Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I guess that is where we differ. So is it possible there is life elsewhere in the universe? According to you there isn't because there is no proof or facts. But according to my logic it is possible.
No, according to our logic, it's possible. According to your logic, you should believe in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
Evidence is a very poor judge if something exists or not. Just think about a few hundred years ago to now and see what things have been discovered. Those things obviously have always been there, like the atom, for example. So what new discoveries are still out there?
You can't be serious... We know the atom exists due to evidence. There was no reason to believe in it before we had this evidence and to do so would've been foolish.
Evidence is a very poor judge if something exists or not. Just think about a few hundred years ago to now and see what things have been discovered. Those things obviously have always been there, like the atom, for example. So what new discoveries are still out there?
With your lack of vision, nothing, for apparently your mind is closed for business and encased in a sarcophagus of denial and ignorance.
I guess that is where we differ. So is it possible there is life elsewhere in the universe? According to you there isn't because there is no proof or facts. But according to my logic it is possible.
There are some facts. There are billions of other stars. Some of them have planets. Thus the probability is that there is life on a few of them. It is a statistical probability rather than just a possibility. However, though I consider it probable rather than just possible, I don't actually know and so I don't actually believe until there is some convincing evidence. The logic is just the same as not believing in some kind of FirstCauseGod.
As regards the gods of the religions, the information makes it probable that there aren't any so I not only don't believe but I definitely disbelieve. The logic is consistent all the way.
Where do you stand on the logic here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad
Evidence is a very poor judge if something exists or not. Just think about a few hundred years ago to now and see what things have been discovered. Those things obviously have always been there, like the atom, for example. So what new discoveries are still out there?
Evidence is the only way to judge on whether something exists or not. Until the evidence is forthcoming it is logically correct not to believe it until it is. While there have been many discoveries made, it is obviously absurd as well as impossible to believe everything as verified fact until it is proven not to be so and it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose what one wishes to believe on the basis of preference or indoctrination.
No, according to our logic, it's possible. According to your logic, you should believe in them.
You can't be serious... We know the atom exists due to evidence. There was no reason to believe in it before we had this evidence and to do so would've been foolish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asheville Native
With your lack of vision, nothing, for apparently your mind is closed for business and encased in a sarcophagus of denial and ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
There are some facts. There are billions of other stars. Some of them have planets. Thus the probability is that there is life on a few of them. It is a statistical probability rather than just a possibility. However, though I consider it probable rather than just possible, I don't actually know and so I don't actually believe until there is some convincing evidence. The logic is just the same as not believing in some kind of FirstCauseGod.
As regards the gods of the religions, the information makes it probable that there aren't any so I not only don't believe but I definitely disbelieve. The logic is consistent all the way.
Where do you stand on the logic here?
Evidence is the only way to judge on whether something exists or not. Until the evidence is forthcoming it is logically correct not to believe it until it is. While there have been many discoveries made, it is obviously absurd as well as impossible to believe everything as verified fact until it is proven not to be so and it is intellectually dishonest to pick and choose what one wishes to believe on the basis of preference or indoctrination.
The logic seems clear.
Funny for so many to say it would be foolish to believe the atom existed before there was proof. But it did. So who is the real fool the believer or non-believer.
Funny for so many to say it would be foolish to believe the atom existed before there was proof. But it did. So who is the real fool the believer or non-believer.
Let me abstract this and make sure we are saying the same thing (I believe so, but lets be sure...)
It is foolish to believe 'A' without evidence even if 'A' does actually turn out to be proven true at some later date.
This I believe is a true statement. Believing anything without sufficient evidence is always foolish, regardless of whether you are right. What serves as sufficient evidence is a much more subjective threshold. Religious belief tends to have a very low bar, science a very high one.
Funny for so many to say it would be foolish to believe the atom existed before there was proof. But it did. So who is the real fool the believer or non-believer.
To believe something as a fact without sound evidence is foolish and - as I said - intellectually dishonest.
The atom as a theory was plausible before we knew anything about it. The Greeks had worked it out that there had to be some basic dot that assembles to make everything up rather than everything being 'solid' whatever that meant.
I may say that even as a kid (I am actually older than you, now) I had theorized that atoms had to be 'nothing in rotation' was how I put it and I am rather satisfied that this is how it is beginning to look, but even then I would never have said that I firmly believed it as nobody knew, This is simple logical reasoning.
There is a great rational difference between pure speculation on little or no evidence, informed hypothesis on some persuasive evidence and belief based on sound evidence and the idea of firmly based Faith in something without much evidence for and quite a lot against. It seems hard to get Faith - believers to think in this way rather than 'believe or not' on the basis of just ...belief.
To believe something as a fact without sound evidence is foolish and - as I said - intellectually dishonest.
The atom as a theory was plausible before we knew anything about it. The Greeks had worked it out that there had to be some basic dot that assembles to make everything up rather than everything being 'solid' whatever that meant.
I may say that even as a kid (I am actually older than you, now) I had theorized that atoms had to be 'nothing in rotation' was how I put it and I am rather satisfied that this is how it is beginning to look, but even then I would never have said that I firmly believed it as nobody knew, This is simple logical reasoning.
There is a great rational difference between pure speculation on little or no evidence, informed hypothesis on some persuasive evidence and belief based on sound evidence and the idea of firmly based Faith in something without much evidence for and quite a lot against. It seems hard to get Faith - believers to think in this way rather than 'believe or not' on the basis of just ...belief.
And long before the Greeks people theorized about a Living Being who Created everything.
Let me abstract this and make sure we are saying the same thing (I believe so, but lets be sure...)
It is foolish to believe 'A' without evidence even if 'A' does actually turn out to be proven true at some later date.
This I believe is a true statement. Believing anything without sufficient evidence is always foolish, regardless of whether you are right. What serves as sufficient evidence is a much more subjective threshold. Religious belief tends to have a very low bar, science a very high one.
NoCapo
Religion is not the same as believing in a Living Being who Created everything. And just because I have my evidence and you are unable to see it does not make it any less real or valid to me.
Funny for so many to say it would be foolish to believe the atom existed before there was proof. But it did. So who is the real fool the believer or non-believer.
It was not a belief (fairy tale), it was a theory, based on observations of chemical reactions and the conservation of matter.
And long before the Greeks people theorized about a Living Being who Created everything.
What a riposte! The Greek people believed in a whole pantheon of gods. Not the same one(s) you believe in. I submit that neither of you is correct.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
