Vatican says aliens could exist

[Kaylia]

the default place to be in on anything without proof is non-belief, the burden is on you to prove it exist, if you don't, I don't believe it. Therefor it is more logical to not believe in a god because you've shown no evidence for its existence. For example, do you believe in Kerlaffatreebooples? They are apples that make you fly if you eat them.

From your post, I will assume you have very little knowledge of science and how it progressed, because it's completly false. Theories are born from an attempt to solve a problem, to answer a question. The proofs come later once you manipulate the concept and the tool needed to confirm your hypothesis. I'm not confusing philosophy and sciences debate, but what you said isn't even valid in a science debate.

There is a proof that you exist, there is a question to explain your existence, and God is the concept postulated to answer that question. There is nothing wrong with that kind of behavior from a science standpoint.


To answer your kerlaffatreeboobles argument (I should simply refer you to the Zeus argument above, but w/e)
What was the question that made you propose this theory? Did you need it to be specifically kerlaffatreeboobles, or you could use a more simple concept to answer your "problem"?

Let's argue about definition
Apple: the usually round, red or yellow, edible fruit of a small tree
Fruits: any product of plant growth useful to humans or animals

It's not explicitely said, but can we agree "plant growth" mean something that grow in the ground, using element from the periodic table. It wouldnt be of much use for human if it's out of their reach, wouldn't it? Small fruit, by fruit standard are only a few pound. Since we know the chemical process of eating, and we know that the human body can't fly under normal circumstance, we can determine that no biological matter ingested would allow you to fly.

If you can give me a valid question and validate your definition, I will rethink about it.

Stop with the "im not trying to prove god exist" bullshit, it's fucking old, I've asked you to define what your motives are in this thread and you skipped it. If you're not trying to prove god exist, then stop making claims like "a+b=c" and shit like this. Its rather clear what you're trying to do but the reasons you mask your motives are beyond me.

You guys asked me the same question 10 fucking times. Just scroll up and go read my previous post if you don't want me to repeat myself. All your question were already answered many times.

I will repeat my motive for you...actually, I will quote it from the fucking last post since you're blind. "Demonstrate that you can't exclude the concept of God". That's my motive since I'm arguing with atheists who believe they can, but never did it.

Again you've defined god as a "being", what does that mean? Define it. Is he a human, energy? what. What are his characteristics. You've already taken a step into explaining him by calling him a being.

Being definition, according to the dictionary. The bolded one are the one I was using

being [Noun]
1. the state or fact of existing
2. essential nature; self
3. something that exists or is thought to exist: a being from outer space
4. a human being

And I will repeat my definition again
"I'm talking about a being, conscious or not, that has something to do with the creation of our universe"

[Kaylia]

I'll take a shot at this. I don't know why. I do know why humans exist but since the universe's origin precedes that it's not really needed.

Why propose a even more incredible entity for being the creator of the universe when 'I don't know' seems to be a better response until there is evidence towards a actual answer (which there already may be, I don't follow cosmology? that much)

I shouldn't have used "universe" in the question. What I meant by universe include the cause of this universe, and the cause of that cause.

"Why the world is" is closer to what I meant.

God isn't a valid idea because it claims there is an invisible man who poofed people or beings into existence. Why I exist? see sig, Why the universe exist? I'm not sure, but I'm not one to play god of the gaps. Just because science doesn't know something does not mean that you can just throw crazy ideas like this into the mix. Just because I'm an Atheist does not mean I have the answers to all questions, sadly.

You didn't answer the part where I asked you to demonstrate that your reasoning is not a belief, but a fact. That was your claim about atheism, so defend it.

If you can't answer all question, then you can't reject all possible answer.

[Blarg]

"Why the world is" is closer to what I meant.

What do you mean by this? Why the world is capable of life? Why it even exists at all?

What I meant by universe include the cause of this universe, and the cause of that cause.

Regardless of how far you regress into that which caused the thing that caused and so on you still have to explain why a more complex being is a better answer than 'I don't know what caused it all' It seems you place something (god) to stop this regress because it doesn't feel good to not have an explanation for something, in doing so you have also made a claim that god is unable to be caused.

And about your kerflafablooblwhatevers, can you prove that you just haven't been lied to about the nature of apples and how they form, you may in fact be in some sort of truman show television show in a controlled 'world' and outside of this world those apples do in fact exist. The world you live in for this tv show about you loves to lie about all 'facts' of life. Chemical processes, soil, food all of this is just made up for you.

Maybe they exist outside of this dream you currently think is your life?

[Kaylia]

What do you mean by this? Why the world is capable of life? Why it even exists at all?

Why it even exists at all. I don't want to bring human/life in this discussion since God is causing us enough trouble already.

Regardless of how far you regress into that which caused the thing that caused and so on you still have to explain why a more complex being is a better answer than 'I don't know what caused it all' It seems you place something (god) to stop this regress because it doesn't feel good to not have an explanation for something, in doing so you have also made a claim that god is unable to be caused.

I have to disagree with one thing, the element that compose the cause need to be much more simple than the result. Quantum mechanics for example is extremely simple compared to other physics. You only need a few particles to explains almost everything in our universe. What is complicated is the description of complex phenomena composed of the simple elements. Explaining our world using God would be infinitely complex if there is an infinity of cause.

If the world is finite, then yes, God is simply a tool to eliminate the first cause paradox. However, it's safe to assume that no science or religion is going to find a solution to a first cause paradox.


"I don't know what caused it all" is an answer to a different question, it wouldn't be a valid answer to the one I asked. It's however a valid position to take when you are facing such questions, but there is nothing wrong trying to solve it. Solving is generally the "wrong" part.


[edit]
I'm falling asleep typing this. I will try to finish it tomorrow, because it's too late to think

[Neosutra]

What do you mean by this? Why the world is capable of life? Why it even exists at all?

Why it even exists at all. I don't want to bring human/life in this discussion since God is causing us enough trouble already.

You're really attempting to establish creation via existance? Your entire arguement basically breaks down into "god exists because the universe exists", regardless of how many times you reword it.

I have to disagree with one thing, the element that compose the cause need to be much more simple than the result. Quantum mechanics for example is extremely simple compared to other physics. You only need a few particles to explains almost everything in our universe. What is complicated is the description of complex phenomena composed of the simple elements. Explaining our world using God would be infinitely complex if there is an infinity of cause.

I read this statement several times before I just facepalmed and wondered what school was letting you get a degree in physics. First, get off this claim of "the cause need be much more simple than the result". If your saying god is the first cause and he is more infinite than the universe, than you are saying he is MORE complex, and you are still not getting rid of the first cause paradox by just calling the universe infinite, no matter how many times you claim that.

Second, quantum physics is the least understood and most complex physics, not the simplest..

If the world is finite, then yes, God is simply a tool to eliminate the first cause paradox. However, it's safe to assume that no science or religion is going to find a solution to a first cause paradox.

I wouldnt say its safe to assume science will never know. Secondly, our universe IS finite, but your talking about -everything- that came before it as being created by god, in which case your talking about an infinitely complex system that deviates from the very concept of time/space. You find it hard to believe this system can exist infinitely outside of time and thus you place a "being" you define to be "more infinite" yet "more simple" to create it, because for some reason its easier to create infinity than it is to create a finite mass/matter. Everything that youve typed in the last 4 pages has been self contradicting nonsense. I tried to re-read it all over the last 2 days as I took a break from responding to attempt to really get an understanding of what you were trying to say. I came to the conclusion that you have no idea what your trying to say.

"I don't know what caused it all" is an answer to a different question, it wouldn't be a valid answer to the one I asked. It's however a valid position to take when you are facing such questions, but there is nothing wrong trying to solve it. Solving is generally the "wrong" part.

There is nothing wrong with trying to solve it, that is correct. However you cant just make up any theory you want and say its equally valid (or even remotely valid) to any other given theory. You havent given us a non contradicting definition of god. You havent answered the first cause paradox. You havent shown any evidence to give even 0.000000000000000000000001% credibility to your argument other than "the universe exists thus god exists".

In the last 4 pages, you havent given anything to this debate other than migraines to anyone that read your posts.

[Kaylia]

You're really attempting to establish creation via existance? Your entire arguement basically breaks down into "god exists because the universe exists", regardless of how many times you reword it.

No, I validate the question, not the answer using this fact. The answer of something infinitely complex wouldn't be something I could define...because that's what infinity does.

Second, quantum physics is the least understood and most complex physics, not the simplest..

An atom composed of elementary particles is simpler than every elementary particles? A molecule is simpler than an atom? A cell is simpler than a molecule? A living being is simpler than a cell? The reason why those thing are simple is that they were not understood correctly with previous theories. They were approximation of the correct answer. Find me another branchs of physics that can explains everything using such a limited number of particles and state, and I will agree with you.

I never said that the mathematics you're using to solve those problem doesn't get insanely more complicated with problem using multiples particles. It's still however the easiest solution we have to explain everything.

There is nothing wrong with trying to solve it, that is correct. However you cant just make up any theory you want and say its equally valid (or even remotely valid) to any other given theory. You havent given us a non contradicting definition of god. You havent answered the first cause paradox. You havent shown any evidence to give even 0.000000000000000000000001% credibility to your argument other than "the universe exists thus god exists".

Have you? In the last 4 pages, you havent said anything else other than your beliefs about the possibility that God exist.

[Zalius]

yea you're all fuckin weirdos

no exceptions

[Neosutra]

With such an ignorance of quantum physics kaylia, I wouldnt venture into attempting to make such overzealous and obviously incorrect claims if I were you. But then again that can be said for your entire post(s).

[Kaylia]

W/e you say. I can't argue if there is only personal attack in your post.

[Woozie]

With such an ignorance of quantum physics kaylia[...]

Uh, nothing Kaylia said about quantum mechanics was wrong. What he (or she?) said was that the simplest thing to understand is a single particle. Once you try to model more and more particles and interactions it becomes increasingly complex and as a result, we're stuck using other mathematical or physical methods that are in reality nothing more than approximations to the true answer (because the true answers are too complex to compute directly).

What part of that isn't true?

[Neosutra]

With such an ignorance of quantum physics kaylia[...]

Uh, nothing Kaylia said about quantum mechanics was wrong. What he (or she?) said was that the simplest thing to understand is a single particle. Once you try to model more and more particles and interactions it becomes increasingly complex and as a result, we're stuck using other mathematical or physical methods that are in reality nothing more than approximations to the true answer (because the true answers are too complex to compute directly).

What part of that isn't true?

The fact that our model of 'simple particles' isnt simple..

Or what version of string theory do you find trivial? Or shall we go with classical wave theory? We know less about the base particles and their makeup/causes than we do about celestial events (not to say they are not correlated).

But perhaps you have been able to decipher what kaylia has been "trying" to say for this long.

[Woozie]

With such an ignorance of quantum physics kaylia[...]

Uh, nothing Kaylia said about quantum mechanics was wrong. What he (or she?) said was that the simplest thing to understand is a single particle. Once you try to model more and more particles and interactions it becomes increasingly complex and as a result, we're stuck using other mathematical or physical methods that are in reality nothing more than approximations to the true answer (because the true answers are too complex to compute directly).

What part of that isn't true?

The fact that our model of 'simple particles' isnt simple..

Or what version of string theory do you find trivial? Or shall we go with classical wave theory? We know less about the base particles and their makeup/causes than we do about celestial events (not to say they are not correlated).

But perhaps you have been able to decipher what kaylia has been "trying" to say for this long.

Quantum Mechanics != String Theory.

But anyways, from the context of Kaylia's post, I think that what he's referring to is the complexity involved in finding the most complete description of a given phenomenon. For example, we could start with something as complex as a bowling ball. To get a complete description of it, we would need to know the state of a system of trillions of particles and the nature of the interactions between them. If we simplified it to the molecular structure of the material of the bowling ball (since that's what's determining the bowling ball's properties), it becomes much easier. Simplify that to atoms, to protons, neutrons and electrons, to electrons, up quarks and down quarks, and it becomes simpler and simpler. If we go from the smallest system and build up, it becomes more complex.

In this case, the same applies to string theory. String theory applied to one particle is simpler than trying to apply it to the consequences of the particle (for example, if the particle forms a system with other particles). It becomes even more complex if we try to apply the mathematics to a consequence of this system (like to a molecule). It becomes even more complex if we try to apply it to a consequence of the molecule (such as a chemical reaction or a cell. Or better yet, a cell that survives because of it's chemical reactions).

Or maybe I'm the one misinterpreting Kaylia's post. To me it seems clear that this is what he means, but I could be wrong.

I apologize in advance if this post doesn't make sense. I've taken sleeping pills about an hour ago, so my brain isn't quite working right.

[Kaylia]

Woozie pretty much said what I meant if you missed my point.


[edit]
And his reply is even better

We know less about the base particles and their makeup/causes than we do about celestial events (not to say they are not correlated).

It's funny you're talking about a "cause" here, when you were saying they might have popped out of nowhere earlier in this thread. Why do you say we know "less", when there might be nothing to know?

[Jimmayus]

When Kayla talks about descriptions and designations attributed to God, they mean things like 'omnipotence' and 'omniscience'. Even consciousness is not a necessity. I think perhaps you guys keep getting hooked on things, which brings up things like the apples or Santa. They all have logically indefensible attributes. A being able to create the universe, especially if we use a finite universe, is not necessarily logically indefensible, because since it is possible the universe was created, then somebody would have had to create it. Since there is apparently 'some famous proof' about an infinite being a subset of a greater infinite, then clearly the same applies.

If all you're saying is that God is a being that created the universe, you have only one presumption: it is something capable of creating the universe. It doesn't have to be omnipotent, or omniscient, or even a fully formed being. Whether or not such a thing is possible, I don't have the theoretical knowledge to say. However, I just wanted to make sure you were defining God in the same way Kayla is.

Neosutra, I know you are trying to have an argument, but it is really hard to not skip your posts because they feel mostly like flaming. It was nicer in the first 3 pages when you actually made more complex posts and didn't blatantly flame everything.

Kayla isn't talking about string theory, or classical wave theory. I have no background in physics but my reading comprehension allows me to understand that. They are saying that things which make up greater wholes are not somehow more complex then the greater whole, which by definition includes them. I would think that's a pretty logical conclusion. Thus, smaller particles which make up bigger things are logically less complex than the things they create. Stop trying to extrapolate off simple things.

I don't care if there's a God or not, especially if it, by Kaylas definition, is merely a being capable of creating the universe, with no other extra mumbo jumbo attatched. So, just wanted to put this out there because I think you are misconstruing Kayla's posts.

[Kaylia]

I know my grammar blow, and that my post are hard to read, but I'm glad to see someone understood the point I was trying to make. D:

[Jimmayus]

I should ninja edit but might as well make another post.

What Woozie said is probably where you're getting the idea that it is somehow more complex. But even then, that object would exist as performing complex actions while at the same time encompassing all the actions going on with the elements composing it.

So, while you are having fun with string theory, the webs those particles make are still defined by the actions taken by the individual particles within the web. A Human being is a functioning set of organs interacting with each other, which are formations of cells interacting with each other, etc.

So, if particles are somehow infinitely complex, than the things those particles form must be by any logical definition more complex.

[Neosutra]

String theory deals with particle physics as well woozie and you know that. The point was that particle physics is still our least understood areas of physics.

As for kaylia focusing on simplicity via original building blocks (i.e. 1 particle is simpler than 2), thats not entirely true either now is it(in this context). Kaylia was relating this principle to the concept of god, where god was the "building block" and is the cause of everything, yet much simpler of an answer.. yet more infinite.

Kaylia still hasnt given a clear premis of what he/she is trying to say, if he/she even knows.

[Bartylby]

i don't get why people choose not to believe... if god does exist your gain is infinite and if he doesn't, you've lost nothing.

even people of science have to see some logic in that, right?

[Day]

i don't get why people choose not to believe... if god does exist your gain is infinite and if he doesn't, you've lost nothing.

even people of science have to see some logic in that, right?

It could be argued that the belief in some sort of after-life could very much cheapen or lessen your experience in this "life" as opposed to those that feel it's a one shot deal, and live life to the fullest.

I suppose both could apply to those that believe in God, depending on what exactly your beliefs are.

[Blarg]

i don't get why people choose not to believe... if god does exist your gain is infinite and if he doesn't, you've lost nothing.

even people of science have to see some logic in that, right?

I hope you are joking. Pascals wager is pathetic and you should see the fault of it fairly easily.