Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Religion as a drug
- Thread starter Hypocolius
- Start date
Re: T.L.O.P. = The Laws of Physics
In the materialist's world, I can understand if they might equate TLOP as being god, maybe. But I am admittedly not as learned in Materialism as others around here, and I'm wary of the assertion that there is no consciousness. Although, I can appreciate that argument that all our thoughts and emotions are generated by purely physical processes (brain chemicals, etc.) The consciousness, while it might be considered a separate entity conceptually, may not exist in reality. Much to ponder on Materialism, I have.
Upchurch already did, and I still don't see why starting with a dictionary definition (read: somewhat standardized) is a bad thing.Originally posted by Franko
Define “Spiritual”.
I’ll give you extra credit if you can do it in your own words.
Scientism? Riddle me this: why do you consider science to be a philosophical belief system? Science provides observed evidence for its theories. It's also ever-evolving, and right now, the big bang and the quantum fluctuations preceding it is the "best guess". What is the observed evidence of a god that is more conscious than humans?
I suppose, as mentioned above, that an atheist can also be a Unitarian. By and large, however, religion's purpose is to worship some kind of god. Lacking a belief in a supernatural god-like being would preclude atheists from most commonly accepted definitions of divine worship.
The laws of physics are not a god if one considers god to be an uber-conscious being that controls us. TLOP do not govern thoughts, nor are they responsible for my decision to type the keys I am typing to form this sentence.
In the materialist's world, I can understand if they might equate TLOP as being god, maybe. But I am admittedly not as learned in Materialism as others around here, and I'm wary of the assertion that there is no consciousness. Although, I can appreciate that argument that all our thoughts and emotions are generated by purely physical processes (brain chemicals, etc.) The consciousness, while it might be considered a separate entity conceptually, may not exist in reality. Much to ponder on Materialism, I have.
Perhaps, but the Christian's viewpoint comes from a book, and they have taken on faith that the book is correct, even the parts that contradict the other parts. The big bang is a theory constructed around observed phenomena. It's the difference between saying you have read about trees and having seen trees.
Now this is getting into the realm of determinism, if I'm not mistaken. Saying that everything that ever was or will be was determined since the exact moment the initial state changed (what we call big bang). This I might have believed, except that I don't. Us launching satellites and leaving rubbish on our moon was not "preordained" at the moment this whole thing started. Yet, us changing the mass of our moon (albeit marginally), and sending rubbish off in to space, affects the spacetime around those objects. Man-made objects were not pre-determined, and I'd like to know how you can logically disagree with that.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: Re: T.L.O.P. = The Laws of Physics
I suppose so.Commander Cool said:
T.L.O.P. = The Laws of Physics
I would define a philosophical belief system as an overarching worldview that attempts to explain or rationalize the origin and nature of existence/reality/the universe.
Therefore I would consider both Atheism (or materialism) and Christianity as philosophical belief systems. I don’t see anything inconsistent in this definition.
So do all religions. Otherwise they’d have no adherents.
All religions evolve over time. One of the main problems that religions face is in balancing eternal constants (old information) against new revelations (new information).
Christianity and Islam both evolved out of Judaism, and to some degree Judaism evolved from the theology of Ancient Egypt, Africa, and the Middle east.
Are the laws of Physics a “God”? Explain why or why not?
TLOP created the universe, and TLOP governs the universe. Are you claiming that (in general) Atheists don’t believe this?
Does a “God” have to be conscious to be considered a “God”? A lot of materialists say that consciousness is just an illusion. If that is truly the case wouldn’t it imply that “God” would not be conscious (just like you imagine TLOP)?
Maybe people who believe that they are not really conscious believe in a God that is not really conscious?
where:
“commonly accepted definitions” = commonly accepted yet logically inconsistent definitions
I would say that depends on whether you consider yourself “conscious” or not. A lot of Atheists apparently believe that consciousness (their own) is simply an illusion. So I don’t see why people who believe that THEY are not conscious would believe that their “God” was?
If TLOP is not responsible for the motions and reactions of chemicals and particles in your brain then could you please explain what is?
What makes you believe that TLOP completely controls the actions of the Moon, but NOT your actions?
I am not saying whether there is consciousness or not. That “choice” is up to you.
All I am saying is that if you consider yourself non-conscious, then obviously TLOP is also non-conscious, whereas if you believe that you are conscious, it only makes sense to think of TLOP as conscious as well. Otherwise you are only being logically inconsistent.
In either event it would appear that all of the available evidence indicates that whatever controls the behavior of atoms (“the matter”) is controlling the behavior of You.
Materialism is an unnecessary assumption my friend.
I would define a philosophical belief system as an overarching worldview that attempts to explain or rationalize the origin and nature of existence/reality/the universe.
Therefore I would consider both Atheism (or materialism) and Christianity as philosophical belief systems. I don’t see anything inconsistent in this definition.
So do all religions. Otherwise they’d have no adherents.
All religions evolve over time. One of the main problems that religions face is in balancing eternal constants (old information) against new revelations (new information).
Christianity and Islam both evolved out of Judaism, and to some degree Judaism evolved from the theology of Ancient Egypt, Africa, and the Middle east.
Are the laws of Physics a “God”? Explain why or why not?
TLOP created the universe, and TLOP governs the universe. Are you claiming that (in general) Atheists don’t believe this?
Does a “God” have to be conscious to be considered a “God”? A lot of materialists say that consciousness is just an illusion. If that is truly the case wouldn’t it imply that “God” would not be conscious (just like you imagine TLOP)?
Maybe people who believe that they are not really conscious believe in a God that is not really conscious?
where:
“commonly accepted definitions” = commonly accepted yet logically inconsistent definitions
I would say that depends on whether you consider yourself “conscious” or not. A lot of Atheists apparently believe that consciousness (their own) is simply an illusion. So I don’t see why people who believe that THEY are not conscious would believe that their “God” was?
If TLOP is not responsible for the motions and reactions of chemicals and particles in your brain then could you please explain what is?
What makes you believe that TLOP completely controls the actions of the Moon, but NOT your actions?
I am not saying whether there is consciousness or not. That “choice” is up to you.
All I am saying is that if you consider yourself non-conscious, then obviously TLOP is also non-conscious, whereas if you believe that you are conscious, it only makes sense to think of TLOP as conscious as well. Otherwise you are only being logically inconsistent.
In either event it would appear that all of the available evidence indicates that whatever controls the behavior of atoms (“the matter”) is controlling the behavior of You.
Materialism is an unnecessary assumption my friend.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: T.L.O.P. = The Laws of Physics
By the definition of "God" we have 4 No's, 3 Maybe's, and 0 Yes's. Assuming a "Maybe" is 50/50, that averages out to 5.5 to 1.5 against.
In summary, the laws of physics wouldn't be considered a "God" in most cases as outlined above.
GodFranko said:
- 1. The supreme or ultimate reality: Perhaps. Once we understood the entirety of the laws of physics, we could maybe ascribe such a connotation to it.
- 1a. The Being perfect in...: No, there is no indication that the laws of physics is a "Being".
- 1b. ...ruling over all as eternal Spirit: No, there is no indication that the laws of physics is a "Spirit"
- 2. a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship: No. Again, no indication that the laws of physics are either being or object nor does it seem to require human worship in any fashion.
- 2, specifically. one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality: There is no part of reality that seems to not be covered by the laws of physics. However, if you consider all of reality to be a part of reality, then this definition holds.
- 3. a person or thing of supreme value: No. Again, the laws of physics is neither a thing nor a person.
- 4. a powerful ruler: hm. The implication here is a person, which the laws of physics are not. However, if one were to losely define "ruler" as "a set of rules", this could apply.
By the definition of "God" we have 4 No's, 3 Maybe's, and 0 Yes's. Assuming a "Maybe" is 50/50, that averages out to 5.5 to 1.5 against.
In summary, the laws of physics wouldn't be considered a "God" in most cases as outlined above.
TLOP = The Laws of Physics
Sounds like the Laws of Physics to me.
Still sounds like TLOP. As for a “Being” … are you a “being”? I’d say TLOP is just as much a “being” as you are (whatever that means).
You mean TLOP didn’t create the universe?
Do you mean that TLOP doesn’t control the universe?
Upchurch what did create the universe, and what controls all the “matter” and energy in it?
See my last post to C.C., but this still sounds EXACTLY like TLOP to me.
TLOP is incorporeal, can you touch the laws of physics?
TLOP is a principle which “rules over all” according to it’s adherents.
TLOP could be described as a “Spirit” since it 1) controls all consciousness, and 2) is incorporeal.
TLOP could be defined as an “infinite mind” because it controls ALL minds.
Once again this sounds just like TLOP to me. TLOP controls ALL aspects of reality, whole legions of humans have devoted themselves monk-like to its study and comprehension. They have dedicated their lives and their very existence in worship to TLOP.
If the Laws of Physics don’t have supreme value, then what does? Without TLOP nothing would exist at all … right?
All Matter and Energy are ruled (controlled or governed) by the laws of physics.
Everything which exists is made of Energy/Matter.
Everything which exists is ruled by TLOP.
Sounds like the Laws of Physics to me.
Still sounds like TLOP. As for a “Being” … are you a “being”? I’d say TLOP is just as much a “being” as you are (whatever that means).
You mean TLOP didn’t create the universe?
Do you mean that TLOP doesn’t control the universe?
Upchurch what did create the universe, and what controls all the “matter” and energy in it?
See my last post to C.C., but this still sounds EXACTLY like TLOP to me.
TLOP is incorporeal, can you touch the laws of physics?
TLOP is a principle which “rules over all” according to it’s adherents.
TLOP could be described as a “Spirit” since it 1) controls all consciousness, and 2) is incorporeal.
TLOP could be defined as an “infinite mind” because it controls ALL minds.
Once again this sounds just like TLOP to me. TLOP controls ALL aspects of reality, whole legions of humans have devoted themselves monk-like to its study and comprehension. They have dedicated their lives and their very existence in worship to TLOP.
If the Laws of Physics don’t have supreme value, then what does? Without TLOP nothing would exist at all … right?
All Matter and Energy are ruled (controlled or governed) by the laws of physics.
Everything which exists is made of Energy/Matter.
Everything which exists is ruled by TLOP.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Re: TLOP = The Laws of Physics
Please explain how analytical observation and expermentation equates to worship. Further, do you have any evidence of this "monk-like" devotion to the laws of physics?
"monk-like" makes me envision a labratory high on a mountain top where bald, robe-wearing scientists chant to gain enlightenment.
Not really the common setting of modern science.
Ah, but the laws of physics are not worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe.Franko said:
Yes, we've heard this claim before, but you've never backed up excet with more claims. Did your vacation provide you with some evidence of the laws of physics being conscious or that it "controls ALL minds" in the absolute way you imply it does?
worship
Obviously 1 doesn't apply in this case.
Please explain how analytical observation and expermentation equates to worship. Further, do you have any evidence of this "monk-like" devotion to the laws of physics?
"monk-like" makes me envision a labratory high on a mountain top where bald, robe-wearing scientists chant to gain enlightenment.
Not really the common setting of modern science.Not enitrely correct, no. The laws of physics are a consequence of the natural world, not the cause of it. The concept of gravity, for example, is a consequence of matter warping local spacetime. Gravity is not what causes matter to warp local spacetime. There would not be a law of physics if there were not a universe and/or reality for them to be in.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Sure they are, even by the definitions you provided.
1 chiefly British : a person of importance -- used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors)
Are you saying The laws of Physics (TLOP) isn’t supremely important?
2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
Are you saying that devotees of TLOP don’t express reverence for TLOP’s omnipotent power?
You seem to be in awe of it.
3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
Your posts seem to be a religious ritual or creed in defense of you beliefs, and I would further add that Atheists defense of their belief-system seems very ritualized.
4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
You don’t hold the Laws of Physics and the scientist (priests) who explained their divine functioning to you in high esteem? Don’t you have admiration for men like Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking?
Look, what I was saying is there are people who dedicate their life to studying, analyzing, and comprehending the ways of “God” (i.e. the omnipotent creator and ruler of all existence), and we call these people priest.
And there are people who dedicate their life to the study, analyzing and comprehending the ways of TLOP (i.e. the omnipotent creator and ruler of all existence) and we call these people scientist.
What I am saying is I don’t see any real distinction between the terms “God” and “TLOP” and therefore I don’t see any real distinction between the terms “Priest” and “scientist”. (or Christian religious fanatic and Atheist religious fanatic)
And given that definition, you are correct.Franko said:
Is that so? Where is the observed evidence of Noah's ark? Or any other common Judeo-Christian claim? Besides the bible, which is doubtful as a reliable source. Most religions are almost 100% faith, there are not many testable points.
Agreed, and I think the same can be applied to any other social system (business, government, etc.) Where religions like Islam and Christianity hit their roadblocks is that for many many years, their holy book was touted as the infallible word of god (or Allah). Show one thing in the book is logically inconsistent, and they're sent backpedaling for reasons. Science never makes the claim of being able to answer everything correctly on the first try, which is why it can evolve better than religions trapped in their dogma.Franko said:
I would say, in general, that people can accept that their actions have to follow TLOP. That we are bound, to a certain extent, by the environment we live in. It really has nothing to do with a belief in god, it's more the acceptance that when you jump up, gravity will pull you back down. It is that way because of the force that pulls you to the center of the biggest object around you (i.e. the Earth).Franko said:
As for TLOP creating the universe, I don't think that is a universally accepted proposition.
Since you later state that materialism is an unnecessary assumption, why would you bring this up? If materialism is true, and no consciousness means no consciousness, then I could see the case that a "god" would not be conscious. That's really stretching the definition of a god to fit one's world view.Franko said:
Please point out the logical inconsistencies if you're going to make this claim.Franko said:
More on materialism, which you (again) later state is an unnecessary assumption. Why is it unnecessary?Franko said:
TLOC (The Laws of Chemistry)Franko said:
I don't know that we have a good enough grasp on how the brain operates to say that there is no degree of randomness to its operation, or that everything is pre-determined, as you seemed to hint in your earlier post.Why am I being logically inconsistent to say that we are conscious but TLOP aren't? I guess I don't follow what you're trying to say, can you expound?Franko said:
Like I said, why? When trying to define a god, and determine whether such a god can be conscious or not, wouldn't it be important to determine whether consciousness even exists? If one purports that an intelligent creator of some sort made the conscious decision to create the universe, wouldn't it be important to be able to discredit materialism? Furthermore, if one purports that TLOP are what created and governs the universe, and hence the definition of god should be extended to non-conscious entities, shouldn't the merits of materialism be included in that justification?Franko said:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
What devotees? And what do they say with reverence for the laws of physics "omnipotent"(?) power?Franko said:
Example?
I enjoy studying the laws of physics in the same way I enjoy reading books or playing games. I find it intellectually stimulating. I'd hardly call my interest "extravagant".
And yes, I do admire Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking, but no more or less than I admire Kevin Smith, David Eddings, and the creators of the MYST series of games. And, actually, I admire them significantly less than Jennifer Connelly
But you take it a step further and equate God to the laws of physics, right? However, there are Christian scientists and Jewish scientists and Muslim scientists and Morman scientists, etc. So what you are suggesting is that these people belong to two religions, a traditional religion and priests of the laws of physics? Is this not hypocritical. to be "devote" practioners of not one, but two sperate religions?
Personally, I think your equating science with religion cheapens religion since, by this logic, any devotee to a particular subject, has created a "religion". For example, a movie lover who knows about all aspects of cinema would be a monk of the cinematic religion? Where do you draw the line between interest and religion?
Well, that's your opinion and it's your right to hold it, but I doubt you'll find a lot of agreement in either the scientific or religous communities, in general.
In modern times it may be hard to see, but in ancient times … who knows, maybe the flood myth was a pseudo-historical reference to some calamity in the past? Perhaps it is just primitive mans primitive attempt to explain the various types of creatures around him? Maybe the flood story was just another way to reinforce the brotherhood of mankind (all men descending from a common family)?
I’ll admit that a lot of the Bible stories seem naïve by our standards (and I have no intention of defending the Bible in any event), but I think you have to look at them in the context of their time … just like you have to do with our modern mythology.
I disagree with that.
I’d say that what most modern people get out of religion is a reason to live moral lives – a rationale for it. I think that a lot of what modern religions preach is pretty much common sense, or at very least generally accepted preconceptions about how the universe works.
I am firmly with you on this point. I believe that part of the problem for traditional religions is that they are caught up in the notion of an eternal and unchanging God, who has made a set of eternal and unchanging rules. To a point this isn’t too far off base from the modern scientific notion that the laws of physics (in general) are constant across time and space. The main difference between Scientism or Materialism and say Christianity or Islam on this point is that if Science had a “Bible” then it’s adherents would say the “God” (reality/the laws of physics) is always correct regardless of what our Bible states (i.e. “God” is ALWAYS the ultimate authority) whereas some Christians and Muslims seem more convinced of the inerrancy of their holy books then they are in the inerrancy of its creator.
All I am saying is that Atheists/Materialists view TLOP in a very analogous (if not identical) way to the way that Christians, Muslims, and Jews view their “God”. For an Atheist, TLOP is omnipotent, and TLOP is the lawgiver. For a Jew, God is omnipotent, and God is the lawgiver.
Regardless of whether or not you consider consciousness as an illusion is a moot point. What I am getting at is whatever terms you use to describe your own mind can be used to describe TLOP. If you are not conscious, than it’s fair to say that TLOP isn’t either. However if you would describe yourself as a conscious entity, than it is inconsistent not to describe TLOP that way as well.
Well Upchurch is kind of dancing around this point right now. I’d say that if you are going to say that Atheists don’t worship TLOP like Christians worship God then you need to explain what the precise difference is? From my observation any differences between the two are superficial.
Furthermore, as I have stated in previous post, unless you can explain how something appearing out of nothing (like an entire universe complete with the Laws of Physics) is not a supernatural event/occurrence, than my mind has no choice but to believe that it is a supernatural occurrence ( i.e. a supernatural origin and basis for your entire worldview).
A Supernatural occurrence is anything that happens without any cause and is beyond explanation. You have plainly stated that you believe the Big Bang happened without cause and is beyond explanation; ergo by your very words you have described a supernatural origin. I don’t think I can explain myself any clearer on this point.
In my view Matter and Consciousness are opposite sides of the same coin. I was attempting to reinforce that point.
Let me pose this to you … if you were asked what is the sum of 2 + 2? And you clearly heard and understood the question and were focused and alert, what are the odds that you will randomly give an answer that is not “4”?
How often do random chemical reactions in your brain cause you to uncontrollably run red lights?
Someone just walked in for lunch, so let me get back to you on this.
Essentially what I am getting at is that in the same way that you control you car when you are driving, and thus you are more conscious than your Car, TLOP controls you, and therefore TLOP must be more conscious than You.
… but there is more to it than that.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Ah. This is an easy one (although perhaps difficult to explain). It has to do with the aquisitition of knowledge.Franko said:
To differentiate, let's call "Christians worship God" simply worship (since that is the traditional useage of the word) and let's call "Atheists (although you're actually referring to scientists, i.e. "monk-like") worship TLOP" simply study.
In worship, information is presented to the worshiper by the authority and accepted.
In study, information is achieved in two manners. First, information is obtained through observation of natural phenomena (i.e. the scientific method). Second, the information obtained through the scientific method is communicated to others. However, unlike with worship, the information is not immediately accepted. It is scrutanized and checked to verify it's authenticity and, even then, held as suspect.
"Supernatural event/occurance" would indicate an element or force outside of nature has acted on the natural world. Current Big Bang theory is described in terms of natural observed (or observable) phenomenon with no mention of any supernatural aspect. (Aside: on the chance that one of the component natural phenomenon is shown to not occur in nature, that component, or perhaps the entire theory, will be discarded.) Consequences of natural phenomenon are considered to also be natural, thus the Big Bang thoery, unless shown otherwise, is a natural phenomenon.
As for "something appearing out of nothing", the current theory is that quantum fluctuation started a period of Cosmic inflation. If I understand it correctly, our universe is merely a "momentary" flux that will "eventually" annihilate itself.
I can't agree that the current Big Bang theory is beyond explination. In fact, there are several websites and even more books that do just that. Nor do I think that acausal is a necessary element of being supernatural. There are a number of natural occurances that happen acausally (e.g. quantum fluctuation, as mentioned above).
Can you show that acausal quantum phenomena aren't natural?
I wouldn't disagree, perhaps you misunderstood what I was saying. Religion purports to know answers to things that it can not provide observable evidence for. That's where the "faith" part comes in. I happen to agree that, by and large, folks who are religious do it for personal reasons: be it to cope with mortality, or for moral guidance, or any other reason. And that's okay. And I think we're in agreement with the troubles that religion has with "infallible books of god", so no need to further that discussion.Franko said:
hmmm, I'm not sure if I agree with this, although I do see the message you are trying to convey. Everybody, theistic or otherwise, understands that their physical actions are bound by physics. No god-fearing man believes he can jump from here to the exosphere with no propulsion other than his own two legs. Theists have the additional belief that not only are they bound by physics, but that they are bound by god's will, or in some cases, are directly controlled by god (depending on the beliefs).Franko said:
I think you are assigning a context to the word "worship" that Upchurch is not, which is where the communication breakdown is occurring. I abide by the law, I don't worship it. My actions abide by physics, I don't worship it. I don't attend services, or pray, or commit my life to singing the praises of, or preach to others the wonders and marvel of the law or physics. There may be law or physics zealots, but not worshippers.Franko said:
I, personally, cannot explain how something comes out of nothing. However, you're assuming that something did indeed come out of nothing, and that whatever it was before the universe is something we can actually acknowledge as "nothing". Excuse me while my eyes spin...okay.Franko said:
I did not state that the big bang happened for no reason, I stated that I don't think we'll be able to understand why it happened, at least not in my lifetime.Thank you for making that clear.Franko said:
It doesn't, but then again, I'm not epileptic, so it's not very often that my brain does not allow me to control my body. Nor do I have Alzheimer's disease, so I don't randomly forget that I need to stop at red lights.Franko said:
You've made the makes/controls statement many times in the past, I'm eager to see if you can explain it a little better than using the same words as before your six-month sabbatical.Franko said:
Sure … you mean like sometimes the priest says “Angels exist because the evidence for Angels is overwhelming”, and then some other time the priest says “Intelligent Aliens exist on other planets because there are billions and billions of earth-like planets so the evidence for aliens is overwhelming”.
Yeah, except almost all of celestial mechanics (just as one example) was worked out by people who were pursuing astronomy for religious reasons not scientific ones (whatever that means?)
You honestly believe that every time a priest makes a pronouncement every single one of his “followers” accepts it immediately??? Are you really that naïve Upchurch?
How do you account for the recent flap with the Episcopal church and the gay bishop? Are you sincerely contending that this decision was not scrutinized and its logic checked by the church’s devotees?
What about Martin Luther? Calvin? The reformation? If theists always accept the pronouncements of their priest, then why aren’t all Jews Catholics? Either you are being disingenuous or you are more brainwashed then I thought.
I disagree.
First of all I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to something “outside of nature”? Either TLOP includes EVERYTHING, or there is something more profound than TLOP which includes EVERYTHING and that more profound thing becomes the real TLOP.
Supernatural means beyond comprehension or explanation for all time. How are you saying anything different?
It almost seems like you are more interested in mystifying your viewpoint than you are in explaining it.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
er... okay. Are you suggesting that scientists are saying that evidence for aliens is overwhelming (and not that they're just statistically likely)? Can you back that up with an example?Franko said:
No. Of course not. Critical thought plays a part too.
The recent argument in the Episcopal church with the gay bishop came from conflicting messages from religious authorities. Some said that homosexuality was a sin and others said it wasn't. The congregation had to then rely on their previous experience with the church's teachings to decide which one they agreed with. The delema was the result.
In all the news, I didn't hear either side question the source of the discrepency.
Again, mostly mixed messages and people choosing (based on self interest, I imagine) which spiritual authority figure they wished to follow.
Ah. Well, then. Going by your definition of "supernatural" the current Big Bang theory isn't at all supernatural because it is neither beyond comprehension nor explination. Hard though it may be, there are those who do understand it and have explained it. The very fact that it was formed means it has been explained by somebody, specifically Alan Guth.
I wouldn't throw stones, just yet.
You still haven't answer this one (among a vast multitude of others).
Explain SETI.
You call the Drake equation “good science”? Sounds more like wishful thinking (i.e. faith) to me.
Why hasn’t Drake (or why didn’t Sagan) ever address Tipler, or Fermi, or any of the many others who have blown giant gaping holes in the claims of the fanatics at the cult of SETI?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
SETI does not assume the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence; it is just listening and waiting for any evidence thereof.