Life on earth is living proof Extraterrestials exists.

page: 16
27
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi


Would most folks agree that there is such thing as proof besides photographic evidence? (such as my two examples?)

Could you prove me wrong if I were to say: The purpose of the universe is to create life.
edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


The onus would be on you to prove yourself right as you would be making the claim.

And photographic evidence is not necessarily proof. And there are other forms of proof.

Still having difficulty grasping the burden of proof concept, I see.
edit on 13-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi


Would most folks agree that there is such thing as proof besides photographic evidence? (such as my two examples?)

Could you prove me wrong if I were to say: The purpose of the universe is to create life.
edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


The onus would be on you to prove yourself right as you would be making the claim.

And photographic evidence is not necessarily proof. And there are other forms of proof.

Still having difficulty grasping the burden of proof concept, I see.
edit on 13-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


So you admit photographic evidence is not necessarily proof. and there are other forms of proof. If life existed in the universe, what could I say to you for you to realize it, without photographic evidence to prove it? (besides what has been trying to be said this entire thread)..

oh, and I admit the onus of proof is on me for my statement..."The purpose of the universe is to create life"

but how can you prove the statement false?
edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Purpose implies intention. "The universe has no purpose". How do you prove that false?

If something is proven, it's said to be known and accepted, yes?

How do we know anything?

Reason, authority, experience. All 3 or some combination depending upon the situation and what the threshold for proof needs to be before you accept it.

Some things are relatively unimportant, so you'll accept as true without much consideration. Others are of greater significance, so you require a higher standard.

We all draw lines in different places and prioritize differently. We haven't all had the same experiences and don't all give equal weight to the same authority. We don't all reason the same and have varying degrees of competence when it comes to reasoning.

So you run into situations where you can make statements about things which the majority of us would consider slam-dunk reality, and someone somewhere will have reason to disagree.

Or, you can have situations with people believing something to be absolute fact because whatever their particular threshold would be for proof for that particular situation has been met.

Doesn't mean it's been met for any particular number of others.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi


Would most folks agree that there is such thing as proof besides photographic evidence? (such as my two examples?)

Could you prove me wrong if I were to say: The purpose of the universe is to create life.
edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


The onus would be on you to prove yourself right as you would be making the claim.

And photographic evidence is not necessarily proof. And there are other forms of proof.

Still having difficulty grasping the burden of proof concept, I see.
edit on 13-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


So you admit photographic evidence is not necessarily proof. and there are other forms of proof. If life existed in the universe, what could I say to you for you to realize it, without photographic evidence to prove it? (besides what has been trying to be said this entire thread)..

oh, and I admit the onus of proof is on me for my statement..."The purpose of the universe is to create life"

but how can you prove the statement false?
edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


I neither could nor would. It's an unprovable conclusion based on an unverifiable premise.

The best you can do is present a case for the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, the strength of which would be proportionate to the quality of your evidence. Such evidence already exists within our own solar system... but it is not proof. Your fall back is always "you can't prove that it doesn't exist"- the term for this is "appeal to ignorance", and it is a logical fallacy.
edit on 13-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by yeahright
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Purpose implies intention. "The universe has no purpose". How do you prove that false?

If something is proven, it's said to be known and accepted, yes?

How do we know anything?

Reason, authority, experience. All 3 or some combination depending upon the situation and what the threshold for proof needs to be before you accept it.

Some things are relatively unimportant, so you'll accept as true without much consideration. Others are of greater significance, so you require a higher standard.

We all draw lines in different places and prioritize differently. We haven't all had the same experiences and don't all give equal weight to the same authority. We don't all reason the same and have varying degrees of competence when it comes to reasoning.

So you run into situations where you can make statements about things which the majority of us would consider slam-dunk reality, and someone somewhere will have reason to disagree.

Or, you can have situations with people believing something to be absolute fact because whatever their particular threshold would be for proof for that particular situation has been met.

Doesn't mean it's been met for any particular number of others.


As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


"the universe has no purpose" how do I prove that statement false?

First we need to understand that cause and affect in the universe exists... and that your problem lies with the semantical interpretation of the word purpose. Which may be said of humans to imply intent.

does the wheel for a car have a purpose? does every part in your body have a purpose? does your body have a purpose?

I think yes can be answered to those questions. Even if a bee is unaware of it, it has a purpose in the causal relationships of how life on this planet exists and functions. It may not be an intended purpose, but a result of its existence, that other things came to depend on what the bee does for them to exist... and those things would be wrong to assume that the bee exists to serve them and aid in their existence, that is to say the bees purpose is to do what it does so I can exist..Exchange the word purpose with the word reason. This still might cause trouble. The reason I exist is because the bee can do what it does and is what it is.

for me to say the reason the universe exists, is so that life can exist.Is my biased view that existing as an aware entity is what is of value and worth. and non existence, is worthless, or knowledgeless or knowingless... therefor it is of value for something, anything, to experience, to exist, and know it exists, to have a self, and an ability, a function, a perspective

but unlike something which depends on the bee, saying the reason the bee exists is so I exist... I am speaking about the totality of life in the universe.. including the totality of life on earth.. so i am not saying the entire universe exists for me. Im saying the entire universe exists so that all the life within it can exist.
Because a universe without life, is void of purpose, meaning, reason etc.

To exist and be a self, an entity, a being... is the only way to be aware of existing as a self, a being, an entity.. the term "life" is how we define that phenomenon, the phenomenon of a cluster of energy matter, which is a part of the whole, and governed by its laws, but acts (within boundaries of greater and less then quantities of free will) on its own accord..

If we admit that rocks dont have this ability, then we admit that the matter of this universe must undergo a more complex process to create clusters of matter which has the ability to be a self,individual, conscious, life form..
there is no value or ability or novelty regarding non existence.. anti awareness, non being, non conscious...

But to be those things, to be alive and turned on, and conscious and aware, and a self. is a novel experience,, it has meaning, it has purpose, it has value, it has experience,, what other way besides through what we have defined as "life".. can matter/energy experience its own existence? If by no other way then matter creating clumps of meaningful patterns, and using material to construct beings made of circuits and parts, and an awareness, then that is the way in which this universe creates beings that are aware, and can experience themselves and their surroundings... This universe is advanced enough where for billions of years all the complex life on this planet has existed from single celled organisms, to dinosaurs, to all water life big and large, to birds, to cats and dogs, and rodents, and insects, and monkeys and men... all created systems and styles of being... Basically I am 99% sure there is life in the universe, and even if I was 75% sure, the data would have convinced me to take the view of being sure enough to place a majority of odds in favor.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi


Would most folks agree that there is such thing as proof besides photographic evidence? (such as my two examples?)

Could you prove me wrong if I were to say: The purpose of the universe is to create life.
edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


The onus would be on you to prove yourself right as you would be making the claim.

And photographic evidence is not necessarily proof. And there are other forms of proof.

Still having difficulty grasping the burden of proof concept, I see.
edit on 13-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


So you admit photographic evidence is not necessarily proof. and there are other forms of proof. If life existed in the universe, what could I say to you for you to realize it, without photographic evidence to prove it? (besides what has been trying to be said this entire thread)..

oh, and I admit the onus of proof is on me for my statement..."The purpose of the universe is to create life"

but how can you prove the statement false?
edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


I neither could nor would. It's an unprovable conclusion based on an unverifiable premise.

The best you can do is present a case for the existence of life elsewhere in the universe, the strength of which would be proportionate to the quality of your evidence. Such evidence already exists within our own solar system... but it is not proof. Your fall back is always "you can't prove that it doesn't exist"- the term for this is "appeal to ignorance", and it is a logical fallacy.
edit on 13-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


If logic, rational, and reason exist, along with scientific laws of chemistry,biology and physics. then so does life in the universe.

My argument is truth exist, and is knowable... If not directly, through inference...If not to a certainty, then to multiple possibilities with differing probabilities... the probability that life exists in the universe is so much higher then the probability that it does not. That it is very close to a certainty, or proof. I think it is a comparable probability that life exists in the universe, then to a scientific near certainty like the force of gravity occurring when you drop a ball.
edit on 13-2-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by nerbot

Life on Earth is only proof of stupidity. Just a ball of dirt hurtling through space with no destination and no purpose.
edit on 5/2/2013 by nerbot because: (no reason given)


Damn you must live a frustrating life.

I personally do not see absolute proof as a requirement here btw. YOU do not have proof that the universe out there is just for our beautiful night skies either, do you?

Wouldn´t you agree that neither of the positions has been proven yet? And if so, wouldn´t you also agree that it is logical to assume the option with the highest probability is the logical one to choose?

I personally see a lot more hinting towards life (the numbers quoted, the rising amount of habitable planets found by astronomy etc..) than against it.

In fact the only thing that you have thrown in the ring so far is that they haven´t landed here and said hello. And considering the distances to the next potential neighbors that might be a tad unrealistic on your part.

So, if you take away the "proof that there is life out there" standpoint on which you so comfortably stand and compare both options, you don´t look to good.

Just saying.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Would it be somehow bad for your view of the world if we were not unique?

Believing there is no life out there is not the logical choice, and has not been proven either.

I don´t see the benefit of believing in a lonely earth. Why?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Would it be somehow bad for your view of the world if we were not unique?

Believing there is no life out there is not the logical choice, and has not been proven either.

I don´t see the benefit of believing in a lonely earth. Why?


Would it be somehow bad for your view of the universe if we were?

A belief, no matter how logical, is still a belief.

The subject line of the OP alleges proof, not logical belief.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


I don´t see the benefit of believing in a lonely earth. Why?


I'm not sure why a belief needs to have a benefit.

Whatever the "Truth" is about whether other life exists in the universe or not is still the "Truth" -- whether it provides a benefit or not.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by Nightaudit
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Would it be somehow bad for your view of the world if we were not unique?

Believing there is no life out there is not the logical choice, and has not been proven either.

I don´t see the benefit of believing in a lonely earth. Why?


Would it be somehow bad for your view of the universe if we were?

A belief, no matter how logical, is still a belief.

The subject line of the OP alleges proof, not logical belief.


Nothing is proved... Everything you think you know is just a logical belief



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Everything you think you know is just a logical belief



Originally posted by ImaFungi

My argument is truth exist, and is knowable.


Backatcha.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Everything you think you know is just a logical belief



Originally posted by ImaFungi

My argument is truth exist, and is knowable.


Backatcha.


Is it possible that truth doesnt exist? that reality is not? All I mean by truth exists is that, there is something rather then nothing... and the exact way that something is and exactly what it is = the word "truth"

I believe we can know the way reality is and to an extent what it is. I dont see any contradiction with my statements.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Here is my photographic evidence that life exists in the universe.











Most every, if not every, dot of light in those photos are galaxies. You guys know what galaxies are right? You know how many stars and planets make up galaxies right? you know how long the galaxies exist right? you know how long the stars and planets exist right? you know that some stars can supernova after millions and/or billions of years and create new stars right and stars that arent massive enough to supernova and create new stars can create planetary nebula?

Im closing my eyes right now and plugging my ears... prove to me you exist


^^bet you want to comment "how about I sock ya one then youll know im here" ... now you cant



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont see any contradiction with my statements.


A big part of the problem.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont see any contradiction with my statements.


A big part of the problem.


Proof or no proof.

Do you believe life exists in the universe?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
life happening once is improbable
improbable things happen all the time
so if life happened once (improbable)
it is probable ( since improbable things happen all the time) that life will happen again


Which is why actual proof is so important, rather than speculation and semantics.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont see any contradiction with my statements.


A big part of the problem.


Proof or no proof.

Do you believe life exists in the universe?


You mean "elsewhere in the universe"?

The answer to that matters only to myself. Stick to the subject of the thread: Life on earth is living proof Extraterrestrials exist


I maintain that it is not proof of anything but life on earth. Everything else is semantics gymnastics and pretzel logic.
edit on 14-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by draknoir2

Originally posted by ImaFungi
I dont see any contradiction with my statements.


A big part of the problem.


Proof or no proof.

Do you believe life exists in the universe?


You mean "elsewhere in the universe"?

The answer to that matters only to myself. Stick to the subject of the thread: Life on earth is living proof Extraterrestrials exist


I maintain that it is not proof of anything but life on earth. Everything else is semantics gymnastics and pretzel logic.
edit on 14-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)


You admitted things can be proven without photographic evidence. It is why I asked you in what manner can that be done. I have tried throughout this thread with probably over 15 posts including almost all of what I know about the universe to make me come to my logical belief.

It doesnt only matter to yourself. It matters because if you have a belief, then no matter what I say anad show ( which has been seen to be the case) you will deny, because you are already certain of your (illogical) conclusion. regardless of photographic proof I believe I have presented a good case as to why my belief is more probable, most likely, and most certain, which are all words to describe concepts that are close to predicting a fact that is true. You have provided nothing. You believe there is no life in the universe. I know you are wrong. You may believe you are right. But the evidence lies strongly against that. Just like my belief that if I let go of a bowling ball, i think it will float up, is a belief that has physical, scientific, and chemical laws and probabilities, statistics, that go strongly against it.

so without photo evidence, I believe my stance, comprehension, perspective, and argument have been PROVEN to be the most certain candidate for grasping the situation or truth of reality. You have no evidence besides your ignorance and lack of photographic capabilities. Your argument has not been convincing. My argument cannot be convincing to someone who, believes things can be proven without photographic evidence, but believes that noone can prove to them something without photographic evidence. Your belief is like the relation ship between a christian and their bible, and I am attempting to show the inconsistencies with your belief, and you are refusing to listen or discuss them... "lalalalalalalallala" ... It seems to me you dont like to think or incapable. It is fascinating to me what must go on in your head and I really cant imagine your other beliefs about your self, existence, and reality.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

It doesnt only matter to yourself. It matters because if you have a belief, then no matter what I say anad show ( which has been seen to be the case) you will deny, because you are already certain of your (illogical) conclusion.


I haven't denied anything but your fallacious logic. I have expressed no personal belief, nor have I provided a conclusion for you to deem "illogical".





edit on 14-2-2013 by draknoir2 because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join