We don't know or more unlikely, what animal lives beneath the 1% mass surface of the earth, about 6 km. Below the surface. . Humans have not touched the 99% mass weight of the earth. If one hasn't eaten fish, how can one tell you how fish taste like? Since covid we barely touch each other to know each other. Or barely know how to take care of ourselves.

@Castlepaloma [howardfenstermanminerals.com]

We have known for years what lies beneath the earth's surface. Elementary stuff

@Moravian

Pure speculation, until a person has been down below the 6km. Beneath the earth crust, we may as well describe aliens being from another planet and claim it as truth.

Best humans have done is.
The deepest hole by far is one on the Kola Peninsula in Russia near Murmansk, referred to as the "Kola well." It was drilled for research purposes beginning in 1970. After five years, the Kola well had reached 7km (about 23,000ft)

Christian have claimed they put a microphone and heard the sounds of demons in hell. If it was a microphone, it would of burn up, less than half way down the 7km hole. Assuming hell, is the dumbest speculation I've heard yet..

@Castlepaloma You mean you don't know, not we don't know.

@Alienbeing

Nobody knows unless somebody has been down there below 7 km. Besides a drill that cannot withstand the heat.. Not just me and that's far worse than a blind man describing an elephant.

@Castlepaloma You fundamentally misunderstand a key tenet of science. First-hand visual inspection is not the only valid way to determine the nature of a substance. You can also use indirect methods of analysis, as in remote sensing. You can make inferences based on observable facts such as, in the case if the Earth's interior, density, magnetic field, gravity anomalies, and propagation of sound waves (measuring speed, refraction, diffraction, and reflection of the waves). Then you can make predictions based on the observations, test them, and so learn even more. Also note that the Earth is a geologically active planet. There is volcanic activity and tectonic plate movement. These forces have brought material from the mantle up through the crust. So geologists are not flying blind. We know with a high degree of confidence that the Earth's mantle is composed of ultramafic rocks that act like plastic, and that the liquid outer core and solid inner core are composed of iron and nickel.

@Flyingsaucesir

Often Humans can speculate that aliens look actually like us. Only by what we know of our knowledge of the 1% surface of the earth. Without using all our 5 senses, we can only use our imagination base on a great ignorance of information. We don't even know what beneath the surface of any planet in the comos. I have intimidation carve most major material on earth. Carve 6 acres, of 70,000 tons of sand. You would be amazed, most people have no idea what's barely on the surface of earth, let alone the sea.

@Castlepaloma You speak of what "most people" know as if it were somehow relevant here. It is not. The point is, geologists and lay followers of Earth science do know what lies beneath the surface.

This is from the Wikipedia page on ultramafic rocks:

"Many surface exposures of ultramafic rocks occur in ophiolite complexes where deep mantle-derived rocks have been obducted onto continental crust along and above subduction zones."

In other words, rocks from deep inside the mantle have been brought up to the surface.

@Castlepaloma Apparently you never heard of SONAR or Ground Penetrating RADAR. and many other things.

I threw my TV out the window 12 years ago., For all the mind numbing mind control programing going on. Use science, not abuse it. Like greedy pharma and politicians.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." So said Albert Einstein The source of endless debate between believers and non-believers wanting to claim the greatest scientist of the 20th century as their own.

Science is another branch on the tree of life. The arts has been a much longer history as a branch and more influential for human kind than anything esle. The heart leads and shortly followed by the mind, is the best technically advanced computer and tech
device ever made by nature.

@Castlepaloma Einstein also said "God does not play dice with the universe." He was referring to (and disagreeing with) the Pauli uncertainty principle, the idea in quantum physics that there is, at a certain level, a fundamental randomness in nature. All evidence to date indicates that Einstein was wrong about this.

@Flyingsaucesir

Dawkins convince me that personal Gods do more harm than good. Although, I don't think human kind is capable of knowing what is the ultimate high power. According to Richard Dawkins,, Einstein was an atheist: “Einstein sometimes invoked the name of God, and he is not the only atheistic scientist to do so, inviting misunderstanding by supernaturalists eager to misunderstand and claim the illustrious thinker as their own.Dawkins gives a definition of atheism as believing that there is “nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe. So far nature, is the best answer for now, in the 99% spiritual unknowns.

@Castlepaloma I don't disagree with Dawkins. I think it is very likely that there is "nothing beyond the natural, physical world, no supernatural creative intelligence lurking behind the observable universe." However, we cannot be 100% certain of this. What I do disagree with is the idea that science is lame. Science is not lame. Science is a juggernaut, continually expanding the bounds of human knowledge. With his throwaway comment, I think Einstein was, as a representative of science to the world, merely showing a little humility, being a bit self-effacing. After all, there is still much to learn. He knew that.

I also disagree with your assertion that "chaos and ignorance runs our live" [sic]. At least in the short term, my life runs according to choices I make within a technological, sociological, and legal framework. Is there an element of chaos there? Yes, but it's something I can work around. Civilization has not collapsed (yet). We can still make plans and have a reasonable expectation of seeing them fulfilled. It still makes sense to save money for a house or an education, to study for a test, to make new friends, learn a foreign language, take up an instrument, even have a kid (if you're the right age and have a good income).

@Flyingsaucesir

The word chaos usually carries a negative connotation involving undesirable disorganization or confusion
I mean chaos to implies the existence of unpredictable or random behavior as facts. Much of invention and creative discovery were done by accident in all top sciencist and all professions . I give atheist sciencist highest praise in that one branch in the tree of life. Ignorance is not a bad thing since 99% of the earths mass is unknown to human, that is the starting point. Human is the highest intelligence animal on earth. The brain is the only thing works above all other animals, I suggest we use it more effectively.

Hi

what do you mean by "Certainly stems from indoctrination, not logic and reason."? What stems from indoctrination? "gnostic atheism"?

According to this scheme I'm a "de facto atheist."

@Flyingsaucesir Agnostic’s are just closeted Atheists, they’re just hesitant to admit it publicly…..

@Dhiltong Not really. I would have no problem admitting that I was an atheist if it were true. However, as a scientist, I know that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something (see Black Swan Principle). Therefore I am compelled to leave open the possibility that someday irrefutable evidence of god(s) my turn up. Do I think this is likely? No.

@kmaz I meant "certainty" and the indoctrination of gnostic theism Apologies for the confusion.

@OldMetalHead

Thanks, I see that you changed the word to "certainty", which helps clear it up, somewhat. However, your statement still reads:

"...My experience has been that there are very few gnostic atheists....", while your clarification refers to "indoctrination of gnostic theism". So, I'm still confused as to whether you are criticizing gnostic theists or gnostic atheists, or both, for their "certainty", or claim of knowledge (i.e. : for claiming knowledge that there is or is not a god).

Under the Dawkins scale, I'm a strong atheist. In the labels assigned in the video, I would probably be labeled a "gnostic atheist" by some.

@kmaz What I'm saying is that there is no shortage of gnostic theists, likely because they "know" through faith, not logic or reason. On the other hand, most atheists acknowledge the minute chance that a god exists, though there doesn't seem to be any evidence.

I am also a Strong Atheist on the Dawkins scale. I'll go one further and say that in the vastness of space that there may very well be entities further evolved than humanity - a higher power. But, a personal god who requires men to cut off their foreskins and cares how we fuck, I can't believe in that at all without overwhelming evidence which I've never seen as yet.

@OldMetalHead

Ok, thanks, that makes sense.

I would not classify entities more civilized or knowledgeable or further evolved than we are as a "higher power" as that is a loaded word implying, in the vernacular, at least to enough people so I am going to avoid any word confusion, supernatural powers.

Anyway, what really interests me here is this:

When I was in high school, I took logic and reasoning courses, and we learned about inductive reasoning. It seems to me that the complexity of the universe implies no entity could be omni-powerful, nor omni-knowledgeable. When some argue that one cannot be certain of this argument, and they cite the difficulty or impossibility of proving a negative, I wonder if there is a counter-point that should be made to those folks. The counter-point would be that, at some point, I think some inductive arguments could be treated as powerful and able to claim certainty or knowledge. However, I don't know or remember what the issues may have been in having us understand good use of inductive reasoning.

@Flyingsaucesir An Agnostic is merely an Atheist without conviction. There is no reason to even suspect, no less believe in a God or Gods.

@Alienbeing Okay, so you place conviction (belief) over appreciation of nuance.

What was it F. Scott Fitzgerald said about the ability to hold two opposing thoughts and still retain thr ability to function? That it's a sign of...

@Flyingsaucesir

Not only atheist can function, they are leading the way, as the fastest growing group of anykind of nonbelievers from personal Gods. It's a free world for nonbelievers of even Governments and pharmaceutical dominatance.

@Castlepaloma Both you and @Alienbeing apparently miss the point. Atheism is belief in God's non-existence. And it is a belief where there is insufficient evidence to support it. In that way, atheism is not all that different from theism. Both are leaps of faith.

That being said, I personally rate the probability of God's existence at vanishinglly small. Almost nil. Almost,...

@Flyingsaucesir Atheism is the natural state and requires no faith. Believing in a deity is taught, indoctrinated, brainwashed. Often there's trauma, sometimes severe, involved in such teaching.

@OldMetalHead The ubiquity of theistic belief throughout history and across all geography, as well as its diversity of details combined with a central commonality, to me stand as evidence that religious belief crops up spontaneously; that it is a natural outgrowth of the human psyche. We invent gods because we are social beings, and interpret the world in terms of intentionality and personality. Our sociality goes back millions of years, back beyond our first simian ancestors. It is not hard to imagine early hominids, at seeing lightening and hearing thunder, thinking that there was a manifestation of an angry intelligence. Reasoned skepticism is not our natural state. Banishment of superstition is a modern accomplishment, a sign of progress.

@Flyingsaucesir

Atheists such as Richard Dawkins are glad that sometimes Einstein clarified that by “God” he actually meant to say “nature.” Yet sometimes he remarked “I am not an atheist.” Other times Einstein said that he believed in the God of Spinoza.

@Flyingsaucesir Atheism IS NOT a belief! It is LACK of belief.

@Flyingsaucesir No nuance involved, merely a lack of belief.

@Alienbeing
"The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy recognizes multiple senses of the word “atheism”, but is clear about which is standard in philosophy:

[Atheism is] the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in god and is consistent with agnosticism [in the psychological sense]. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no god; this use has become standard. (Pojman 2015, emphasis added)"
[plato.stanford.edu]

@Alienbeing

@Flyingsaucesir Your immediate post above is your best because it says nothing, wich is better than the misinformation you previously posted.

Last, if I say I don't believe you regarding a "God" or any subject that NEVER even implies a separate belief, it merely says I dodn't believe you.

@Alienbeing Blah, blah, blah. Why can't you just admit that you have been proven wrong? Oh, that would require a modicum of grace which you are sadly lacking.