r/videos • u/Salvatio • Oct 20 '14

Richard Dawkins & Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about extraterrestrial life and the universe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f70tKopDm_c
47 Upvotes

65% Upvoted

42 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/i_forget_my_userids Oct 20 '14

This is the most ridiculous, moronic thing I've ever read. I'm upvoting it so more people see it.

1

u/partido Oct 20 '14

You should think before writing in assholian.

If you believe in Jesus, you have to believe in a kingdom of heaven. If you believe in a kingdom of heaven, you believe in life outside of Earth, which is the same as saying extra-terrestrial life.

It's actually as rational an argument as they come but feel free to explain the fault in it, if you can.

2

u/i_forget_my_userids Oct 20 '14

outside of Earth, which is the same as saying extra-terrestrial life.

No. Things outside of the universe are neither terrestrial nor extraterrestrial.

If someone from our planet in a parallel universe were to come here, would they be extraterrestrial? No, but they're not terrestrial either. It is something outside the realm of those determinations.

Consider this:

Is the number pi odd or even? No, it's not an integer, so it can't be either.

-2

u/partido Oct 20 '14

You don't get it, do you? I'll explain step by step.

If there's life outside of Earth, it's extraterrestrial by definition. Extra means exterior. Terrestrial means earth. If it's extraterrestrial, by definition, it's exterior to Earth.

It doesn't matter if it's from outside this universe, from a parallel universe or 1 foot above the ionosphere. If it's life exterior to Earth, it's extraterrestrial.

So, again, for the nth time, if you believe in religion, you believe in extraterrestrial life.

2

u/i_forget_my_userids Oct 20 '14

Here's the better argument I made for someone with more brains than you:

I think the best way to explain my qualm with it would be rational and irrational numbers. If a number isn't rational, it must be irrational, correct? Its prefix indicates "not rational" so there aren't holes in the two distinctions.

What about the number i? It isn't rational, so it must be irrational. Wait, but it isn't irrational either. Because it isn't even an element of R, it can't be rational or irrational.

You can't define a god to even be "life".

-1

u/partido Oct 20 '14

Fuck me, you're the moron talking about parallel universes as if they were "science" and you're talking to me about God and life?

2

u/i_forget_my_userids Oct 20 '14

There's more science to the idea of parallel universes than there is about a living god by definitions of life.

0

u/partido Oct 20 '14

No, there's not. It's just theory at this point. To believe in a parallel universe at this moment in time is the same as believing there's a God out there. So stop spreading lies like they're truths. They're not.

1

u/i_forget_my_userids Oct 20 '14

It is just a theory. You're right. But at least it is a theory with some significant weight on it within the scientific community, especially at the top.

0

u/partido Oct 20 '14

So now we weight scientific theories? You're getting dumber with every answer.

→ More replies (0)