chairman bill 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.

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.

It absolutely does. The core of your argument still is that you consider the question 'is there ET life?' as yet to be answered. That is my argument since the beginning. There is no rational reason to consider ET life as not existing.

Oh for fuck's sake! We have substantive evidence that life exists in the cosmos - it's right under our fucking noses. In fact, our noses are part of that life. We know the conditions necessary for life to emerge, we can speculate the likely numbers of similar planets, with similar conditions, such that life might emerge. We can then reasonably predict that life most probably will emerge, or has done so, on at least some of those planets. Ergo, we don't know that ET life exists, be we can expect it & it isn't unreasonable to expect it.

Now, God ... we have no substantive evidence that such beings as gods exist. None. Bugger all. We have no reasonable explanation for the possible existence of such entities, and no ideas what sort of evidence might indicate their actual existence even if they did exist. We might therefore, reasonably conclude that they most probably do not exist.

If you really can't see the difference ...

rJD wrote:
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.

Oh. My. God.

YES, that is exactly my point (!!!)

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:
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.

Oh. My. God.

YES, that is exactly my point (!!!)

Well it's not the point that you've made in the opening post.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:
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.

Oh. My. God.

YES, that is exactly my point (!!!)

Ah, excellent. So you agree when people make claims about specific gods or claims pertaining to them we can reject them barring evidence.

Got there in the end.

babel wrote:

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.

I'm not that little, actually.

chairman bill wrote:We know the conditions necessary for life to emerge,

It's actually potentially better than that - we know (some of) the conditions in which life did emerge but there might be other, different conditions in which other, different life could emerge. So the odds (though we don't know exactly what they are) could be better than if we restrict it to only the one example we have.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:
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.

Oh. My. God.

YES, that is exactly my point (!!!)

Well played sir.

chairman bill wrote:Oh for fuck's sake! We have substantive evidence that life exists in the cosmos - it's right under our fucking noses. In fact, our noses are part of that life. We know the conditions necessary for life to emerge, we can speculate the likely numbers of similar planets, with similar conditions, such that life might emerge. We can then reasonably predict that life most probably will emerge, or has done so, on at least some of those planets. Ergo, we don't know that ET life exists, be we can expect it & it isn't unreasonable to expect it.

We don't know that ET life exists because the evidence is weak and not substantive. But according to Cali "logic" we should regard ET life as not existing because we have no substantive evidence. That is not rational, and you just explained why.

Why are you then mentioning God? When did I mention God in my OP or in my arguments? We are debating if Cali claim is valid here.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:
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.

Oh. My. God.

YES, that is exactly my point (!!!)

So it's about time you presented some objective evidence for the existance of gods.

rJD wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:
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.

Oh. My. God.

YES, that is exactly my point (!!!)

So it's about time you presented some objective evidence for the existance of gods.

Which is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not Cali claim is rational or irrational.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Oh for fuck's sake! We have substantive evidence that life exists in the cosmos - it's right under our fucking noses. In fact, our noses are part of that life. We know the conditions necessary for life to emerge, we can speculate the likely numbers of similar planets, with similar conditions, such that life might emerge. We can then reasonably predict that life most probably will emerge, or has done so, on at least some of those planets. Ergo, we don't know that ET life exists, be we can expect it & it isn't unreasonable to expect it.

We don't know that ET life exists because the evidence is weak and not substantive. But according to Cali "logic" we should regard ET life as not existing because we have no substantive evidence.

The evidence for life is overwhelming. The possibility that such life might exist elsewhere now becomes a matter for exploration & search for such life. Our search is based on evidence that life exists in the cosmos, we're just looking in different parts of the cosmos.

ispoketoanangel wrote:Why are you then mentioning God? When did I mention God in my OP or in my arguments? We are debating if Cali claim is valid here.

I didn't say that you did, but I'm contrasting the possibility for one set of entities against another. Do try to keep up.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Oh. My. God.

YES, that is exactly my point (!!!)

So it's about time you presented some objective evidence for the existance of gods.

Which is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not Cali claim is rational or irrational.

No it fucking isn't since (as has already been pointed out to you numerous times) we already do have evidence that life could exist elsewhere, so this does not fall foul of Cali's injunction to regard as non-existance claimed entities for which there is no evidence.

Your whole premise is fucked.

This has got to be a wind up

chairman bill wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Oh for fuck's sake! We have substantive evidence that life exists in the cosmos - it's right under our fucking noses. In fact, our noses are part of that life. We know the conditions necessary for life to emerge, we can speculate the likely numbers of similar planets, with similar conditions, such that life might emerge. We can then reasonably predict that life most probably will emerge, or has done so, on at least some of those planets. Ergo, we don't know that ET life exists, be we can expect it & it isn't unreasonable to expect it.

We don't know that ET life exists because the evidence is weak and not substantive. But according to Cali "logic" we should regard ET life as not existing because we have no substantive evidence.

The evidence for life is overwhelming. The possibility that such life might exist elsewhere now becomes a matter for exploration & search for such life. Our search is based on evidence that life exists in the cosmos, we're just looking in different parts of the cosmos.

ispoketoanangel wrote:Why are you then mentioning God? When did I mention God in my OP or in my arguments? We are debating if Cali claim is valid here.

I didn't say that you did, but I'm contrasting the possibility for one set of entities against another. Do try to keep up.

But you still have to admit that we don't have what most people would call "substantive evidence" to support the existence of ET life. We would need hard evidence, or a direct contact, to label the evidence "substantive". Also, there ARE some scientists who do believe we are alone in the universe.

The bottom line is: it's not all white or black. Just because we don't have substantive evidence doesn't mean we have to take an extreme position and regard it as non existing. But that is what Cali quote demands.

rJD wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:
So it's about time you presented some objective evidence for the existance of gods.

Which is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not Cali claim is rational or irrational.

No it fucking isn't since (as has already been pointed out to you numerous times) we already do have evidence that life could exist elsewhere, so this does not fall foul of Cali's injunction to regard as non-existance claimed entities for which there is no evidence.

Your whole premise is fucked.

I believe you need to read Cali claim again. Cali doesn't merely demand evidence, he demands substantive evidence. If Cali doesn't have substantive evidence, then, bang, he regards it as not existing.

No substantive evidence for ET life? Bang, he regards it as not existing! Unreal!

Read the quote again!

ispoketoanangel wrote:First we are going to study one of his slogan, which will turn out to be nothing more than empty air.

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.

First of all, you didn't attribute your claim that this, exactly, is one of his "slogans". The only place I can find where Cali said anything close was here, where he actually wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:...If an entity X is asserted to exist, and no critically robust substantive evidence is available supporting the assertion that entity X exists, then no one is obliged to accept the unsupported existence assertion, and one may safely proceed in one's endeavours as though entity X does not exist, until that evidence is forthcoming...

Pretty big difference between what he actually said and what you say he said. Care to explain that misrepresentation?

The_Metatron wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:First we are going to study one of his slogan, which will turn out to be nothing more than empty air.

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.

First of all, you didn't attribute your claim that this, exactly, is one of his "slogans". The only place I can find where Cali said anything close was here, where he actually wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:...If an entity X is asserted to exist, and no critically robust substantive evidence is available supporting the assertion that entity X exists, then no one is obliged to accept the unsupported existence assertion, and one may safely proceed in one's endeavours as though entity X does not exist, until that evidence is forthcoming...

Pretty big difference between what he actually said and what you say he said. Care to explain that misrepresentation?

Quote is from here:

http://tryst-cottage.net/quotations2.html

...If an entity X is asserted to exist, and no critically robust substantive evidence is available supporting the assertion that entity X exists, then no one is obliged to accept the unsupported existence assertion, and one may safely proceed in one's endeavours as though entity X does not exist, until that evidence is forthcoming...

I have no issue with this particular version of the quote! Perhaps theists and atheists can come to an agreement sometimes?

ispoketoanangel wrote:

rJD wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Which is entirely irrelevant as to whether or not Cali claim is rational or irrational.

No it fucking isn't since (as has already been pointed out to you numerous times) we already do have evidence that life could exist elsewhere, so this does not fall foul of Cali's injunction to regard as non-existance claimed entities for which there is no evidence.

Your whole premise is fucked.

I believe you need to read Cali claim again. Cali doesn't merely demand evidence, he demands substantive evidence. If Cali doesn't have substantive evidence, then, bang, he regards it as not existing.

No substantive evidence for ET life? Bang, he regards it as not existing! Unreal!

Read the quote again!

I'm sure Cali can explain his own opinion on ET life but the existance of life on earth and the vast number of other solar systems in the universe is substantial evidence, since it is evidence we can objectively test.

Now, about your god again?