Why do a lot of atheists believe in aliens?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Extremotroph
Tell that to the bigoted trolls, oh wait I forgot you were in league with them.
What are you talking about?
Original post by lucaf
is it 47 billion light years across? I thought the fact that the universe is 14 billion years old would mean, by definition, the visible universe couldn't be more than 28 billion light years across? I agree with what you are saying, just confused about that part 
Actually I just looked it up and its 46 billion light years from earth to the end of the observable universe. It doesn't matter that the universe is only 14 billion years old, as spacetime is curved.
Original post by ThatPerson
What are you talking about?
Selective ignorance I see.
Original post by AnharM
I'm not, I'm like any other normal guy, that uses the word "****" a lot, excuse my language.
Yeah you probably have tourettes thrn
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Extremotroph
Selective ignorance I see.
I really have no idea what the hell you are talking about.
If you want to call me a bigoted troll and say that I am selectively ignorant, at least explain yourself.
Original post by A5ko
No, really it's true.
A person is illiterate if they can't read or write. Yeah, I'd doubt they'd be on TSR if they were illiterate.
Just consider this, I'm from London, where slang words like "fam" and "bruv" are used regularly, and I like it. It's the way I was brought up. It's a certain unique identity, that I was brought up from a working class background, and I went to a state school. I like that. I think if a person uses these sort of words in everyday life, they should use it on TSR as well, to show some personality.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by the mezzil
LOL allow it.
Original post by AnharM
A person is illiterate if they can't read or write. Yeah, I'd doubt they'd be on TSR if they were illiterate.
Just consider this, I'm from London, where slang words like "fam" and "bruv" are used regularly, and I like it. It's the way I was brought up, it's a certain unique identity that I was brought up from a working class background, and I went to a state school. I like that. I think if a person uses these sort of words in everyday life, they should use it on TSR as well, to show some personality.
Just consider this, I'm from London, where slang words like "fam" and "bruv" are used regularly, and I like it. It's the way I was brought up, it's a certain unique identity that I was brought up from a working class background, and I went to a state school. I like that. I think if a person uses these sort of words in everyday life, they should use it on TSR as well, to show some personality.
Oh, I'm dreadfully sorry AnharM, but there seem's to have been a misunderstanding.
Apparently, I must have given you the impression that I actually wanted to know.
Original post by the mezzil
How?
Original post by DaveSmith99
Actually I just looked it up and its 46 billion light years from earth to the end of the observable universe. It doesn't matter that the universe is only 14 billion years old, as spacetime is curved.
fair enough, I hadn't thought of expansion
Original post by A5ko
Oh, I'm dreadfully sorry AnharM, but there seem's to have been a misunderstanding.
Apparently, I must have given you the impression that I actually wanted to know.
Apparently, I must have given you the impression that I actually wanted to know.
You tried calling me illiterate when you added an apostrophe on "seems"...smh
Original post by AnharM
You tried calling me illiterate when you added an apostrophe on "seems"...smh
You've misunderstood. I simply mentioned that those who decide to use big words are not necessarily being untrue to their 'offline' personality. You seem to believe anyone who has a basic command of the English language is 'acting'.
As for the apostrophe, that's how we say it where I'm from 'bruv'....
Original post by AnharM
LOL allow it.
Don't pay attention to these pathetic goons. Since the thread title concerns "Atheist", all the hardcore godless authority worshippers (those who think* branding themselves as atheist makes them a real individual) are coming out in force to cluck behind a keyboard. They are not worth the effort, just a bunch of coward bullies.
* I use the term loosely. Compute is a more apt description.
I don't know. 
What is meant by aliens, though? Does bacteria count as an alien?
What is meant by aliens, though? Does bacteria count as an alien?
Original post by joseon
I'm not sure that you fully understand the anthropic principle if you cannot see that it is dependent on the existence of the multiverse. The anthropic principle states that we must find ourselves in a universe with laws that permits life to exist in order to be around to ask the question why are the laws the way they are. But this doesn't change the fact that the values of the physical constants (mass of the proton/neutron, the strength of the weak nuclear force/gravity and the value of the cosmological constant etc) could have been different in a huge number of ways, the vast majority of which would render life impossible.
In order to explain why the constants took the values which we observe, the anthropic principle employs the multiverse to explain that there are many universes without life but we must necessarily exist in one of the rare universes with laws that permit life. As an analogy consider that it's not unusual for somebody somewhere to win the euromillions because there are millions of people playing every week. If only one person were playing we wouldn't expect them to win even if they played every week for a million years. The anthropic principle without the multiverse is equivalent to one person playing the lottery on one occasion, winning, then saying after the event "well of course I won the lottery, if I hadn't I wouldn't be a lottery winner".
The notion of the multiverse might not be an absurd one but it is not supported by empiral evidence, and due to the fact that the postulated other universes are, by definition, casually disconnected from our own, there never will be. Thus, as I said, if you dismiss the idea of a intelligent creator because of a lack of evidence, you should dismiss the multiverse for the same reason.
I brought up the fine tuning in order to draw a comparison between the evidence for God vs the evidence for alien life, which I did to highlight what I perceive to be a double standard.
In order to explain why the constants took the values which we observe, the anthropic principle employs the multiverse to explain that there are many universes without life but we must necessarily exist in one of the rare universes with laws that permit life. As an analogy consider that it's not unusual for somebody somewhere to win the euromillions because there are millions of people playing every week. If only one person were playing we wouldn't expect them to win even if they played every week for a million years. The anthropic principle without the multiverse is equivalent to one person playing the lottery on one occasion, winning, then saying after the event "well of course I won the lottery, if I hadn't I wouldn't be a lottery winner".
The notion of the multiverse might not be an absurd one but it is not supported by empiral evidence, and due to the fact that the postulated other universes are, by definition, casually disconnected from our own, there never will be. Thus, as I said, if you dismiss the idea of a intelligent creator because of a lack of evidence, you should dismiss the multiverse for the same reason.
I brought up the fine tuning in order to draw a comparison between the evidence for God vs the evidence for alien life, which I did to highlight what I perceive to be a double standard.
I think I understand the Anthropic principle. I have a masters in physics....
"In order to explain why the constants took the values which we observe, the anthropic principle employs the multiverse to explain that there are many universes without life but we must necessarily exist in one of the rare universes with laws that permit life."
No. The Anthropic principle makes no reference whatsoever to an explanation of why the values are what they are. It does not try and explain anything. The Anthropic principle, or more specifically the weak anthropic principle simply states 'the universe must exist in such a way that, at our location, it is compatible with our existence as observers'. It does not say why that is so.
Multiverse theory is simply one such explanation of why the values are such, taking a probabilistic approach with many universes having many values of constants, the majority of which have no life. As mentioned though, the Anthropic principle does attempt to explain.
Separate from Multiverse theory is the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics which asserts that the universal wave-function incorporates all objective-realities. This then would support the fine-tuning of the universe, as the universal wave-function would include all possible values for the fundamental constants and we exist within the world which contains the correct combination of values. (This is a separate idea from the Multiverse theory as it proposes multiple universes exist within their own regions of space-time as a result of inflation).
Another separate idea is that there is just one universe and that the values of the constants vary through time. As such it happens we live in the time were the values are correct because it is the only possible time within the current universe where life could have evolved to observe it.
Or it could just be that there is only one universe and it does have the right set of constants. And that just so happens to be, if it wasn't the case, then we wouldn't know about it, but it is, so we do. Your analogy does not disprove the fact that this could well be the case, in fact your analogy supports it. As you said, the chances of winning the lottery are incredibly small, yet, it is not impossible to play once and win, as could be the case with our universe. The lottery winner saying, I won because they won is correct, we could be here because we won and we are observing the fact that we won because we are here. It's circular but its circularity states nothing about the reason for winning, which is what you are claiming, that reason you say is God.
It's all besides the point though because the Anthropic principle does not worry about which one of these is correct. All it does is assert that the values must be what they are, so that we can observe them to be that value. Our very existence makes the values unremarkable because it forces them to be those values. As such, you cannot claim that it is proof of a God due to them being so finely tuned because they must be that finely tuned. As for the reason why? You can't say one way or the other, so it could be one of the reasons I already mentioned, it could be God or it could be an infinitude of other reasons. You cannot say.
As a side note on your comments regarding the impossibility of proving Multiverse Theory, you are incorrect. See this article:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/oct/04/how-to-spot-a-multiverse
Additionally it is wrong to put the dismissal of God without evidence on the same footing as the dismal of a scientific theory without evidence. It is true to say that you cannot prove a negative, thus all negatives should be assumed false until proven true. This reasoning applies to God because his existence is contradictory to all currently proven laws of physics. It is akin to having a completely new theory, which says all current theories are wrong, while also having no evidence to support such a claim. The same reasoning can't be used to dismiss a theory such as Multiverse theory (or even String theory) on the basis of lack of evidence because, while they have lack of evidence, they have a wealth of mathematical theory behind them which is directly supported by currently proven mathematics. So, rather than knocking over the pillars of science as we know it, these theories stand on top of them and are supported. There is no reason why they could not be true, within known physics. The same cannot be said for God. I am not saying that means we should assume them to be true, what I am saying though is that they shouldn't be instantly assumed false due to lack of evidence, since they are supported by known physics. You however are saying that they should be instantly assumed false due to lack of evidence, if one is to do the same to God. That is not the same thing.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Extremotroph
To be so arrogant as to trump your "opinion" (read: sheep mind bull ****) on the Quran above someone else's, who has been reading and discussing it from a young age, really does reflect the depth of your intellect. Have a nice day chatting about **** you don't know.
You know this how? Are you two secretly best friends?
And I beg to differ. Your inability to get your point across without swearing displays your lack of intellect, don't you think?
And do you want to deny that you follow rules in the quran without questioning the logic behind them? Deny it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Forum User
The (strong) anthropic principle in no way depends on the existence of the multiverse. Your statement of the strong anthropic principle is correct. [The weak anthropic principle has nothing at all to do with multiverses]
Are you talking about the Carter WAP/SAP or the Barrow and Tipler WAP/SAP? In any case I suppose I should have specified that I was talking about the strong anthropic principle. Carter's weak anthropic principle doesn't really have anything at all to say about why the physcial laws take the values they do, only that we must necessarily find ourselves in a region in which the natural laws permit our existence.
Original post by Forum User
Sure, so what, that doesn't mean that there must be a multiverse. The strong anthropic principle doesn't have to have any explanatory effect, or be a basis for testable predictions. It is *true* even if there is only one universe.
Well the guy I was responding to was trying to use the anthropic principle to explain the fine tuning of the universe to negate the need for a designer, but without employing the muliverse it cannot be used in this way. Indeed Barrow and Tipler's SAP actually states that "There exists one possible Universe designed with the goal of generating and sustaining observers." The only reasonable alternative to design as an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe is for there to be many rolls of the dice i.e. a multitude of universes.
Original post by Forum User
And that person would be correct, just as the strong anthropic principle is correct. I think your point is just that the strong anthropic principle is not interesting!
They might be correct. Alternatively the lottery could have been rigged from the start. This alternative would seem to an observer the more probable scenario considering the odds of a lottery with 1 player and 73 000 000 possible number combination being won at the first attempt. Of course the odds of the physcial constants being conduscive to life by mere chance is many orders of magnitude more unlikely than winning the lottery.
Original post by Eva.Gregoria
You know this how? Are you two secretly best friends?
And I beg to differ. Your inability to get your point across without swearing displays your lack of intellect, don't you think?
And do you want to deny that you follow rules in the quran without questioning the logic behind them? Deny it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
And I beg to differ. Your inability to get your point across without swearing displays your lack of intellect, don't you think?
And do you want to deny that you follow rules in the quran without questioning the logic behind them? Deny it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Do you think I'm a muslim?
Original post by AnharM
LOL allow it.
Its the truth! Believe!
I remember when i used to talk like this, i still do when i go home during uni holidays!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by joseon
The only reasonable alternative to design as an explanation for the fine tuning of the universe is for there to be many rolls of the dice i.e. a multitude of universes.
That doesn't follow. You seem to be saying that it is impossible to be lucky, and that the only other reasonable explanation is that it was rigged. It could be that we were just lucky.
They might be correct. Alternatively the lottery could have been rigged from the start.
Sure. But it doesn't follow that it is rigged, or even that it is likely rigged. If my ticket does win the Euromillions tomorrow I will not think that was rigged, I will think that I was lucky. That is because I assign a very very low a priori probability to the possibility that the Euromillions is somehow rigged in my favour. Atheists might similarly assign a very very low a priori probability to the possibility that God exists.
Or of course, the multiverse theory could be correct.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- There is no Fermi Paradox.
- Do aliens exist and have we been visited?
- Tantalising signs of life (biosignatures) on a distant exoplanet.
- I'm an atheist but I like the idea of having a god to believe in
- OCR A-Level Religious Studies Paper 3 (H573/03) 26th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- I've lost islam and I've lost my soul
- What does it mean that the PM is hindu?
- What religion was Mary Shelley author of Frankenstein?
- AQA A-level English Literature & Language Paper 2 (7707/2) - 8 Jun 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Depressed that I am not in a relationship
- Finding myself.
- Old school mates making fun of me for going to uni
- LNAT Essay feedback
- Transitioning from Science to Law
- UCL or Durham?
- IB TOK Essay
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Gap Year STEM Experience
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- why do I hate humans so much?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
