On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 11:17:42 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

On Friday, October 19, 2018 at 7:31:39 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 9:00:10 PM UTC-6, palsing wrote:

This makes sense to you? I don't think that religion can be argued
logically and objectively.

That's just your belief.

Of coure it is... just like it is your opinion that religion os logical,
without a shred of evidence...

Just like your opinion that there is no God without a shred of evidence.

How can it, with zero evidence to present?

There is NOT zero evidence.

Not from where I'm sitting, no... and don't bring up that guy who died
and got lighter because his soul fled his body a very long time ago,
that is a non-starter.

You must be thinking of the experiments performed by Dr. Duncan MacDougall.
If so, you have it completely wrong. There were FOUR cases, not one,
where patients at a hospital died and lost sudden weight upon death. A
statistical analysis of his data showed that the probability of something
leaving the body with mass greater than zero upon death was 0.999. Of
course, particle physics requires five nines probability for "certainty"
but three nines should be enough to cause any honest person not to deny
it out of hand.

Your problem is that you *want* to believe so much that it corrupts your
thinking processes.

Your problem is that you WANT to disbelieve it so much that it corrupts
YOUR thinking process so much that you will deny physical evidence.

Of course, that is just my opinion, no question about that!

“All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust,
sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.”
-- Douglas Adams

“People with opinions just go around bothering each other.” -- Buddha

“Opinion is really the lowest form of human knowledge. It requires
no accountability, no understanding.” – Bill Bullard

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever
that it is not utterly absurd.” -- Bertrand Russell

I think that there is an alternative explanation for your experience.

You make an absurd claim without even knowing what my experience was.
Not very open-minded, are you.

Well, I like to think that I'm open-minded, and it is true that I don't
know what you own experience was, but did I read where you called it
'telepathy', and I have a problem with that concept. Perhaps you should
reconsider that particular label...

Well, I suppose it could have been precognition, or maybe I had an out of
body experience and learned of something that was impossible to see from
the perspective of my body. Do you like those explanations any better?

From Wiki...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy

"There is no convincing evidence that telepathy exists, and the topic is
generally considered by the scientific community to be pseudoscience."

I'll side with the scientific community rather than certain
psychologists.

Once you experience it, all the contrary assertions are meaningless.
This is an example of a non-repeatable phenomenon that lies outside of
"scientific" investigation because it is NOT repeatable on command.
Scientists disclaimed rocks falling from the sky, too.

Yes, they did, but subsequent observations soon led them to the proper
conclusion, correct? Do you have subsequent observations to offer? Maybe
someday you will have them, who knows?

I don't need any subsequent experience. YOU are the one that needs THAT :-)

An early civilization that is statistically probable.

Which early civilization would that be, Gary? Perhaps I've missed
something along the way...

You certainly have. Some people only accept what is only when they have
their noses rubbed in them. Others are more open-minded.

But you didn't answer the question. What civilization are you talking
about?

A statistical one, of course.

“we think everything in this universe has to conform to our paradigm
of what makes sense. Do you have any idea how arrogant that view
is and on how little of this universe we base it?” ― Robert Buettner

Nice quote from a military science fiction author, but how is it
relevant?

It means arrogant people have to have their noses rubbed in truth
before they will accept it.

But you yourself are not arrogant and accepted the whole god-thing without
having your nose rubbed in it? By what wonderous method did you accomplish
this? Were you just born with it, or perhaps you learned it in school? Your parents convinced/taught you of these truths? I'll bet it didn't just pop
into your head one day and take up permanent residence there. Someone else
was certainly helping you along this path... was it Joel Osteen? Billy
Graham? Jerry Falwell? Al Sharpton?

You forgot Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart :-)

True, I grew up in a rural community so there was lots of religion around.
I went to summer Bible school one year but don't remember much except another
boy and I twisted the words of one of the songs being sung. And recess, of
course.

Again, you seem to think the messenger is more important than the
message. I don't.

I think the messenger had a great deal to do with you believing in a god,
yes I do.

You mean like the Jehovah's Witness that came around one day? :-)

He WAS a human being, and a vary smart one, too. Being a "scientist"
isn't necessarily a virtue.

Of course, but it sure doesn't hurt, either, and most of the time it is a
distinct advantage.

I know many scientists who believe in God. You seem to value only opinions
that agree with yours.

“I never learned from a man that agreed with me.” – Robert A. Heinlein

And the universe teaches us that WE are Johnny-come-lately on the scene..
It is QUITE probable that other civilizations have been around for
billions of years and are god-like.

I agree entirely with this statement except for the last 4 words, which I
find to be completely off-the-wall and I reject whole-heartedly.

And without a shred of evidence, too :-)

Even so, god-like is far, far from being a god of any kind.

In your opinion, which is based upon your predetermined belief about the
attributes a nonexistent god must have.

Dark ages or not, the math says the odds of any civilization traveling
across the galaxy, even from alpha Centauri, are vanishingly small.

Odds based upon a predetermined belief that present technology is close
to the best of all possible worlds.

If you are going to claim that we don't know what we don't know about the
possibilities of interstellar travel, well, I would agree, but unless and
until there are very large leaps and bounds in the physics of all of this,
I gotta go with what we know *now*.

Boy, I sure called it! ;-))

To claim otherwise is just wild speculation, and any chattering about it
will dead-end without any logical conclusion/resolution. No one alive
today knows, that's for sure.

There are LOTS of hints in theoretical physics even today. I've mentioned
Alcubierre and Natario metrics before. I use them only for arguments sake,
but I think "warping of spacetime" may be allowed in general relativity
but probably isn't possible in reality. There are hints in other directions,
though. Have you considered Alice matter, also called shadow matter or
mirror matter?

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0207175

And then there's M-theory:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239

“Probability is orderly opinion and inference from data is nothing other
than the revision of such opinion in the light of relevant new
information.”
― Eliezer S. Yudkowsky

And we have lots of data about other worlds now that puts one of the
factors in the Drake equation virtually to unity. Shapley thought this
number was one in a million, yet he concluded there were 100 million
worlds where life existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#History

The Drake equation has fascinated me since I first learned of it while in
high school in 1962 or so. It will always result in a positive number
unless one of its variables can be proven to be zero. Here's the equation
and the definitions of each variable.

N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L

N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy whose
electromagnetic emissions are detectable.

The Drake equation is aimed at detecting EM radiation, which it is assumed
will only be evident for a small span of a civilizations existence.

R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of
intelligent life.

fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.

ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable
for life.

Although a small number of stars have more than one planet in the habitable
zone, most stars have a single planet there, but it's a monster.

fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.

fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.

fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases
detectable signs of their existence into space.

L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into
space.

Which is only of interest to SETI folk.

As far as I can surmise, knowing what we know *today*, it is highly unlikely
that *any* variable can be set to have a zero value. Even if you gave each
variable a probability of, say 0.05%, the answer "N" would be a huge
number... and we already know, as you have pointed out, at least one of
these variables is going to be nearly 1! Frank Drake's equation will never
have an answer of zero... IMHO.

But why haven't we detected them? I think L is very,very, very small.