Right, however I can use numerical evidence to show a high statistical probability that life, which has a streamlined definition, does exist outside of earth, in our universe.

Unfortunately, when talking about God, he/she/it cannot have a streamlined definition accepted by all those who try and measure God. God, for all-intents-and-purposes, cannot be measured, and any conclusions you make, cannot be verified, or refuted, scientifically.

Basically, these are very different questions. Comparing them along the same lines of reason, is silly.

However, that does not mean that the questions should not be asked. Many faith-based assertions were made in the past, and they were found to hold validity.

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 8:07 PM. Reason : -]

9/5/2006 8:00:47 PM

just because you cant put a number on it with your methods doesnt mean that there is no chance that god exists

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 8:14 PM. Reason : that was my problem with you using math]

9/5/2006 8:13:47 PM

I have already said that I agree with you on that point. Again, I would never say that there is zero chance for anything. However, I feel as if you are wasting your time, unless however your faith-based observations could possibly lead to something that is measurable, something that holds water so to speak.

When I said you're wasting your time, I really mean that you are looking for answers in the wrong places.

Don't look for real answers in places that can only give you more questions.

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 9:03 PM. Reason : -]

9/5/2006 8:36:54 PM

and i think that if you use math to rate everything you are leading a sad life

9/5/2006 8:42:35 PM

I don't, but I appreciate your lack of concern.

^ I never said that I don't have faith, but I am intelligent enough to seperate it from reason. I am well aware that my faith-based assertions hold little validity to any scientific mind. Therefore, trying to weigh a faith-based question against a science-based question, doesn't make any real sense.

I would have to have faith that my faith-based question could be answered without science. In order to do this, I would have to believe in the question I ask first, then believe that asking it along side a science-based question, is just as reasonable.

I think these are two seperate schools of thought entirely.

The first type of question, answers questions with other questions. (Faith)
The second type of question, answers questions with answers. (Math)

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 9:00 PM. Reason : -]

9/5/2006 8:43:22 PM

you cant answer if there are aliens anymore than you can answer that there is a god

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 9:03 PM. Reason : both rely on faith]

9/5/2006 9:03:33 PM

The Drake Equation suggests that asserting that aliens could exist is completely statistically reasonable, and therefore not entirely faith-based, like believing in God.

(N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL)

N* = the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy
fp = fraction of stars with planets around them
ne = number of planets per star ecologically able to sustain life
fl = fraction of those planets where life actually evolves
fi = the fraction of fl that evolves intelligent life
fc = the fraction of fi that communicates
fL = the fraction of the planet's life during which the communicating civilizations survives

No one can prove this to be true or false, yet. This too has elements of faith-based assertions, but this assertion, unlike assertions based on God, can be measured by science and could hold validity.

Again, I think you are asking two completely different questions. One question begs for an answer that is attainable, while the other question just confuses all of the questions asked. Are you searching for an answer, or for more questions to justify the validity of your God question?

There are many things in the world that we will never prove, but that does not make them unimportant, unreal, or unimaginable.

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 9:24 PM. Reason : -]

9/5/2006 9:12:27 PM

its also statistically reasonable that god exists

i could make up an equation for it too

[Edited on September 5, 2006 at 9:30 PM. Reason : .]

9/5/2006 9:26:07 PM

You see, no matter what you believe, the concept of "life" existing elsewhere in the universe, like it does on earth, does not involve invisible beings and unforseen horizons. We know what life is, and yes, it can possibly exist elsewhere in our universe. Anyone can understand this concept, because we think we know what "life" is, we think we know where life can survive, and we think we know how big space can be. Simple deduction allows anyone to understand the possibility of life, besides our own, in space.

God, on the other hand, involves believing in something you cannot possibly understand. It requires a willful disconnect of reason. It requires believing for the sake of believing. It's different.

9/5/2006 9:45:18 PM

You can not possibly understand the size of the universe

Your belief that aliens are out there is based on your faith of an equation that someone created, its no different

9/6/2006 6:22:16 AM

Yes, but I can at least "identify" the universe with some confidence.

My faith-based assertion that a mathematical equation can "identify" life in another quadrant of space, seems to be different from your supposed equally reliable/justified assertion of an "unidentifiable" God.

Just because you cannot prove "most things" with any real degree of certainty, does not inherently mean that you ought to feel justified in believing anything, just because of the insurmountable obstacle of "proof." Granted, absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, but a faith-based assertion that can be measured should not be compared on equal grounds to an unmeasurable faith-based assertion, imho.

9/6/2006 3:02:28 PM

Now that that point has been beaten to death...

Out of genuine curiosity: Who believes in both the ancient anecdotes of magic tricks AND any anecdotes supporting alien existence?

PM me your answer if you wish. I'll never share any identifying info about you and your belief if you do so.

9/6/2006 3:35:06 PM

Quote :

"but a faith-based assertion that can be measured "

except that you cant measure anything

9/6/2006 4:35:18 PM

Can't "now" and can't "yet" aren't mutually exclusive.

9/6/2006 5:20:30 PM

Germs were once a faith-based assertion. So was ether. The difference between them isn't that one was made up by a crackpot and the other wasn't. The difference is that they became testable hypotheses.

Aliens, like Jesus' ability to rise from the dead, exorcise demons, and defy gravity, remain untestable hypotheses...

[Edited on September 6, 2006 at 7:25 PM. Reason : what Stimwalt is saying...]

9/6/2006 7:23:06 PM

Quote :

"Can't "now" and can't "yet" aren't mutually exclusive."

so then you agree that now they are equally justified

[Edited on September 6, 2006 at 8:55 PM. Reason : you cant test aliens anymore than you can test god]

9/6/2006 8:55:19 PM

No, I do not agree.

9/6/2006 9:12:46 PM

What about the miracles of Jesus or the prophets mentioned in the Bible?

God may forever be an untestable hypotheses, but a genetically improbable human theoretically could be born...

9/6/2006 10:08:37 PM

where the hell did genetics come from?

9/7/2006 8:30:33 AM

Genetic improbability, sure. But genetic variation can't overcome certain laws of physics.

9/7/2006 3:14:28 PM

Which ones? The 20% of them we claim to understand?

9/7/2006 4:46:50 PM

Did the folks who believe in alien visits hear anecdotes of those visits on a regular basis from friends, family, and respected community leaders when they were just children? Do the folks who believe in alien visits have an interest in those visits being real?

Since you used the word "justified," I'm gonna have to say that they are equally justified because "justified" is a strong word that indicates something about evidence/arguments, and clearly both groups have the same evidence/arguments for their beliefs.

[Edited on September 8, 2006 at 6:43 AM. Reason : sss]

9/8/2006 6:35:24 AM

There's a reason I used the same word in both instances.

9/8/2006 5:43:54 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/space/09/08/earthlike.planets.reut/index.html

Quote :

"Earthlike planets may be common WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Earthlike planets covered with deep oceans that could harbor life may be found in as many as a third of solar systems discovered outside of our own, U.S. researchers said on Thursday. These solar systems feature gas giants known as "Hot Jupiters," which orbit extremely close to their parent stars -- even closer than Mercury to our sun, University of Colorado researcher Sean Raymond said. The close-orbiting gassy planets may help encourage the formations of smaller, rocky, Earthlike planets, they reported in the journal Science. "We now think there is a new class of ocean-covered, and possibly habitable, planets in solar systems unlike our own," Raymond said in a statement. The team from Colorado, Penn State University and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Maryland ran computer simulations of various types of solar systems forming. The gas giants may help rocky planets form close to the suns, and may help pull in icy bodies that deliver water to the young planets, they found. "These gas giants cause quite a ruckus," Raymond said. Water is key to life as humans define it. "I think there are definitely habitable planets out there," Raymond said. "But any life on these planets could be very different from ours. There are a lot of evolutionary steps in between the formation of such planets in other systems and the presence of life forms looking back at us." As many as 40 percent of the 200 or so known planets around other stars are Hot Jupiters, the researchers said."

9/10/2006 12:09:22 PM

^^Yeah, I picked up on that. Quit talking to me like I've missed something. I haven't.

9/10/2006 6:57:18 PM

New question.

1) Would you say that salisburyboy-types are more, less, or equally justified for believing aliens visit Earth compared with religious people who firmly believe that gods have visited the Earth and performed magic tricks (resurrection, healings, defying gravity, prophecy) and civilized humanity?

2) Upon what do you base your answer?

I want to see where the edge of belief lies for most people. It's terribly difficult to define.

9/11/2006 1:10:02 PM

When you can't prove something one way or another its pretty hard to say one thing is more justified than the other.

I think more people believe the religious component because the notion of a great-than-our-reality-entity (God) being responsible for the universe fills in all the mystery in existance for them. Aliens are simply a "they could be there" sort of thing but doesn't have nearly the personal "where do I come from" impact... unless you are a Scientologist, of course.

Heck, I still get my head fuzzy when I start thinking about the universe and existence of anything in general. Humans, having a finite lifespan have trouble comprehending eternal existence so its much easier to accept the idea of a creator as opposed to simply another higher-intelligent species in the universe (it requires acceptance of things you can't prove but does little to soothe existential questions so there is little reason to care about it).

I'm just rambling now...

9/11/2006 3:50:15 PM

People believe in many things that make very little sense in the grand scheme of things.

I believe that I will survive to see tomorrow, but I have no real reason to believe this.

I personally do not believe that aliens have visited Earth, mainly because I don't have any real reason too. I have no deductive utilities to harness this belief, it would be a far-fetched assumption based on a premise.

I do believe that it's possible for other forms of life to exist and thrive in our universe, because life already does exist and thrive in our universe! Simple deduction.

However, God is intangible. Some people would argue that Jesus was once tangible, and that the stories of the past would be deductive utilities, but it just doesn't make much sense to me personally.

I would say that both are fair assertions, but one is much more deductive than the other.

9/11/2006 3:59:31 PM

^ I can agree with putting it like that.

I do wonder why so few people are truly uncomfortable answering my question.

9/11/2006 10:14:00 PM

We can invade Iraq on anecdotal evidence...we can do anything.

9/11/2006 11:16:21 PM

So to generalize and formalize a theory:

All individual, faith-based, belief systems differ solely according to the scope of credulity the individual affords a particular anecdote or body of anecdotes.

No?

9/11/2006 11:43:00 PM

That sounds about right. Some people find it easier to believe that a half God-half human entity walked on water, turned water into wine and resurrected the dead than they do believing that the offspring of two kami became the islands of Japan. Are both not equally justified or equally absurd?

9/12/2006 12:09:09 AM

I feel like they are pretty equally justified, myself. It's bizarre how something that people take seriously enough to hate and kill one another hinges strictly on how many links in a game of telephone an individual--any of whom (including all of you and me), I'll add, will be objectively bad judges in the following activity--is willing to tolerate in a particular anecdotal structure before they say: "BULLSHIT! "

9/12/2006 12:32:49 AM

Here's the thing though. It isn't the anecdotes themselves that cause people to go all jihad on someone who believes a seperate anecdote. You know as well as I do that there are a plethora of factors that determine if a particular group is going to use their religion to bludgeon someone over the head for not believing as they do. I tend to think it lies with the power of group think and the importance to adhear to some kind of "higher" authority. Maybe it comes down to the nature of the particular religion at a particular time period.

9/12/2006 12:47:44 AM

But even that depends on something. Again, the present doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is the result of a lengthy past with a documented history. At minimum, one has to wonder what it was about the particular anecodotes of a particular people at a particular time made them relate so powerfully to something so differently.

Here's a recent examination of what I'm talking about:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-09-11-religion-survey_x.htm?csp=1

Quote :

"View of God can predict values, politics By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY The United States calls itself one nation under God, but Americans don't all have the same image of the Almighty in mind. A new survey of religion in the USA finds four very different images of God — from a wrathful deity thundering at sinful humanity to a distant power uninvolved in mankind's affairs. Forget denominational brands or doctrines or even once-salient terms like "Religious Right." Even the oft-used "Evangelical" appears to be losing ground. Believers just don't see themselves the way the media and politicians — or even their pastors — do, according to the national survey of 1,721 Americans, by far the most comprehensive national religion survey to date. Written and analyzed by sociologists from Baylor University's Institute for Studies of Religion, in Waco, Texas, and conducted by Gallup, the survey asked 77 questions with nearly 400 answer choices that burrowed deeply into beliefs, practices and religious ties and turned up some surprising findings: • Though 91.8% say they believe in God, a higher power or a cosmic force, they had four distinct views of God's personality and engagement in human affairs. These Four Gods — dubbed by researchers Authoritarian, Benevolent, Critical or Distant — tell more about people's social, moral and political views and personal piety than the familiar categories of Protestant/Catholic/Jew or even red state/blue state. For example: 45.6% of all Americans say the federal government "should advocate Christian values," but 74.5% of believers in an authoritarian God do. Sociologist Paul Froese says the survey finds the stereotype that conservatives are religious and liberals are secular is "simply not true. Political liberals and conservative are both religious. They just have different religious views." • About one in nine (10.8%) respondents have no religious ties at all; previous national surveys found 14%. The Baylor survey, unlike others, asked people to write in the names and addresses of where they worship, and many who said "none" or "don't know" when asked about their religious identity named a church they occasionally attend. • The paranormal — beliefs outside conventional organized religion — is immensely popular. Most people said they believe in prophetic dreams; four in 10 say there were once "ancient advanced civilizations" such as Atlantis. • "Evangelical" may be losing favor as a way Americans describe themselves. About one in three Americans say they belong to denominations that theologians consider evangelical, but only 14% of all respondents in the survey say this is one way they would describe themselves. Only 2.2% called it the single best term. Top choices overall: "Bible-believing" (20.5%) or "born-again" (18.6%). "Any politician who really wants to connect with Christians should be looking at those terms, not vague abstractions like evangelical. ... They need to tap into labels that have salience," Baylor sociologist Kevin Dougherty says. • Most Americans think their nearest and dearest are going to heaven. The pearly gates open widest for family (75.3% say they'll get in) and personal friends (69.3%). The survey did not ask whether people expect to go to heaven themselves. • Religion-themed movies and books have a vast reach: 44.3% of those polled saw Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ. More than one in 10 of all surveyed say they spent $50 or more in the past month on items such as religious books, music and jewelry. A closer look at what people read finds that 28.5% of Americans say they've read The Da Vinci Code. Baylor also found 19%, including 25% of all U.S. women, have read the Rev. Rick Warren's Christian handbook The Purpose-Driven Life, and 19% overall have read at least one of the novels in the Left Behind apocalyptic fiction series. These are part of the first wave of results from the random survey of Americans who completed and mailed in a 16-page questionnaire. Conducted in the fall of 2005, the survey is a statistically representative sampling of the USA by age, gender and race. The Baylor team will spend two years digging through the findings and releasing reports on subtopics such as civic involvement and volunteerism, then repeat the core questions in fall 2007 to track trends. The research is funded by the John Templeton Foundation. Frank Newport, editor in chief of the Gallup Poll, calls the analysis "intriguing. Baylor was able to ask many more probing questions than the usual surveys." Others agree. The Four Gods breakdown is helpful "if you are trying to understand religion's impact on society by how people see themselves from the inside, not by observations from outsiders," says John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life."

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 1:35 AM. Reason : ...]

9/12/2006 1:19:45 AM

who would have known that st. thomas aquinas was in the dumbest third of our population

9/12/2006 1:30:52 AM

^ It's not just a cliche. It really is hard to see the forest from the trees.

Quote :

"God's 'personality' Baylor researchers determined the Four Gods breakdown by analyzing questions about God's personality and engagement. The survey asked respondents to agree or disagree with any of 10 descriptions of their "personal understanding of what God is like," including phrases such as "angered by my sins" or "removed from worldly affairs." They could check off 16 adjectives they believe describe God, including words such as "absolute," "wrathful," "forgiving," "friendly" or "distant." When USA TODAY asked people similar questions, it found views as varied as those of self-described fundamentalist Brian Snider of Madison, Ala., and Marilyn McGuire, who says she sees God in every sunrise and sunset, flower and kitten at her home on Orcas Island near Seattle. Snider, 46, says God is "involved in the affairs of men at all times and he does judge us. ... We still believe he is angry at sin." McGuire, in her late 60s and once an active Episcopalian, now rejects all dogma. "I have my own system of what I think is true and sacred. I try to keep myself peaceful and keep myself in a loving state." The four visions of God outlined in the Baylor research aren't mutually exclusive. And they don't include 5.2% of Americans who say they are atheists. (Although 91.8% said they believe in God, some didn't answer or weren't sure.) Still, says Baylor's Christopher Bader, "you learn more about people's moral and political behavior if you know their image of God than almost any other measure. It turns out to be more powerful a predictor of social and political views than the usual markers of church attendance or belief in the Bible." Though 12.2% overall say abortion is wrong in all circumstances, the number nearly doubles to 23.4% for those who see an authoritarian God and slides to 1.5% for followers of a distant God. The four categories Highlights of Baylor's analysis: • The Authoritarian God (31.4% of Americans overall, 43.3% in the South) is angry at humanity's sins and engaged in every creature's life and world affairs. He is ready to throw the thunderbolt of judgment down on "the unfaithful or ungodly," Bader says. Those who envision God this way "are religiously and politically conservative people, more often black Protestants and white evangelicals," Bader says. "(They) want an active, Christian-values-based government with federal funding for faith-based social services and prayer in the schools." They're also the most inclined to say God favors the USA in world affairs (32.1% vs. 18.6% overall). •The Benevolent God (23% overall, 28.7% in the Midwest) still sets absolute standards for mankind in the Bible. More than half (54.8%) want the government to advocate Christian values. But this group, which draws more from mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews, sees primarily a forgiving God, more like the father who embraces his repentant prodigal son in the Bible, Froese says. They're inclined (68.1%) to say caring for the sick and needy ranks highest on the list of what it means to be a good person. This is the group in which the Rev. Jeremy Johnston, executive pastor and communications director for his father's 5,000-member Southern Baptist congregation in Overland Park, Kan., places himself. "God is in control of everything. He's grieved by the sin of the world, by any created person who doesn't follow him. But I see (a) God ... who loves us, who sees us for who we really are. We serve a God of the second, third, fourth and fifth chance," Johnston says. •The Critical God (16% overall, 21.3% in the East) has his judgmental eye on the world, but he's not going to intervene, either to punish or to comfort. "This group is more paradoxical," Bader says. "They have very traditional beliefs, picturing God as the classic bearded old man on high. Yet they're less inclined to go to church or affiliate seriously with religious groups. They are less inclined to see God as active in the world. Their politics are definitely not liberal, but they're not quite conservative, either." Those who picture a critical God are significantly less likely to draw absolute moral lines on hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage or embryonic stem cell research. For example, 57% overall say gay marriage is always wrong compared with 80.6% for those who see an authoritarian God, and 65.8% for those who see God as benevolent. For those who believe in a critical God, it was 54.7%. •The Distant God (24.4% overall, 30.3% in the West) is "no bearded old man in the sky raining down his opinions on us," Bader says. Followers of this God see a cosmic force that launched the world, then left it spinning on its own. This has strongest appeal for Catholics, mainline Protestants and Jews. It's also strong among "moral relativists," those least likely to say any moral choice is always wrong, and among those who don't attend church, Bader says. Only 3.8% of this group say embryonic stem cell research is always wrong, compared with 38.5% of those who see an authoritarian God, 22.7% for those who see God as benevolent and 13.2% who see God as critical but disengaged. 'God is the universe' "I still believe in God," says Joanne Meehl, 56, of Barre, Mass., who wrote a book in the mid-'90s called Recovering Catholics. "But to me God is the universe, not as small as a 'He' or a 'She' but bigger than all of that." Humanity is on its own, she says. "People who do wrong are punished in this world, not in the next. This world is it." Some might question whether a survey by Baptist-affiliated Baylor has a conservative Protestant tilt. For example, there's no mention of communion or saints — central to Catholic believers. Also, questions often used "church," with no mention of synagogues or mosques. But Baylor researchers say their testing finds people view the word as generic for "house of worship." "This work was done by well-respected sociologists of religion," Green says. "Baylor is becoming a leading evangelical university in the same way Notre Dame is a leading Catholic university, by doing first-rate objective social science." Rodney Stark, former president of the Society for the Scientific Study of Religion and part of the Baylor team, says: "We wanted to break from the past 30 years of narrow questions. " 'Do you believe in God?' Everyone says yes. "If you ask 'Are you a Protestant, Catholic or Jew?' people don't even know what denomination they are today or what the label means." Baylor sociologists broke down religious affiliation by region, gender, race and age (percentages): [Click the link above to see the table, I ain't copying it for your lazy asses]"

There's another table in the article showing what views you're likely to hold with a particular view of God. It's rather startling. But what is it that leads people to draw so many different conclusions even from the same documented set of anecdotes?

[Edited on September 12, 2006 at 1:38 AM. Reason : ...]

9/12/2006 1:36:40 AM

If this is a digression from Gamecat's intentions then he can shoot me later, but this begs the question. Are religions without some sort of authoritative docterine (Bible, Koran, Torah, etc.) full of moral code and anecdotes any less justifed as being credible than those with pillars of hear-say and generations of translation?

9/12/2006 1:40:31 AM

That's the multi-billion dollar question.

9/12/2006 1:43:17 AM