Aliens, yay or nay?

[Anti]

Two different statements follow.

Statement #1: I have seen no reason to believe aliens are visiting earth.
Statement #2: Aliens have definitely never visited earth.

If you can't tell the difference between the two you will continue to feel frustrated by my responses.

For the record, statement #1 is my position.

 

[Galactic]

Re: Aliens, yay or nay?

Statement #1: I have seen no reason to believe aliens are visiting earth. **a concept of "aliens" must be assumed to state this
Statement #2: Aliens have definitely never visited earth. **because they have not left quantifiable evidence of presence on earth

1 - I have seen no reason to believe the only wild unicorns left aren't invisible. **a concept of "unicorns must be assumed to state this

2 - Unicorns definitely aren't invisible. **because they have left no quantifiable evidence of presence on earth

Sincerely wanting clarification Anti.

 

[Anti]

Statement #1: I have seen no reason to believe aliens are visiting earth.
Statement #2: Aliens have definitely never visited earth.

1 - I have seen no reason to believe the only wild unicorns left aren't invisible. **a concept of "unicorns must be assumed to state this

2 - Unicorns definitely aren't invisible. **because they have left no quantifiable evidence of presence on earth

Sincerely wanting clarification Anti.

I'll give it a shot. Look at my statements and compare them to yours. They are not analogous.

A better choice if you want to go with unicorns would be the following:

Statement #1: I have seen no evidence for invisible, intangible unicorns.
Statement #2: Invisible, intangible unicorns do not exist.


I take position #1.

Clear enough?

 

[Anti]

Also, on the subject of evidence and proof. Many people confuse the two. I use the word evidence the way it is used in science.

There is no "proof" of gravity. Proofs only exist in mathematics. There is evidence of gravity and a theory of gravity.

In a scientific sense, a theory is the highest truth we have thus far ascertained. A theory is as close to "fact" as science is comfortable to go. There is a THEORY of gravity. If new evidence comes to light that disproves some aspect of that theory, the theory will be amended to reflect the new evidence. That's science.

What we have here in this thread is a HYPOTHESIS. The hypothesis, stated bluntly, is:

HYPOTHESIS: Aliens are visiting this planet and interacting with some of the inhabitants.

Now at this stage, it's a hypothesis, not a theory. We need to gather evidence for the hypothesis and see if the evidence matches or changes our hypothesis. A TRULY open mind would NOT accept the hypothesis as TRUE or FALSE, but would look for evidence that either helps or discredits the hypothesis.

People keep telling me I have a closed mind because I have not jumped to a conclusion that Aliens are real, despite claiming this knowledge themselves but being very unwilling to supply the evidence that they found convincing.

A list of names or the name of a website/dvd series do not count as evidence.

If you said, "Go watch this video on youtube. At 2:15-3:30 there's CLEARLY an alien" I could go investigate that claim.

If you are presenting evidence that "something is happening". Well, sure. I agree. SOMETHING is.

But if you are claiming that you saw "something" and that you are now CONVINCED that it is aliens, you have either taken a leap of faith (which is NOT rational nor open-minded) or you should be able to explain how what you saw is EVIDENCE for something SPECIFIC... like extraterrestrials.

 

[Growcephus]

I did so because people keep telling me that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Evidence and truth, even in the scientific world...hell, ESPECIALLY in the scientific world, tends to be relative, as opposed to absolute, and limited by the technology and understanding of the day.

Just look at the history of the atom and the impact quantum mechanics had on the relative "truth" of atomic composition.

I would argue that we have all the physical evidence we need to reasonably conclude, with a HIGH degree of probability, not only that life exists outside of our solar system, but that it MUST exist.

Physical evidence:

- The universe contains all the matter we find here on our particular little rock.

- Gravity, and time, are capable of consolidating, spreading, mixing, and transforming this matter into astronomical bodies we recognize as stars, planets, comets, moons, etc...

- Stars set the conditions that facilitate life as we know it, and there are billions, and billions [gettin' Carl Sagan on that ass! ] ...and billions of stars in our galaxy.

- Our galaxy is but one of BILLIONS and billions, in the known universe.

The physical evidence is there, including the ONE factor that can even bend probability over like a bitch: Time.

One day we WILL get some no-shit, undisputed proof that life is out there, because that's where the current evidence is leading us.



Respect to all, regardless of personal beliefs.

 

[lost in a sea]

i think both sides of this should agree to disagree and stop wasting their precious time on this planet with this nonsense..

it's just not worth it.

 

[Anti]

My, my. All the sly, completely anonymous "not helpful" finding of my posts is pretty brave!

Oh wait. It's the opposite of that.

I have karma to spare, coward.

 

[Anti]

Evidence and truth, even in the scientific world...hell, ESPECIALLY in the scientific world, tends to be relative, as opposed to absolute, and limited by the technology and understanding of the day.

Agreed.

Just look at the history of the atom and the impact quantum mechanics had on the relative "truth" of atomic composition.

Agreed.

I would argue that we have all the physical evidence we need to reasonably conclude, with a HIGH degree of probability, not only that life exists outside of our solar system, but that it MUST exist.

Agreed.

Physical evidence:

- The universe contains all the matter we find here on our particular little rock.

- Gravity, and time, are capable of consolidating, spreading, mixing, and transforming this matter into astronomical bodies we recognize as stars, planets, comets, moons, etc...

- Stars set the conditions that facilitate life as we know it, and there are billions, and billions [gettin' Carl Sagan on that ass! ] ...and billions of stars in our galaxy.

- Our galaxy is but one of BILLIONS and billions, in the known universe.

The physical evidence is there, including the ONE factor that can even bend probability over like a bitch: Time.

Agreed. I stated almost all of these things in the course of this discussion.

One day we WILL get some no-shit, undisputed proof that life is out there, because that's where the current evidence is leading us.

And ON THAT DAY we will be justified in BELIEVING it is true. Not before.

Respect to all, regardless of personal beliefs.

Agreed.

 

[Anti]

i think both sides of this should agree to disagree and stop wasting their precious time on this planet with this nonsense..

it's just not worth it.

Is anyone being forced to read or participate in this thread in the toker's den?

If so... that's wrong and it should stop.

If people are participating through their own free will then I think it should be allowed to continue.

If someone has some credible evidence to suggest that aliens are interacting with humans, I want to know about it.

 

[Growcephus]

And ON THAT DAY we will be justified in BELIEVING it is true. Not before.

It's all good.

If we, as a species, didn't question and challenge each other, we wouldn't have NEARLY the motivation to discover and invent things that make life a bit more pleasant.

 

[avant gardener®]

chalk another vote up for reason.

 

[Galactic]

Re: Aliens, yay or nay?

I fully comprehend statement #1 and essentially agree. It's neither affirmative or denying. More "postulative" rather than "conclusive" like statement 2, the oppositions position.

Not a closeminded statement at all.

I tried to illustrate, poorly, a statement analogous in its "postulative" nature if that makes any sense.

And ON THAT DAY we will be justified in BELIEVING it is true. Not before.

In the most general sense possible, Can I put forth that a given truth exists prior to its evidential justification? I mean, the justification was only for our fragile egos. We didn't justify it into existence.

 

[bombadil.360]

And ON THAT DAY we will be justified in BELIEVING it is true. Not before.

you assume that knowing is a democratic thing though, and that's not true at all.

knowledge of things isn't democratic at all...

some people believe in things neither you nor me have ever heard of and if we heard about them we'd be hesitant to believe; however, these people that do indeed believe in such things do so because they know a lot more about such things than we do.

the history of science is full of examples that illustrates what I'm saying.

lets take hydrogen electric generators; some people had the technical know-how and knew about it and believed it to be a viable way to produce electricity.

on the other hand, we have people with money who are easily able to invest in the development of such technologies, but who do not believe it to be either possible nor a good investment. a good friend of mine manages the accounts of many wealthy people, and he always tries to get them to invest in such technological developments within the pure sciences, and NONE have ever invested in them yet...

so again, knowledge of things, and subsequent belief originating from such knowledge in any particular thing is not democratic at all.

when it comes to aliens and ufos, just like in science, it's full of charlatans and snake-oil sellers; however, this does not dismisses the fact that there are certain truths behind it all.

peace.

 

[komodod]

yes there is something in our skies which are not of human origin

 

[Harry Gypsna]

OK, I have to say, I'm just about on Antis side on this one.
I believe life, elsewhere in the universe is possible, even probable, just based on the vastness of the universe. To assume otherwise would be arrogant. However, to assume any species which had developed the capability for inter-stellar travel would be interested in us in any way other than the way we are interested in bugs and slugs is equally arrogant.
I have yet to see any evidence that we have been visited by aliens.
Someone a few pages back asked why should the believers have to prove anything, well that's how it works in science, the burden of proof falls upon the side making the assertion, remaining skeptical is not an assertion.
The U in UFO does not stand for "Ualiens", it stands for "Unidentified", the whole aliens thing has been a real boon to the super secret defense development industry. Many of the UFO sightings in the 60s and 70s were the Blackbird SR71, and this was repeated with the stealth bomber. Take a look at the SR71 and the stealth bomber, looking directly at it from the front, anyone could be forgiven for seeing a flying saucer. Think about the secret silent helicopters used on the Osama raid, nobody knew about those until the raid, and had one not crashed, we probably wouldn't know about them now.
Steven Hawking doesn't think we should be sending signals off into space pointing out that we exist and how to find us, because what happens when a technologically advanced group meets a "primitive" group, how has that always turned out amongst human beings on earth?. It is very likely that were such an advanced race to come visiting, the human race would be the Native Americans, the Aboriginal Australians etc, to the Aliens White Europeans.
I believe some people who have been "Abducted by aliens and experimented on", but I believe the abducters were much more likely to be their own governments or even private businesses/corporations.
Just to clarify, I believe life on other planets is probable, but aliens whizzing about scaring pilots, transmitting signals into peoples heads and doing anal probes is not probable.

 

[lost in a sea]

yes there is something in our skies which are not of human origin

comets and meteorites?

and the gods of antiquity, the planets..

Anti i've realised that since the alien paradox is a belief thing then dont try and argue with that, its like arguing with a literalist self proclamied monotheist,, which has never done any good ever..

there's no point in trying to disprove something people have already invested their belief in because you just get labelled as a skeptic,, a disbeliever..

i think the alien phenomenon is a dis-astra..

 

[Anti]

Who here is attempting to disprove aliens?

As Harry already pointed out, the burden of proof lies on the claimant. The more extraordinary the claim, the more extraordinary the evidence must be.

 

[ezak420]

There are peaceful gray aliens, balanced in harmony between black and white. Ying and yang. Highly advanced, super trees, lumber jackin' all day.

 

[avant gardener®]

i don't understand a lick of what you just said.
in fact, i'm pretty sure you're bonkers.
and i agree entirely.

 

[im me]

anyone who thinks us humans are the only intelligent life form out there is just fucking stupid. do you you have any idea how many galaxies are out there? how many planets capable of supporting life? the milky way is just one of countless galaxies. its mathematically impossible that we are alone. are there little green men in space ships running around ass probing people, i doubt it. but there is definitely life out there.