On Tuesday, September 25, 2018 at 2:01:11 PM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter wrote:

On Mon, 24 Sep 2018 07:26:36 -0700 (PDT), Gary Harnagel
wrote:

On Sunday, September 23, 2018 at 8:43:48 AM UTC-6, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

Exactly what do you mean with "the universe billions of years older
than our universe"?

The antecedent to "ours" is "civilization" not "universe."

And how do you know that intelligent civilisation will not
self-destruct within a few millennia or so?

Out of MILLIONS of civilizations, all that's needed is ONE to survive.

I object to your conclusion "almost certainly" when there are no
known positive cases.

Reject all you want, but that's just your biases and prejudices
speaking. Anyone with a grasp of probability theory and no
preconceived notions would disagree with you.

No, they would disagree with you.

I have a grasp of probability theory and I disagree with YOU.

You do need a sufficient base of actual data to be able to say anything
about the probability, otherwise you are just guessing.

We have actual data on one civilization. YOU are just guessing about its
longevity, but that's irrelevant because an example of one AND proof that
almost every star has planets (via Kepler), it is a VERY good "guess"
that life has developed elsewhere.

You are the one who is biased here, not me,

:-))

since I have not claimed any probability figure about that.

THAT is YOUR bias speaking.

We just know too little to be able to do that reliably.

Just the sheer numbers of planets in the universe shred that assertion.

You should read Aristotle's writings about nature as an example
of how erroneous conclusions a brain that THINKS can produce in the
absence of evidence. Such thinking is mostly wishful thinking.

Aristotle didn't have probability theory to guide him.

That didn't prevent him to declare erroneous claims as facts.

Non sequitur.

All these are supernatural deities with supposedly supernatural
powers...


Nope. You failed to copy the scriptural evidence I listed to promote
your preconceived notions.

"the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh" -- Numbers 27:16

"By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison"
-- 1 Peter 3:19

The next line I didn't list explains that the spirits referred to
were disobedient in the time of Noah. From this it is clear that
after death they became disembodied spirits who weren't "deities"
since they had to be preached to.

And YOU have a particular definition of "supernatural" that
apparently means "anything that physics hasn't encountered/detected."
I reject that definition :-)

Nope! Something supernatural is something which contradicts physics.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/supernatural

"departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to
transcend the laws of nature"

And as for the "laws of nature,":

"We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we
understand the laws only dimly." -- Albert Einstein

There's a LOT of evidence that our own spirits exist, but it's mostly
anecdotal (I say MOSTLY but not ALL).

Anecdotal "evidence" is not real evidence.

It's not SCIENTIFIC evidence, but it IS REAL. And I said "MOSTLY," not
completely.

But if evidence for the existence of spirits exists, why isn't it a
field of scientific study?

The scientific method requires that a phenomenon be repeatable by any
competent researcher. It also requires the ability to change the inputs.

The most scientific evidence for spirits was obtained by Dr. Duncan
MacDougall. People in power prevented further investigation because
it was considered "ghoulish." Such experiments (making measurements
on patients as death approaches) can't be repeated today because
medical intervention procedures are highly advanced and would interfere
should such an attempt be made.

And why isn't theology an exact science like physics? Why
aren't our most powerful computers running simulations of God?

There, now you have some things to think about...

I thought. You got nuttin'! We don't know enough about how life started
to do believable simulations. We don't even know if it started here.