, but one of the common arguments they make — regardless of attitude — is there is “no evidence” that God exists. This statement has always puzzled me.  I could understand that they may not be persuaded by the available evidence, but “no evidence”?  Really? What is “evidence”?  A decent legal definition is “every type of proof legally presented at trial . . . which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case.”  This proof can include eyewitness testimony, expert testimony, scientific evidence, and circumstantial evidence.  The types of evidence are too numerous to list.  But whatever its form, the bottom line is the same: It is proof that is intended to convince another person of the truth of the matter asserted. Evidence is often contradictory.  Eyewitnesses conflict, scientific evidence is often subject to different interpretations or can be tainted by mistakes or corruption in collection and analysis, statistics can often be more confusing than illuminating, but as anyone with even a few seconds of courtroom experience understands, the mere existence of alternative explanations does not — by itself — nullify evidence presented.  Conflicting evidence or alternative explanations certainly increase the difficulty in discerning truth, but saying that one is not persuaded by the evidence presented, or believes that the evidence for one proposition is stronger than the evidence for another proposition, is a materially different statement than the assertion that there is no evidence at all."

D. and N.  French.

[Shaker]

Dawn French really ought to stick to comedy - at least she's marginally good at that.