Do you believe in psychics, extraterrestrial life, time travel, other universes?

[Ielenia]

As the only known living specimen capable of doing what they do? Damn straight they would spend the rest of their natural life under a microscope. The scientific community won't let that go. Hell, I can 100% see some of the less reputable government backed science organizations arguing that "human rights" probably wouldn't even apply to them since them being able to do what they do probably means they might not even be human.

The "scientific community" is not the "basic human rights defiler community". Also, who said anything about that person being the "only one"? Are you saying that only one person in the entire world would have supernatural powers?

You haven't been paying very much attention if you honestly are making that comparison. Especially BLM. I mean, fuck, the Trump admin was literally ready to sic the military on them if they could get away with it, and they did have cops out there using extreme force "rubber bullets to the face, shoot first, arrest second, ask questions twenty third" style in a lot of those protests. The only reason they weren't straight up killing people is because you don't generally do that in polite society.

Why didn't they, then? Why now suddenly there's this worry of "if they could get away with it"? What makes you think they'd have an easier time "getting away with it" murdering one man?

Also, "the entire world at large" literally disagrees strongly with this assertion, as there are countries all over the globe who are willing AND able to use lethal force to subdue destabilizing elements. China for one.

Except I wasn't talking solely about governments when I spoke about the world's eyes. It was also the people, and the non-gov organizations.

Just because one government might manage to use them in a positive way doesn't mean that every OTHER government isn't going to view them being attached to the first as a direct threat. If they throw their lot in with the USA for example, China and Russia are likely going to take a dim view of another superpower having that kind of wildcard in it's pocket.

Yes! Russia and China will tremble because the US have a guy in their pockets who can levitate small objects with his mind!

Social media literally has 30% of the USA convinced that Vaccines are evil and part of a government conspiracy to turn you into 5g antennas or other dumbass shit. You honestly think, even for a second, that that would change in this instance? No way in hell the individual in question ends up "with all the eyes of the world on them in a good light" after the facebook trolls get wind of their existence.

You presenting the power of social media only strengthens my case. Also, I never said "all the eyes of the world would be in a good light".

Completely irrelevant. You postulated that fame would protect them. I pointed out that there are literally dozens of examples (and that's probably pretty low) that directly refute your point.

Except it's very relevant. I never said fame would 100% protect them. You're the one postulating that if a guy with supernatural powers came forward into the light, they would die, despite having literally zero evidence of that. And then when you tried to counter my claim that fame can protect them, you said "yeah famous people die too" and then I asked how many of those die in comparison to how many are still alive. Hell, let's make it even better: how many famous people are being assassinated in comparison to those still alive. Famous people get protection. That is a fact.

[Adamas102]

Nothing was created. It happened. There have been many instances recorded that could not be explained any other way. If it didn’t happen to you, there is no way for it to be proven or disproven by anyone else. The remote viewing projects did produce some amazing results but the accuracy was not 100% and therefore was deemed to be not reliable for making major policies based on it.

A name for you. Edgar Cayce. His story is truly amazing and to this day unexplained.

All I am saying is that I know for a fact that seeing into the future is possible. Whether other people can amplify it and see things not connected to them personally is another story. I agree that practically all those who have tried to gain fame and fortune from it have been frauds but I also believe that some of them did have experiences in a limited fashion like me but tried to capitalize by falsely expanding it and claiming to be able to do it at any time on demand. It doesn’t work that way. You can’t just decide to do it. It happens completely at random and out of nowhere. The fact that it can’t be done on demand completely negates the possibility of it being tested in any meaningful way. Therefore, scientific scrutiny means nothing and is essentially useless. Like other things, you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means. It’s completely futile to even try. Science does not have all the answers and never will.

Biomega's response to your post covered things well so I'll try to keep it short.

You simply don't know what you're talking about. You make guesses based on what you THINK makes the most sense based on completely unfounded belief in the supernatural. "It happens at random, cannot be tested or verified, adheres to none of the rules that govern our natural world, is often used by liars and cheats to trick ignorant people, BUT I KNOW IT FOR A FACT THAT IT'S TRUE" is pure delusion.

As for Edgar Cayce? The guy was a charlatan and a quack who believed in an alternate history of the world that included the city of Atlantis and tried to push pseudoscience and homeopathy as legitimate medicinal alternatives. The guy was clearly a delusional idiot that gained fame by fooling a lot of gullible people. Just like with remote viewing, which produced no positive results when later conducted under stricter controls, the fact that THESE are your best examples to support your claims just shows how laughable those claims truly are.

I KNOW none of this is going to convince you because if you're gotten to the point where you truly thought you could see the future there's no reasoning through that.

[Darththeo]

No, the cluelessness is entirely on your side. I don't need to prove life is unlikely elsewhere. It's your job -- that you totally suck at, btw -- to demonstrate that the evidence implies life is likely elsewhere. I just need to put up scenarios that are (1) consistent with the evidence, and (2) contradict your claim, in order to show that you are blowing smoke. I don't need to prove any such scenario is real. The obligation to prove your statement is on you, not on me to prove the opposite.

Except your (1) is not actually consistent with evidence. Evidence hasn't ruled it out completely, but evidence strongly suggest the likelihood of life forming is not astronomically tiny. There is no reason for us to assume the chance of life is as small as it would need to be to become unlikely. It's possible, that's all you have.

You are outdated on this subject by at least 2 decades.

All the evidence is point one way, you are turning around point the other and going "BUT IT COULD BE THAT WAY SO YOU CAN'T KNOW IT."

The mere possibility we could be wrong does not discount any evidence we have. And the fact the evidence TO YOU is not enough to justify the claim is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Because if they had, we would know of it. Simple enough.

And what if they were dismissed as frauds, or are stage magicians. etc ...

I am not saying they have or haven't, but how can you be certain they haven't?

Where does the odds become so small that it becomes "impossible elsewhere" when our universe is, as far as we know, near damn well limitless in size?

*shrugs* I don't know. He is arguing points based on nothing but "it's possible."

If he was "I am not convinced by the evidence" that's fine, but he doesn't even know what evidence we have is.

[Ielenia]

And what if they were dismissed as frauds, or are stage magicians. etc ...

Then that means they are "frauds, stage magicians or etc." Simple enough.

I am not saying they have or haven't, but how can you be certain they haven't?

Because none so far have proven that they do have supernatural powers?

[Darththeo]

Then that means they are "frauds, stage magicians or etc." Simple enough.


Because none so far have proven that they do have supernatural powers?

Just because something is "dismissed" as X does not make them X.

And just because none of been proven doesn't mean none of them have it.

(Note: This is part of the reason I like conspiracy theories, not to believe, but this is what they do. It is fun watching all the reasons.)

[Shadowferal]

I am the real deal.
But yep! I don't exist.
And life is so much easier for me.

[Ielenia]

Just because something is "dismissed" as X does not make them X.

They aren't "dismissed" in the same way as someone saying "I don't believe you. They are "dismissed" because they failed to uphold to their burden of proof. They were "dismissed" because they failed to prove they have supernatural powers, which means that the fraudulent way in which they mimic said "supernatural powers" has been discovered.

And just because none of been proven doesn't mean none of them have it.

Then it begs the question of why would they intentionally fail the test to prove they have supernatural powers. Because if they do have supernatural powers, and want to prove they don't... why would they fail the test?

[Osmeric]

"We don't know enough to be certain of our uncertainty" strange argument.

It's a totally reasonable argument. You can't compute a probability unless you know the probability distribution.

[Shadowferal]

It's a totally reasonable argument.

No. It's not.

And no amount of math can make it so.

[Darththeo]

Then it begs the question of why would they intentionally fail the test to prove they have supernatural powers. Because if they do have supernatural powers, and want to prove they don't... why would they fail the test?

Did I say they intentionally fail? No.
Someone can take a test to show they have powers, but the results are considered inconclusive or incorrect or they failed the test for other reasons.

[Osmeric]

Except your (1) is not actually consistent with evidence.

Really. Imagine a universe in which life around any particular star is so extremely uncommon because OoL is very difficult, that we are likely alone. How would that universe look any different than what we see now?

but evidence strongly suggest the likelihood of life forming is not astronomically tiny.

It does not. Please stop lying.

There is no reason for us to assume the chance of life is as small as it would need to be to become unlikely. It's possible, that's all you have.

There's no reason for us to assume life is common, either (we don't understand OoL well enough to make that assumption). So why are you giving that assumption privilege over the opposite assumption? The correct stance is to assume neither, because both assumptions are consistent with current evidence.

You are outdated on this subject by at least 2 decades.

Cool. Then you be able to easily point to the place where your argument is stated in ironclad terms. You don't seem to be able to STATE any ironclad argument, but certainly you should be able to find a reference.

(I expect any reference you give me will not in fact be such an argument, since you appear to have great difficulty understanding what a logical argument involves.)

All the evidence is point one way, you are turning around point the other and going "BUT IT COULD BE THAT WAY SO YOU CAN'T KNOW IT."

Yes, I am doing that. If you understood basic logic, you would understand that what I'm doing there is devastating to this illogic you are spewing.

The mere possibility we could be wrong does not discount any evidence we have.

What evidence is that? The evidence we have is consistent with life being rare. Your contention that it is not is a lie.

- - - Updated - - -

No. It's not.

And no amount of math can make it so.

"My incorrect mathematical argument cannot be refuted with math!"

Please stop being ridiculous.

[Darththeo]

It's a totally reasonable argument. You can't compute a probability unless you know the probability distribution.

Except it isn't. And that latter is not true.

You do not need to know the exact probability distribution to compute probability.
For example, I don't know exactly what the odds of getting a winning lotto number off the top of my head, but I know that the probability that someone will win the lottery is high.
I know the odds of any random order of cards is 1/52!, but I know that any shuffle is have a result. You cannot shuffle the cards and they disappear during it.
All that matters is that such odds can be calculated, not that they are known.

- - - Updated - - -

Really. Imagine a universe in which life around any particular star is so extremely uncommon because OoL is very difficult, that we are likely alone. How would that universe look any different than what we see now?

And how would the universe look any different if humans were the only intelligent life that used radiowaves and other electromagnetic signals to communicate?

It does not. Please stop lying.

We have found amino acids on freaking comets. Something we assumed required a planet to create.
There is potential they could even be on Pluto.

Every rare thing we have thought has shown has been shown to be far more common than we thought. You posit that there could be something rare we do not know. YOU NEED EVIDENCE FOR THAT. Otherwise, it is just a thought experiment.

There's no reason for us to assume life is common, either (we don't understand OoL well enough to make that assumption). So why are you giving that assumption privilege over the opposite assumption? The correct stance is to assume neither, because both assumptions are consistent with current evidence.

How many people said life is common? No, they said life is CERTAIN. Not COMMON. There could be just one other planet with life, there could be 100. If there were 100 planets (even just in the Milky Way) life wouldn't be common.

Also, even if they did, they are not using common as adverse to rare, but rather ordinary as life can be viewed.

Cool. Then you be able to easily point to the place where your argument is stated in ironclad terms. You don't seem to be able to STATE any ironclad argument, but certainly you should be able to find a reference.

No argument is ironclad. We can't even prove gravity with an "ironclad" unquestionable argument.
Even if we were to say find life on Mars, your argument becomes "Still doesn't prove life is certain outside the solar system."
We could find life on every single rocky body of a sufficient size ... still doesn't get us to life is certain outside of the solar system for you.

You are arguing something that even if we prove life is elsewhere outside of our solar system, you could still argue. You are making a claim that is unfalsifiable unless life is literally everywhere because you chose to argue common vs rare rather than certain vs uncertain.

Yes, I am doing that. If you understood basic logic, you would understand that what I'm doing there is devastating to this illogic you are spewing.

Given you don't know what an ad hominem is, stop commenting on other's understanding of logic. I am tired of your arrogant bs here, you are shit at logic.

Seriously, you change people arguments ... ie from certain or likely to common. That's strawmanning. Those are synonyms. .

[Osmeric]

Except it isn't. And that latter is not true.

You do not need to know the exact probability distribution to compute probability.

But we need to know something about the probability distribution. What is the distribution of possible physical laws, and what is the distribution of the chance life arises on a planet conditioned on that distribution? We have no idea; we don't even know if the concept can make any sense.

Your claim that OoL is likely elsewhere is not even wrong.

And how would the universe look any different if humans were the only intelligent life that used radiowaves and other electromagnetic signals to communicate?

You did not answer my question.

Let's consider a similar, perhaps more concrete question. Suppose you claimed that invisible unicorns are common in American cities, and I asked "well, what would America look like if there were no invisible unicorns, and how would that be different from what we see?"

If there is no difference, then our observations cannot rule the possibility there are no invisible unicorns in American cities.

So I ask again, what specifically would be different in what we see if life were not out there because OoL is a very rare process (even in the presence of oxygen, carbon, etc. as were on the early Earth)?

We have found amino acids on freaking comets. Something we assumed required a planet to create.
There is potential they could even be on Pluto.

That's nice. That just shows that if life is rare, creation of amino acids probably isn't the reason.

To show life isn't rare, you have to do more than show that some steps on the way to life are common. You need to show that EVERY step on the way to life is sufficiently common. And you cannot possibly do that, because we have no good understanding of what those steps are. We have not ruled out the possibility that some step in OoL may be extremely difficult.

You posit that there could be something rare we do not know. YOU NEED EVIDENCE FOR THAT.

No, YOU need evidence AGAINST it. That's because YOU are the one making the strong claim that life is common (or, that it exists out there at all).

If I were making a similar strong claim that life is uncommon, then I would indeed need to provide that evidence. But I am making no such claim.

How many people said life is common? No, they said life is CERTAIN. Not COMMON. There could be just one other planet with life, there could be 100. If there were 100 planets (even just in the Milky Way) life wouldn't be common.

So, you admit 1 planet with life out there is a reasonable thing to propose, but you think 0 is not? Why the sharp cutoff

Given you don't know what an ad hominem is, stop commenting on other's people understanding of logic. I am tired of your arrogant bs here, you are shit at logic.

I am sick and tired of your inability to construct any argument that isn't ridiculous nonsense. You are lacking some basic mental capacity to reason correctly, it appears.

This is not an ad hominem argument, it is a frankly appalled reaction to what you have been posting. You appear to lack even the ability to understand how bogus your attempts at logic are.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That wasn't really a circular argument.

Look at people who don't believe we have been to space, they do exactly what Shadowferal is talking about.
Now, let's pretend we are in a world where people only secretly go to space, but video got leaked. You'll have people doing that exact same thing, but now you get support from the person involved.

Yes, there will be people who don't accept the statement and feel things are false, but they would have no means of proving what they believe to be true for most people.

However, Shadowferal is not really answering the question either. He is dodging it.

He is most certainly deflecting and using circular logic. I can't comprehend psychics so I can't ever notice that they exist .... because I can't comprehend them is 100% circular logic and a fallacious argument.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair, they can see the future. They'd know why to hide themselves.

Not all psychic power being discussed is seeing into the future. One person was saying they had prophetic dreams that they couldn't control, so its not exactly like they could see every outcome of every decision.

[Darththeo]

But we need to know something about the probability distribution. What is the distribution of possible physical laws, and what is the distribution of the chance life arises on a planet conditioned on that distribution? We have no idea; we don't even know if the concept can make any sense.

Your claim that OoL is likely elsewhere is not even wrong.

We need an idea of what it could be. We have that. It is based on all the factors we know are required for life.

You did not answer my question.

It was pointing out your question is built on a flawed premise.

Let's consider a similar, perhaps more concrete question. Suppose you claimed that invisible unicorns are common in American cities, and I asked "well, what would America look like if there were no invisible unicorns, and how would that be different from what we see?"

If there is no difference, then our observations cannot rule the possibility there are no invisible unicorns in American cities.

So I ask again, what specifically would be different in what we see if life were not out there because OoL is a very rare process (even in the presence of oxygen, carbon, etc. as were on the early Earth)?

There was little to no diatomic oxygen on the early earth. All oxygen was in compounds and oxygen is not considered required for life (Just pointing out again, you are outdated on your information).

And the actually answer to your question would be "We don't know."

That's nice. That just shows that if life is rare, creation of amino acids probably isn't the reason.

To show life isn't rare, you have to do more than show that some steps on the way to life are common. You need to show that EVERY step on the way to life is sufficiently common. And you cannot possibly do that, because we have no good understanding of what those steps are. We have not ruled out the possibility that some step in OoL may be extremely difficult.

Yes, and unless that step is astronomically small it is functionally zero, life is likely. We been over this.
My argument isn't life is COMMON. It is that life is STATITICALLY CERTAIN.

No, YOU need evidence AGAINST it. That's because YOU are the one making the strong claim that life is common (or, that it exists out there at all).

If I were making a similar strong claim that life is uncommon, then I would indeed need to provide that evidence. But I am making no such claim.

I am not arguing life is common. I am arguing that what we know life is a statistical certainty. Those again are not synonyms.

So, you admit 1 planet with life out there is a reasonable thing to propose, but you think 0 is not? Why the sharp cutoff

Because in order for it to be zero. The odds for life not existing has to be a functional zero. That is just not likely to be the case.

I am sick and tired of your inability to construct any argument that isn't ridiculous nonsense. You are lacking some basic mental capacity to reason correctly, it appears.

This is not an ad hominem argument, it is a frankly appalled reaction to what you have been posting. You appear to lack even the ability to understand how bogus your attempts at logic are.

No, that's is an insult. But you literally have spent this entire time strawmanning my argument whining about my logic because you do not have the decently to argue honestly. Just because something is certain does not then means it is common.

Life may be exceedingly rare, but we have no reason to assume it is anything other than a statistical likelihood given what we know.

[Ticj]

Sure it does. No matter how small the chance of life forming is, the fact that is has means that in the enormity of the universe it has to have happened before and it will again.

This isn't how probability works. You can absolutely have something be so extraordinarily rare that it only happens once in the entire history of the universe.

I'm not saying that I think we're alone, but you cannot use a sample size of one as evidence that there is more than just one.

The real answer is we just have no idea, and until we find evidence of life on somewhere other than Earth we will not have a real answer to this.

[Shadowferal]

The answers aren't binary.
Anyone claiming correct or incorrect is basing his/her opinion on belief or personal experience that s/he has answered for oneself.

[Darththeo]

He is most certainly deflecting and using circular logic. I can't comprehend psychics so I can't ever notice that they exist .... because I can't comprehend them is 100% circular logic and a fallacious argument.

That also was not his argument. His argument wasn't you can't comprehend psychics is that even given psychics most people are going to assume more mundane answers, so more than just a simple proof will be required. He is definitely deflecting though.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Therefore, scientific scrutiny means nothing and is essentially useless. Like other things, you can’t prove or disprove supernatural events by natural means. It’s completely futile to even try. Science does not have all the answers and never will.

Oh, okay. Like all those Bigfoot sightings just stopped when it was easy to take pictures, or ghosts etc... yeah, "can't be explained" = "I was confused."

[Osmeric]

We need an idea of what it could be. We have that. It is based on all the factors we know are required for life.

This doesn't make any sense. You seem to think that because some of the factors we understand to be needed for OoL are not serious obstacles to OoL, then all the other parts we don't understand are also not obstacles. Surely you can see that what you are claiming cannot possibly make any sense. We cannot jump to that conclusion.

It was pointing out your question is built on a flawed premise.

No, you failed to answer the question because the necessary answer "there would be no difference" is devastating to your incorrect claim that the evidence we have implies life exists elsewhere in the universe. I am trying to get you to clue in on the massive logic error you have been committing.

And the actually answer to your question would be "We don't know."

And we don't know if life exists elsewhere in the universe. We have no basis for asserting life is out there, or asserting it is not, or for saying it is likely to be out, or for saying it is unlikely to be out there. We don't have enough evidence to say.

Yes, and unless that step is astronomically small it is functionally zero, life is likely. We been over this.
My argument isn't life is COMMON. It is that life is STATITICALLY CERTAIN.

Yes, and your argument is such obvious bullshit that it is incredibly amazing you haven't clued in on that yet. You are basically assuming no step is astronomically unlikely, based on NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER.

I am not arguing life is common. I am arguing that what we know life is a statistical certainty. Those again are not synonyms.

Fine. The two claims are equally unsupported by the evidence. They may be true (the first implies the second) but neither is a valid inference from the existing evidence.

Because in order for it to be zero. The odds for life not existing has to be a functional zero. That is just not likely to be the case.

On what basis is it just not likely to be the case? What orifice to you pull that axiom out of? Personal incredulity?

No, that's is an insult. But you literally have spent this entire time strawmanning my argument whining about my logic because you do not have the decently to argue honestly.

The dishonesty (and intellectual vacuity) is entirely yours. You just don't recognize how horrendously flawed your nonsense is, despite my repeated attempts to clue you in.