UFO's and extra-terrestrial life

[Mr Logic]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

Fact... check the depth of the ocean for fish, which live there under great pressure, for one, and life which exists under the Antarctic ice shelves in extremely cold conditions, for two. Creatures which exist under the sands of the hotest deserts, three, and geothermic ocean vent critters, four.

rather extreme conditions, yet life exists.

All located on the planet Earth, which in a debate as to the likelihood of extra terrestrial life reduces your number of locations to one.

Originally Posted by unreasonable

These are odd statements, especially coming from someone who calls himself Mr Logic.

"all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof" - what about the "belief systems" of mathematics and propositional logic? These have incontestable proofs, since they have axioms.

Inside these systems truths can indeed be ascertained, since the steps by which the axioms can be used to prove other propositions are clear.

Furthermore, your statements are self defeating. If indeed the proposition "truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems" is true, then it cannot be ascertained within the belief system that contains this proposition.

So does this make your expression of the proposition an exercise in "rhetoric", or does it simply mean that your understanding of logic is a lot less impressive that you appear to believe? Or perhaps a more charitable explanation is that you have been unable to communicate clearly?

I am evidently attempting to communicate on a level of philosophical thought outside of your experiences to date.

The quest for the establishment of the nature of absolute truth has been the topic of fierce philosophical debate throughout documented history. Indeed the only logical conclusion which can be reached by sound critical reasoning is that; Since all information is transferred to our consciences via nerve impulses to the brain via sensory organs and neural networks, therefore existing solely in our individual conciousness and being entirely subjective, our perception of truth is in itself illusory.

'Reality' itself is therefore an illusion, rendering all we perceive in itself a belief system, open to the same passionate argumentation as the initial topic tabled for discussion.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Mr Logic

All located on the planet Earth, which in a debate as to the likelihood of extra terrestrial life reduces your number of locations to one.



I am evidently attempting to communicate on a level of philosophical thought outside of your experiences to date. [1]

The quest for the establishment of the nature of absolute truth has been the topic of fierce philosophical debate throughout documented history. [2] Indeed the only logical conclusion which can be reached by sound critical reasoning is that[3]; Since all information is transferred to our consciences via nerve impulses to the brain via sensory organs and neural networks, therefore existing solely in our individual conciousness and being entirely subjective, our perception of truth is in itself illusory. [4]

'Reality' itself is therefore an illusion,[5] rendering all we perceive in itself a belief system, open to the same passionate argumentation as the initial topic tabled for discussion.[6]

1] Rhetorical. An example of ad hominem argument, which is fallacious. Also, as it happens, untrue in this particular case, but I see no point in a "philosophy degree measuring" contest, if "Mr Logic" even has one. (Rhetorical by me )

2] Rhetorical. While this is true it is also irrelevant, but put in to attempt to make the reader infer that the poster is knowledgeable about philosophical debate throughout recorded history. An example of the appeal to authority.

3] Rhetorical. "Mr Logic" merely asserts that his conclusions are true and necessarily true, while not actually demonstrating any "sound critical reasoning".

4] There is so much wrong with this that it is hard to know where to start. This statement of the mind-body problem conflates information with beliefs, the mechanisms by which we come to have beliefs with the beliefs themselves, and subjectivity with illusion. None of these stand up to scrutiny.

5] "Mr Logic" goes from the statement "our perception of truth is in itself illusory" to "'Reality' itself is therefore an illusion" which does not follow at all, even if the first proposition were true. "Mr Logic" is relying on the way in which human understanding tends to work through the association of ideas. Jumble them all up enough and you can end up with people believing that reality is illusion, black is white, all is one. The point of philosophy is to untangle these confusions, not to make them worse.

6] I cannot help noticing that "Mr Logic" has completely failed to address my objections to his post, namely that (If A&B Then A) is irrefutably true, and that his position is self contradictory.

[Wolf_Rider]

Black could be white though... its just how things turned out at the time, in the naming process

but don't fall into the logic trap of the circular argument where the posts keep shifting...

and remember the old adage of "take a leap of faith", in which the goal is to ignore what the senses tell you, in order to experience something tangible which is unperceived by those senses.

[unreasonable]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

but don't fall into the logic trap of the circular argument where the posts keep shifting...

Good advice, Mr Wolf_Rider. Mr Logic has a Trollish scent about him, so I probably will not respond to any further posts from him, unless he actually addresses my point.

On your other points... perhaps another time? Don't want to derail the thread.

[Wolf_Rider]

derail the thread?? wha? who? nevva...

[flyingblind]

I've been following this thread with some interest and not a little amusement. This is one of those great circular debates where your point of view depends entirely on your point of view and very little is likely to shift it. Because at the end of the day there is very little hard evidence to definitively prove anything either way. Back in Newton's day scientists thought they pretty much had it licked with just a few loose ends to tie up. Now we are grappeling with relativity, sub atomic particles, quantum mechanics, the big bang and the likelyhood that there is 90 odd percent of the universe that we weren't even aware of not to mention our living on the 'Goldilocks Planet'. Still plenty of room for God or ETs or anything else.

I watched a program by Richard Dawkins where he explained Darwinian evolution and genetics to a class of teenagers and took them to the Jurassic Coast to show them rock formations and fossils and debunk the whole notion of God and religion. Afterwards the producers interviewed them and asked them what they thought and the general view was - Thank you very much, all very interesting but we still believe in God.

Either Extra Terrestrials or, for that matter, God exist or they don't. If they don't then no amount of belief, faith, wishfull thinking or unsubstantiated encounters or miracles will conjour them up. But if they do exist then no amount of scientific reasoning and logic will make them go away.

Personally, I have no problem with people believing there is more to the scheme of things than just hard facts and evidence yet to be nailed down and pidgeonholed. As has already been said, other dimensions, parallel universes, string theories etc. are all mathematical and philosophical devices cooked up to try and make what we can see and measure in the universe hang together and make sense.

I can't help thinking that aliens, UFOs, faeries, angels and the like are all rather related phenomenon whether they are a product of the way human brains work or whether there is something more external behind them.

It is interesting that there are no scientific or archeological discoveries that have disproved anything in the Bible, even that old chestnut of evolution versus creationism is based on a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what the Bible is actually saying. It is not a scientific account, it is simply saying that the heavens ie. stars etc and the Earth were created and that there were distinct periods of time when only some things existed. There was a time when no humans existed, a time when no animals lived on land etc. Which is exactly what science says. The term 'day' is translated from a Hebrew word that can mean any time period, not just 24 hours. It states Adam would die on the day he ate the fruit and yet it goes on to say a few verses later that he lived over nine hundred years. The original writer and subsequent copyists would not have been so stupid as to make such a glaring mistake if the word day had the literal meaning of 24hrs.

But I digress off the topic of extra terrestrials, but as God and the Bible have already been brought into the topic I thought I might point out a couple of interesting points.

Firstly, when God was going to create Adam he said, "Let US make man in OUR image". The implication being that there were other intelligent beings in the universe before man appeared on the scene.

Secondly it says that the sons of the true God, or the sons of gods, depending on your version came to Earth and married any daughters of Adam they chose. The result of these unions were a race of giants or Nephilim. They were the heros of old, men of renown.

Now you can dismiss this as just myths and legends but it is an almost universal part of civilisations early lor. The gods of ancient Rome, Greece and other Mediteranean people, the Norse Sagas and Celtic legends to name a few. Were they really just an attempt by neolithic and bronze age people to explain away natural phenomenon such as thunder storms? How many thunder storms would intelligent humans need to witness before they realise they are simply passing events. Or is there some reality behind it all?

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by flyingblind

It is interesting that there are no scientific or archeological discoveries that have disproved anything in the Bible, even that old chestnut of evolution versus creationism is based on a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what the Bible is actually saying.


Firstly, when God was going to create Adam he said, "Let US make man in OUR image". The implication being that there were other intelligent beings in the universe before man appeared on the scene.


Now you can dismiss this as just myths and legends but it is an almost universal part of civilisations early lor.

First you cant definativly prove a negative which is what the bible is. THis means that if something never happens you cant prove it because there is NO evidence because it NEVER happened.

And yes the bible stories are a fiction/myth. To believe them is to believe in fairy tales. And NONE of the stories in the bible concerning miracles or anything supernatural have any eyewitness's (its all hearsay generations removed). According to the bible jesus was from the town of nazareth. How do you explain that it isnt mentioned in history until almost the 3rd century? And thats just one of the many flaws in the myth.