Does the cosmos have a reason?

[Hawkeye10]

but it hurts them more when you call them stupid.

they don't believe in evil, but their egos are quite fragile because of how dumb they are.

No....they are sure that they are warriors for UTOPIA...so when the educated call them out as EVIL it stings.

 

[Litmus]

^^^
I Irony

My dumb what, Fredo? Did you brain lock up trying to think of a word?

dumb would be centered in the brain, dumbass.

 

[Litmus]

No....they are sure that they are warriors for UTOPIA...so when the educated call them out as EVIL it stings.

I don;t know if you're paying attention but "educated" people are with the Nazis.

 

[Litmus]

NIhilists aren't even smart.

they're very stupid.

they got talked out of existence.

so stupid.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I don;t know if you're paying attention but "educated" people are with the Nazis.

Only if you have not the first fucking clue what the definition of educated is.

 

[Litmus]

Only if you have not the first fucking clue what the definition of educated is.

you obviously don't, pole-smoker.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

dumb would be centered in the brain, dumbass.

^^^
Doesn't see his own mistake.

 

[Hawkeye10]

you obviously don't, pole-smoker.

I obviously do...and Anti-Truth is spread by the WOKE Death Cult.

 

[Litmus]

^^^
Doesn't see his own mistake.

what mistake?

explain in it your big boy words.

 

[Cypress]

Fredo is another example of "Me, Myself and Irene" personalities just like Sybil.

JPP is an unfortunate example of untreated psychiatric problems.

 

[Publius]

Whatever our many flaws are, there is something unique about humans. There has never been another species in Earth's 4.5 billion years, and there might not be another species in the galaxy, that is/or can be guided towards principles of aesthetic beauty, abstract thought, moral transcendence.

It's possible we are the only species that has ever existed in the galaxy with the consciousness to seek meaning and understanding in both ourselves and in the laws of nature.

I don't think it's possible. For a simple observation of nature will provide the answer.

In the universe, in any category of anything, there isn't a single unit of anything.

There isn't a single cat. There isn't one cat.

There isn't one dog.

There isn't one germ.

There isn't one human.

Therefore, it is safe to presume there isn't one planet with intelligent life.

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

If life on a planet is possible, it is inevitable. (that one is a fait accompli ).

If life on other planets are possible, it is inevitable, and given the trillions of planets, I'd say the odds are 100% there is life, intelligent life, on other planets.

Not only that, they are visiting earth. The sightings are so voluminous the odds are that some of them are legit.

 

[Cypress]

I don't think it's possible. For a simple observation of nature will provide the answer.

In the universe, in any category of anything, there isn't a single unit of anything.

There isn't a single cat. There isn't one cat.

There isn't one dog.

There isn't one germ.

There isn't one human.

Therefore, it is safe to presume there isn't one planet with intelligent life.

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

If life on a planet is possible, it is inevitable. (that one is a fait accompli ).

If life on other planets are possible, it is inevitable, and given the trillions of planets, I'd say the odds are 100% there is life, intelligent life, on other planets.

Not only that, they are visiting earth. The sightings are so voluminous the odds are that some of them are legit.

Intelligent life on Earth may have been a fluke. For four billion years there wasn't even the vestige of advanced sentient life on this planet.

Our remarkable lack of genetic diversity means there was a genetic bottleneck in our species within the last 120k years, implying there was some kind of environmental catastrophe that culled the human population down to maybe a few dozen individuals. In other words, we homo sapiens came extremely close to being snuffed out completely just as we were getting started.

Two other huge assumptions to address: It's massive assumption that 1) the universe is infinite, and 2) that the laws of physics and the mathematical constants of our observable universe are the same elsewhere beyond our visible cosmic horizon. Change either assumption, and the assumed inevitability of sentient life dwindles in probability.

 

[Mason 22]

I don't think it's possible. For a simple observation of nature will provide the answer.

In the universe, in any category of anything, there isn't a single unit of anything.

There isn't a single cat. There isn't one cat.

There isn't one dog.

There isn't one germ.

There isn't one human.

Therefore, it is safe to presume there isn't one planet with intelligent life.

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

If life on a planet is possible, it is inevitable. (that one is a fait accompli ).

If life on other planets are possible, it is inevitable, and given the trillions of planets, I'd say the odds are 100% there is life, intelligent life, on other planets.

Not only that, they are visiting earth. The sightings are so voluminous the odds are that some of them are legit.

There's only one Archangel,there's only one Melchizedek! Of course the Archangel is Melchizedek aka Michael

 

[Mason 22]

Intelligent life on Earth may have been a fluke. For four billion years there wasn't even the vestige of advanced sentient life on this planet.

Our remarkable lack of genetic diversity means there was a genetic bottleneck in our species within the last 120k years, implying there was some kind of environmental catastrophe that culled the human population down to maybe a few dozen individuals. In other words, we homo sapiens came extremely close to being snuffed out completely just as we were getting started.

Two other huge assumptions to address: It's massive assumption that 1) the universe is infinite, and 2) that the laws of physics and the mathematical constants of our observable universe are the same elsewhere beyond our visible cosmic horizon. Change either assumption, and the assumed inevitability of sentient life dwindles in probability.

Did "intelligent life" created the universe?

 

[Cypress]

Did "intelligent life" created the universe?

No, if life is defined as organic based biology.

Carbon and complex organic molecules weren't created until millions of years after the big bang.

 

[Publius]

There's only one Archangel,there's only one Melchizedek! Of course the Archangel is Melchizedek aka Michael

The metric is categories. Your comment refers to a category called 'myths and legends'.

There are many myths, of which 'Archangel' is one.

 

[Publius]

Intelligent life on Earth may have been a fluke. For four billion years there wasn't even the vestige of advanced sentient life on this planet.

My view is as follows:

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

Life IS possible.

With enough time as a backdrop, it is inevitable.

Our remarkable lack of genetic diversity means there was a genetic bottleneck in our species within the last 120k years, implying there was some kind of environmental catastrophe that culled the human population down to maybe a few dozen individuals. In other words, we homo sapiens came extremely close to being snuffed out completely just as we were getting started.

Two other huge assumptions to address: It's massive assumption that 1) the universe is infinite, and 2) that the laws of physics and the mathematical constants of our observable universe are the same elsewhere beyond our visible cosmic horizon. Change either assumption, and the assumed inevitability of sentient life dwindles in probability.

You're discussing a theory about the genetic bottleneck in human evolution, but it needs a bit more precision to be entirely accurate. While humans do have relatively low genetic diversity compared to many other species, it's misleading to suggest that this points to a population reduced to just a few dozen individuals. Most scientific estimates suggest that the bottleneck event reduced the human population to several thousand individuals, not just a handful. The causes of this bottleneck are still debated—some theories point to environmental catastrophes like the Toba supervolcano eruption around 70,000 years ago, while others suggest that migration patterns, climate shifts, or even competition with other hominins could have played a significant role. It's true that our species might have faced difficult times during that period, but to say Homo sapiens were on the verge of being completely wiped out is speculative. Our very survival and eventual flourishing suggest that we had enough genetic diversity and environmental resources to continue evolving.

As for the assumptions about the universe, you're right to raise questions about these. The idea that the universe is infinite is still debated, and there's no conclusive evidence one way or another. Personally, I believe the universe is infinite, and if not in the material, it certainly is in the abstract.

While the observable universe has a boundary, determined by the speed of light and the age of the universe, whether the universe extends infinitely beyond that is unknown. The other point you raise about the consistency of physical laws is important, too. While it's often assumed that the laws of physics and mathematical constants are the same everywhere in the universe, that's a significant assumption that hasn't been proven. Some theoretical frameworks, such as string theory or multiverse hypotheses, suggest that different regions of space—or even different "universes"—could operate under different physical laws. If that were the case, it would certainly affect the likelihood of sentient life forming. However, without solid empirical evidence, it's still just speculation.

Who knows, maybe the ancient alien folks have it right -- we're starseeded. It would answer some questions.

 

[Cypress]

My view is as follows:

Given infinity, all that is possible is inevitable.

Life IS possible.

With enough time as a backdrop, it is inevitable.

You're discussing a theory about the genetic bottleneck in human evolution, but it needs a bit more precision to be entirely accurate. While humans do have relatively low genetic diversity compared to many other species, it's misleading to suggest that this points to a population reduced to just a few dozen individuals. Most scientific estimates suggest that the bottleneck event reduced the human population to several thousand individuals, not just a handful. The causes of this bottleneck are still debated—some theories point to environmental catastrophes like the Toba supervolcano eruption around 70,000 years ago, while others suggest that migration patterns, climate shifts, or even competition with other hominins could have played a significant role. It's true that our species might have faced difficult times during that period, but to say Homo sapiens were on the verge of being completely wiped out is speculative. Our very survival and eventual flourishing suggest that we had enough genetic diversity and environmental resources to continue evolving.

As for the assumptions about the universe, you're right to raise questions about these. The idea that the universe is infinite is still debated, and there's no conclusive evidence one way or another. Personally, I believe the universe is infinite, and if not in the material, it certainly is in the abstract.

While the observable universe has a boundary, determined by the speed of light and the age of the universe, whether the universe extends infinitely beyond that is unknown. The other point you raise about the consistency of physical laws is important, too. While it's often assumed that the laws of physics and mathematical constants are the same everywhere in the universe, that's a significant assumption that hasn't been proven. Some theoretical frameworks, such as string theory or multiverse hypotheses, suggest that different regions of space—or even different "universes"—could operate under different physical laws. If that were the case, it would certainly affect the likelihood of sentient life forming. However, without solid empirical evidence, it's still just speculation.

Who knows, maybe the ancient alien folks have it right -- we're starseeded. It would answer some questions.

This discussion was whether advance intelligent life exists elsewhere - one that could be theoretically detectable in the EM spectrum
I certainly believe there is a decent probability that evidence of primitive, lower life will eventually be found in the galaxy or in our solar system.

A few dozen or a few thousand individuals is still catastrophic for a species. An animal would get listed on the endangered species list if it's population plummeted to a few hundred or few thousand. All the articles I have seen about the homo sapiens bottle neck that resulted in our lack of genetic diversity indicated that homo sapiens were pushed close to extinction.

We don't have compelling evidence either way whether advanced sentient consciousness was inevitable on Earth, or whether is was a fluke.

We don't actually know how biology emerges from inert chemicals, and therefore we don't know if life is common in the universe, or if it's an exceedingly rare fluke.

Infinity has never struck me as a compelling idea for the universe, because while infinity is a legitimate mathematical idea, we have never seen infinity in the real world. It seems just as likely, or more likely that the topology of the universe is finite.

We don't have a shred of evidence whether the mathematical laws of nature and the physical constants are the same outside our visible cosmic horizon. Life simply cannot exist without a whole plethora of laws and constants being finely tuned to certain values.



To me, the assertion that advance intelligent life is inevitable or certain is based on a whole series of massive assumptions, and in a very real sense invokes a kind of perfect storm to support the assertion.

 

[Publius]

This discussion was whether advance intelligent life exists elsewhere - one that could be theoretically detectable in the EM spectrum
I certainly believe there is a decent probability that evidence of primitive, lower life will eventually be found in the galaxy or in our solar system.

There are trillions upon trillions of planets in the known universe, and the odds of life existing elsewhere are staggeringly high—99.9999999999% or higher. Given the sheer numbers alone, it’s almost statistically impossible that Earth is the only planet with life, let alone intelligent life. Add to that the fact that there have been millions of UAP sightings and even reports of abductions numbering in the millions. What are the chances that even a small fraction of these encounters are authentic? Are you seriously suggesting that all of them are complete fabrications? That defies logic. When you look at the scale of the universe and the volume of credible reports, dismissing every single one out of hand is far more far-fetched than admitting there’s something real behind at least a few of them.

A few dozen or a few thousand individuals is still catastrophic for a species. An animal would get listed on the endangered species list if it's population plummeted to a few hundred or few thousand. All the articles I have seen about the homo sapiens bottle neck that resulted in our lack of genetic diversity indicated that homo sapiens were pushed close to extinction.

We don't have compelling evidence either way whether advanced sentient consciousness was inevitable on Earth, or whether is was a fluke.

We don't actually know how biology emerges from inert chemicals, and therefore we don't know if life is common in the universe, or if it's an exceedingly rare fluke.

Infinity has never struck me as a compelling idea for the universe, because while infinity is a legitimate mathematical idea, we have never seen infinity in the real world. It seems just as likely, or more likely that the topology of the universe is finite.

We don't have a shred of evidence whether the mathematical laws of nature and the physical constants are the same outside our visible cosmic horizon. Life simply cannot exist without a whole plethora of laws and constants being finely tuned to certain values.



To me, the assertion that advance intelligent life is inevitable or certain is based on a whole series of massive assumptions, and in a very real sense invokes a kind of perfect storm to support the assertion.

Infinity, if nothing else, exists as an abstract concept. And while abstractions may not have physical form, they are undeniably real in their own domain. Take the number 'one,' for example—it doesn’t physically exist as a tangible object in the material world, but it undeniably exists in the abstract realm of mathematics and logic. Infinity, too, exists as an abstraction, and just like the concept of numbers, its existence in the abstract makes it a real entity in that sense.

Now, given the nature of infinity, the statement "all that is possible is inevitable" holds because, over infinite time or space, every possibility must eventually be realized. The key question becomes what qualifies as "possible." And we already know that life is possible because life exists here on Earth.

Even if we concede that the universe is finite, the astronomical scale of physical time and space still tilts the odds heavily in favor of life emerging elsewhere. The sheer magnitude of the cosmos—billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and an incomprehensible stretch of time—virtually ensures that what is possible will, in all likelihood, occur again. So, while we may not have material infinity, we have enough of the finite to approach the same conclusion.

 

[Litmus]

There are trillions upon trillions of planets in the known universe, and the odds of life existing elsewhere are staggeringly high—99.9999999999% or higher. Given the sheer numbers alone, it’s almost statistically impossible that Earth is the only planet with life, let alone intelligent life. Add to that the fact that there have been millions of UAP sightings and even reports of abductions numbering in the millions. What are the chances that even a small fraction of these encounters are authentic? Are you seriously suggesting that all of them are complete fabrications? That defies logic. When you look at the scale of the universe and the volume of credible reports, dismissing every single one out of hand is far more far-fetched than admitting there’s something real behind at least a few of them.


Infinity, if nothing else, exists as an abstract concept. And while abstractions may not have physical form, they are undeniably real in their own domain. Take the number 'one,' for example—it doesn’t physically exist as a tangible object in the material world, but it undeniably exists in the abstract realm of mathematics and logic. Infinity, too, exists as an abstraction, and just like the concept of numbers, its existence in the abstract makes it a real entity in that sense.

Now, given the nature of infinity, the statement "all that is possible is inevitable" holds because, over infinite time or space, every possibility must eventually be realized. The key question becomes what qualifies as "possible." And we already know that life is possible because life exists here on Earth.

Even if we concede that the universe is finite, the astronomical scale of physical time and space still tilts the odds heavily in favor of life emerging elsewhere. The sheer magnitude of the cosmos—billions of galaxies, trillions of stars, and an incomprehensible stretch of time—virtually ensures that what is possible will, in all likelihood, occur again. So, while we may not have material infinity, we have enough of the finite to approach the same conclusion.

masons have to believe everything is known so they can be the know it alls.

like fucking amazing randi the welcher.