Outer space, UFO's and Space Travel

[LDSModeller]

Also, to make my point about religious egocentricity, we can simply consider the biblical statement, "God created man is his self image." In that one sentence, we are not only species egocentric, but gender egocentric. God is described as a male, paternal figure, representing the social power structure of the period.

You forgot one all important part of that sentence.

From the King James version of the Bible

Genesis 1:27

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Each of us living today, has divine parentage, and unfortuantely people have forgotten that. Men/Women have God given agency to make whatever choices in their lives they wish for, to their betterment or their detriment.

Unfortunately the reasoning of man does not always lead us down good paths.

Dallon H Oaks, stated this earlier this year

"Those who have used human reasoning to supersede divine influence in their lives have diminished themselves and cheapened civilization in the process."

Regards

Alan

[vince14]

Each of us living today, has divine parentage

Have you met my parents?

Vince

[vince14]

I subscribe to Prof. Brian Cox's theory on intelligent life in the universe;

Outside of Earth, is there life within the Solar System?

- Probably, there's likely to be some simple forms of life on Mars or Europa.

Outside of Earth, has there previously been intelligent life within our Galaxy?

- Probably.

Outside of Earth, is there currently intelligent life within our Galaxy?

- Probably not, given the timescales involved.

Outside of our Galaxy, is there currently intelligent life within our Universe?

- Probably, but the distances involved are so huge that it's unlikely we'll ever know about them.

Is there a God?

- No.

Vince

Edited November 8, 2014 by vince14

[niart17]

I subscribe to Prof. Brian Cox's theory on intelligent life in the universe;

Outside of Earth, is there life within the Solar System?

- Probably, there's likely to be some simple forms of life on Mars or Europa.

Outside of Earth, has there previously been intelligent life within our Galaxy?

- Probably.

Outside of Earth, is there currently intelligent life within our Galaxy?

- Probably not, given the timescales involved.

Outside of our Galaxy, is there currently intelligent life within our Universe?

- Probably, but the distances involved are so huge that it's unlikely we'll ever know about them.

Is there a God?

- No.

Vince

Well if he actually said that (which I question) and this is a professor that claims to be biding by the rules of science then he is either an idiot or diluting himself. How can you claim such possibilities of intelligent life with comments like probably, possibly in all these instances and leave yourself open to those possiblities (which I agree he should be open to them) and then just simply dismiss any possibility for a God like that? What is so scientific about that? I'll tell you what, it isn't. Science can not disprove the existence of anything. It can only prove when things do exist or leave itself open other possibilities. It is guys like him (again IF he actually said that) that make the layman say terms like "the religion of science". Because people who follow science (yes, like a religion) listen to his thoughts and repeat them because he should be someone of scientific authority and makes baseless claims like that. In fact, I will argue that MOST of the scientific facts all of you guys know (including myself) are simply things that you've heard or read about in a book or saw on T.V. or Youtube video. Most people here arguing against the possibility of God and turning their noses up at those that do believe, are in fact simply talking about things that they only think they understand because of the work of others. They haven't experimented on or researched most of the things they believe, yet they know them to be true because they have faith in those that did the work. So tell me what's different about that and having faith in the religious leaders who have studied the Bible and other religious text? I tell you guys what, if you can show my YOUR data on things like man made global warming (not charts from someone else but your findings) or YOUR research on the evolution of man from monkey, then fine, I'll stop saying that you believe such things with just as much blind faith and I do in my God.

BUT annnnnyway... This has been a fun conversation. I hope nobody is getting upset with one another and takes it as a lively and interesting talk. And green men? maybe.

[modelguy2]

The problem with this line of thinking is it represents a false synthesis. Theologically minded people accept the science that is overwhelming, but where it is not, or is incomplete, discount it by saying, "Well, that is just a theory." Then on the heels of that, substitute a speculative belief system that "seems" right to them, but does not come anywhere close to satisfying even the most basic standards of the scientific theory that they just discounted. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Sounds like quantum physics and the process of renormalization to me

[Don]

Soooooo...anyone seen a UFO lately... ? What about the future of space travel in light of the recent and tragic setback? What about the future of deeper human space exploration in a manned capacity and not just a robotic capacity? Who should take that lead, a single government, a partnership among nations, or let it go completely privatized?

But the biggest question...what happened to our moon base...the one that was supposed to float away with the moon in 1999 ;) ?

:)

[vince14]

Well if he actually said that (which I question)

Well you could always read his book on the subject.

Or you can have the TL:DR version from Twitter...

I tell you guys what, if you can show my YOUR data on things like man made global warming (not charts from someone else but your findings) or YOUR research on the evolution of man from monkey, then fine, I'll stop saying that you believe such things with just as much blind faith and I do in my God.

That doesn't work. I don't need to do my own research into Aeronautical Engineering to know that aircraft can fly - I can see the evidence for it flying overhead. And I used to think that Climate Change was nonsense, but then I read up and studied the findings of others and changed my mind. Religion requires blind faith, unlike science which, through its very nature, is a set of laws and principles which can be tested. We didn't spend $6.4 billion building the Large Hadron Collider on blind faith that the Higgs Bosun existed - that would have been pointless - we built it on the basis that the evidence pointed towards the existence of the Higgs Bosun, but we needed to develop an experiment to try and prove it exists. There is no blind faith in science.

If you want to believe in God then fine - I'm not going to stop you (unless you're using it as an excuse to be crappy to people you don't agree with). If your faith helps you in your everyday life then kudos to you. I'm happy for you. But until someone comes up with tested, validated and peer-reviewed proof that God exists, I'll carry on with my view that we're just a bunch of highly-evolved monkeys clinging to a dying rock, orbiting an uninteresting star in an uninteresting galaxy in a vast, cold and Godless universe.

Vince

[Berkut]

So tell me what's different about that and having faith in the religious leaders who have studied the Bible and other religious text?

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

In order for science to work, it always needs logical proof and/or material evidence. Without any of those two, then it is just faith. Last time i checked, faith alone doesn't make planes fly. Science does, which is achieved by some sort of evidence, always. But maybe i have sat on wrong type of carpet, prayed to wrong God, during wrong time of day into wrong direction.

[modelguy2]

That doesn't work. I don't need to do my own research into Aeronautical Engineering to know that aircraft can fly - I can see the evidence for it flying overhead. And I used to think that Climate Change was nonsense, but then I read up and studied the findings of others and changed my mind. Religion requires blind faith, unlike science which, through its very nature, is a set of laws and principles which can be tested.

Every time you fly you have blind faith that the aircraft has been well maintained and will perform as intended.

Ideally scientific qualities can be tested but in quantum physics a lot is left to faith in that some processes require mathematical magic to work consistently-i.e. science puts in numbers to make some things work without understanding why.

Global warming:

Global warming creates havoc:

[Berkut]

Ideally scientific qualities can be tested but in quantum physics a lot is left to faith in that some processes require mathematical magic to work consistently-i.e. science puts in numbers to make some things work without understanding why.

I wouldn't go into the same trap as Niart and wrongly use the word "faith" here. Yes, science doesn't understand how quantum physics works, but we know damn well it does. Because it produces extremely accurate results. Not once or twice, but every single time. Quantum physics produce material measurable evidence, although not based on logic. Quantum physics or the rest of the world doesn't give a damn what our logic is.

Not understanding the process of something is not the same as having faith, or rather "blind faith". If we didn't understood how quantum physics worked and it didn't produce accurate results; and we decided to design something based on that type of quantum physics, then that would be faith.

[modelguy2]

Science also understands that no matter the probability of a process ending in the same way 99.999999..% of the time that there is always a possibility-no matter how small-that it may end differently. This then is faith that it will repeat the expected result every time.

faith noun \ˈfāth\

: strong belief or trust in someone or something

[Berkut]

Science also understands that no matter the probability of a process ending in the same way 99.999999..% of the time that there is always a possibility-no matter how small-that it may end differently. This then is faith probability that it will repeat the expected result every time.

faith noun \ˈfāth\

: strong belief or trust in someone or something

Fixxed. And besides belief still doesn't need to be based on evidence. ;)

[Scott R Wilson]

Every time you fly you have blind faith that the aircraft has been well maintained and will perform as intended.

I disagree that it's faith. I'd say it's trust. I trust that the engineers did a proper job designing the plane based on established sciences of aerodynamics, structures, thermodynamics etc. I trust the mechanics have properly maintained the aircraft based on their training, which again evolved from basic science. If the engineers or mechanics mess up the results can be catastrophic but not because a deity got angry and decided to smite the airplane.

Now electronics- that might just be faith as anyone who works on electronics will tell you it's all based on the FM principle. That's "effing magic". (That's a joke, you know...)

[modelguy2]

Note that trust is part of the definition of faith.

Blind faith is like shiny brightness :)

Edited November 8, 2014 by modelguy2

[vince14]

Every time you fly you have blind faith that the aircraft has been well maintained and will perform as intended.

Nope, that's trust. Trust that the guy doing maintenance is undertaking it correctly. Trust that the pilots are flying correctly. Trust that the airline is obeying the regulations. Trust that the Regulator has the correct level of oversight.

Blind faith would be a non-engineer designing and building his own aircraft, climbing into it and attempting to fly across the Atlantic (without having any flying lessons or qualifications) and expecting to arrive in one piece, because he just knows that he won't die during the attempt.

Or, put another way, blind faith is playing Russian Roulette with a six-shooter absolutely convinced that the chamber will be empty every time you put the gun to your head.

Vince

Edited November 8, 2014 by vince14

[modelguy2]

trust=faith

faith=trust

[Berkut]

[Scott R Wilson]

trust=faith

faith=trust

Without arguing the semantics, let's postulate you are correct. I have faith the engineers and mechanics followed proper science-based procedures. Various accidents over the years would bear out the idea that they don't always. Nevertheless I have faith they did the day I flew a plane. What is different is that there is also a way to verify that faith, through testing, inspection of form signoffs and the like. In going back and re-testing, say, a transponder that had been signed off as repaired I could verify the truth of that sign off or the falsification of that document.

Religious faith can't be tested and verified to be false, though I know of one experiment in which Christians were asked to pray for certain people with a disease while others with the same disease were not on the list, and there was statistically no difference in outcomes. But I suppose you can't prove a negative...

[modelguy2]

It's like people believing that they were saved from a disastrous situation through the act of some divinity. Yet you can not say that people that were not saved wouldn't claim the same if they were. I don't believe "God" interferes with "fate" but at the same time that doesn't dissuade me from my belief in a creator. If prayer worked everything would be peachy wouldn't it? If you swapped trust for faith in the above statement it would read the same. Yes you can " verify that faith, through testing, inspection of form signoffs and the like" but that would delay some flights were it to be preformed before every one. What you have without the testing is faith.

[vince14]

trust=faith

faith=trust

Trust = A system with oversight.

Faith = Assumption.

Vince

[modelguy2]

Trust=an assumption that things are as they should be and the trustee has complied with their responsibilities. An assumption upon another's trustworthiness. A hope and belief that the person/entity given this trust is indeed worthy of it.

Faith-the belief that what one would hope to happen would come t fruition-i.e. I have faith in my mechanic, or the airline.

Both are words that can mean many things yet their commonality is greater than their contextual differences. Both infer an expectation.it all depends on one's interpretation.

[DutyCat]

OK, let's "evolve" this conversation in a related direction.

A constant irritant for me is the relative amount of thought, time and resources we personally put into religion vs what we put into science. According a 2013 Bureau of Labor Statistics study, American's spend about $700 per consumer unit on religious donations. A consumer unit is defined as a family, person living alone, or a couple. That number is about 125 million. So, if we multiply 700 by 125 million, you get 87,500,000,000. That is 87 billion, 500 million bucks folks....all donated to religious institutions.

How much money, do we as individuals contribute to the advancement of science? That statistic is not even kept as it is very small. When you are contributing to the church, are you sending a check to NASA(or other research facility) as well, or instead of the church?

Why? Let's explore this a little bit.

To begin with, we have developed a cultural mindset that scientific research falls within the purview of the government, large corporations, and universities. Fair enough. Substantial tax revenue goes to these entities. Also, many companies spend a lot of their own cash on R and D...but this includes the development of everything from razors to rocket ships. In other words, it is business investment, mostly geared towards marketable products. In one study I read, total R and D, public and private was $405 billion or about $1200 per person. The US Gov portion for 2015 is $135 billion of that, or 3.4% of the budget. Just the interest on the $18+ trillion national debt will be $252 billion in 2015. And yet we will again spend over $500 billion more than we collect in taxes. Not to digress...

The point being that, as a culture do not value scientific advancement enough. In fact, many are suspicious of it. When it comes to consumer products or medical science, we are mostly on board(except for things that conflict with religion, like stem cell research), but other technologies, things that the average person does not understand, things that have the potential to change the world or upset the social order...we avoid because they are just too scary. To some, the potential destructive power of some relatively near future technologies are like a Pandora's Box...better not to open it.

I understand this, but while we are playing it safe, we are not moving the ball down field. We have a number of problems to deal with in over the next 100 years...pollution, global warming, overpopulation, energy...they can all be solved through a combination of science and social education... Unfortunately, many of our citizens don't have a clue and are not very forward thinking. As a nation, we need to take the lead on this stuff...show the rest of the world how it can be done.

Edited November 11, 2014 by DutyCat

[niart17]

Seriously? We spend billions of dollars to athletes and entertainers just to "escape" reality. We spend a TON of money on trivial electronic devices that everyone uses to play angry birds. And you think spending to religious institutions, which by and large head up charity functons, ya know like something really trivial like feeding the homeless, ensuring children of incarcerated parents have a somewhat joyful Christmas, building homes for the needy and doing other missions work, you think THAT is the problem when it comes to spending on science? I mean, if you want to say something like "we need to increase the budget in the sciences, start funding Nasa more and start investing in REAL research that actually benefits the country" (not some study on the addictive nature of monkeys or something stupid like that) then I'm right behind you all the way and will hold the bull horn for you. But to think that religious spending is the culprit holding that back? Sorry, you lose me on that leap.

Bill

Edited November 11, 2014 by niart17

[DutyCat]

Seriously? We spend billions of dollars to athletes and entertainers just to "escape" reality. We spend a TON of money on trivial electronic devices that everyone uses to play angry birds. And you think spending to religious institutions, which by and large head up charity functons, ya know like something really trivial like feeding the homeless, ensuring children of incarcerated parents have a somewhat joyful Christmas, building homes for the needy and doing other missions work, you think THAT is the problem when it comes to spending on science? I mean, if you want to say something like "we need to increase the budget in the sciences, start funding Nasa more and start investing in REAL research that actually benefits the country" (not some study on the addictive nature of monkeys or something stupid like that) then I'm right behind you all the way and will hold the bull horn for you. But to think that religious spending is the culprit holding that back? Sorry, you lose me on that leap.

Bill

You are correct. A ton of money is spent on trivial things...no question. But my comments were made within the context of the relative values of religion and science, which is what this thread, despite its origins, ended up revolving around.

As you noted, donated church money is often used to help the down and out. I should have acknowledged that.

Now, on the other hand, if you want to talk about wasting money, religious institutions probably spend far more on sustaining themselves than they dole out to the poor. On a national level, guys like Joel Osteen are making millions preaching and selling books. He is just the latest in a long line of charismatic schlocks telling folks what they want to hear and profiting from it.

If you worship in a decent sized church, it probably cost millions to build...with big tall ceilings, giant steeples, expensive pipe organs, hand made stained glass, etc.

Also, let us not forget the missionary trips.....where good Christian church folks spend air fair and other expenses traveling to some third world craphole to provide medical care etc....along with a good dose of churching up in what is likely a distinctly non-western culture. To me, that is a bit pretentious, at the very least. There are other, more efficient ways to deliver aid through professional, well run NGOs.

But again, let me emphasize, I am not "anti-religious." Churches do lots of good things, and people have a right to make their own choices and live life the way they see fit, individually and collectively. But there is plenty of hypocrisy all around, and churches are not immune to it.

Edited November 11, 2014 by DutyCat

[Don]

Honestly...is this thread about UFO's, space travel, and exploring outer space (which the threads title seems to suggest...yes... :blink: ?) or has this become yet another endless pi$$ing match between followers of the religion and church of science vs. followers of organized spiritual Religions?

<_<