Why God doesn't exist

[earth]

In this article “The Solipsist Approach to Extraterrestrial Intelligence” the thought is extraterrestrial civilizations with their machines will infest the galaxy given time. The authors are C. Sagan & W.I. Newman.

There are plenty of scientist around who are thinking the existence of robot probes aren't that unreasonable.

 

[Sarkus]

You're missing several points, though, earth...
First is that no-one is discounting the idea as a possibility. As said, Occam's Razor doesn't eliminate anything, it doesn't determine anything to be impossible. It merely takes possibilities and gives an approach to find the most rational among them given current knowledge and understanding.


Further - with the very idea of "robot probes" - the possibility of their existence is all well and good. Few would dispute it as a possibility (although most would argue about the magnitude of possibility) - but are you suggesting that there is in any way manipulation going on - that these probes are interacting with us?
If so, would it not behoove you to provide the evidence?
Or are you merely switching one label for the gaps (God) with another?

 

[earth]

You're missing several points, though, earth...
First is that no-one is discounting the idea as a possibility. As said, Occam's Razor doesn't eliminate anything, it doesn't determine anything to be impossible. It merely takes possibilities and gives an approach to find the most rational among them given current knowledge and understanding.

I understand Occam's razor doesn't apply that well when considering the existence of advanced alien technology in this galaxy. Spidergoat made the suggestion I use it so I showed through example the result. As far as I am concerned Occam's razor isn't applicable in this circumstance. Because there are simply to many unknowns.

 

[Sarkus]

I understand Occam's razor doesn't apply that well when considering the existence of advanced alien technology in this galaxy. Spidergoat made the suggestion I use it so I showed through example the result. As far as I am concerned Occam's razor isn't applicable in this circumstance. Because there are simply to many unknowns.

Occam's razor can be applied to advanced alien technology being the cause of religion... and it fails the test in favour of religion being man-made - by dint of there being so many unknowns compared to it being man-made.

I.e. We know man exists. We know we are capable of making concepts. We also know that men have (and do) follow other man-made concepts, such as democracy, judiciary systems, taxation etc.

We do NOT know that aliens exist, and thus can NOT know that alien technology exists. All we can know is that it is a possibility but currently one without evidence.

 

[earth]

We do NOT know that aliens exist, and thus can NOT know that alien technology exists. All we can know is that it is a possibility but currently one without evidence.

We know there are scientists who think the probability of the existence of advanced alien technology is high.

I get your point. Your point is you haven’t any tangible evidence connecting God to reality, so God couldn’t be advanced alien technology because God doesn‘t exist. You have people posting in this sub form claiming God exists. You have a former president claiming "something" referred to as God has sent him messages or otherwise known as God has been speaking to him. You have old religious text making similar claims, wherein, "something" referred to as God has sent individual's messages. We have scientist talking about machines and how they envision the future of the galaxy with machines playing a major role. Extraterrestrials civilizations are thought to be mostly likely older and have more advanced technology then we do. If there are any grounds of reality to the existence of a God then that God is more likely to be advanced alien technology in reality, IMO

 

[spidergoat]

The main evidence however comes from people's reported observations of prayer being answered. OK, that is only anecdotal... however it may be the best we can get, as the rigorous scientific conditions required to exclude bias mean you have to remove any connection between prayer and recipient in all but name. It is no surprise therefore that no effect was demonstrated under these highly artificial conditions. If "God is love", and not some mechanical law of physics, you would expect praying over a phone book to be very different in efficacy from praying for someone you love.

You are willing to accept scientific studies if they show an effect, and ready to reject the science of them when they do not! Such hedging of bets is typical of religious thinking. The practice of reporting and publishing only the research that gave positive outcomes creates a misrepresentation of the subject under investigation.

Also this:

The methodologic limitations of several studies make it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the efficacy of distant healing. However, given that approximately 57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect, the evidence thus far merits further study​

.

No further studies have supported this.

The history of distant healing studies shares much in common with the history of the PK studies. Many studies are too small to justify drawing conclusions from them; many are poorly designed or controlled; statistical formulas are misused; data have been massaged after the studies are completed; some of the studies have looked for correlations of prayer to so many factors that it was inevitable that they would find some statistically significant relations in their data just by chance (Texas sharpshooter fallacy); and replication has been a major problem.​

Nevertheless, you have found a study that shows a small prayer effect, so I stand corrected. It doesn't seem to be repeatable.

Faith is trust on incomplete evidence, not a total "absence of evidence", and certainly not "contrary to the evidence".

Faith is absolutely belief in the absense of evidence and even in light of contrary evidence. For instance, the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and yet most religious people still deny it.

You can have faith in e.g. your wife, that she is being faithful to you. The "absence of evidence" of her fidelity does not make it folly to have faith. The same faith applies in religion. Prayer seems to work for people. The psychological effects are demonstrable under scientifically rigorous conditions. Is that JUST psychological? How can we ever know?

That's not faith. One makes a hypothesis that your wife is trustworthy. When you read her e-mails to her lover, the faith disappears. But when science contradicts religious faith, the faith continues.

Have faith, pray and you will get better quicker... Don't and you won't! :shrug:

I don't deny that attitude plays an important role in healing. The placebo effect is also very significant. Such phenomenon do not prove a supernatural being exists, but rather a connection between the mind and body.

 

[Sarkus]

If there are any grounds of reality to the existence of a God then that God is more likely to be advanced alien technology in reality, IMO

Aha - I get your point now... I think (apologies if I still haven't, though!)
Occam's razor would select aliens over a supreme-creator-God as being the cause for religion / "voice of God" type stuff... sure.
Afterall - we know we exist - so extrapolating to another lifeform in the universe isn't difficult - and it is just as likely to be more advanced than not... so sure, it is more rational to accept that than the creator-God etc.

But my point is that it still comes a distant second to it all being man-made - as far as rationality goes - primarily because we have no (other) evidence for alien life.
As soon as we do then what is deemed (more) rational will of course change - as it often does when new information comes to light that goes against what is currently held as most rational.

 

[earth]

Aha - I get your point now... I think (apologies if I still haven't, though!)
Occam's razor would select aliens over a supreme-creator-God as being the cause for religion / "voice of God" type stuff... sure.
Afterall - we know we exist - so extrapolating to another lifeform in the universe isn't difficult - and it is just as likely to be more advanced than not... so sure, it is more rational to accept that than the creator-God etc.

Between choosing a creator of everything (God) and advanced alien technology as the source of the "voice of God' type stuff Occam’s razor would remove God. With the removing of God we could find an imposter pretending to be an eternal being when in reality it’s a longevity built computerized machine or in other words advanced alien technology.

But my point is that it still comes a distant second to it all being man-made - as far as rationality goes - primarily because we have no (other) evidence for alien life.
As soon as we do then what is deemed (more) rational will of course change - as it often does when new information comes to light that goes against what is currently held as most rational.

Yes, your point is acceptable. However, we still have people claiming God is real. And the longer people persist in making that claim then the more likely there is something to it. In reailty, if God is real then the more likely source causing a continuation of a belief that God is real would be advanced alien technology. I can't rule it out.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes, your point is acceptable. However, we still have people claiming God is real. And the longer people persist in making that claim then the more likely there is something to it.

Not true... people can claim things all they like but their persistence does not make it any more likely. To think so is a logical fallacy - argument from consensus, or some such.

 

[earth]

Not true... people can claim things all they like but their persistence does not make it any more likely. To think so is a logical fallacy - argument from consensus, or some such.

That approach is like saying ETI's weren't here at earth yesterday so no since looking today. The conclusion ETI's aren't coming or couldn't be here because they weren't recognized yesterday is the fallacy. If the thinking of some scientists are correct then advanced alien technology is on its way if it isn't here now. I know there are people who think only they can make a determination as to whether God is real or not. No one else making that determination would be acceptable to them.

As long as anyone is making the claim God exists then the possibility God could be advanced alien technology is real. Persistence in making the claim God is real doesn't diminish the possibility God could be advanced alien technology. To assume you know alien technology isn’t masquerading as God or hasn't arrived is an erroneous belief. You simply don't know one way or the other.

An older extraterrestrial civilization may have began the infestation of machines into this galaxy tens or hundreds of thousands of years ago making God an even more likely candidate to be advanced alien technology.

 

[Sarkus]

That approach is like saying ETI's weren't here at earth yesterday so no since looking today. The conclusion ETI's aren't coming or couldn't be here because they weren't recognized yesterday is the fallacy. If the thinking of some scientists are correct then advanced alien technology is on its way if it isn't here now.

What I said is nothing like that at all... I merely said that consensus does not make something true nor something any more likely.

Nor am I saying that ETIs aren't possibly on their way... they may be, they may not. But there is no evidence to even suggest that they exist.
You are the one making the claim of ETIs either already being here or at least being on their way... so the evidence is...?

As long as anyone is making the claim God exists then the possibility God could be advanced alien technology is real. Persistence in making the claim God is real doesn't diminish the possibility God could be advanced alien technology. To assume you know alien technology isn’t masquerading as God or hasn't arrived is an erroneous belief. You simply don't know one way or the other.

I am not laying claim to a belief in this regard. It remains a possibility. But until you provide evidence to support the claim that they are here, or are on their way - and I do mean evidence rather than supposition based on numerous unproven assumptions - then I see no grounds for considering it truth. As stated, the idea is more rational than a supernatural "God", but both fail Occam's razor compared to "God" being wholly man-made.

An extraterrestrial civilization may have began the infestation of machines into this galaxy tens of thousands of years ago making God an even more likely candidate to be advanced alien technology.

You use a lot of "if"s and "maybe"s to build your case.
Likewise... IF God is real and IF God is a supernatural being then it makes God existing as believed by countless religious folk all the more probable.

See how useless it makes the argument, when the condition is unproven - and worse - unprovable?

 

[earth]

What I said is nothing like that at all... I merely said that consensus does not make something true nor something any more likely.

There are over 5 billion people on this planet believing God is real. Plenty of them claiming to have had an experience where this "God" is involved. The major of people on earth are saying yes to God compared to a little over 1 billion saying no. The consensus this time is against you.

 

[earth]

Nor am I saying that ETIs aren't possibly on their way... they may be, they may not. But there is no evidence to even suggest that they exist.
You are the one making the claim of ETIs either already being here or at least being on their way... so the evidence is...?

Okay there isn't any evidence and that has been acknowlegded time and again until the cows come home. What's next is the question? Do we block out any possibilties until some scientist says now we have evidence or conclusive proof?

The argument made since there isn't any evidence so forget about it doesn't satisify the 5 billion people thinking about it.

 

[spidergoat]

Argument from popularity? Lame. Billions of people can believe something wrong, especially when there is no reliable evidence to do so. Two hundred or so years ago, most people believed in witchcraft (and still do in many parts of the world). That doesn't make it true.

 

[earth]

You use a lot of "if"s and "maybe"s to build your case.
Likewise... IF God is real and IF God is a supernatural being then it makes God existing as believed by countless religious folk all the more probable.

See how useless it makes the argument, when the condition is unproven - and worse - unprovable?

The "if" word is acceptable when lacking evidence. I can tell you God is a alien machine for sure, absoultly, no doubt but you would say no way because I can't prove it. Its a circle going nowhere and I've been there before.

 

[earth]

Argument from popularity? Lame. Billions of people can believe something wrong, especially when there is no reliable evidence to do so. Two hundred or so years ago, most people believed in witchcraft (and still do in many parts of the world). That doesn't make it true.

Careful one of them may cast a spell on you. Haha

Argument from popularity doesn't make it wrong either and lame its not.

 

[spidergoat]

So it doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't make it right. That makes it irrelevent. Atheists are also the third largest "belief system", and rapidly growing. Also, there may be a billion more, depending on how you count the Chinese.

 

[earth]

So it doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't make it right. That makes it irrelevent. Atheists are also the third largest "belief system", and rapidly growing. Also, there may be a billion more, depending on how you count the Chinese.

It can't be irrelevent when it affects so many different aspects of so many lives.

 

[spidergoat]

Irrelevent to the argument of it's truth. People like to believe all sorts of stupid things in the absence of evidence. A long time ago, people sacrificed children to their Gods.

 

[earth]

Irrelevent to the argument of it's truth. People like to believe all sorts of stupid things in the absence of evidence. A long time ago, people sacrificed children to their Gods.

Yes they did make sacrifices and that is because people are worshiping a damn machine, it doesn't have a conscience and didn't say no.