3) Wavefreak?

4) dunno 

6) Yes

7) Yes.  Infinite.

I'm a theist so the others don't apply

Welcome to the forums, SPS!

We'd like to get to know you a little better. When you get a minute, we'd love it if you'd hop over to the General Conversation, Introductions and Humor forum and introduce yourself.

As for your questions:

1  (a)

2  N/A

3  I do it all the time with my theist friends.  I will add the caveat that none of them are fundies.

4  No

5  No

6  I think it's possible 

7  I admit that I haven't really given it any thought.  I leave that to the cosmologists.

Most of your questions are covered in existing threads.  Take some time and poke around!

Welcome! I'll be glad to answer these questions.

I'm gonna have to go with A on this one. I'll skip question 2, as it doesn't apply to me.

I'll tolerate another person's theism only to the extent that it doesn't (adversly?) affect other people. Wearing a cross on your necklace, setting up a 5-foot-tall Nativity Scene on your lawn, even a bumper sticker that says:

"The Big Bang - God Spoke And BANG! It Happened."

...are things I'll tolerate.

However, I will NOT tolerate official endorsement of any religion, expressed or implied, by government; nor will I tolerate acts of violence in the name of religion, like tossing Molotovs into abortion clinics or flyin airplanes into buildings.

No.

Also no.

My reason for answering "no" to questions 4 and 5 are the same for my lack of god-belief - namely, the overwhelming lack of supporting evidence.

Yes.

No evidence supporting this hypothesis has been found yet. This does not mean, however, that intellient life is NOT possible on other planets.

Yes. Once again, it's possible but (as of yet) unproven.

The universe in which we live could be the one and only universe, infinite in size in all directions.

It could be the only universe, but finite in size.

It could be one of a finite number of universes in something bigger.

It could be one of an infinite number of universes in something bigger.

In either of the last two possibilities, the "something bigger" may itself be one of a finite or infinite "somethings bigger" in a "something even bigger," ad infinitum.

Or this could be one of only two universes, in which our counterparts in the other universe are identical to us in every way, except they all wear cowboy hats.

You're welcome! I'd say this is a good way to get to know some of the people on this board.

Just one thing in response:

We cannot absolutely prove that there is no God. = True.

We cannot absolutely prove that there is a God. = True.

However, you cannot automatically infer from those statements that the probability of his existing is a 50/50 situation.

We've simply entered the next phase of the question: Which is the more likely?

Skeptical atheists generally contend that evidence is immensely weighted against God.

Hello SPS,

      1. Short version (a). Longer version: most definitions of 'God' are internally inconsistent, from the ones that are consistent most are testable (i.e. we could find evidence for them) but all proper tests failed so far and the ones that are untestable seem useless philosophical constructs (for example deism). When compared to the strong evidence we have for all that is real (a.k.a. science) the atheist position seems the most reasonable.

    2. Doesn't apply unless you talk about the ones with an internally inconsistent definition.

    3. I accept deism (and some other philosophical constructs) as intelectually honest, even if I consider them useless. I think I can tolerate any theist that doesn't want to impose his beliefs on me.

    4. No, because of lack of evidence.

    5. No, because of lack of evidence.

    6. Yes, it's possible.

    7. Yes, it's possible. I don't know the number, I think we need more evidence before aswering this.

Cheers,

Richard 

It's both. There are weak atheists (Example A) and strong atheists (Example B). I'm a weak atheist. 

It would be the same way that theists who follow religions, like Christianity, know that their answer is correct. 

Just to clear something up, everyone is technically agnostic since no one knows for sure.

Anyway, Deism is acceptable as well as the belief that there is a watchful creator. Generally speaking, this is not the kind of theism that is meant when a reference is made to theism.

This goes out to you guys Wavefreak and CptPinaple =P. 

No, I do not. However, I think that the chemicals released in the brain before and during death create a false world with which to cope with the fact that we are about to stop existing.

Sort of like what it was like before conception.

No, I do not. I believe in certain things, such as playing music, to be spiritual in nature, but it's not super natural or even relating to a spirit/soul/whatever. 

Intelligent life? Possibly. Life in some shape or form of the matter? 100% most definitally. In regards, you could say that I'm a "Strong" believer in the existance of life on other planets but a "weak" believer in regards to intelligent life.

Kind of vague question. Me personally? No. Am I open to the notion that there could be if there was evidence to support it? Yes. That is to say that there could be evidence to support it and I simply haven't came across it yet, not that this factoid interests me one way or another nor would it sway my belief in anything one way or another.

Why thank you. 

1. Closer to A than B, but mainly because I accept that the nature of the universe as something that works on natural laws and contains identifiable, measurable, and limited existants.
2. I know this in the same way I know 2+2=4. It's a simple conclusion to come to when you see reality as real, knowable, and existing independent of my ability or ambition to perceive it. God can't exist - the universe simply doesn't allow it.

3. If the term "theism" means "to have faith, not proof, that a thing exists, such as a ghost or spirit", then no, that is not acceptable to me. Not that you're a bad person or someone I refse to be friends with - a believer has simply made an irrational choice and defends it without any evidence to support the claim.

4. There is no life after death. That's what death means - the ceasing of life.

5. I do not believe in a spiritual world. As I said, the universe works on natural laws - if it exists, it is metaphysically real and scientifically provable, even if we currently lack the means to discover and express that proof. When  it was discovered that the Earth was a sphere, the Earth didn't magically ball up - it's always been a sphere, and the flat-Earthers were wong all along.

6. I do believe in the potential for intelligent life on other planets - but I don't think we quite understand all the variables that make that life possible. Fermi asked (paraprasing) "Statistically, the universe should be full of life; so where is it?" I think that's another example of someone not quite knowing all the conditions that must exist for life to evolve to the point where intelligence is possible. In short, it's possible, but there's no evidence yet that alien cultures exist; it's not a "belief" thing, it's a "wait and see" thing.

7. I do not believe in the possibility of multiple universes. Everything that is exists in the universe; that's what "universe" means = everything. If something appeared to exist in or come from "another" universe, all that reveals is that we don't know enough about the universe in which we exist already.

1) A and B.  Not only is there no evidence whatsoever (not just not enough evidence, but really none at all ever) it is also wholly errant to consider that a god could exist in the first place.

2)  Refer to 1 and I'll suggest looking up essays within the RRS that discuss the type of errancy I'm talking about, as well look up Dawkins among others who touch on statistical improbability and other ideas.

3) I am ever polite and tolerant of people who have different beliefs (I use the term grudgingly) than I do so long as their beliefs are harmless.

4) No.  If there is an Atheist that does I posit that the person is not an Atheist.

5) The answer is the same as in 4).

6) Sure it's possible.

7) Sure I believe it's possible.  Are they finite or infinite in number? I'm not an educated cosmologist and my unlearned opinion on the matter is essentially worthless.

Good questions and it's good to see you are trying to find stuff out, but read the forums because the answers to all of these are everywhere in them.  You might even try asking questions that haven't cropped up before.  The answers would be much more insightful.

Why is it "wholly errant" to even CONSIDER that god, in some form, might exist? You say it's possible that there might be life on other planets, yet there is not the slightest proof of that, either. My point here is that it is not unreasonable to SPECULATE on the possibility of the existence of some things, even if there is no evidence that they exist. This is valid whether one is speculating about intelligent life on other planets, or the existence of a higher power of SOME KIND. Surely it is reasonable to keep an open mind on both subjects. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Up until about 70 years ago no one thought the coelacanth existed until they found one of the silly things swimming around off the coast of Africa. If we can't even be completely sure what's going on on THIS planet, how can we, with absolute certainty, make statements about what definitely does and does not exist in the entire universe?

Not trying to pick a fight, mind you, I was just wondering if you had considered it this way.

My atheism is a de-facto-atheism, which means that I don't give any offers or sacrifices in favor of God. I don't care to epistomologically disprove God - the lack of evident divine interaction with this world, disqualifies a possibly existing God from worship or sacrifice.

The answer isn't b.)

From my standpoint any personal, non-proselytising theism whose time spent in worship is appropiate to the quite small amount of mental benefit (feeling good) it may cause. Such a theism would also need to be non-divisive.

That disqualifies most theisms around. For example Christianity which is annoyingly proselytisig, time- and lifeconsuming and divisive to it's very core

I like the idea of a Republic of Souls in the afterlife, but I know that there is no scientific prove for that. So lets be surprised we will find out soon enough.

By the absence of prove of any kind of such a spiritual world I don't believe firmly in it. Everywe might say about a possibly existing one would be pure speculation.

Certainly. However numerous the constraints for life on earth are - the universe is big enough to make it certain that life evolveld somewhere else. The real question is the distance and the state of development in which those lifeforms are in. What I personally don't believe in is that alien civilisations are spacefaring.

In the discussion about alien civilisations it came out clear that if there would have been space colonising alien civilisations the milky way would have long been colonised by them before. Because it just takes several million years to do so and giving the age of our galaxy those waves of colonisation would have already swept through our solar system.

Enrico Fermi concluded from this consideration that therefor no alien civilisations exist within our galaxy.
(Fermis paradoxon: That the aliens weren't here proves that they don't exist)

The way to get around it is to assume that those people simply aren't simply colonising other planets. And there are good reasons to believe so.

The flights necessary to colonise those plants are long enough to make it necessary to build ships on which the crew lives hundrets or thousand generations before it reaches it destination. First of all: You would have to find people sufficiently insane to board such a ship, but no so insane that you shouldn't let them board that ship. By the time those people reach their destination the crew would have developed a whole new culture which turns around being having left your original home (being expelled from their original home) to go to an unknown destination. It is even likely that the crew will eventually during the flight try to turn the ship around to fly back to 'Eden'.
Those flights aren't economic at all. When the europeans colonised the world it was because they were striving for wealth. Given the flight-times to reach other stars it is quite obvious that there can't be anything of pecuniary worth to justify such an endeavor.

What stays from the reasons for spacefaring would be scientific research. But you don't need to do that with a crew and a spaceship in Star-Trek ways. Robotic probes with artificial intelligence unknown to our level of engineering would be much cheaper, much more efficient and better adapted to the lethal environment of working in space.

By the Copenhagen interpretation of quantuum physics every possible state of a quant to be realised in time exists in a different universe. Which means that the number of parallel universes according to such an interpretation is enormous but finite.

But just finite given by mathematical definition. If you keep in mind the number of protons, electrons and all those other small particles in the universe, the amount of ways to shuffel them is enormous beyond any understanding

SPS, the theist badge only indicates that you have a belief in some sort of supernatural being.

We have some pretty cool theists here on the forums.  Look around and find some of the posts from Cpt_Pineapple and Wavefreak.

Wavefreak's signature:

Of course, it goes without saying:  Anyone that quotes John Lennon can't be all bad! 

You cannot equivocate the possibility of there being life on others planets with the possibility of the existence of god. They are not remotely comparable. For starters, I can prove that life does exist on at least one planet. I shouldn't need to as I assume you agree that there is indeed life (and sometimes intelligent) on Earth. It being the case that at least one planet has life and water being the second most common molecule in the universe and there being billions of other planets, I expect it is not unlikely that at least one other planet could have life (perhaps also sometimes intelligent) on it. Contrary, there is no proof for god. There is no proof for god. I believe that I can leave that there, except it may be prudent to note that there is no proof for god (no proof of the supernatural). To answer your first question, however, I suggested that it may be helpful, as I am poorly equiped to explain the intricacies of the explanations as to why the supernatural (god in particular, but the rest as well) is a wholly errant notion, to look up essays on this site and to reference Dawkins among others. That was explained in my answer to question number two. You're last question has me confused. We are able to make many definite statements about what does exist in the universe. Making definite statements about what doesn't exist in the universe is not wholly sound as negatives can't be proven empirically. What doesn't exist can, however, be pushed to such low probability that it can essentially be said to be proven not to exist. Thus can I say with complete certainty that there is no invisible pink unicorn in my closet, though it is impossible to prove it empirically. And you may say that the invisible pink unicorn is made up (that it's a bad example), but then you may like to prove to me that god or any part of the supernatural isn't made up and you will find that you can't.

I had indeed not considered it 'this way' for the reasons I've submitted above. I understand that you perhaps thought that I may have overlooked what you point out, but I was very intentional and fully aware. You, however, have made some invalid claims. Like you, though, I'm not trying to pick a fight...

I was wondering when someone was going to ask me this.

The short answer is: not a whole lot. To me, the question of god's existence is more of a logical one than a religious one. I will say to atheists what I say to fundies: you don't know. Neither side has a right to claim that god definitely does/does not exist, simply because that would presuppose a knowledge of the universe that we simply don't, and probably never will, posess.

So why do I believe in god, or perhaps more accurately, a hyper-intelligent, pan-dimensional being? Well, I went into that fairly elaborately in the above post, but suffice to say that I believe it because it simply makes sense to me. I believe in evolution, the big bang, and, in fact, in most of what science teaches us, because that too makes sense to me. I just have no problem including all of these concepts into the same universe.

But all that said, I do believe that humans have a spiritual component, a soul, if you will. I believe that there is more to the universe than what is apparent to our five sense. A belief in a, for lack of a better phrase, a spiritual world, is no more unreasonable than the notion of multiple universes postulated by some physicists, nor is it any more or less provable.

(Yes, I am aware that quantum physics suggests the possibility of a multiverse, but quantum physics also gives its own reasons why the the theory itself is unprovable.)

The universe, we believe, is trillions of years old. From what I can gather it will go for another several trillion years. So what does this mean? It means we get to spend, if we're lucky, about 80 years alive, and then several trillions years dead. What a dismal way to look at the universe.

What does this prove? Absolutely nothing, I realize. I'm not insisting that anyone share my views, I'm just answering your question. One of us is right, one of us is wrong. If it turns out that you are right, what have I lost? All it means is that, when I'm on my death bed, about to breath my last, as I am sinking into the oblivion that atheists tell me inevitably awaits me, my dying thought will be that I wish I had spent more time fishing and less time on the internet.

If, on the other hand, I am right, what awaits you? After your soul has shuffled off its mortal coil (which is what must happen, if I am right) will you find yourself face to face with a pissed off deity, who grabs you roughly by the collar as you wriggle helplessly in the celestial fingers? Does he glare menacingly at you from under bushy celestial eybrows, make some smart-ass comment like, "so, who don't you believe in now, atheist-boy?", before flicking you casually into the fiery pit?

I rather doubt it.

If it turns out that there is a spiritual world, and therefore a life after physical death, I imagine you'll just suddenly realize you're still conscious, and say to yourself, "Wow. So there really is life after death. Cool."

The alternative is, as I said, eighty years alive, then several trillion years dead. I like my way better.

 Not really

For lack of a better word, somewhat.

I don't think there's much intelligent life on this one.

But seriously, yes.

Yes. Infinite. 

For an analogy, the two things being compared must be in the same category with regard to the relationship to the unknown.  In other words, If I am making a comparison between Mercury and Venus (the planets, not the gods), then I must be trying to learn something that can be derived from their similarities.  It must be something related to their status as planets, or that they revolve around the same star, or that they are both rocky planets.

Aliens have a definition.  They are lifeforms in the way we know life to exist, as a replicating, finite being that passes information about itself to its descendents through some sort of heredity.  They will have evolved in a way similar to evolution on earth.  

God does not have a coherent definition.  Supernatural doesn't actually describe anything, so we can't say in what state this being exists.  God, traditionally, is immortal.  In many traditions, it is infinite in some way.  It did not evolve in the traditional way.

In short, there's actually nothing similar between god and aliens, at least not for the question at hand.

The category "Things that might exist" is so big as to be non-sensical.  All we can say about the set is that each of them has at least a one in 10^1000000000000000000000000000000000 chance of existing.

In induction, this is beyond useless, and is no basis for an analogy.

It's fine with me.  Probably a good idea, but if you start conjuring up god-like properties, I'm going to bust you for wanting to have your cake and eat it, too.

You realize that these are just words unless you tell us what, exactly, they mean.

In a "wishing upon a star" sense, yes.  But, if you want it to be a scientific sense, you must define a HIPDB well enough that we can talk about whether or not it's likely.

This is so general as to be almost useless.  Yes, every culture made up myths to explain the boom booms in the sky, but the myths were not all that similar, except that they all involved some kind of magic.  Magic is simply another way of saying "I don't know."

I can only tell you that your lack of satisfaction has very little bearing on the cogency of the two positions.

As it turns out, the only thing one could reasonably say about a speculative being is "I don't know a damn thing about it, apart from the fact that it might exist."  This makes it slightly more useful than Velvet Elvis as a conversation piece, but that is the same as saying that it has no use to humanity whatsoever.

I wish I could make this fallacy go away.  The valid conclusion with regard to something for which there is no definition and no evidence is complete agnostic disregard until there's something to talk about.  The inductive conclusion that it does not exist is the only conclusion which allows for anything to be known about anything.  Try to imagine what logic would be like if we had to allow for the possibility of everything that can be imagined, and eliminate each and every one before declaring that we know a thing to be true.  Since it's impossible to disprove negatives inductively, we would literally descend into complete nihilism!

You misunderstand the statement.  It means that you can't disprove the nonexistence of something.  It doesn't mean that you can't disprove any negative statement.  That would be pretty silly.

You can do anything you like.  If you want it to be logical, you must define it before you speculate about it.

Wrong.

God has never been defined coherently, so we are literally talking about nothing.

Ahum...

Hard empirical evidence.

Planets that are proven to support life: 1 (Earth!!!!)

Gods proven to excist: 0

So yes we are speculating, but the difference is precisely the empirical evidence. We speculate about something that is proven to be possible (life on a planet in this universe). Not about something that has not even been proven once. So the parallels are not exact.

Willem.

Thus spake Thomathy:

1) The possible existence of this 'HIPDB' (or anything supernatural) is not the same in any sense as the possible existence of life somewhere else. (snip) When pondering the possibility of life on just one other planet in billions of planets we work with the evidence that there is at least one planet in billions with life. When pondering the possibility of the supernatural existing we work with no evidence of the supernatural existing in the first place.

Odd, I never said anything about the "supernatural". In fact, I actually agree with you in a way. A big part of the problem is that speculation about a higher being has become weighed down and polluted with all this mystical magical mumbo-jumbo. For some reason most theists feel a need for their god to be magical. The main reason I adopted the term HIPDB was to try to take the "mystical" element out of the discussion.

If we can do this, the notion of god is not remarkably different than the notion of any other form of life. Look at it this way, were I to ask you if you believe it possible that other life exists in the universe that is far more developed, or somehow differently developed, than us, I'm guessing you would probably say yes. The term "life" does not necessarily mean "life like us". Life elsewhere in the universe may be fundamentally different from us.

If one rejects that notion, then that is tantamount to saying that life elsewhere, if it exists at all, must necessarily be like us. As you seem like a fairly open-minded sort, I will again guess that you do not believe this. But once we allow for the fact that homo sapiens is not necessarily the only form that intelligent life may take, we can, without the need for a belief in the supernatural or other silly mumbo-jumbo, postulate the existence of other forms of intelligent, even hyper-intelligent life. Perhaps even life where matter and energy are combined in a different way than what we are familiar with. And if you are willing to allow even the slightest possibility of this, then it really is not much of a stretch to start postulating on the existence of a form of life that is so far beyond our understanding that we call it, for lack of a better word, "god".

2) Let's get this straight. Emptying my closet isn't going to prove to anyone that an invisible pink unicorn isn't there! You can't prove it doesn't exist, there's no way to collect empirical evidence of it. It's invisible! It's also magical -it's a unicorn!

If you believe in an invisible pink unicorn, be my guest. While I personally don't see any reason to believe in the existence of an invisible pink unicorn, being a reasonable, open-minded sort of person, I will respect your right to believe in one.

3) 'Obviously these "gods" are simply man trying to put a tangible handle on an intagible concept.' I know you were serious when your wrote this, but do you see how contradictory it would be of you to define this intangible concept, that is putting a tangible handle on it and then to believe in that thing?

You really seem to be missing my point here. I didn't say you were supposed to believe in them. All I was saying is that these definitions of "god" fail because they attempted to define god in a way that was consistent with what man knew of the world around thim, and that they therefore cannot be proven. I'm actually agreeing with you here.

4) An HIPDB is not a reasonable explanation for anything! It's just not. What reason is there for it? I can't think of a single thing where an HIPDB would somehow answer some question!

I have given some examples of how someone might deduce the existence of a higher power at work in the universe. I suggest you reread my earlier posts for them. In any event, as I stated above, by using the term HIPDB, I was simply trying to remove the "supernatural" aspects which always seem to cloud these debates.

5) I could easily be moved to believe in the existence of an HIPDB. Give me proof that it exists. Heck, I'll believe in anything supernatural (even if the concept is an oxymoron) if I can be given empirical proof of it.

And obviously you're willing to believe in some things for which there is no empirical proof. So belief in things like intelligent life on other planets or infinite multiple universes is ok, but belief in something like a higher being means I have a mental disorder. Hmmmm.

6) I really think it's unhelpful to suggest that Atheists have a know-it-all attitude, even those that are certain of the non-existence of the supernatural.

If I say, "I believe in god", and you say "I don't believe in God", we're ok. Once I say "there is a god", implying that I know this for a fact, then the burden of proof is on me. Once you say "there is no god", implying that you know this for a fact, the burden of proof is on you. When you reply "I can't prove that something does not exist", all you do is make my point for me.

I make no claims about knowing that there is a god. I'm perfectly cool with the idea that there may not be a god. I'm getting the feeling that you are not cool with the idea that there may be.

As far as the FSM and the celestial teapot go, I consign them to the same rubbish bin as Thor, Zeus, Jehovah, Osiris, and the rest. There's simply no point in arguing about it, because we all agree that none of those things exist.

What some atheists (not necessarily the ones participating in this thread) fail to see is that militant atheism is merely the mirror image of religious fundamentalism, in that both camps insists on the self-evident correctness of their position. In both cases, the party line is "It's okay to be dogmatic when you're right!"

If it makes you feel any better, I have gone through many bottles of migraine medication trying to argue these points with religious fundamentalists. They hate me too.

'god must exist in some of them, and not in others, since those are the two possibilities, right?' Someone else will take this one. All I can offer is an emphatic, 'No!'

This is where you're really puzzling me. Since we're talking about only two possibilities, and an infinite number of universes for each to occur in, it seems only reasonable to conclude that each of these possibilities would actually occur. It's like if you flip a coin a million times, it will come out heads roughly 50% of the time, tails the other 50%.

Now, I already realize that the notion of a god with a 50% probability is totally unacceptable to you, so let's ratchet that one down a bit. Let's assume that the existence of god is SO improbable, (much like, as Dawkins points out, the universe itself) that it can only happen once in a quadrillion times. Therefore, in an infinite universe, there would have to be one universe with god in it for every quadrillion universes that don't.

But your answer to this premise is an emphatic "NO". Therefore, what you must be saying is that given an infinite number of universes with an infinite possibilities, anything is possible except for THAT possibility. Again, I say: Hmmmmm.

So my question to you is: are you really SO uncomfortable with the notion of god, in any form whatsoever, that you will not allow for its existence in any universe, even if it's not your own?

None of this, absolutely none of this, proves that god exists. I never claimed it did. But what I am saying is that it's okay to speculate on the unknown, and perhaps even the unknowable, because that's what one does when one contemplates the universe. Intelligent life on other planets, multiple universes, white holes, god. It's all fodder for the endlessly inquisitive but rather limited intellect of man.

And I hope you're not taking any of this personally. I simply enjoy the debate. Sadly, irrespective of which of us is right, soon enough we will all know. So if perchance it turns out that I am the one who's right, rest assured that I'll be putting in a good word for you.

And as I've said, I've riled many a fundie in my time. If you ever really wamt to get a fundie's panties in a bunch, ask them to explain Genesis 19:30-38.

And by the way, if you really want to know how I define my own "religious" beliefs, refer to "The God Delusion", pg. 60, bottom paragraph. I find it supremely ironic that Dawkins, of all people, should be the one to sum up my own views on this issue so eloquently. Yes I do realize that he ultimately takes this in a different direction, but that paragraph as it stands alone is a pretty accurate summation of what I believe.

Be well.

I want to be clear here.

I don't believe in the invisible pink unicorn. I have pointed that out exactly. Perhaps that is why you leave a wink after your response. I trust you don't think I believe in an invisible pink unicorn.

You're definition of a god is very nice. So let's speculate that this being is natural and not supernatural. Fine. There's no reason to think so, there's no reason to believe in it and you feel very well hedging your bets that it does exist. I am unsure why, but fine.

I don't care at all what other life may be like. It doesn't even matter! I've never given any statement other than to say that life (even intelligent) may exist elsewhere and that it's not a stretch to say that it may. It just may and there's good reason that it may. That's it.

There is extremely good reason to believe that the probability of a god existing is so extremely low that it certainly doesn't exist. Much like the invisible pink unicorn certainly doesn't exist, or the tooth fairly or santa clause. Of course, now I know you're not talking about a supernatural god. You're talking of some sort of natural god.

'You really seem to be missing my point here. I didn't say you were supposed to believe in them. All I was saying is that these definitions of "god" fail because they attempted to define god in a way that was consistent with what man knew of the world around thim, and that they therefore cannot be proven. I'm actually agreeing with you here.' When you write this in response to number 3) in my list are you even responding to what I wrote? I ask because this:

3) 'Obviously these "gods" are simply man trying to put a tangible handle on an intagible concept.' I know you were serious when your wrote this, but do you see how contradictory it would be of you to define this intangible concept, that is putting a tangible handle on it and then to believe in that thing?

In other words is this:

It is contradictory of you to define a concept that you say is intangible and then to believe in the thing that you've defined as you've deinfed it.

I really don't see how your response follows from what I wrote. I'm confused by it.

Okay, so it's not supernatural. It's still not an explanation for anything. It still doesn't answer any questions. What you pose as things it could be responsible for are things that could far more probably be the result of natural (unintelligent) phenomena. And if all this being is is a natural phenomenon then it must necessarily have a start in nature. I do not understand why your definition of god in this way should be any more acceptable than any other definition. It's still nonsense. I don't hate you. I disagree with you.

For the very last time the possibility that life (even intelligent) exists on just one other planet is not some matter of faith! It's a matter of probability. I would really like for you to understand the fundamental difference between supposing that because life does exist on one planet that it might exist somewhere else and speculating on the existence of god. -Something that would be exactly like me speculating about an invisible pink unicorn in my closet.  Yes, it may very well really be there (after all, I can't prove it's not), but there is no reason to suppose that it actually is and as much reason to believe that it certainly isn't.

I'm not uncomfortable with the existence of god at all, even in any other universe, if there indeed are other universes. God would have to exist first and be proven to exist, but that's a whole other mater. I have no bearing on the non-existence or existence of god. It is one or the other and I have no way to effect any change on the reality, I simply assert that the reality exludes the latter. I don't give proof and I don't even imply that it is fact that god does not exist, but I have stated that it is essentially so improbable (a part from all the other reasons that it can't in the first place) that I can be as certain that it doesn't as I can be of the non-existence of the invisible pink unicorn. Which is to say that I know for certain that it doesn't.

I really don't understand what you mean when you say that 'soon enough we will all know'. If this god of yours is natural I would have assumed that you don't believe in an afterlife. You apparently do, and that you'll be meeting this 'natural god' and will be able to put in a good word for me. Which is rather nice of you, though considering your views on this 'natural god' I can't imagine why you would think it cares about us or what we think/do and especially of whether I believe in it or not. It sounds distinctly like you believe in not just an afterlife but in a heaven and a hell, which is very Christian imagining for someone who believes in a 'natural god' defined as an HIPDB and conceptually intangible. You assume a lot of characteristics for this thing that you can't know anything about. Unless, of course, your wink here means that you are being sarcastic, which makes this humourous. However, lest you contradict yourself, if this god you talk about is natural, how would you reconcile the afterlife, a soul, and these other necessarily supernatural notions with this 'natural god'?

I'm glad you think so. Yes, I was trying to be humorous in both instances. You atheists are a humorless lot, arent you?

<----- That means I'm kidding.

Hello SPS.

I think you misunderstand Hambydammit.

When you say 'life somewhere else in the universe may exist' (a.k.a. aliens) you need to define the word 'life'. And Ham provided such a definition and with this definition coherent discussion about the possibility of such life can follow.

When you say 'god (HIPDB) may exist' you need to define the word 'god'. And I agree with Ham that most definitions of the word god that are usually presented by theists are incoherent (don't make sense). So we can't talk about them at all.

If you want to continue to argue about this entity called HIPDB (god), I think you must formulate some logically consistent definition for it.

I see this problem in simpler terms:

Premise 1: There is an infinity of things that are possible (and logically consistent): i.e. life somewhere in the universe, some very advanced, intelligent being capable of creating universes.

Premise 2: The only way we can choose (with some confidence) which entities from this infinity do actually exist is evidence (the scientific method).

Conclusion: I believe only in those things for which there is evidence.

The way I see it, all significant discussions (that means without fundementalists and post-modernists) revolve around "Premise 2" which many want to change or extend to include something else, like:

- personal experience;

- philosophical deductions;

- value to the well being of society or the individual.

A strong empiricist myself I reject these extensions, but that is a personal opinion.

Cheers,

Richard

    Actually the is evidence that there is intelligent life on a planet, you can figure out which one, with that we can take a probability stance of the possibility of life on other planets, solar systems, galaxies, etc, since you have to take the only evidence we have (earth) and then take it's surrounding 1 in roughly 10 billion solar systems in this 1 galaxy, then mulitpy that by the amount of other galaxies (estimated somewhere around 200 billion) each having for arguements sake 10 billion solar systems (give or take a few billion). As you can see the possibility of life on another planet is possible, just knowing what we know of this galaxy, how it came to form and the requirements for life in both moderate and extreme conditions (artic, desert etc) The fact as well that another planet that does have water in another galaxy that is roughly in the same orbital state of earth was found this year (or sometime late last year) does show that we are not just a once in a lifetime possiblity, tht this can occur more than once.....especially if you figure out the possiblity of 1 in 10 billion chance that goes into that astronomically huge number of 200 billion times 10 billion which is what 2 trillion maybe?

    So yeah the evidence is there that life could be on other planets, and that's what most people believe, some are sure other go in this forum i found, with the possiblity, which FAR FAR FAR FAR out weighs the possiblity of a religious god of any type. 

I can only say that if this advanced alien race would be 100% theist they should have far better arguments or evidence than what we have.

If they didn't, I guess we could relate to them on the philosophical realm. If belief in the supernatural (higher power) comes from the minds attempt to deal with the unknown (death, purpose of existence, etc) then it may be that all intelligent life goes through a phase of supernatural beliefs.

We here, have outgrown this belief, take reality of what it is and accept the unknown as such.

P.S. To be consistent, I can only say alien life is possible, and it may be probable given the size of the universe, but I don't believe in aliens until evidence is presented. 

The question asked about the possibility of life on other planets, not do we believe it does exist.

Big difference. 

Not trying to lock horns here. Just a casual reply. =)

It would certainly seem to be a strong probability. If life forms on planets, and if planets form around stars, and there are billions of stars in a galaxy, and if there are billions of galaxies, and if there are billions of clusters of galaxies, and if there are billions of clusters of clusters of galaxies, and if one of those planets was able to develop life, then I'd say it's very reasonable to conclude that, considering the number of possible planets, it's very likely that some form of life exists elsewhere. And yes, that was a run-on. =)

I'm not going to make any claims about the intelligence of that life though.

The existence of life is unlike the existence of God though because we already have at least one observable case of life occuring on a planet already. We haven't actually observed any clear evidence for a god existing, and we've actually found plenty that suggests he doesn't. To put it simply, even though the two are equally possible does not mean that they are equally probable.

I'll admit that I haven't read any of Dawkins' books yet, but I've watched a good number of his interviews, Q&A's, talks, and even a few lectures. I have heard Dawkin's refer to life as extremely improbable before as well, but he goes on to say that it is only improbable in its current state. If you understand life as a series of smaller, more probable events that lead up to our current state, then it suddenly becomes much simpler and more likely.

I've heard him make this point on several different occassions about biological life. I don't know how he feels about the things in our universe, but it wouldn't surprise me if he thought something similar.

Not understanding the universe is no reason to suppose something supernatural at work. I have no idea how a computer works. It does all kinds of things and I don't even understand how the programming for basic word processing, let alone the more complicated things like gaming. But not understanding the computer is no reason to think that there is nothing natural there that can be understood.

A bit of a bad scenario since we do have computer experts and we don't have cosmology experts, but I still think the comparison works if you ignore that detail. =P