beecee

No that's just silly. While we do not as yet have direct or extraordinary evidence of any extraterrestrial life, the known facts that [1] the universe is "near infinite" in extent, [2] The universe is "near infinite" in content, [3] The stuff of life and the chemicals that make up life on Earth, are spread throughout the universe, wherever we have looked. The probability of life of some sort arising elsewhere is valid. Fairies on the other hand are nothing more then a mythical unscientific concept for children.

Despite of course being in the "religion" forum, and plenty of inferences to supernatural creation. Why not just invalidate what I have said. Let me sum it up. [1] Creationism/God/deities is an unscientific explantion. [2] Ancient man saw "God"or magic everywhere as detailed. [3] The reason why he/she saw God, was that no other explantion was available [4] Science finally through the process of gathering knowledge and standing on the shoulders of giants, eliminated much of that myth. [the myth of God being the Sun, Moon etc. Ahh, one of my favourite videos. Actually what Feynman does is explain to a novice, the magnetic force, an detailed how that explanation depends largely on who he is explaining it to. I dare say we all have been in situations where an expert/professional maybe trying to explain a process to us, and we may ask him to dumb it down. Your final remark about the need to reject all of science, does absolutely nothing for whatever you are trying to convey here.

Why would you want to? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom An axiom, postulate or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'[1][2] The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. The usual cop out nonsense. Ancient man saw and claimed deities in the Sun, Moon, Mountains, etc, and probably in some situations, still do today. But voila! then science came along and explained such wonders via natural means, rather then the continuing raising of unscientific mythical fairy tales. Invoking God is unscientific in the extreme, much like ghosts, goblins and Bigfoot.

Krauss? Sure I cite him...another excellent scientist. Your position is imo clouded somewhat. And of course as the late great Carl Sagan, inferred, if we want to be logical and courages, one then must ask, how did this thing we call God eventuate? The real position is of course that as yet we do not have enough data to confirm why and how our universe/space/time evolved, from the seething quantum foam. But it also makes reasonable sense [in light of the lack of data] to propose that perhaps "nothing" as we are now defining, that is, no universe, no space, no time, no quantum foam, no deity, no nuttin, is not, nor ever has been possible. Perhaps the quantum foam is as close to nothing as we can get..perhaps it, the quantum foam did exist for eternity, prior to the BB. While of course still highly specuclative, the real answer is still we don't know. But just like unexplained/unidentified UFO's/UAP, being unexplained and/or we don't really know, does not equate to Alien origin. Likewise, not knowing the why or wherefor of the BB and origin of the universe, does not equate to some magical deity sitting up in the clouds somewhere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Universe_from_Nothing A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing: Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction. more obviously at link........... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: That at least to me, makes far more sense then invoking some unscientific supernatural being. A quote comes to mind at this time by those that see the need to dismiss such reasonable scientific speculation..... "Shall I refuse my dinner because I do not fully understand the process of digestion?" Oliver Heaviside (1850-1925) English physicist. Of course while writing this book, Professor Krauss also committed a cardinal sin in critiquing philosophers, and consequently drew the wrath from that group. 😉 He was of course taken out of context by others with supernatural creation agendas. Which reminds me of another quote [apologies to my philosophical friends] "Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself". Henry Louis Mencken

I smell an agenda of sorts! 😉 But as per the end of the story, he is a scientist.

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.1629.pdf#:~:text=For a universe starting from,a commensurate change in mass. Does the universe obey the energy conservation law by a constant mass or an increasing mass with radius during its evolution? Abstract: How the energy conservation law is obeyed by the universe during its evolution is an important but not yet unanimously resolved question. Does the universe have a constant mass during its evolution or has its mass been increasing with its radius? Here, we evaluate the two contending propositions within the context of the Friedmann equations and the standard big bang theory. We find that though both propositions appeal to the Friedmann equations for validity, an increasing mass with increasing radius is more in harmony with the thermal history of the big bang model. In addition, temperature and flatness problems that plague the constant mass proposal are mitigated by the increasing mass with radius proposal. We conclude that the universe has been increasing in mass and radius in obedience to the energy conservation law. I. Concluding remarks: The knowledge that the mass of the universe now seems to be a mixture of radiation, matter and dark matter forms has become fairly established. But the exact way the universe obeys the energy conservation law remains fundamental to our understanding of cosmic evolution. Has all that mass always been there, the proportion of the various forms depending on the prevailing temperature that permits their stability? Or does additional mass appear with increasing radius, taking the form dictated by the energy densities and ambient temperatures prevailing at its appearance? The psychological barrier, where additional mass can come from, especially when considered alongside the law of conservation of mass, must undoubtedly have played a significant role in the speculations leading to the constant mass hypothesis. Alternative ideas of creation from nothing which later emerged have however become increasingly popular. Despite remaining hesitations about where additional mass could be coming from, on the overall balance of consistency, we conclude that the energy conservation law is better obeyed by means of increasing mass of the universe with its radius. The bases for our conclusion include compatibility with the Friedmann equations with fewer assumptions and improvisation, better harmony with the thermal features of the standard big bang model and the mitigation of the temperature and flatness problems which characterize the constant mass proposal. The findings here are obtained almost entirely within the context of General relativity, which has a wide acceptance in the scientific community. However, not too different conclusions can be described outside GR, as for example based on the behaviour of a primeval photon fluctuating from nothing.

Can't there? Of course there can! The problem simply is that at this time in our evolutionary process, we as yet have no observational/experimental evidence but can logically speculate without any need to resort to some unscientific magical supernatural nonsense.....you may like this..... So perhaps our problem is simply what "nothing" really is. Perhaps the quantum foam can be redefined as nothing...at least its pretty damn close to nothing, and far more likeley then any unscientific supernatural nonsense, that if one wants to be truly objective, simply complicates things even more: Carl answers that admirably in the following......

My own personal opinion is that you appear to be Dawkins bashing. I'm simply putting it factually the way it is...that is, he is a scientist:end of story.

By any mainstream definition out there, and despite your Dawkins bashing, he is a scientist: end of story. https://www.salon.com/2015/10/04/enough_richard_dawkins_bashing_let_us_praise_a_hero_of_science_and_atheism/ The religious and their apologists have no fury more ardent than that which they reserve for those who would expose the truth about their faith-generated delusions. Abrahamic scripture justifies, even sanctifies, such fury, ordaining hellfire and damnation for those who diss their make-believe divine master – aka Yahweh, God, Allah, the Lord, and so on. Thus it has ever been with that consummate bane, monotheism – the innately totalitarian (as the late Christopher Hitchens put it) ideology concentrating all power in the hands of one (jealous, wrathful, and entirely imaginary) “Big Brother in the Sky.” It cannot be otherwise: one master, many slaves (or dupes, given that said master does not exist). Those who believe in this bogus despot far too frequently shall not suffer truth-tellers to live -- at least figuratively, but all too tragically literally as well, of course, as history and current events show. Time and again this has proven true with Richard Dawkins, at least in the figurative sense. The groundbreaking British evolutionary biologist and New Atheist icon has long suffered the slings and arrows of the faith-deranged and those sad-sack apologists eager to assassinate his character, all often servants of political correctness, working in cahoots with them. Dawkins has made (delicious) light of the former, selecting NSFW excerpts from their mail to him and reading them aloud for Internet videos that attract millions of viewers (see here and here, but religion is involved, so make sure no minors are around). The perception persists, as The Guardian put it in a lengthy piece, that “his controversial positions” – on, e.g., sexism and abortion of fetuses with disabilities, as expressed on Twitter – “have started to undermine both his reputation as a scientist and his own anti-religious crusade.” more at link...........

Obviously on that score you are wrong. He is indeed a scientist before any of his excellent science orientated books were published..... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Education

Understood, it's just that I have a morbid fear of certain things. I once had this dirty big huntsman running up the kitchen wall, and I screamed like a big girl, so loud, the Mrs came running out. Huntsman spiders while large are non venomous, which I had to keep telling myself over and over and over, as I swept it outside with an extremely long handled broom. Living in Sydney on the coast, we are taught to empty and shake our shoes before putting them on in case one of these little creatures happens to crawl in at night. The main danger is the very venomous Sydney Funnel Web, one of the most deadly in the world.... Let me say that [thankfully] I have never seen one in the wild. These little beauties when threatened, literally rear up on their hind legs with their fangs ready to strike. No thanks, while not a bear, I'll stick to our cuddly Koala. 😉 I hope I made myself clear on that point, in that I certainly do not go out of my way to kill anything, as long as they stay out of my abode! IMO David Attenborough is one of the finest human beings on the planet. My fear of snakes is minimal when compared to my morbidly psychological fear of creepy crawlies things 😬 despite knowing full well that most won't harm me. When I was a much younger man, I did a fair amount of bushwalking and hiking. On at least three occasions we came across snakes sunning themselves....two were red bellied black snakes and a Tiger snake, both species are venomous. We detoured around them without any hint of a problem or threatening posture from the sunning snakes.

What do we do if our home is over run by pests of any sort...rodents, insects spiders etc. How many ants and other insects do we accidently kill everyday, by unknowingly walking on them for example? I don't purposely kill insects and such for the fun of it...in fact I'm shit scared and terrified of things like cockroaches and spiders. I don't squat or squash them as I can't even stand the sound of it underfoot. I may immediately get out the insect spray and literally drown them, but that's about it. Other things such as snails, butterflies, cattipilars etc I always leave alone in the garden....except spider webs!!!! [Have you ever walked into one after a few beers in the dead of night?] I love animals in general, particularly dogs, who I have even shared a bed with. I love my pork, lamb roasts, chicken etc, and while understanding the minimal suffering [I hope] they go through to end up on my dinner table, sadly I actually fon't give it too much thought. BUT I HATE SPIDERS, RATS, MICE AND COCKROACHES!!!!

Generally speaking, I support mandatory vaccinations for all, unless exempted because of a medical condition or other valid reason, as confirmed by the local government authority under strict medical advice. What penalties would be involved I can't really say at this time, but in Australia in certain states, parents of children that fail to get their child vaccinated as per recommendations, can be refused daycare and kindergarten services. There maybe other reasons or situations that may require exemptions and those can be looked at by the appropriate agency. As another example, our national airline QANTAS is proposing when International travel reopens, that all passengers would need to show a valid certificate of vaccination, or boarding will be refused. It's really the only way we are going to beat this insideous thing. BTW Sydney where I am is in total lockdown for two weeks [unless dramatic improvement and/or eventual elimination of cases is observed which may change if medically advised] We had 18 new cases over the last 24 hrs.

The Copernicus's, Galileo's, Newton's of this world, were not aware of what modern day science tells us. While certainly even today some scientists may still believe in a God of choice, most don't. Nothing wrong imho with such belief for individual scientists, as long as that belief does not inhibit scientific progress.

I would say that your hypothesis is invalidated by the fact that while spacetime is actually expanding everywhere, we only observe that expansion over the larger scales of the universe. Over smaller galactic and galactic group scales, gravitational attraction, overwhelmes said expansion, similar to a fish swimming upstream at 5 kms/hour [expansion] against an opposing current of 6kms/hour [gravitational attraction] The highlighted part [by me] could probably be applied at the EH. The EH is the boundary from which anything that has crossed it, is effectively separated from the outside world, never to be seen again. The singularity at the core is simply where our laws of physics and GR break down. The BB itself tells us that space/time/universe, evolved from a hot dense state at t+10 to the minus 45th seconds after the initial event. That small amount of time is called the quantum/Planck level or region, at which our laws of physics and GR break down. Anything at, or backwards from that scale is speculation. I believe most of us probably also have thought experiments...nothing wrong with that. It's comparing them with the scientific data, facts and theories available that is needed to gauge the validity of such thoughts.

You don't like Richard Dawkins I take it? While I prefer scientists [which Dawkins is] and scientific principles, to philosophers, and philosophical claptrap, does not stop me accepting that philosophy is still at the foundation of science. But I do prefer Sagan over Dawkins, and actually see him as the greatest educator of our time. With relation to the thread title though "Can life-affirming athiests prove their beliefs?" it is obviously arse about face. It is far more scientifically logical for believers to prove that their deity of choice does indeed exist. That as yet has never happened.

Sean Carroll is always worth listening to...havn't watched it all as yet [just had my first cup of coffee for the day] but will when time permits.

https://phys.org/news/2021-06-massive-protocluster-merging-galaxies-early.html A massive protocluster of merging galaxies in the early universe: Submillimeter galaxies (SMGs) are a class of the most luminous, distant, and rapidly star-forming galaxies known and can shine brighter than a trillion Suns (about one hundred times more luminous in total than the Milky Way). They are generally hard to detect in the visible, however, because most of their ultraviloet and optical light is absorbed by dust which in turn is heated and radiates at submillimeter wavelengths—the reason they are called submillimeter galaxies. The power source for these galaxies is thought to be high rates of star formation, as much as one thousand stars per year (in the Milky Way, the rate is more like one star per year). SMGs typically date from the early universe; they are so distant that their light has been traveling for over ten billion years, more than 70% of the lifetime of the universe, from the epoch about three billion years after the big bang. Because it takes time for them to have evolved, astronomers think that even a billion years earlier they probably were actively making stars and influencing their environments, but very little is known about this phase of their evolution. more at link..................... the paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/502/2/1797/6101223?redirectedFrom=fulltext Optical and near-infrared observations of the SPT2349-56 proto-cluster core at z = 4.3 ABSTRACT We present Gemini-S and Spitzer-IRAC optical-through-near-IR observations in the field of the SPT2349-56 proto-cluster at z = 4.3. We detect optical/IR counterparts for only 9 of the 14 submillimetre galaxies (SMGs) previously identified by ALMA in the core of SPT2349-56. In addition, we detect four z ∼ 4 Lyman-break galaxies (LBGs) in the 30 arcsec-diameter region surrounding this proto-cluster core. Three of the four LBGs are new systems, while one appears to be a counterpart of one of the nine observed SMGs. We identify a candidate brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) with a stellar mass of (3.2+2.3−1.4)×1011(3.2−1.4+2.3)×1011 M⊙. The stellar masses of the eight other SMGs place them on, above, and below the main sequence of star formation at z ≈ 4.5. The cumulative stellar mass for the SPT2349-56 core is at least (12.2 ± 2.8) × 1011 M⊙, a sizeable fraction of the stellar mass in local BCGs, and close to the universal baryon fraction (0.19) relative to the virial mass of the core (1013 M⊙). As all 14 of these SMGs are destined to quickly merge, we conclude that the proto-cluster core has already developed a significant stellar mass at this early stage, comparable to z = 1 BCGs. Importantly, we also find that the SPT2349-56 core structure would be difficult to uncover in optical surveys, with none of the ALMA sources being easily identifiable or constrained through g, r, and i colour selection in deep optical surveys and only a modest overdensity of LBGs over the more extended structure. SPT2349-56 therefore represents a truly dust-obscured phase of a massive cluster core under formation.

Just to be clearer, what we interpret as gravity is the curvature/warping of spacetime in the presence of mass/energy.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/Prelimary-Assessment-UAP-20210625.pdf

The logic is that at this stage we have certain ways and methodologies to help avoid catching this virus... [1] Hygene: Wash your hands with soap and water after using the bathroom and after being out and about. [2] Social distancing: Keep as much as possible a 1.5 mtre distance between you and others when out and about, particularly on public transport. [3] Always wear a properly fitted face mask when advised to do so. [4] Get vaccinated. I use all four and have been totally vaccinated and follow the medical advice. The virus has been pretty well controlled in Australia and New Zealand, although the occasional outbreak has occured, which then is controlled by various means including in the most severe circumstances, total lockdowns.

Spacetime is not curved by gravity, it is curved by mass, which we interprete as gravity. Ahh yes I remember reading about Laura, and I also remember her thoughts being invalidated...

OK, gotcha...my misunderstanding. Again while understanding that the extraordinary evidence needed for such an arrival is not forthcoming, the best that can be said, is at this time is that a small percentage of sightings remain unexplained.

No, they simply indicate "Unknown" air phenomena or "unidentified" And let me say again, no scientists worth his or her salt, would claim any off Earth intelligent alien species exist within our solar system. And you will notice that the OP choices given for probable origin of any alien species rightly ignores that scenario.

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html extract: The Schwarzschild solution of the gravitational equations is static and demonstrates the limits placed on a static spherical body before it must collapse to a black hole. The Schwarzschild limit does not apply to rapidly expanding matter. much more......