The Drake Equation Fallacy

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

There's no such thing as absolute proof. Evolution, relativity etc are just theories as well.

Not true! That's just something people say to fuel their belief, simple as that. How do you know we are not in a simulation? How do you know we were not planted here by aliens? All assumptions, thst could be true, but no evidence to say they are.

Let me ask you this, why does it have to be a God?

Unless you unify quantum theory with special relativity or come up with a unified field theory I don't see how in physics you can have absolute proof of anything.

Seems to me you think you know more about math and physics than you actually do.

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

There's no such thing as absolute proof. Evolution, relativity etc are just theories as well.

Not true! That's just something people say to fuel their belief, simple as that. How do you know we are not in a simulation? How do you know we were not planted here by aliens? All assumptions, thst could be true, but no evidence to say they are.

Let me ask you this, why does it have to be a God?

Unless you unify quantum theory with special relativity or come up with a unified field theory I don't see how in physics you can have absolute proof of anything.

Seems to me you think you know more about math and physics than you actually do.

Well, please explain! How does Kurt Godel's Ontological mean a God?

a reply to: Jay-morris

It doesn't and I never said it did. It just shows that you can create a logical argument for the existence of God.

I personally believe in creation but it's nothing to do with Godel.

Until we understand consciousness then all science is just conjecture. If you don't understand the instrument of observation then you can't trust it's results.

a reply to: Grenade

It doesn't and I never said it did. It just shows that you can create a logical argument for the existence of God.

You can make a logical argument for many things. Does not mean it's true.

I personally believe in creation but it's nothing to do with Godel.

And that very well could be true. We do not have all the answers, and most prib never will.

Until we understand consciousness then all science is just conjecture. If you don't understand the instrument of observation then you can't trust it's results.

consciousness could very well be produced outside the brain. This is a subject I am very interested in, and have had powerful experiences to do with consciousness. But even if thst is the case that consciousness is produced outside the brain, there could be a number of reasons for that. Quantum mechanics being one of them.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Without hypothesis science would have stagnated. We need to dream the impossible before we can manifest it into reality. Go try explain quantum physics to Newton and he would call you a loon.

I'm open minded about the universe and it's inner workings / creation. I hate the religious nuts and atheists equally. Both are arrogant theology imo so I'm kind of here to balance out the idiocy on both sides of the argument. Anything is possible and those who deny it are truly blind to reality.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Let me ask you this, why does it have to be a God?

The more accurate question is how do you convince yourself it
couldn't be God?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

Let me ask you this, why does it have to be a God?

The more accurate question is how do you convince yourself it
couldn't be God?

Because there is no evidence of a God! Not one little bit! You have convinced yourself there is a God with no evidence!

Your whole belief of a God basically comes down to a book written by primitive men, hence why the stories in the book are ridiculous and primitive. That's all the "evidence" you have!

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Without hypothesis science would have stagnated. We need to dream the impossible before we can manifest it into reality. Go try explain quantum physics to Newton and he would call you a loon.

I'm open minded about the universe and it's inner workings / creation. I hate the religious nuts and atheists equally. Both are arrogant theology imo so I'm kind of here to balance out the idiocy on both sides of the argument. Anything is possible and those who deny it are truly blind to reality.

Good to keep an open mind, but God is obviously man made. Evidence points to that. Even before Christianity, people believed in many Gods. Why? Basically to try and explain what could not be explained at the time. That's why you hands moon Gods, sun Gods, rain gods etc etc

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Without hypothesis science would have stagnated. We need to dream the impossible before we can manifest it into reality. Go try explain quantum physics to Newton and he would call you a loon.

I'm open minded about the universe and it's inner workings / creation. I hate the religious nuts and atheists equally. Both are arrogant theology imo so I'm kind of here to balance out the idiocy on both sides of the argument. Anything is possible and those who deny it are truly blind to reality.

Articulated very well. That's all I been say'n threw out this whole thread.
I can't understand anyone who approaches this debate as if Creation or
ID are absurd when science doesn't even tell anyone that at all.

a reply to: Jay-morris

You could argue that in a random universe where entropy rules, life would never arise. The fact you have organisms organising and improving their functionality hints at some kind of design. Especially when you consider the complexity of things like dna sequencing.

Ever seen a sand castle build itself?

Or you could look at things like the cosmological constant which appears finely tuned. Every time science hits a wall that hints at creation it has to create new theory to debunk the previous understanding. It's progressive I'll give you that but I can't help but think eventually all science will prove is what we already knew. The end game will be creation imo.

Science just needs one miracle to start the universe and everything in it then it happily explains everything except that moment of creation while backing up the impossibility that is all matter appearing from nothing.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Because there is no evidence of a God! Not one little bit! You have convinced yourself there is a God with no evidence!

There's plenty that you won't accept. So you and Barcs just
continue to lie your asses off by repeating that. Computers
verify the logic of Godel's equation.

I could type for years about evidence that any judge would
accept into his courtroom. And in the end the jury would easily
find Creation the more viable. Because Creation describes the
miracle your science never has and never will. Sorry Pal I have
the more detailed account and yours just isn't compelling.
You can't say Chevy doesn't make the Corvette because you're
a mechanic. It's ludicrous and hokey to do so. Not intelligent
or scientific.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Over simplification of thousands of years of theology right there.

Personally i believe "god" is essentially all matter and energy within the universe. We are the manifestation of the curiosity of the universe, without our eyes to observe and measure then how could the universe reflect upon itself.

I believe god is the collective consciousness of all life attempting to understand the wonder that is the universe and without consciousness there is no science, there is nothing.

Most religious texts hold some truth, however these are hidden in metaphors.

I believe it was Eugene Wigner who asked the very pertinent question: Why did the natural world as far as we know always obey laws of mathematics?

Modern Physics generally is hypothesised on blackboards long before attempts at physical observations or measurements are taken suggesting an underlying design.

Then you have people like Sir Roger Penrose who argue that consciousness, the material world and mathematics should not co-exist or be considered to be in the same domain. How can atoms effect something without a physical plane such as consciousness and how could math be used to explain this interaction if it is a different entity again?

The argument could be made that without god the mathematical underpinnings of the universe and our ability to understand them in a non-physical state such as consciousness becomes the only comprehensible solution.

All knowledge is already encoded in the universe, all we can can try to do is discover its secrets, science is just one human expression of attempting to decode the design. We are challenged with helping to understand the universe and any and all viewpoints have equal validity if somewhat varying probability. The beauty of the universe can be better understood in spiritual terms as there isn't a blackboard big enough nor a hard drive with the capacity to appreciate it with mathematics.

a reply to: Grenade

You could argue that in a random universe where entropy rules, life would never arise. The fact you have organisms organising and improving their functionality hints at some kind of design. Especially when you consider the complexity of things like dna sequencing.

Ever seen a sand castle build itself?

Again, where is the evidence thst this is a God from one one the religions? Where is the evidence that a God created everything? God is a bring made up by humans. You ask a religious person if they believe your theories, they will say you are talking rubbish!

Or you could look at things like the cosmological constant which appears finely tuned. Every time science hits a wall that hints at creation it has to create new theory to debunk the previous understanding. It's progressive I'll give you that but I can't help but think eventually all science will prove is what we already knew. The end game will be creation imo.

This whole universe could be nothing more than a computer simulation. This universe could be one of an infinate number of universes. Could be a number of things. No one knows.

Science just needs one miracle to start the universe and everything in it then it happily explains everything except that moment of creation while backing up the impossibility that is all matter appearing from nothing.

That's just a theory and not a 100% Quantum mechanics has a number of theories, that we are one of many universes. Our universe is nothing special at all in this theory. Could it be right? Who knows!

a reply to: carsforkids

There's plenty that you won't accept. So you and Barcs just
continue to lie your asses off by repeating that. Computers
verify the logic of Godel's equation.

Are you serious? You have ignored and dodged questions all the way through this thread! The so called evidence put forward from you and others like you has been debunked. And you say there is plenty of evidence, but we eill not except it lololol

I could type for years about evidence that any judge would
accept into his courtroom. And in the end the jury would easily
find Creation the more viable. Because Creation describes the
miracle your science never has and never will. Sorry Pal I have
the more detailed account and yours just isn't compelling.
You can't say Chevy doesn't make the Corvette because you're
a mechanic. It's ludicrous and hokey to do so. Not intelligent
or scientific.

lolol if you could for years about the evidence of your God, then why do you ignore basic questions. You are absolutly clueless about this, and only get brave when someone else comes on this thread to debate us!

If you want to be taken seriously, then you should stop dodging and ignoring questions!

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Over simplification of thousands of years of theology right there.

Personally i believe "god" is essentially all matter and energy within the universe. We are the manifestation of the curiosity of the universe, without our eyes to observe and measure then how could the universe reflect upon itself.

I believe god is the collective consciousness of all life attempting to understand the wonder that is the universe and without consciousness there is no science, there is nothing.

Most religious texts hold some truth, however these are hidden in metaphors.

I believe it was Eugene Wigner who asked the very pertinent question: Why did the natural world as far as we know always obey laws of mathematics?

Modern Physics generally is hypothesised on blackboards long before attempts at physical observations or measurements are taken suggesting an underlying design.

Then you have people like Sir Roger Penrose who argue that consciousness, the material world and mathematics should not co-exist or be considered to be in the same domain. How can atoms effect something without a physical plane such as consciousness and how could math be used to explain this interaction if it is a different entity again?

The argument could be made that without god the mathematical underpinnings of the universe and our ability to understand them in a non-physical state such as consciousness becomes the only comprehensible solution.

Well, that's not a God, is it? We are debating God here. What you say is nothing to do with a God, and the God from religions we are talking about her

a reply to: Jay-morris

Well, that's not a God, is it? We are debating God here. What you say is nothing to do with a God, and the God from religions we are talking about her

Buhahahaha Now you're gonna start trying to dictate what the
conversation is about?

You already said Creation and ID are possible but you're to ignorant
and obsessed to know that ended the conversation. Instead you go right
back to be'n a circle jerk. What's wrong with you?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

Well, that's not a God, is it? We are debating God here. What you say is nothing to do with a God, and the God from religions we are talking about her

Buhahahaha Now you're gonna start trying to dictate what the
conversation is about?

You already said Creation and ID are possible but you're to ignorant
and obsessed to know that ended the conversation. Instead you go right
back to be'n a circle jerk. What's wrong with you?

I never stated it's impossible! Maybe you should actually start reading posts properly! I said there is no evidence to back up your God! Seriously! Read more!

a reply to: Jay-morris

You are a goner. What you just posted makes no sense at all.
Just so you know I'm done responding to you. You can't even
carry on a conversation.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Jay-morris

You are a goner. What you just posted makes no sense at all.
Just so you know I'm done responding to you. You can't even
carry on a conversation.

Please explain how it makes no sense? Do you have the intelligence to do that?