Current Events > Why are scientists with belief in aliens OK but not a belief in a divine being?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Dragonblade01 posted...

The more specific a god is, the more likely it is to be falsifiable, perhaps. But general god claims aren't any more believable, because they're still fundamentally unbelievable. The claim that something exists needs to be properly demonstrated before it's reasonable to believe. No matter how general you make the god claim, it doesn't increase how likely it is to exist, because there's still no demonstration that it exists or even a reason to believe that such a thing could exist.

And indeed, that's why god can only safely exist in the unknown and unknowable. Things only become likely or unlikely to exist when we have knowledge to make that assessment. Otherwise, we're speculating out of our depth and the question of something being "likely or unlikely" stops being beholden to any facts and reason.

Things that happened before the universe started, before time started (which is stupid to even say), and in the primordial moments of reality are unknown and likely unknowable. We look a reality through the laws of the universe, but now we're talking about a moment when those laws weren't written yet, so in that space, god can exist without much impunity.

Dragonblade01 posted...

But that doesn't actually get us anywhere, because in doing so you've chosen to give up the significance of the word in favor of keeping the label.

The significance of the word is subjective and ultimately, unimportant to the argument. And "getting anywhere" isn't the point either. What we're discussing is whether some gods are more likely to exist than others. Since we have a lack of knowledge of this primordial time (disallowing us from proving the god "unlikely"), and we attribute few specific claims attributed to the deistic deity, the "prime mover" god is the most believable.
---

There isn't enough room in the universe to fit all the things that we could imagine exist.

Why should we assume any of them do?

josifrees posted...

Scientists arent taught to think for themselves they are taught to follow a method and ignore data or dubious sources to create sensationalism so they get into science journals and get more funding

You're confusing scientists for pop-science journalists who are the ones doing the extrapolating.

_Near_ posted...

And indeed, that's why god can only safely exist in the unknown and unknowable. Things only become likely or unlikely to exist when we have knowledge to make that assessment. Otherwise, we're speculating out of our depth and the question of something being "likely or unlikely" stops being beholden to any facts and reason.

Things that happened before the universe started, before time started (which is stupid to even say), and in the primordial moments of reality are unknown and likely unknowable. We look a reality through the laws of the universe, but now we're talking about a moment when those laws weren't written yet, so in that space, god can exist without much impunity.

And that would equally apply to "probability." The question of whether something is probable or not would completely break down.

_Near_ posted...

The significance of the word is subjective and ultimately, unimportant to the argument. And "getting anywhere" isn't the point either. What we're discussing is whether some gods are more likely to exist than others. Since we have a lack of knowledge of this primordial time (disallowing us from proving the god "unlikely"), and we attribute few specific claims attributed to the deistic deity, the "prime mover" god is the most believable.

Well, if you're argument is that you could define god in a way that it would be likely to exist, then sure. I mean, you could define god in a way that would make it absolutely exist. But, again, that doesn't actually do us any good.

emblem boy posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

CyricZ posted...

I'm not against the idea of a greater being. But you hand me those ones that you came up with so far and I'm like "nah do better".

I'm not exactly that religious but I've been studying up on evolution and how life began and honestly, the way it works is kinda just as ludicrous as how some perceive religion to be.

But if you were to ignore religion and all its teachings however and focus solely on the possibility of a divine existence, then it sounds more plausible, doesn't it? No religion, just the existence of a divine being.

What about evolution do you find not plausible?

Evolution isn't perfect. The Cambrian explosion for example, still remains unexplained by scientists. There's lots of things in the history of life still unsolved.

Mackorov posted...

emblem boy posted...

Wutobliteration posted...

CyricZ posted...

I'm not against the idea of a greater being. But you hand me those ones that you came up with so far and I'm like "nah do better".

I'm not exactly that religious but I've been studying up on evolution and how life began and honestly, the way it works is kinda just as ludicrous as how some perceive religion to be.

But if you were to ignore religion and all its teachings however and focus solely on the possibility of a divine existence, then it sounds more plausible, doesn't it? No religion, just the existence of a divine being.

What about evolution do you find not plausible?

Evolution isn't perfect. The Cambrian explosion for example, still remains unexplained by scientists. There's lots of things in the history of life still unsolved.

Elaborate on that.

i edited my post. I just read up on this
http://www.untamedscience.com/biology/evolution/the-cambrian-explosion/

evolution is about joining fossil records of different species together, then seeing how they're linked. But that's not to say they ARE definitely linked indeed and we all descended all the way from beginning to end.
Then again, evolution is slow and gradual. So we can never actually witness it.

The explosion highlighted in how this 'gradual' process didn't fit in.

The Cambrian explosion does not at all seem like a mystery to me because we observe this kind of rapid evolution in all sorts of other areas. Look at manufacturing and technology. Personal transportation had gone from the horse and carriage (replace horse with any other best of burden, replace carriage for any other pullcart) used for centuries til the sudden technological explosion of the industrial revolution that produced the automobile, which has now been around for more than a hundred years but has remained fundamentally unchanged. Guns are an even better example, having reached their plateau and receiving even fewer changes since.

What a shitbucket of a topic.
---

We shouldn't firmly believe anything without evidence, but aliens would be provable. Gods are not.
---

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

A good rule of thumb is look at things that scientists refuse to study or declare isnt their job when looking for the truth.
---

Cuz one is plausible and the other isnt
---

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

A good rule of thumb is look at things that scientists refuse to study or declare isnt their job when looking for the truth.

Maybe the absolute truth doesn't exist.
---

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

This is bad trolling.
---

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

A good rule of thumb is look at things that scientists refuse to study or declare isnt their job when looking for the truth.

Falsifiable doesn't mean something must be false. It's essentially a statement of whether something can be tested.

What's your day job
---

COVxy posted...

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

This is bad trolling.

Yup Karl Popper is a troll
---

josifrees posted...

COVxy posted...

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

This is bad trolling.

Yup Karl Popper is a troll

Nope, but you are.
---

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

A good rule of thumb is look at things that scientists refuse to study or declare isnt their job when looking for the truth.

Since fucking when and according to who?

like others said, God defies our understanding of science. all aliens are, is life that evolved on a different planet. the only thing it requires is belief that there are other planets out there similar to Earth. and we actually are starting to find ones like that maybe. we can't prove yet they are literally like earth but they are the size of earth which is a good start.

RoboLaserGandhi posted...

josifrees posted...

Another important thing to remember is that the science and the scientific method only applies to things that can be proven false. The truth by its very being cannot be proven false. Scientific theories by their very nature cannot be absolutely true.

A good rule of thumb is look at things that scientists refuse to study or declare isnt their job when looking for the truth.

Since fucking when and according to who?

20th century Karl Popper
---

This whole topic is a big strawman. Hardly anyone ever says you can't be both a theist and a good scientist.

What people have a problem with is when you try to change science based on your religious beliefs. Or you try to push them as science. Like people who say creationism should be taught in science class. That's bullshit because it has no scientific basis. There is no body of work showing how natural history and biology work from a creationist perspective. All they ever do is take existing science, and then try to pick apart and discredit anything that goes against their creationist beliefs.

Creationism--especially old earth creationism--is incompatible with science because it is based on disbelieving and discrediting established science. That doesn't mean you can't be both religious and a scientist. The universe goes well beyond what we can understand, and if you see those things in religious or spiritual terms, there's not necessarily anything wrong with that.

It's only when you refuse to believe what is verifiable and testable based on those beliefs that it interferes with you being a good scientist.
---