[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 57 KB, 1024x566, 1575445021978.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11284450 No.11284450[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>Life came on an asteroid
>Earth was seeded by aliens
>We live in a simulation
If you believe any of these , you might as well believe in God.

>> No.11284452

>>11284450
>If you believe any of these , you might as well believe in God.

Doesn’t follow. All of those ideas are much more coherent and possible than “God”, whatever that’s even supposed to be.

Also not science or math

>> No.11284455

>>11284452
"What's the origin of life" is very much a /sci/ question.

>> No.11284457

>>11284455
>"What's the origin of life" is very much a /sci/ question.

That question wasn’t asked in the OP. The OP is a boring attempt to provoke people by making absurd comparisons.

>> No.11284460

>>11284457
You don't have to ask the question directly , the question is so well known that by citing these "answers" that i think are stupid i am implying it.

>> No.11284466

>>11284460
Why are they stupid?

>> No.11284477

>>11284466
Because they are just another way of Saying "God" , without saying "God".
Ironically there is more evidence for the existence of God than the existence of Aliens.
And with the simulation thing , it's like who created the simulation ? Isn't that just what you would call God.

>> No.11284488

>>11284477
>Because they are just another way of Saying "God" , without saying "God".
No it’s not. Believing that life has spread to earth from other bodies in space or even from other solar systems, for example via bacteria and other microorganisms is not equivalent with god.
>Ironically there is more evidence for the existence of God than the existence of Aliens.
There is virtually no evidence of aliens and absolutely no evidence of god, but there IS evidence against god, at least If you pick any specific god.
>And with the simulation thing , it's like who created the simulation ? Isn't that just what you would call God.
Yes it is, except more plausible.

>> No.11284491

>>11284477
>Because they are just another way of Saying "God" , without saying "God".

No they aren’t.

> Ironically there is more evidence for the existence of God than the existence of Aliens.

Yeah, you’re definitely memeing.
There is no evidence of God at all, nor any suggestion that such a being is possible to any extent, whereas alien life is, at the very minimum, possible if not expected.

> And with the simulation thing , it's like who created the simulation ?

People, not “God” or “gods”.

>> No.11284500

>>11284488
A lack of evidence for something that you expect to see evidence for (aliens), is more sever than lack of evidence for something you should not expect to see evidence for (God exists outside the physical world)

How is "we live in a simulation" more plausible than "God created the universe" ? They are literally the same at thier core.

>> No.11284501
File: 723 KB, 1080x1920, Screenshot_2020-01-07-14-24-46.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11284501

Just gonna drop thheeees

Also who doesnt beliebe ine god is a pseud

>> No.11284504

>>11284501
Sorry i meant who rules out the possibility of God existung

>> No.11284505
File: 41 KB, 736x233, singularity intelligence scale.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11284505

>>11284450
>If you believe any of these , you might as well believe in God.
Yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxYbA1pt8LA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIno-PhSQlM

>> No.11284507

>>11284500
>A lack of evidence for something that you expect to see evidence for (aliens)

Why the fuck do you expect to see evidence of aliens?

> is more sever than lack of evidence for something you should not expect to see evidence for (God exists outside the physical world)

Saying God exists outside of the physical world is saying he exists nowhere and never, as in he isn’t real.

> How is "we live in a simulation" more plausible than "God created the universe" ?

Because we can create simulations ourselves right now, fuckhead.

>> No.11284510

>>11284501
>Just gonna drop thheeees

No one reads Nazi

>> No.11284511

>>11284507
>Why do you expect evidence for aliens.
Fermi paradox
>God existes nowhere and never
Please tell us genius, what is at the edge of the universe ? What happens when you cross it ?
>We can simulate ourselves
First of all we can't , second even if we did you just have to take the problem a step further , who created the thing that's simulating us.

>> No.11284515

>>11284511
>Fermi paradox

Nonexistent, since most of the values in the Drake equation are completely unknown,

> Please tell us genius, what is at the edge of the universe ?

There is no “edge of the universe”.

>We can simulate ourselves

Didn’t say that. Lying is really bad for your credibility

>second even if we did you just have to take the problem a step further , who created the thing that's simulating us.

Doesn’t matter, since the simulation hypothesis only seeks to explain the origin of our universe.

>> No.11284522

>>11284515
>Nonexistent, since most of the values in the Drake equation are completely unknown
Low estimates are enough for Fermi to hold
>Universe has no edge
Who says ? Anyhow it clearly has a starting point in time , what happened before then ?
>It's meant to explain the origin of the universe
And it runs into the same and even more "problems" than the hypothesis about the existence of God.

>> No.11284533

>>11284522
>Low estimates are enough for Fermi to hold

Nope, and Fermi paradox is utterly irrelevant since the “aliens seeded life on earth” idea requires only one other civilization to have ever existed billions of years ago.

> Who says ?

Basically any cosmologist since the 40’s.

> Anyhow it clearly has a starting point in time , what happened before then ?

Are you being stupid on purpose?
The term “before” refers to a prior point in time. Saying “before time” is literally nonsense on par with “I spleened goop a doopol ploop burp dnfhfhff”.

> And it runs into the same and even more "problems"

It’s only problem is the lack of testability.
Why are you even including goofy ideas like “da universe is a simulation” and “aliens made life on earth” with the perfectly scientific possibility of panspermia? Most people with any knowledge of the subject ascribe to the position that life formed on earth through abiogenesis.

>> No.11284539

>>11284522
>Who says ?
An edged universe would raise much more questions than it would solve. It's easy to not bother with it, granted you use Occam's razor.
>what happened before then ?
Arguing for time when there is no space is nonsensical.

>> No.11284557

>>11284452
Though even our ideas about God start to get mixed up if the possibility of a multiverse gets significant. And that's to say nothing of the simulation hypothesis, which starts to blend with IRL-shit if there are multiple universes and one could either transit between them or manipulate branes to create new, compatible universes.

>> No.11284571

>>11284533
>abiogenesis
Unironically less plausible than the other two.
>>11284557
What's inbetween universes

>> No.11284578

>>11284452
>Doesn’t follow. All of those ideas are much more coherent and possible than “God”, whatever that’s even supposed to be.
Well the simulation theory is the same as a God.
It's someone or thing that created a world or simulation, they are both the same just different names.

>> No.11284834

>>11284477
>Ironically there is more evidence for the existence of God than the existence of Aliens.
False,
We have proof that other lifeform could exist anywhere else in the universe and we've discovered plenty of planet with favorable condition.
Whereas the concept of a "god" isn't defined enough for two people to agree on what it mean.

Making even UFO conspiracist still more rational than your common religious person.