The Futility of the Search For Extraterrestrial Intelligence

I pointed out that after leaving Project Bluebook Hynek went back toward disbelieving UFO stories. Yet, you keep using him as an argument in favor.

I FULLY believe that Buzz Aldrin and the Navy pilots reported what they say in absolute truthfulness. The fact that the reports were later explained DOES NOT discredit these individuals.

DO NOT suggest otherwise.

As for the reaction of the Navy and the Air Force, nothing they are doing is supportive of the idea that there are craft alien to Earth flying around this planet.

This is a reiteration of your fantastic assumptions - it has nothing to do with evidence, and is a direct refutation of physics fundamentals, based on ZERO evidence.

 

Are you saying there are no substantial variables in those planets equations?

If there are, then the answer is presumed.

The fact of the matter there is no hard, concrete, evidence that Jesus existed, we have only the writings, many of which conflict on details, of men in antiquity, priests, monks, etc., many of whom had political agendas.

But, the long and short of it is this, we can safely presume that Christ, a spiritual leader, did exist at the time and from him was born a new religion called Christianity given the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, can we not?

That it is a safe presumption, is it not?

The big bang is presumed, is it not?

The point is, you are willing to presume Jesus exists, without hard, concrete evidence, and you are will to presume the big bang is reality ( accepting the possibility that theory could be changed or updated ) without hard, concrete, evidence, but yet you are not willing to consider that it is possible that there is compelling evidence of a sufficient caliber and quantity that one might safely presume the reality of alien visitation, and the reason you are giving for not being willing to even look is that you assume our current knowledge of physics means that interstellar travel is impossible?

Is that not an inconsistency, not to mention a flaw in your reasoning?

 

I read that at 90% of the speed of light it would take 175 years to get to our nearest neighbor, Alpha Century. How do you keep a multi generational population alive that long in a can?

 

No, science doesn't have this word "presumed".

What science has is error bars that are calculated based on those factors you are concerned about.

If you quote a number outside of the error bars of some scientific investigation, you're on your own, or you have to find some other justification.

You can't just say "presumed".

For the number of planets, science states assumptions that are being made concerning factors such as the average number of planets per star, etc.

In this case you are pointing to a number of sources of evidence.

The big bang is a theory (the best truth science can possibly offer) that has been tested huge numbers of times and continues to be actively tested TODAY. This theory has been supported by a number of independent lines of evidence.

Again, "presumed" is NOT a legitimate representation of physics.

There is a huge difference between evidence and presumption.

All you have is presumption.

And, your "you won't look" accusation is obviously false.

In fact, I'd point out that you are "presuming", not "looking".

 

This UFO=aliens belief seems to functionally be a religion.

 

One might get around that by sending robots. However, it would take WAY longer that that, as we don't have a way of achieving 90% of light speed.

We send robots to the planets in our solar system. We've even sent robots outside our solar system.

The main reason for not sending robots to Alpha Centauri is that it would be many generations of scientists before any results would get back to Earth!

In fact, it could well be that anything we send there today could arrive there AFTER some craft we send in the future - since we might be able to improve on speed!

On top of that, I'm not so sure that Alpha Centauri is interesting enough to justify this effort.

So, it really doesn't seem possible to justify sending anything today.

(My own view is that sending humans ANYWHERE in space is unjustifiable.)

 

I think 20% of light speed is close to what we can imagine.

From there, the time to accelerate to that speed and then slow down to get a look at Alpha Centauri would be major.

Then, consider the problem of being hit by a bullet at that speed sometime during the many hundreds of years of travel - and the interstellar medium does have that kind of stuff floating around.

Light speed is 6.706e+8 miles per hour.

20% of that is ~130,000,000 miles per hour.

Hurricanes can drive a straw into a telephone pole. And, they can't touch even just 1,000 mph.

 

You misunderstand me completely where I"m coming from. We are not on the same page. Let's see if we can change that.

You want to be handed, concrete, hard proof evidence. As I have explained, that kind of evidence is not available.
It's similar to the hard,concrete, evidence that is not available for the existence of Christ. You could ask for it, assume I would give to you, but I would never be able to give to you because it doesn't exist, and not only that, I've told you this, so why are you still on this page regarding aliens?

Again, and I'm repeating myself, here, for the nth time, HOWEVER, there is a preponderance of a kind of evidence, not of the concrete kind, but of the kind similar to where one can safely presume Jesus existed. You say it doesn't based on your limited experience, I say it does because I've spent years researching this, and I'm trying to grab you by the metaphorical shoulders and wake you up a little bit, that there IS evidence of a sufficient calibrer and quantity, similar the the manner in which you presume, rather safely, that Jesus exists, that it also exists where one can safely presume the reality of alien visitation.

Again, and I repeat, 'presume' is the operative word.

If you wake up in the morning and there is snow out the window, all over the place, can we not safely presume that it snowed the night before?

Oh yes, it is possible that someone with a snow machine carpeted the neighborhood when we slept, but it is a safe presumption, is it not?

See, 'presume' this is the operative word. I'm saying there is a sufficient quantity and caliber of evidence whereby we can presume the concept of alien visitation. If you are wondering why there are no photos, no hard evidence, there are logical responses to those questions, but that is for later.

Now, I could link to this or that, just as I could link to one or two persons who believe in Jesus, but that would be no where enough to convince a total non believer who assumes Jesus doesn't exist because there is no concrete evidence, and is unwilling to look at the preponderance of circumstantial evidence such that a reasonable person would presume, rather safely, that Jesus did exist.

Similarly, I could link to this or that, but given what you are looking for, it would be pointless.

what I'm actually tryoing to do is NOT 'prove' to you anything, but to come to a place where you will accept it is possible that we can safely presume alien visitation, IF what what I'm saying about the existing evidence i true.

Now, let us not lose sight of the fact, that, similar to the evidence of Jesus, no one example is going to be persuasive, it is the tremendous ABUNDANCE of compelling evidence, the quantity of it that leads us to presume it.

So, giving you this or that example is a waist of time, UNLESS you do not forget that if I did link to something, I am NOT trying to 'prove' anything. It's just getting you to start taking steps on the journey that it will take to convince you that it would be safe to presume the reality of alien visitation.

You can't point to anything I've written where you can reasonably assert that I'm trying to get your to ignore science.

You keep saying that I am telling you to ignore science. Stop it. I'm not asking you to ignore science. I'm asking you to consider that it is possible our knowledge of physics is limited, that it is possible, indeed, quite probable and logical that given the newness of mankind's exploration into science, given the shortness of time he has spent, relatively speaking, that it is quite logical that he has only scratched the surface of what is knowable about physics and the universe. .

You are using your assumption as rationale for not even bothering to look any further, and you are waiting only for scientists to update you on the subject, and no one else, because, in your estimation, only they have merit worthy data on the subject. Am I correct in that assessment?

I'm NOT telling you or asking you to NOT consider anything they offer, I'm just trying to convince you that Scientists, alone, do not have a monopoly on merit worthy information. "Merit worthy" is the operative word.

If you do not believe it is limited, that mankind has only scratched the surface of what is knowable, in my view, you are not being scientific.

Years ago, I drove a cab. Back in the 70s. I had three scientists who believe as you do. Saying, 'based on what is known about physics, interstellar travel, given the constraints of time, it is not doable for humans.

After about a 30 minute cab ride from the L.A airport to the Downtown Bonaventure, I succeeded in convincing them, per the above logic, that it is, indeed, possible, that mankind has most likely merely scratched the surface of what is knowable in physics, and the mysteries of the universe, and that, interstellar travel might be possible in the future, given new discoveries in science that realign our current understanding because of some new paradigm we may discover in the future that has yet to reach our imagination, which, by the way, doesn't violate science, it just goes deeper into regions we did not previously know existed. .

The admitted that and commended me for it. I, a mere cab driver, succeed in changing the minds of three scientists!

In that moment, they taught me something about science.

I'm not ignoring science at all, just that, if you use current knowledge to assert that interstellar will always be impossible, that hardly sounds scientific to me. If you are using that as a rationale to not look any further or beyond which scientists offer ( as if they have a monopoly on merit worthy information), it's not an 'ad hom' it is legitimate criticism.

Do you not understand the difference between criticism and an ad hominem?

No, it's individuals who presume things, based on a preponderance of evidence, if they accept the reality that Jesus was a spiritual leader who walked the earth, once upon time, and those individuals are not religious.

Would that non-religious person be you?

I am not religious (not in the conventional, or traditional sense, but I do believe there is a spiritual basis for life/consciousness beyond matter), but I accept that there was, indeed, a man called Jesus, upon whose teachings Christianity was founded. I believe it is safe to presume Jesus existed based on the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, which is overwhelming.

It is not religion that presumes that, it is I, who presume that. Is that the same, for you? Or do you assume Christ existed because you are religious? If so, how can a man a science be religious? It seems inconsistent.

"Remotely possible"? You mean, out of trillions and trillions of planets, it's remotely possible?

I'd say there is a 100% guarantee life is possible elsewhere. Based on the following logic ( well, to my way of thinking )
In the universe, in any given category, there is not one of anything; there isn't one cat, one horse, one molecule, one planet, one solar system, on galaxy, etc etc etc.

Therefore, how cold it be possible there is only one planet with intelligent life ?

Out of trillions and trillions, how is it possible that your characterization of 'remote' is accurate?

Remote in terms of distance, perhaps, but not remote in terms of the possible.

That's fine. I'm okay with life beginning on earth, or the seeded theory, whichever is the truth. Note, I would never accept as fact without evidence, or safely presume (let alone assume ) something without a preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

You've just assumed I was stating it as fact. In no way was I doing that, I was just putting forth a premise that makes it, for a layman, a merit worthy concept as a possibility. That's all. Remember, as a non scientist, I have the luxury of considering the possibility of things that a scientist wouldn't, or so I would assume.

I NEVER presented it as 'evidence'. I merely presented something that is merit worthy to consider the possibility of aliens being an open question.

According to Louis Elizondo, former director of the Navy's (now discontinued but replaced) Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, that is precisely the new Navy position, that they are no longer saying 'impossibe' or 'no , they don't exist' and now they are leaving it as an open question. Moreover, the Navy now requires pilots to formally report UFO(UAP) encounters, which is quite a shift, whereas, in the past, a pilot could risk his wings if he went around claiming he saw a UFO or UFOs. Same goes for airline pilots, the stigma is diminishing considerably, a sea change is happening in the professional world.

I direct you to the fact you have misunderstood my position.
Can I trust to to make more accurate characterizations?

I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

Remember, the only objective on my part is NOT 'evidence of aliens' but to reach a state of mind that leaves the question open.

1. No where did I say 'physics is crap' That is a mischaracterization
2. I am very curious, hence my interest in the subject. If you are referring to science, I'm not interested in those who say 'impossible' only those who say 'possible' or 'may be possible if...' Show me treatises by scientists who assert the latter. Surely they exist.
3. No where do I claim 'the truth' .

 

The evidence of the existence of Jesus is of a single individual referenced by numerous people who followed him as well as those of the local government, historians of Rome (such as Tacitus) and others.

There isn't anything about UFOs that comes close to that.

And, you continue to promote claims that have been proven false as if it is evidence, followed by asking me to believe you!!

Yes, you want me to take alien visitation on faith, much as Christianity wants me to take the existence of a specific god on faith.

I don't accept this "presume" thing, because the elements required to presume something don't exist.

No, you do tell me to ignore science over and over again.

You want me to "presume" science is crap - that the cosmic speed limit doesn't exist, etc.

We should start a thread on tales of cab driving! I was a cabbie as a college student. I took night shift, because there were no fares at night!! I could park under a street light and be paid a small amount to study! I worked other jobs at the same time.

Again, I'd point out that you are "presuming" based on ZERO information.

And, if you want to discuss religion you should be on a different thread.

Yes. That's a far better position for our military to take. They have NOTHING to gain and a LOT to lose by making claims about aliens flying around Earth.

Any claims that make would be evidence to the rest of the world of what we can detect, what mistakes we can make, what our vulnerabilities are, etc.

You constantly call for our physics to be totally ignored and characterize your proposed aliens to have far better physics in every possible way.

Then you follow that by stating flat out that aliens can ignore everything we know about physics.

How does that NOT mean our physics is crap?

You are unwilling to consider what Earth knows of physics, simply stating that whatever it is, it should be ignored. Obviously, that is an extreme version of having zero curiosity.

You are unwilling to investigate what you propose to be evidence of aliens, thus ending up proposing events as evidence when they have been denied and/or debunked. That is extreme lack of curiosity (at the least).

As you will note, I DO look at these reports as well as the implications of physics, as I AM very excited about the possibility of life in this universe. My own view is that we are most likely totally alone - but it would be hugely exciting to find that isn't the case.

Thus I'm majorly excited about the many telescopic investigations that we're implementing - both here, in China, in Japan, in Russia, in Europe. Europe is really coming up with some fantastic capabilities. From the USA, we're launching the James Webb telescope that is going to be able to get one pixel of light from an exoplanet!!! That is an astounding achievement!

I don't believe you can find a legitimate way of arguing that I'm not curious.

Great! But, if you are unwilling to look at the limitations of what you consider to be evidence, one can not really find that very heartening.

 

I accept that it is impossible in the context of linear movement.
What is possible is non-linear travel, warping space. It's talked about, is it not?

Now, I realize the knowledge for the possibility doesn't exist, and some say is impossible. YO usay it is a dream, and that may be true, but that is not the point. Do you say it is impossible? Or possible?

Are all scientists saying it is impossible? Show me one credible scientist who concedes that it could be possible, should our understanding of physics expand on the subject of non-linear/non reactionary travel. Are you saying all of the credible scientists in the world are saying it's impossible and are monolithic on this point?

How is the big bang not presumed, while they simultaneously acknowledge a new understanding they might change their minds?

Either's its' fact, and there will be no mind changing, or it's presumed, allowing for mind changing.

Right?

I"m fairly certain both Gordon Cooper, especially Dr. Edgar Mitchell, believe we are being visited by aliens, they've said so. I distinctly recall both Cooper and Mitchell saying so, and the reason he gave, on video tape. Mitchell's a PHD, is he 'schlock' as you have thus characterized such testimony? (Don't accuse me of ''not proof' Again, and I repeat, over and over again, I am not providing 'evidence' for purposes of proof. I'm saying there is a sufficient quantity of compelling circumstantial evidence such that alien visitation can be safely presumed, and the operative word is 'compelling'.).

What about the hundreds of military personnel giving testimony on UFOs on the 'Disclosure' DVD?

Is that 'schlock' as well? Remember, I'm not talking 'prove' or 'evidence' I'm talking quantity of circumstantial evidence, such that, similar to that of in a civil court, the caliber is sufficient to assign responsibility.

For that's as good as it will ever get. Might not be enough for a scientist, but for a curious layperson, no problem.

 

Sure. Everyone wants to go faster than light speed!

So, physicists always have this idea rattling around. But, it's still a dream. We hear stuff like "worm holes", but that doesn't make them a possibility.

These are things YOU should be curious about, but have refused to consider.

The thing about science is that it is open and thus you can find people who are working away trying to prove the possibility (or whatever) of anything and everything imaginable.

So, yes. There are guys like Dr Erik Lentz who think light speed travel is possible.

But, whatever the state of his work, accepting one individual when the rest of the entire world of physicists does not accept it is ridiculous.

No. Science has NO POSSIBILITY of proving ANY hypothesis is true. Science doesn't work that way. Science is organized to discard falsity.

So, Relativity theory gets tested every day from the early 1900's to today, with nobody being able to find a flaw! But, that doesn't mean it is some sort of absolute truth.

Like Relativity, big bang is accepted, because it has been outstanding at predicting what will be found, because there is no competitive theory, because there is a major body of evidence supporting it, because there has been no successful assault on it, etc.

How many times do I have to answer this?

The question is how many of those claims have been debunked?

As is ALWAYS the case, these UFO videos do not address that.

They are crappy sales pieces. Even the "60 Minutes" segment on UFOs is TOTAL GARBAGE, because it does not include any of the factual information about how those phenomena actually took place. They just pump the UFO angle! Sickening!!

Yes, for those not curious enough to actually look into these issues, it's easy to watch videos and believe!

 

I have no doubt life exists some where out there but we are all out of each other’s reach due to the physics of “time”.
UFO’s are unidentified anything in the air. After all these years of “archeological everything” finding things young and old, we got extra terrestrial butkus.

 

OK you couldn't have stated it any clearer than if you screamed it from a mountain top with two stone tablets: This is your religion.

You posted this in a thread in the 'Science' section so people who respond to it respond on the assumption that you are coming from a scientific "preponderance of evidence" point of view, but you are clearly not.

You can believe what you want to believe, but you wouldn't get so much pushback if you weren't trying to ride your religious beliefs under cover of science. That just created a lot of unnecessary confusion.

 

I'm fine with you believing there is life somewhere else. I don't hold that same view, but what the heck? We have zero evidence either way. So, it's a fun topic to discuss.

Here's a different view:

Let's say some intelligent life progressed a million years beyond us, and thus has the ability to create robotic factories that travel space(!) We're really close to having construction off this planet's surface, plus we're creating computer boards and other stuff pretty much totally by robot, so this traveling factory thing doesn't sound impossible to me as a million year milestone.

From there, that life form could send out such factories to explore the universe. The robots could report what they find as they look for resources, create more factories and send thse new factories on their way in different directions. Thus the fleet could grow exponentially.

After a few million years, it seems like there would be a lot of these and they would have spread a long ways through the universe that is at least local to them. If you then consider a billion years (with us being around for a few billion years already), it seems possible that there could be huge numbers of these robots, exploring a seriously large region of space.

I wonder how long it would take for us to be found in this way.

In fact, if this happened in the Milky Way, one might wonder why we haven't been found already.

 

You want a fact?

UAPs/UFOs are now an open question by the Military.

The sightings are now required to be reported by military pilots, signaling a sea change shift it attitudes on the subject.

Explain that one to me.

Note, there's a lot more, tons more, which you call 'schlock' and no, the Navy UFOs have NOT been debunked.

And why would Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Who has a doctorate degree in aeronautics and astronautics, who is the 6th man on the moon, a man of integrity and unimpeachable reputation, make the following statements, if, during his lifetime, he was not presented with credible information supporting the reality of alien visitation leading him to make these statements?


"I don't know where and how they are doing it, but they've been observing us here for quite some time. We see these craft all the time.

I believe what I'm saying and I cite the evidence that I know

The reason for the denial was they ( the gov ) didn't know whether they were hostile if we could protect ourselves from them, and they didn't want the Soviets to know so they devised to lie about it and cover it up"

--Dr Edgar Mitchell




..."There is no doubt we are being visited" --- Dr. Edgar Mitchell

"It is time to put way this embargo of truth by our Government" --Dr. Edgar Mitchell



60 minutes interview with former director the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, Louis Elizondo

60minutes: So what you are telling me is that UFOs, unidentified flying objects are real

Elizondo: Bill, I think we are beyond that, already. The government has already stated for the record that they are real. I'm not telling that, the United States Government is telling you that.



It's all 'schlock' you say?

Only someone who hasn't made a serious, in depth, study and inquiry into the subject would say that.

Oh, you are going to retort that the above isn't 'proof'.

Yes, you are correct, but what it also isn't, is 'schlock'.

 

But there are a few testimonies of probes, up close. Are they lying?

Don't know, but one fellow got up close to one, it spun around and sprayed him with a chemical, and left a symmetrical pattern on his chest. There's a photo of it somewhere. I'll have to look for it.

Also, many of the UFO sightings could be of probes.

One thing I wouldn't do, is make conjecture on alien intent, objectives, motivations, from our anthropocentric pov.

 

Considering what our pilots have encountered and the way they have perceived the UFO capabilities as scary potential danger/threats that could take advantage of our obvious vulnerability, I don't think they would welcome your judgmental condemnation of their supposedly reckless hoot-from-the-hip reaction.

I'm not advocating unjustified targeting of unearthly/UFO craft. I have no info on whether the attempted missile assault was logical or warranted.

Note that one female fighter pilot turned in her wings because the vulnerabiity realized as a result of the UFO encounter was so unnerving.

 

As I've said over and over again, I believe the reports of Navy pilots, Buzz Aldrin, and others of proven reputation. The catch is that their totally honest reports have been explained by normal Earthly mechanisms.

For example, the "go fast" video is easily explained by the readings of the pilot's instruments and parallax. Thus the pilot made an honest report that was later explained.

We all know for a fact that there are many individuals who make reports that are NOT honest, of course. There are megabytes of pictures of hubcaps, etc. The same goes for Sasquatch and other reports that just do not warrant our belief.

One of the things that is required when looking for the truth is an evaluation of sources.

Today we have a large group of those who really want to believe. Yet, they continue to hype events that have been debunked.

When we see that, in any field of interest, you HAVE TO discount that source. You can not expect acceptance of sources that are just plain FINE with blatantly lying in support of what it is they want you to believe.

 

The military has laws about that kind of behavior.

Good. Let's just say for a few seconds here that the object WAS from some UFO that managed to defy all our physics and come here to take a look around.

What in the world could POSSIBLY justify shooting at such a craft?

OK, now you have to explain how that should get dialed into the question of aliens flying around Earth.

 

You have previously asserted that all the reportage on UFOs, etc., is 'schlock'.

You see, the issue is 'all'. No one cares about the multitude of hubcap photos (such as the ones by Billy Meier) and what is, indeed, 'schlock'. I later made the wheat v chaff analogy, and again, you assert there is no wheat, using that analogy.

I am not talking about crap, and you seem to think ALL of it is. It most certainly is not.

Refuting that assertion is #515, I am waiting for your response to that rebuttal.

The big distinction, which you fail to grasp, is that reportage which leaves the question open, is not schlock.

Only reportage that closes the question, is schlock.

There does exist the former, but you say only the latter exists.

That tells me you haven't made an in depth study of it, you are only relying on media reports, which is only scratching the surface of what is out there.

 

What are you talking about?

If a jury in a civil case, based on a properance of circumstantial evidence, ruled that the defendant was responsible for the accused injury, would that ruling be 'religion'.

No.

That is my point, my presumption of the reality of alien visitation is based no nore on the properance of evidence than would exist in a civil trial for damages.

I therefore reject your characterization.

What are you talking about?

The OP was NOT MY OP, IT WAS SOMEONE ELSE'S. I did not start this thread.

Yes, I'm using the standard applied in a civil case, 'preponderance of evidence'.

What are you talking about? You are the one that is confused, that I cannot help.

What religious beliefs are those? I posted something about religious beliefs on a religious forum, but don't conflate the Christ belief analogy, which not a statement about religion, that was an ANALOGY of how non religious persons accept the reality of the existence of Christ based on the preponderance of evidence for Christ, the same that @WillReadmore uses as 'presuming the existence of Christ' but he was unwilling to use the same standard as it applies to the reality of alien visitation --- in other words, I was revealing his inconsistency, and so it's not 'pushing my beliefs' in no way shape or form. In that exchange, I made NO statement of my religious beliefs, though I have in the religion forum.

I can't help it if you are conflating the religious forum with the science forum, or the fact that I DID NOT START THIS THREAD or the fact that you are unable to understand that an analogy using the standard of how non religious people accept the reality of the existence of Christ, as an analogy applied to how people can presume things in other subjects, safely, is not a statement about religious beliefs, it's a statement about the meaning of 'safely presuming' something based on a preponderance of evidence as it applies to anything.

In fact, numerous times you have demonstrated your inability for discernment makes you very difficult and frustrating to debate with.

 

Most religions have some kind of premise that, with enough worship, practice, dedication, and adherence to prescribed conduct, one will be rewarded with eternal life in some way, shape, or form.

No such premise exists for the belief in alien visitation, so no, I don't agree with your premise.

 

No, YOU watch your TV program.

You claim you are curious. BUT, you did not recognize that the 60 Minutes program includes as evidence the "go fast" Navy video that has been debunked and that I've explained to you.

How could an individual curious about UFOs fail to recognize that Navy video???

You want to believe that TV program, but it includes NOBODY who shows the explanations for the events in those videos - what is actually being seen. Why do you think the TV program decided to FAIL to debunk even the most obvious false claims they present?

You dodge the fact that those military experts being interviewed state that the most likely explanations are Earth based.

You ignore that our military is NEVER going to divulge it's full sensing capability OR analysis for serious reasons of national defense.



Please stop suggesting I'm not curious about this topic when between the two of us, I am the one who has been curious and YOU are willing to indiscriminately accept total schlock.

 

You have not yet presented any evidence. So, I can't agree with anything above.

Yes, with religion there is no evidence for there being a god. And, Christianity directs that god be accepted as a first principle, faith, not as the result of any evidence.

Likewise, there is no evidence of there being aliens in spacecraft cruising Earth. So far, one would have to accept that as a first principle assumption, just like with religion.

You haven't pointed out any inconsistency.

Regardless of who started this thread, it IS in the science section.

Of course there has to be some flex.

But, using religious instead of scientific ideas on what is evidence, what is faith, what the first principles are, etc., makes some religious logic hard to accept in a science thread.

 

Qualifying as a religion doesn't require some reward.