For atheist scum

Originally posted by twhitehead
From a scientific standpoint, it is entirely probable that there is other life in the universe. We cant really say accurately how probable other intelligent life is, but I wouldn't rule it out.
But to jump from "UFO" to "alien" is unscientific. It is based on culture not science. To assume a UFO is of alien origin fits well with the movies, but not with assume that the origin is some man made machine than that the source is aliens (or God).

You really have to deal with these phenomena on a case by case basis.
Too many unknowns here. We are only infants wading into the great cosmic pool.

Simlilarily with psychology/psychiatry, it is still only a fledgling science that has a long way to go before it can effectively diagnose/cure people (Hence terms like "schizophrenia, which can only be described as a set of symptoms rather than a readily identifiable problem/disease, unlike most other sicknesses)

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
just for clarification. there are people with different ideas of supernatural.

as 'supernatural' by definition means beyond the natural scope of the universe.
given that our universe has a probability of 1, the existence of any particular universe at any particular point also has a probability of 1. ergo there are infinite universes inhabited by inf ...[text shortened]... of any particular universe are necessarily supernatural to the beings of every other universe.

Your warped mind working again.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
just for clarification. there are people with different ideas of supernatural.

as 'supernatural' by definition means beyond the natural scope of the universe.
given that our universe has a probability of 1, the existence of any particular universe at any particular point also has a probability of 1. ergo there are infinite universes inhabited by inf ...[text shortened]... of any particular universe are necessarily supernatural to the beings of every other universe.

As a physicist with an interest in cosmology and astronomy....
I am not certain what you are talking about.

Could you elaborate, as from what I can make of this, it doesn't make sense or necessarily hold true.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
just for clarification. there are people with different ideas of supernatural.

as 'supernatural' by definition means beyond the natural scope of the universe.
given that our universe has a probability of 1, the existence of any particular universe at any particular point also has a probability of 1. ergo there are infinite universes inhabited by inf ...[text shortened]... of any particular universe are necessarily supernatural to the beings of every other universe.

Wait. So because the proposition 'this universe exists' has P=1 (objective, not epistemic probability), it follows that the proposition 'any particular universe at any particular point exists' has P=1? Please provide the derivation of that conclusion, because it looks crazily fallacious to me.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
just for clarification. there are people with different ideas of supernatural.

as 'supernatural' by definition means beyond the natural scope of the universe.
given that our universe has a probability of 1, the existence of any particular universe at any particular point also has a probability of 1. ergo there are infinite universes inhabited by inf ...[text shortened]... of any particular universe are necessarily supernatural to the beings of every other universe.

given that our universe has a probability of 1, the existence of any particular universe at any particular point also has a probability of 1
yeah, paraphrasing Bbarr, why!???

What prevents it from being the case, say, by some unspecified supernatural "mechanics" that only 57 universes can ever exist at any particular "time"!??

Originally posted by googlefudge
As a physicist with an interest in cosmology and astronomy....
I am not certain what you are talking about.

Could you elaborate, as from what I can make of this, it doesn't make sense or necessarily hold true.

below, i use the term 'creation' as 'to come into being.'

the existence of a universe has a probability of 1.

it means that somewhere, sometime, conditions were perfect for the creation of this universe.

if such conditions can occur even once, they can occur an infinite number of times. so there must be an infinite number of universes in existence.

now within this universe, the probability of sentient life is 1, meaning that somewhere, sometime, conditions were perfect for the creation of sentient life.

so it must follow that among infinite universes, there are an infinite number where the conditions are just right for the existence of sentient life.

within any given universe, that which exists is natural. that which is without is supernatural. so a being in any particular universe is supernatural from the point of view of beings in every other universe.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]given that our universe has a probability of 1, the existence of any particular universe at any particular point also has a probability of 1
yeah, paraphrasing Bbarr, why!???

What prevents it from being the case, say, by some unspecified supernatural "mechanics" that only 57 universes can ever exist at any particular "time"!??[/b]

then that would create a cluster of 57 universes, let's call it a multiverse. now we have created the condition where the existence of a multiverse (packet of 57 universes) has a probability of 1, ergo there must exist an infinite number of multiverses.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
below, i use the term 'creation' as 'to come into being.'

the existence of a universe has a probability of 1.

it means that somewhere, sometime, conditions were perfect for the creation of this universe.

if such conditions can occur even once, they can occur an infinite number of times. so there must be an infinite number of universes in existen ...[text shortened]... articular universe is supernatural from the point of view of beings in every other universe.

Yikes! You should read through this again, slowly.

Originally posted by bbarr
Wait. So because the proposition 'this universe exists' has P=1 (objective, not epistemic probability), it follows that the proposition 'any particular universe at any particular point exists' has P=1? Please provide the derivation of that conclusion, because it looks crazily fallacious to me.

the derivation is logical. if P=1, you have set a precedent for an event to occur. once the precedent is set, the event has a potential to repeat an infinite number of times. with infinite potential, you will have infinite number of events that are in the set of P=1.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the derivation is logical. if P=1, you have set a precedent for an event to occur. once the precedent is set, the event has a potential to repeat an infinite number of times. with infinite potential, you will have infinite number of events that are in the set of P=1.

To say that some state of affairs is P=1 means either that it is necessary or necessitated by its causal antecedents. You've given no reason to think that either is the case for the existence of the universe. You may mean, however, that for any event which is actual, or any state of affairs that is the case, or any proposition that is true (or whatever) that, subsequent to its being actual, the case, true (or whatever) that we can take it as given. That is, you may just mean by 'for X, P=1', simply 'X is the case'. But all that follows from X being the case is that X is possible. You'd need further premises to show that X must be the case. Now you think that since there are other possible worlds, if there are an infinite number of "runs", or opportunities for them to become actual, they must in fact be actual. But you haven't provided any reason for thinking that conditions are such that there are an infinite number of "runs" or opportunities for possible worlds to become actual. That requires an additional argument. If we take your argument seriously, it would follow that there is no distinction between merely possible and actual. In fact, it would follow that there is no distinction between merely possible and strictly necessary. Your argument, if it made sense, would show that since it is possible that there is a cutest kitten eating the most delicious hamburger, that it must be a necessary fact that, somewhere, the cutest kitten is eating the most delicious hamburger. Adorable!

Originally posted by bbarr
I find the distinction between the natural and supernatural opaque. But if you're asking what I would take as really good evidence of the existence of agents like those described as 'divine' by the world's religions, it would take an appearance by the agent in question and a series of demonstrations of his/her/its power that 1) are done on demand by a crowd o ...[text shortened]... ature seemingly by his/her/its will. Then I'd need a personal question and answer session.

What about this planet earth being suspended in thin air (ether) providing us all every creature comfort along with sunshine and water for our existence.

Oh..... and the thousands of food stuffs that grow out of the dirt that apparently happened along by random chance.

Does this trick meet your high standards.

You do know that to qualify as an atheist you must reject the anthropic principle.

Did you know that to reject the anthropic principle is to be dishonest in your observations.

Originally posted by bbarr
... Your argument, if it made sense, would show that since it is possible that there is a cutest kitten eating the most delicious hamburger, that it must be a necessary fact that, somewhere, the cutest kitten is eating the most delicious hamburger. Adorable!

incorrect. that is not my argument.

a more correct interpretation given the condition you describe here: if the event occurs in which a kitten eats a hamburger, that it must be necessary fact that the event of a kitten eating a hamburger will occur again. but that is too specific. if we regard it instead on more general terms, as the event in which one being consumes another, we may expand the conditions of the event to repeat infinitely.

Originally posted by Dasa
What about this planet earth being suspended in thin air (ether) providing us all every creature comfort along with sunshine and water for our existence.

Oh..... and the thousands of food stuffs that grow out of the dirt that apparently happened along by random chance.

Does this trick meet your high standards.

You do know that to qualify as an atheis ...[text shortened]...

Did you know that to reject the anthropic principle is to be dishonest in your observations.

given your response above, i doubt you even understand what the anthropic principle is.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
a more correct interpretation given the condition you describe here: if the event occurs in which a kitten eats a hamburger, that it must be necessary fact that the event of a kitten eating a hamburger will occur again. but that is too specific. if we regard it instead on more general terms, as the event in which one being consumes another, we may expand the conditions of the event to repeat infinitely.

But you need way more argument than probability to prove that claim.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the derivation is logical. if P=1, you have set a precedent for an event to occur. once the precedent is set, the event has a potential to repeat an infinite number of times. with infinite potential, you will have infinite number of events that are in the set of P=1.

There are several things wrong with this, the event you are saying has P=1 is the creation of this universe with the big bang.

you are then going on to say that because the conditions were right for this once, then they must be right again*infinity.

this doesn't hold true.

for example. the universe could be following the bang, crunch,bang... model, where big bang is followed by big crunch and then rebound. this universe could in that instance be the entirety of everything, and it simply changes its state throughout time, with successive bangs and crunches.

No other universe would exist.

the fallacy is positing a space in which the big bang occurred which could have properties which could lead to big bangs occurring. You have no evidence for, nor information about, this hypothesised space. it is neither necessarily required to
exist, nor is it required to have the properties you ascribe to it.
it might have existed Until the big bang at which point it got transformed into the universe we see today....

Secondly, you suggest that any persons in your hypothesised other universes would be by definition supernatural.
I disagree, as they are natural consequences of their universes. and the multiverse of universes would be part of nature.
thus they would not be supernatural.