An Interesting Quote;

[peter]

Christopher potter in his book How to Make a Human Being refers to Jocelyn Bell's spotting a regularity in a radio signal from the depths of outer space,

For a moment it looked like evidence of aliens, but when it comes to it scientists don't really believe in aliens, and even the possibility of their existence is a spur to search for some other plausible explanation. the possibility of human specialness and seeming evidence for the existence of God are similar spurs. It's a good working strategy, but doesn't mean that all or any of these possibilities are ultimately excluded, just doubted for as long as doubt is possible.

Anyone got any observations on this.

[wayfriend]

About that which he speaks, there is not actually any evidence that the signals are alien. But since alien technology could explain anything, it's a theory you can hold when you have no other theory. It's just jumping to a conclusion when it's the only conclusion you can imagine jumping to.

Searching for a better answer is not only a matter of discounting an uncomfortable theory, it's a matter of discounting a lazy one.

[peter]

But is it true that science does not discount these possibilities Wayfriend - the existence of God is of course the one I'm interested in here; I've never heard that it remained as still a possibility, just doubted to the n'th degree, before. I'd always assumed that science flatly denied the possibility?

[Vraith]

I'd always assumed that science flatly denied the possibility?

Well, different scientISTS have different views...
But science itself doesn't directly deny the possibility of a god/gods/similar critter.
It just says:
1) What we know now, and each new discovery lately [the last century at least] indicates that such a beastie is UNNECESSARY for the universe and all to exist.
2) Any such creature, IF it is, then whatever it is, it definitely is not and cannot be/have the qualities/properties of, any of the current or historical gods as defined/described/"known" to people.
Of course, to the vast majority of believers, those two things together are equivalent to saying "ain't no god." And given their commitments, that's close to correct for them.

The original quote seems untrue to me in this way: I know quite a number of scientists...a few quite well...and while many doubt our chances of ever spotting/contacting aliens, only one believes in their total lack of existence. All the rest think they have, do, or will exist and finding them, though extremely low probability, would be cool as actual fuck.

[peter]

But you agree with the 'spur' idea, I'm guessing V? And it is a good working isn't it?

[samrw3]

I haven't read this book so I didn't want to comment without more knowledge. However, I am curious about one thing. How is the author so confident that whatever was heard/discovered was not some sort of unknown space phenomenon? Meaning a "noise" that seemed like a radio signal but was in actuality some noise that just appeared to be a radio signal? In other words that would discount both the existence of a God and aliens? That is a lot about space and planets and cosmic creations/destructions that we don't know about and it is somewhat plausible to me that something out there could have made a sound that appeared to be a radio signal or sounded to our ears like a radio signal.

[Skyweir]

I'd always assumed that science flatly denied the possibility?

Well, different scientISTS have different views...
But science itself doesn't directly deny the possibility of a god/gods/similar critter.
It just says:
1) What we know now, and each new discovery lately [the last century at least] indicates that such a beastie is UNNECESSARY for the universe and all to exist.
2) Any such creature, IF it is, then whatever it is, it definitely is not and cannot be/have the qualities/properties of, any of the current or historical gods as defined/described/"known" to people.
Of course, to the vast majority of believers, those two things together are equivalent to saying "ain't no god." And given their commitments, that's close to correct for them.

The original quote seems untrue to me in this way: I know quite a number of scientists...a few quite well...and while many doubt our chances of ever spotting/contacting aliens, only one believes in their total lack of existence. All the rest think they have, do, or will exist and finding them, though extremely low probability, would be cool as actual fuck.

[wayfriend]

Peter, wouldn't you agree that a theory that "aliens did it" or "god did it" should, at minimum, be pursued by scientists with the same rigor and integrity as any other theory? If so, then would you not say that, if there is no evidence of any kind implicating such culprits, then they are not a suitable hypothesis?

The problem with Aliens and Gods is, you can always claim they are a possibility with no evidence at all to suggest it. Because they are always capable of all things. You can never NOT rule it out. Like you can never rule out Magic. That's why they call these theories "magical thinking" - because they require no evidence of actuality to be posited.

Aliens and Gods can always be a theory, but theories need supporting evidence to be valid, and if you hold out for theories with no supporting evidence, you're not being a scientist. Just as you would not be a scientist if there was actual evidence and you discounted it because it leads to aliens or God.

[Skyweir]

Im with you Sammy .. humans rationalise information, data, so it aligns with their beliefs.

Belief in critters omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent

I would be as surprised AF if a discovery of a critter of the big three Os was discovered and I would have to eat all these words ..

Alien life forms are the more credible discoveries, no Perhaps not complex life forms in this universe in dust or oceans .. who knows

But not a scientist.. so wtf do I know, right LOL

[Fist and Faith]

Well, different scientISTS have different views...
But science itself doesn't directly deny the possibility of a god/gods/similar critter.
It just says:
1) What we know now, and each new discovery lately [the last century at least] indicates that such a beastie is UNNECESSARY for the universe and all to exist.
2) Any such creature, IF it is, then whatever it is, it definitely is not and cannot be/have the qualities/properties of, any of the current or historical gods as defined/described/"known" to people.

It is surely impossible that every god as defined/described/"known" to people was examined, and scientifically ruled out. Science must have arrived at this definite conclusion in some other way. I would expect it was done by ruling out the possibility of any, but you started by saying that's not the case. Can you explain how it was done?

The original quote seems untrue to me in this way: I know quite a number of scientists...a few quite well...and while many doubt our chances of ever spotting/contacting aliens, only one believes in their total lack of existence. All the rest think they have, do, or will exist and finding them, though extremely low probability, would be cool as actual fuck.

I've never heard of a reason that they could not exist. With all the possibilities, you'd think it's bound to happen many times. But yeah, the distances make it ridiculously unlikely that we'll make contact, even if both they and we are trying to find others, unless they happen to develop very close by. Which is probably against the odds, more than somewhat.

[Vraith]

But you agree with the 'spur' idea, I'm guessing V? And it is a good working isn't it?

Yea, it's a good starting point. Any and all new/unexplained things that are spotted should be a spur to look for explanations. It's important to note that this method isn't all about denial---if a signal actually IS aliens, this approach is the only path we have to show it.

It is surely impossible that every god as defined/described/"known" to people was examined, and scientifically ruled out.

Heh...I suppose it's possible some "Lost God" [lost to our memory/evidence/history, that is] had properties perfectly compatible with known science---
---though it would be strange that such a limitless being was incapable of keeping itself from being lost---
And would anyone recognize [s]he/it AS a god? Wouldn't it either be indiscernible from ordinary nature, or completely irrelevant/ineffective/disconnected from it [either by choice or by necessity---doesn't really matter which, does it?]
I think there is in fact a kind of godesque being description compatible with all of knowledge/physics/philosophy/existence known and to be known. But the description and argument/justification of it is a huge thing.
The end result/conclusion is that said form is irrelevant and meaningless in all ways to our origins/history, current existence/knowledge/circumstances/universe...[s]he/it only comes into effect after we exit life. And the transition/translation MAY equally make all that pre-transformations stuff irrelevant/meaningless, too. Maybe...never really taken it that far.

[Fist and Faith]

Many people believed in gods who were not limitless beings, and I'm pretty sure there are still some Thor worshipers out there. I suspect it could be scientifically proven that Thor does not exist, and possibly that he never did. But the point is that ruling out limitless being, if scientifically possible, does not rule out limited gods.

[Skyweir]

Why would it not rule out ... limited beings / gods? Because being limited, that distinguishing factor, presents different parameters to be disproved?

Thor isn't a limited being. Or maybe he is ... I guess I don't follow what do you mean by limited?

Isn't it moot ... isn't it yet another supernatural that resides in the domain of imagination?

[Vraith]

Many people believed in gods who were not limitless beings, and I'm pretty sure there are still some Thor worshipers out there. I suspect it could be scientifically proven that Thor does not exist, and possibly that he never did. But the point is that ruling out limitless being, if scientifically possible, does not rule out limited gods.

Limited/less isn't the important part. It's the difference between natural and non-natural, between subject to the rules or not. Science/reason/explicable or magic/inexplicable.

[Fist and Faith]

Well I'm not the one who said "limitless"! But it doesn't matter. Scientifically proving that the non-natural/magic/inexplicable does not exist does necessarily rule out the other.

Besides, that has not been scientifically proven. It just doesn't make sense to various people. And we don't know that any have been "lost".

Where is the science you speak of that says definitely no defined/described/"known" god could possibly have existed? I don't doubt for a second that that is, indeed, accurate. But scientifically proven? No such thing.

[Vraith]

Where is the science you speak of that says definitely no defined/described/"known" god could possibly have existed? I don't doubt for a second that that is, indeed, accurate. But scientifically proven? No such thing.

You keep saying proven, and specifying it like a mathematical proof or something...but I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. I'm pretty sure I exactly said the opposite.
What I mean is that it's shown by exclusion...by knowing something is so that contradicts/disallows the other.
So...we know how storms come to be, we how lightning comes about [although there ARE some really odd and not completely understood things about lightning, so maybe I shouldn't have picked it... ]
But the knowledge makes Thor unnecessary, and observations exclude a Euro-Warrior dude with a Big Fucking Hammer from storms-causation.
So IF he existed, he wouldn't/couldn't match the description.
You, or anyone, might accidentally be correct THAT something is...but you have to also be correct about WHAT it is, or it's meaningless. Like pointing at a bird, cuz you have an idea of what a bird is, and saying "That's a crow."
You might be right. And it might not matter much to anyone that it's actually a goose.
But when it's gods, we're not talking about what's for dinner...we're talking about life, the universe, and everything.
[[heh...same for spotting aliens, or nearly so. Finding/proving aliens...especially intelligent ones, not just slime-mold equivalents...would change everything.]].
Now, much of that goes away, is less [but not wholly un-] problematic if you consider the Thor story and physical attributes as symbolic, not literal. But then the god also goes away, too...in the literal sense.

[Zarathustra]

Scientists never eliminate the 'God did it' theory because it's not a scientific theory. It's not testable or falsifiable. It's not even definable. It's completely outside the scope of what science does. Methodologically speaking, science deals in naturalism, not supernaturalism. There is never any need to suggest a supernatural explanation, especially when there is an alternative natural explanation available. But even then, it's always more appropriate to assume that a natural explanation might be found before you start looking for magic.

Aliens, on the other hand, are natural. There is no magic involved. There are certain things that might appear that couldn't be explained any other possible way except by assuming an artificial source, such as a radio signal beaming the prime numbers.

We know that we exist. It is not unscientific to assume that something that can happen here can also happen elsewhere. The universe is big enough that extremely rare events probably happen in multiple places. For instance, we used to suspect that planets existed elsewhere, but we never had the proof until the 90s. After that, we learned that our tentative speculation was too conservative. Not only are there other planets around other stars, but virtually every star has a planetary system. There are more than we suspected.

I think that's the way it is with aliens. We are cautious not to extrapolate our experience to the entire universe because to do so seems to anthropomorphize or make man more significant than we are. But I think we are perhaps too cautious or too skeptical when it comes to aliens. I think there are probably 1000s of civilizations in our galaxy alone.

In fact, I think we see evidence of alien visitation here on earth. Has everone been keeping up with the military videos of UFOs being released lately? People who are trained by the military to detect enemy aircraft are witnessing aircraft that they have no idea what they are, and seem beyond the technology of any country on the planet. Vehicles moving in ways that seem to defy gravity and aerodynamics, traveling at hypersonic speeds with no sign of propulsion or even any signature of their passage.

[wayfriend]

That's an easy one! You can't dis-prove something that has not ever been prove-n in the first place. That may seem trite, but the more you think about it, the more profound it will seem.

If someone claims the sunless sky is orange, you have an expression of evidence which can be tested. But something that can't be seen, can't be heard, can't be measured, can't be indirectly witnessed, refuses to reveal himself -- and if science ever comes up with another way to test something, god will immediately acquire the trait that he is undetectable to that, too ... leaves you with nothing to hang a hat on.

[Fist and Faith]

You keep saying proven, and specifying it like a mathematical proof or something...but I'm pretty sure I didn't say that. I'm pretty sure I exactly said the opposite.

What's the difference between "Science says it's definitely not..." and "Scientifically proven not to be." You can't say "definitely" unless there is no possibility otherwise. That is, proof that it cannot be.

[Fist and Faith]

Scientists never eliminate the 'God did it' theory because it's not a scientific theory. It's not testable or falsifiable. It's not even definable. It's completely outside the scope of what science does. Methodologically speaking, science deals in naturalism, not supernaturalism. There is never any need to suggest a supernatural explanation, especially when there is an alternative natural explanation available. But even then, it's always more appropriate to assume that a natural explanation might be found before you start looking for magic.

One thing I'd been planning to get to is that there is no testable or falsifiable theory about the origin of the universe. We can have a theory, based on what we see. The Big Bang is based on everything moving away from everything else; the background radiation; etc. A ton more evidence might be found over time that also supports the BB, and maybe nothing that contradicts it. But it's still not testable. We can't reproduce the Big Bang. (If we managed to, we would, of course, be eradicated in a smaller amount of time than we've ever managed to measure.)

And even the Big Bang might need a cause. We don't know that it can happen without cause. We can't much look into the idea, because, if anything existed prior to the BB, the BB eradicated all evidence of it.

My lack if knowledge on all of this is spectacular. No question about that. But my point is valid: we do not know what is and is not necessary for a universe to come to exist. We haven't seen any others come into being, and taken note of the conditions that preceded it.


On another note... Consciousness can't be defined. At least I haven't been able to find a definition. And it can't be detected. It is not (or so you convinced me) reducible to the properties of particles and laws of physics. We don't understand much of anything about it, afaict. It exists in the natural world, yet, as though it was supernatural, it is not subject to scientific study. Now, to make it even worse, Nagel wants us to come up with theories about how it exists. Theories that will be even less testable and verifiable than consciousness itself it.