Why do so many atheist scientists believe in aliens when there's no proof for them either?

[Montrovant]

Furthermore, absence of evidence (particularly in this case, in which an exhaustive examination of the evidence has not even been attempted) is not evidence of absence.

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. That describes you to a T ha ha.

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy?

 

[james bond]

Furthermore, absence of evidence (particularly in this case, in which an exhaustive examination of the evidence has not even been attempted) is not evidence of absence.

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. That describes you to a T ha ha.

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy?

You chimed in just at the right time. It's a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

 

[Montrovant]

Furthermore, absence of evidence (particularly in this case, in which an exhaustive examination of the evidence has not even been attempted) is not evidence of absence.

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. That describes you to a T ha ha.

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy?

You chimed in just at the right time. It's a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

It might be if FFI were arguing that something is true or is not true based on a lack of evidence. Instead, he seems to be asserting that there is not enough evidence to make a determination, which is not an argument from ignorance fallacy.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
if there were a contiguous atmosphere throughout the universe it would only be a matter of time before space travel would bring distinct life forms together no different than Columbus meeting the native Americans. as without it space travel may never become a reality.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere ...

you do realize we would be able to colonize all the planets in our solar system with open air spaceports to progress further into space with open air spaceports beyond land masses between solar systems.


I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds ...

speed is only an issue if you haven't the capability of intervening ports of entry allowed by a contiguous atmosphere to progressively expand the civilized boundary ever further into the unknown.

"It is probably fair to say that most sailing ships in the 19th and early 20th centuries averaged between 5 – 8 knots on average depending on the size of the ship, the route and the weather."

1 knot = 1.15 mps

lets be real, if you were contained inside the great ship bringing your own atmosphere how many would have made the journey traveling at an average speed of 8 mph. but at that speed in an open atmosphere did not present the least impediment.

the non contiguous atmospher without a doubt is the singlemost obstacle to traveling from our native planet. - a flaw geneses does not address.

I understand the comparison to sea travel, but it doesn't really work. Space is incredibly vast. For example, the Milky Way is estimated to be about 100,000 light years across. The Voyager probe would take 1,700,000,000 years to travel that distance at the speed it is going. That's almost 2 billion years just to go from one side of the galaxy to the other. The Cosmic Distance Scale

Further, unless we come across planets with life, and life that is compatible with humanity, all food would have to be brought with whoever did the traveling. You talk about colonizing, but what would that entail? Terraforming? Domed, self-enclosed settlements? Bringing along enough soil for growth within any settlement? When sailing across unknown waters, people could at least hope that they'd eventually reach land with drinkable water, edible plants and animals. Any attempt at interstellar exploration could not expect that.

What I was really talking about with atmosphere slowing things down, though, was friction. Traveling through air causes friction, which will limit the speeds one can go at. It takes more force to move something through the friction of air, and it leads to heat on the vehicle. Once something gets into space, that is not an issue; there is almost no friction in space. Trying to travel through space if it contained an atmosphere like Earth would require untenable amounts of fuel.

.
sure, I agree w/ most of what you have included -

Further, unless we come across planets with life, and life that is compatible with humanity, all food would have to be brought with whoever did the traveling.

were there a contiguous atmosphere the pre-colonized spaceports would already be supplying the necessary supplies including food ...

Terraforming? Domed, self-enclosed settlements? Bringing along enough soil for growth within any settlement?

why domed, self enclosed - that's the point a contiguous atmosphere would allow settlement without any artificial superstructure. the soil would be the same as Earths with c/a.

people could at least hope that they'd eventually reach land with drinkable water, edible plants and animals. Any attempt at interstellar exploration could not expect that.

if there were c/a creatures would be plentiful throughout the universe - that avoided radiation etc. that evolution proves standard fare. water already is found in polar regions etc in our solar system -

Trying to travel through space if it contained an atmosphere like Earth would require untenable amounts of fuel.

not necessarily so - even with c/a there is no up or down and the friction could be overcome by adequate insular materials ...


contiguous atmosphere does not exist so my argument is mute but if it did not only would we be on our way but so would the birds flying to the moon develop their own self contained abilities to explore the universe, everything would be different and plausible - as it is nothing can enter space without dying that lives on Earth. religion has a problem explaining that.

 

[Montrovant]

.
if there were a contiguous atmosphere throughout the universe it would only be a matter of time before space travel would bring distinct life forms together no different than Columbus meeting the native Americans. as without it space travel may never become a reality.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

.

I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere. In fact, if the universe had an Earth-like atmosphere, in some ways it would make interstellar travel more difficult.

required speeds is a much greater hindrance than the lack of atmosphere ...

you do realize we would be able to colonize all the planets in our solar system with open air spaceports to progress further into space with open air spaceports beyond land masses between solar systems.


I think the difficulty in traveling at the required speeds ...

speed is only an issue if you haven't the capability of intervening ports of entry allowed by a contiguous atmosphere to progressively expand the civilized boundary ever further into the unknown.

"It is probably fair to say that most sailing ships in the 19th and early 20th centuries averaged between 5 – 8 knots on average depending on the size of the ship, the route and the weather."

1 knot = 1.15 mps

lets be real, if you were contained inside the great ship bringing your own atmosphere how many would have made the journey traveling at an average speed of 8 mph. but at that speed in an open atmosphere did not present the least impediment.

the non contiguous atmospher without a doubt is the singlemost obstacle to traveling from our native planet. - a flaw geneses does not address.

I understand the comparison to sea travel, but it doesn't really work. Space is incredibly vast. For example, the Milky Way is estimated to be about 100,000 light years across. The Voyager probe would take 1,700,000,000 years to travel that distance at the speed it is going. That's almost 2 billion years just to go from one side of the galaxy to the other. The Cosmic Distance Scale

Further, unless we come across planets with life, and life that is compatible with humanity, all food would have to be brought with whoever did the traveling. You talk about colonizing, but what would that entail? Terraforming? Domed, self-enclosed settlements? Bringing along enough soil for growth within any settlement? When sailing across unknown waters, people could at least hope that they'd eventually reach land with drinkable water, edible plants and animals. Any attempt at interstellar exploration could not expect that.

What I was really talking about with atmosphere slowing things down, though, was friction. Traveling through air causes friction, which will limit the speeds one can go at. It takes more force to move something through the friction of air, and it leads to heat on the vehicle. Once something gets into space, that is not an issue; there is almost no friction in space. Trying to travel through space if it contained an atmosphere like Earth would require untenable amounts of fuel.

.
sure, I agree w/ most of what you have included -

Further, unless we come across planets with life, and life that is compatible with humanity, all food would have to be brought with whoever did the traveling.

were there a contiguous atmosphere the pre-colonized spaceports would already be supplying the necessary supplies including food ...

Terraforming? Domed, self-enclosed settlements? Bringing along enough soil for growth within any settlement?

why domed, self enclosed - that's the point a contiguous atmosphere would allow settlement without any artificial superstructure. the soil would be the same as Earths with c/a.

people could at least hope that they'd eventually reach land with drinkable water, edible plants and animals. Any attempt at interstellar exploration could not expect that.

if there were c/a creatures would be plentiful throughout the universe - that avoided radiation etc. that evolution proves standard fare. water already is found in polar regions etc in our solar system -

Trying to travel through space if it contained an atmosphere like Earth would require untenable amounts of fuel.

not necessarily so - even with c/a there is no up or down and the friction could be overcome by adequate insular materials ...


contiguous atmosphere does not exist so my argument is mute but if it did not only would we be on our way but so would the birds flying to the moon develop their own self contained abilities to explore the universe, everything would be different and plausible - as it is nothing can enter space without dying that lives on Earth. religion has a problem explaining that.

Yeah, I was forgetting things with the domes comment; although, to be fair, just because there is atmosphere doesn't mean the environment is safe for humanity.

Atmosphere doesn't mean soil that plants can grow in.

Birds flying to the moon? I think that you are misunderstanding the distances involved. The moon is between about 225,000 and 250,000 miles away, depending on the point it is at in orbit. How exactly would birds fly to the moon, even with atmosphere? There's no food or water (or places to stop and rest) in between. That doesn't even take getting away from Earth's gravitational pull into account.

Again, outer space, even if it could somehow all contain atmosphere, is a lot of space. The distances involved just within the solar system are huge, and they are less than a drop in the bucket compared to the galaxy, or the universe. Being able to breath, or not freeze to death (assuming the hypothetical atmosphere in space somehow prevented temperatures from dropping too low despite increasing distance from stars), might help in some situations, but I don't think it's really a big part of what keeps us from interstellar travel. As I pointed out, atmosphere would also mean friction, which would make travel far more energy intensive: in space, a vehicle doesn't need constant acceleration to maintain its speed.

The distances involved are the biggest limiting factor in interstellar travel for now. Perhaps, if humanity devises a way to travel at faster than light speeds, the hostile environment of space will end up more of a limiting factor.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I didn't say a word about what the scientists in the article said

Of course you did. you said that used The Atheist argument, whatever the hell that meant. And you were wrong.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

the fine-tuning facts.

This is utter fallacy. we are discussing finding life exactly like ours, we are discussing life at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Many secular scientists "believe" in panspermia.

Lie.

 

[james bond]

Furthermore, absence of evidence (particularly in this case, in which an exhaustive examination of the evidence has not even been attempted) is not evidence of absence.

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. That describes you to a T ha ha.

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy?

You chimed in just at the right time. It's a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

It might be if FFI were arguing that something is true or is not true based on a lack of evidence. Instead, he seems to be asserting that there is not enough evidence to make a determination, which is not an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Then he should have said something like absence of evidence IS evidence of absence which makes the no aliens case much stronger, especially if we're talking 13.7 billion years of no evidence. Same argument for multiverses. The one case where it may pan out is with multidimensions. However, we do have evidence of three dimensions and gravity.

 

[Montrovant]

Furthermore, absence of evidence (particularly in this case, in which an exhaustive examination of the evidence has not even been attempted) is not evidence of absence.

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. That describes you to a T ha ha.

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy?

You chimed in just at the right time. It's a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

It might be if FFI were arguing that something is true or is not true based on a lack of evidence. Instead, he seems to be asserting that there is not enough evidence to make a determination, which is not an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Then he should have said something like absence of evidence IS evidence of absence which makes the no aliens case much stronger, especially if we're talking 13.7 billion years of no evidence. Same argument for multiverses. The one case where it may pan out is with multidimensions. However, we do have evidence of three dimensions and gravity.

What? I just said that arguing a thing is true or not true based on lack of evidence is where the logical fallacy occurs. Are you saying he should use an argument from ignorance?

 

[james bond]

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. That describes you to a T ha ha.

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy?

You chimed in just at the right time. It's a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

It might be if FFI were arguing that something is true or is not true based on a lack of evidence. Instead, he seems to be asserting that there is not enough evidence to make a determination, which is not an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Then he should have said something like absence of evidence IS evidence of absence which makes the no aliens case much stronger, especially if we're talking 13.7 billion years of no evidence. Same argument for multiverses. The one case where it may pan out is with multidimensions. However, we do have evidence of three dimensions and gravity.

What? I just said that arguing a thing is true or not true based on lack of evidence is where the logical fallacy occurs. Are you saying he should use an argument from ignorance?

First, you should not use any argument from Fort Fun Indiana because it would be wrong and colossally stupid.

Back to the statement "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence," that is a valid logical statement. It doesn't follow that it leads to a true conclusion, but that it follows logic and can be used as a logical statement in a logical argument.

 

[Montrovant]

"Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence" is a logical fallacy?

You chimed in just at the right time. It's a logical fallacy of argument from ignorance.

It might be if FFI were arguing that something is true or is not true based on a lack of evidence. Instead, he seems to be asserting that there is not enough evidence to make a determination, which is not an argument from ignorance fallacy.

Then he should have said something like absence of evidence IS evidence of absence which makes the no aliens case much stronger, especially if we're talking 13.7 billion years of no evidence. Same argument for multiverses. The one case where it may pan out is with multidimensions. However, we do have evidence of three dimensions and gravity.

What? I just said that arguing a thing is true or not true based on lack of evidence is where the logical fallacy occurs. Are you saying he should use an argument from ignorance?

First, you should not use any argument from Fort Fun Indiana because it would be wrong and colossally stupid.

Back to the statement "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence," that is a valid logical statement. It doesn't follow that it leads to a true conclusion, but that it follows logic and can be used as a logical statement in a logical argument.

Are you saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is an illogical statement?

 

[deanrd]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

Isn't God an alien? Is that what you are saying? There is no God?

 

[deanrd]

I thought God himself was proof of Aliens.

 

[james bond]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

Isn't God an alien? Is that what you are saying? There is no God?

No. Atheists are usually wrong. God created humans with traits like himself.

 

[GreenBean]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

It's not so much a matter of proof as it is a matter of plausibility. From a sterile unemotional philosophical point of view there is much more evidence for the proof of intelligent alien life than there is proof for the existance of the Classical Judeo Christian Jehova.

So far as "If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us." What !? .... you never heard of the prime directive, and do you understand the comncept behind it ... non interferance ??? As well who's to say they haven't contacted us at various points in our history ?

 

[GreenBean]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

Isn't God an alien? Is that what you are saying? There is no God?

No. Atheists are usually wrong. God created humans with traits like himself.

My once and future self tends to agree .... however ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

 

[Montrovant]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

Isn't God an alien? Is that what you are saying? There is no God?

No. Atheists are usually wrong. God created humans with traits like himself.

Atheists are usually wrong about what?

 

[deanrd]

It's a question that intrigues me, the fact that atheist scientists say there's no proof of God, but then declare to the world that there MUST be millions of alien civilizations in our universe.

There is, in fact, more proof of God than there are of aliens.

Because there's NO PROOF of aliens.

NONE.

NADA.

While the proof of God is that there is a Bible that somehow came to be, and archaelogists have found many places identified in the Bible, like the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Herod's Temple, Peter's tomb, etc.

If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us.

Isn't God an alien? Is that what you are saying? There is no God?

No. Atheists are usually wrong. God created humans with traits like himself.

But he wasn't born on this planet.

That makes him an alien.

 

[james bond]

It's not so much a matter of proof as it is a matter of plausibility. From a sterile unemotional philosophical point of view there is much more evidence for the proof of intelligent alien life than there is proof for the existance of the Classical Judeo Christian Jehova.

So far as "If aliens lived ANYWHERE we would know it by now because they would have contacted us." What !? .... you never heard of the prime directive, and do you understand the comncept behind it ... non interferance ??? As well who's to say they haven't contacted us at various points in our history ?

https://bestmovieshots.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/gollumring.gif?w=1100

I laughed heartily. You're just looking at things through your precious missing what's waiting below.