I must have missed the part where Cali said that extraterrestial life does or does not exist.

Cali- what is your position on the existence of extraterrestrial life?

ispoketoanangel wrote:So far, no poster has attempted to defend the following claim made by "Cali":

If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present.

So if there's no substantive evidence, the default position is to assume it doesn't exist? Really, Cali, really?

Well, that's the way we approach every other question, so Cali is only demonstrating that there is no reason to treat the question of the existence of God any differently.

Another error you are making is in confusing "assuming something doesn't exist" with "concluding something does not exist." In your own example of ET life, every rational person acts on the assumption that it does not exist. Unless you can point to a single concrete action or decision you have taken that was based on the assumption that ET life could exist. I'm willing to bet that you carry thru your life without ever thinking "Wait a minute. If extraterrestrial life exists, then I should probably not do this, or maybe I should do it differently." That is what is meant by holding non-existence as the default position.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:God (!), isn't it hilarous that people, while arguing with me, are actually debunking "Cali" claim! Thanks chairman bill!

No they're not doing any such thing. What you're doing here is crowbarring apart slight differences in emphasis in order to pretend that some of the posters support your argument, when they do not.

Care to elaborate?

Didn't he clearly say:

Well, the rational thing is to consider the question 'is there ET life?' as yet to be answered.

Yes he did, and you have already been given the answer that there is robust and objective evidence that life could exist (we have the example of our own planet and the vast number of possible other environments) but very weak evidence that it does. Hence, in this particular case, keeping an open mind is the right thing to do. Cali's formulation applies only to the claim that life does exist, not that it could.

That is essentially my point since the beginning. The default position is not always to regard it as not existing, sometimes the default position is to stay agnostic until we get more evidence. Cali argument is that we should regard entities X as not existing until we get substantive evidence. I don't think that is rational at all.

The case for which you're pleading is one for which no objective evidence exists at all, for which the subjective evidence (religious faith and testimonials) is hugely contradicted by every other faith claim, and for which we have a more parsimonious explanation. So, in this case, Cali's formulation applies exactly.

lobawad wrote:I must have missed the part where Cali said that extraterrestial life does or does not exist.

Cali- what is your position on the existence of extraterrestrial life?

Dude, this thread isn't actually about representing the views of other members correctly.

Can it be moved to Social and fun already?

Animavore wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:
No they're not doing any such thing. What you're doing here is crowbarring apart slight differences in emphasis in order to pretend that some of the posters support your argument, when they do not.

Care to elaborate?

Didn't he clearly say:

Well, the rational thing is to consider the question 'is there ET life?' as yet to be answered.

That is essentially my point since the beginning. The default position is not always to regard it as not existing, sometimes the default position is to stay agnostic until we get more evidence. Cali argument is that we should regard entities X as not existing until we get substantive evidence. I don't think that is rational at all.

So do you live your life as if ET is looking down on you fearful of a probing or do you live it as if he wasn't there (whether he is or not)?

I certainly do live assuming E.T. life might exist, or else I wouldn't support that we spend millions and millions trying to find E.T. life! Spending money trying to find E.T. life while regarding E.T. life as not existing would be irrational! But wait, that is what you are supposed to believe if you agree with Cali claim!

babel wrote:

Regina wrote:

babel wrote:
I hope you're not a theist then. In that case, you just lost a foot.

Not really.If telepathy is considered as a means to get knowledge and what is conveyed through it is regarded as proper evidence, then he can maintain his theist worldview.

I think the 'if' you start your second sentence with is quite important. Especially how telepathy is a substantive evidence for a god-figure. I could claim it's just the next step in evolution and my claim would be equally plausible.

Of course. What I meant to say is that his position is consistent with his theistic worldview, not that he actually has to a leg to stand on, if we stick to your metaphor.
If, however, telepathy were to become the next step in evolution, then things would have to be reconsidered. But then again, how would we know that a god communicates with us through telepathy?

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Animavore wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Care to elaborate?

Didn't he clearly say:

Well, the rational thing is to consider the question 'is there ET life?' as yet to be answered.

That is essentially my point since the beginning. The default position is not always to regard it as not existing, sometimes the default position is to stay agnostic until we get more evidence. Cali argument is that we should regard entities X as not existing until we get substantive evidence. I don't think that is rational at all.

So do you live your life as if ET is looking down on you fearful of a probing or do you live it as if he wasn't there (whether he is or not)?

I certainly do live assuming E.T. life might exist, or else I wouldn't support that we spend millions and millions trying to find E.T. life! Spending money trying to find E.T. life while regarding E.T. life as not existing would be irrational! But wait, that is what you are supposed to believe if you agree with Cali claim!

No it isn't, that's retarded. I keep trying to tell you that there is no requirement to accept either position. Your posts are getting stupider and stupider.

Shrunk wrote:Unless you can point to a single concrete action or decision you have taken that was based on the assumption that ET life could exist.

Of course. Tons of decisions have been made based the assumption that ET life could exist.

There is a distinction between could exist and does exist.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:God (!), isn't it hilarous that people, while arguing with me, are actually debunking "Cali" claim! Thanks chairman bill!

No they're not doing any such thing. What you're doing here is crowbarring apart slight differences in emphasis in order to pretend that some of the posters support your argument, when they do not.

Care to elaborate?

Didn't he clearly say:

Well, the rational thing is to consider the question 'is there ET life?' as yet to be answered.

What I said was,

Well, the rational thing is to consider the question 'is there ET life?' as yet to be answered. We might conclude that based on the evidence that life does exist in the universe, and given the vast numbers of potential planetary systems, with a vast sub-set being those with planets that are suitable for life, that it is reasonable to think that life might exist elsewhere. We might then search for evidence of it. Contrast this with claims of God(s), that have no evidential support whatsoever, with no explanation to account for their possible existence, and that so far, no one seems to have been able to explain what evidence might exist to indicate their existence.

Which absolutely does not support your position. Your deceitful quote-mining is noted.

lobawad wrote:There is a distinction between could exist and does exist.

Words.....such pesky little buggers!

ispoketoanangel wrote:
I certainly do live assuming E.T. life might exist, or else I wouldn't support that we spend millions and millions trying to find E.T. life! Spending money trying to find E.T. life while regarding E.T. life as not existing would be irrational! But wait, that is what you are supposed to believe if you agree with Cali claim!

This is comedic genius! Keep it coming Atheistsarevernim! I hope they never ban you!

Regina wrote:
Of course. What I meant to say is that his position is consistent with his theistic worldview, not that he actually has to a leg to stand on, if we stick to your metaphor.
If, however, telepathy were to become the next step in evolution, then things would have to be reconsidered. But then again, how would we know that a god communicates with us through telepathy?

You little devil's advocate, you.

I didn't quite catch what you meant the first time.

rJD wrote:
Yes he did, and you have already been given the answer that there is robust and objective evidence that life could exist (we have the example of our own planet and the vast number of possible other environments) but very weak evidence that it does. Hence, in this particular case, keeping an open mind is the right thing to do. Cali's formulation applies only to the claim that life does exist, not that it could.

LOL. Yes, Cali's formulation applies only to the claim that life does exist, not that it could.

So, Cali's formulation says that unless we have substantive evidence to support the existence of entity X (entity X being ET life in this example)' we should regard Entity X (ie, ET life) as not existing.

Animavore wrote:
So do you live your life as if ET is looking down on you fearful of a probing or do you live it as if he wasn't there (whether he is or not)?

And that's the crux of the matter, surely? If ET "believers" or UFOlogists insisted on writing laws based on their beliefs, wanted to make my children telepathically communicate with them before classes, insisted their organizations be tax exempt, tried to enforce whatever moral code they held to on everyone else, well then, I'd oppose them the same way I oppose organized religion. Otherwise I don't care what they believe.

If theists kept their beliefs to themselves there wouldn't be any argument.

Why, then, do you not wear a tin foil hat if you regard ET as existing and live your life as he does? Think of it like an ET Pascal's Wager. If you're right and ET does exist then you are protected from its mind-control rays. If you are wrong you've wasted a minute of your time but at least you got a snazzy hat.
If I'm wrong alien brainwashing and anal-probing are in store for me when they catch me.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:
I certainly do live assuming E.T. life might exist, or else I wouldn't support that we spend millions and millions trying to find E.T. life! Spending money trying to find E.T. life while regarding E.T. life as not existing would be irrational! But wait, that is what you are supposed to believe if you agree with Cali claim!

This is comedic genius! Keep it coming Atheistsarevernim! I hope they never ban you!

They did ban me for one year, honey. They were probably mad because I exposed Cali nonsense and they felt threatened.

OK, that was that. Now can we expect Part II any time soon?

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:
Yes he did, and you have already been given the answer that there is robust and objective evidence that life could exist (we have the example of our own planet and the vast number of possible other environments) but very weak evidence that it does. Hence, in this particular case, keeping an open mind is the right thing to do. Cali's formulation applies only to the claim that life does exist, not that it could.

LOL. Yes, Cali's formulation applies only to the claim that life does exist, not that it could.

So, Cali's formulation says that unless we have substantive evidence to support the existence of entity X (entity X being ET life in this example)' we should regard Entity X (ie, ET life) as not existing.

Any specified or claimed ET, yes. So we are perfectly right to dismiss claims from enthusiasts who tell us they've met little green men. But we are not entitled to say that there is no extra-terrestrial life at all, since we do have evidence that this might exist.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:
I certainly do live assuming E.T. life might exist, or else I wouldn't support that we spend millions and millions trying to find E.T. life! Spending money trying to find E.T. life while regarding E.T. life as not existing would be irrational! But wait, that is what you are supposed to believe if you agree with Cali claim!

This is comedic genius! Keep it coming Atheistsarevernim! I hope they never ban you!

They did ban me for one year, honey. They were probably mad because I exposed Cali nonsense and they felt threatened.

What an injustice! The mods are known to be threatened by extremely intelligent individuals like yourself. You might have a law suit on your hands!

Good luck Atheistsarevernim