circumstantial evidence to Gods existence

[Thumper]

I'm arguing in the affirmative, by inference to the best explanation

The only thing that makes it "best" is you like it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Please provide your reasons for stating why you believe that of the 20 billion earth like planets in the habitable zones of our galaxy only earth harbors life?
Scientists Estimate 20 Billion Earth-Like Planets In Our Galaxy

That's not enough,

'earth-like' is used basically as clickbait in articles like these, we don't know of any other planet anything close to 'Earth-like' we are continually learning how incredibly special our planet is.

The universe would have to be much much larger to make another Earth with sentient life like humanity probable

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The only thing that makes it "best" is you like it.

I was perfectly comfortable with atheism for decades, the cracks in that belief were a bit unnerving at first

 

[Laughing Coyote]

Of course that would be reasonable. Can anyone measure infinity? How would you go about that without stepping outside infinity? And if you could do that, then whatever you would be measuring could not any longer be infinite, because you're outside of it.

This is why arguments to prove God as something outside ourselves, will never succeed. You can't exclude the subject. God cannot be an object and still be God.


Evidence of yourself. In other words in the words of one mystic I can't recall who at the moment said, "To know yourself is to know God. To know God is to know yourself." When we truly peel back the layers of the onion of who we imagine we are to find the one looking at the whole thing, then the question is answered. All that's left is finding ways to talk about it.

In this case, personal experience, or better put, personal Awareness is that evidence. You can't look outside to find God, while exclude yourself. It begins with self awareness down to the very Source itself. That's the evidence. God is the Subject of all being, the One looking out through your eyes. Think of it like trying to find your eyes while looking out through them imagining you'll find them somewhere "out there".

So, "Theism" then is simply one way to talk about the experience of that Infinite. So is atheism for that matter. Neither can define the Reality of it however, as both as putting an objective face on infinite Reality through excluding the subject, the one looking.

The concept of the deity being outside ourselves and outside the earth is a characteristic of prophetic religions, which generally appeared in the Neolithic with invention of an agriculture based on annual grains (which require regular plowing up and obliteration of the ecosystems that we live in), rise of cities, the growth of social class, and human separation from nature and alienation from society that followed from this. Ironically, by locating the deity outside the world, it led to a secularized view of our world, which even science takes from Christianity as its (unproven) premise. The ecologist Stan Rowe, who developed the concept or theory of ecosphere (as opposed to the biosphere concept), draws a very different picture with his premise of a living Earth, which both creates and sustains life, being what he calls "the incarnation of the deity." Having been created by earth and part of it, to know oneself would require knowing the earth, which can be approached but is impossible to reach, simply due to the many-layered complexity of existence, none of which is knowable in terms of the layer or level of organization preceding it.

For science, simply understanding objects in terms of themselves, in Descartes' terms as "substance," is difficult enough. That objects themselves have many layered existence in which they always contain other entities and are part of larger ones, is almost beyond comprehension. It is why to the extent that science allows us to expand our sphere of activity, the unexpected impacts of our activities become more and more inclusive and beyond our ability to deal with.

 

[Thumper]

That's not enough,

'earth-like' is used basically as clickbait in articles like these, we don't know of any other planet anything close to 'Earth-like' we are continually learning how incredibly special our planet is.

The universe would have to be much much larger to make another Earth with sentient life like humanity probable

Making stuff up again. We are continually learning how common planets are, even Goldilocks planets, and we've just begun to scratch the surface. You have no idea how many potential habitable planet there might be ... to date, nobody does. Why do you find it so necessary to just blatantly make stuff up so much?

 

[Thumper]

I was perfectly comfortable with atheism for decades, the cracks in that belief were a bit unnerving at first

And that's how I know you are making stuff up again -- atheism is not a "belief," it is a particular skepticism about supernatural claims, nothing more. This is so basic that anyone who claims to have been an atheist would have to be purposely lying to call it a "belief."

 

[sayak83]

That's not enough,

'earth-like' is used basically as clickbait in articles like these, we don't know of any other planet anything close to 'Earth-like' we are continually learning how incredibly special our planet is.

The universe would have to be much much larger to make another Earth with sentient life like humanity probable

Still no evidence for your claims. Are you imagining all your evidence?
Meanwhile...
New solar system found to have 7 Earth-size planets

 

[QuestioningMind]

This is a wrong approach, adapted by brainwashed people. People today are brainwashed by our secular education that they thus demand evidence before belief. However in this very reality humans seldom rely on evidence to believe and putting faith to believe is actually the fundamental way for humans in majority to get to a truth.

What evidence do you have for any historical figures existed 2000 years ago? History is basically written by humans long ago for us to believe with faith today! History represents one kind of truth which evidence have no bearing on it. For an example, Jewish historian Josephus wrote a series of books 2000 years ago. Now just go through it section by section then tell us which section can be supported by evidence. If evidence is needed before belief, you can ignore the books as a whole. You can even ignore human history as a whole.

That said. You won't be able to collect evidence of God because once God is evident you don't need faith to believe Him. And by the current covenant in place, no humans thus can be saved! To a certain extent, looking for evidence of God means seeking for the death of all mankind. Similarly to human history, humans don't need to rely on evidence to reach such a truth anyway.

How do you force yourself to genuinely believe something without evidence? If I told you that invisible unicorns will grant you three wishes, but first you have to have faith that they exist and just believe in them, would you be able to shut down the rational and logical part of your brain in order to truly BELIEVE that these invisible unicorns exist? I suspect that you could go through the motions of believing. You could PRETEND to believe. But could you genuinely BELIEVE in such a claim without any verifiable evidence?

I see numerous problems with replacing one's ability to think rationally with faith. Back on 9/11 there were a group of idiots who all possessed a powerful FAITH that God wanted them to fly airplanes into buildings filled with people. Personally I think we all would have been far better off if those idiots had used reason and logic to base their actions on, instead of just relying on their faith.

 

[Laughing Coyote]

Well the odds are 649,739 : 1 for a royal flush, but it still happens. And each deal is a separate probability. Now, what are the "number of stars in the universe"?

What does that prove? Each of the other combinations would have the same possibility. Yet one must come up.

 

[Thumper]

How do you force yourself to genuinely believe something without evidence? If I told you that invisible unicorns will grant you three wishes, but first you have to have faith that they exist and just believe in them, would you be able to shut down the rational and logical part of your brain in order to truly BELIEVE that these invisible unicorns exist? I suspect that you could go through the motions of believing. You could PRETEND to believe. But could you genuinely BELIEVE in such a claim without any verifiable evidence?

I see numerous problems with replacing one's ability to think rationally with faith. Back on 9/11 there were a group of idiots who all possessed a powerful FAITH that God wanted them to fly airplanes into buildings filled with people. Personally I think we all would have been far better off if those idiots had used reason and logic to base their actions on, instead of just relying on their faith.

“Tell people there's an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority will believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure.” ~ George Carlin

 

[james bond]

Please everyone bigotry aside I have an equation that might answer it all and beyond. It's the theory of absolute infinity and all shown without surpassing any of our governing laws.

The beauty of it is in its simplicity.

This is not infinitesimal or infinities within our existing boundaries. This also doesn't go against Cantors work.

Starting with the basics and to understand the limitations of our mathematical structure

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12....

Our numerical system has potentially a never ending amount of numbers. The more you count, the more we can plus another one.

Potentially an infinite amount...

But in truth....

Only one number does exist

The number "1"

E.g 1 + 1 + 1 = 3

That is because "1" explains itself and every other number.

In fact, every number is a repetition (more precisely a reproduction) of the number "1".

Not only does it explain every whole number but it also explains every type of number.

For example a fraction or a decimal point is a "part of "1"".

50% =

1/2 =

0.5 OF 1

What's so special about "1" is it is also complete

1 = 100%

In maths, when something is complete It MUST have a bound and an end.

In maths this is signified with brackets ( )

( <------bound, beginning

) <------end, finish

*****(We do not use the brackets because we consider it common knowledge.)

In maths we rarely use it but Brackets explain grouping pairs or completion in maths. That is why brackets are done first in arithmetical equation

e.g

(3+2) x (3+1) = 20

or

(5) x (4) = (20)

5 x 4 = 20

One is 100% completely bounded and ended to itself.

(1) or (100%)

Hence this instantly means "(1)", the number "1" is the finite because of is finite restriction.

ANYTHING that can be calculated is.

Instantly our universe becomes finite (1) even if it has potentially infinite possibilities (∞).

∞ = infinity.

A concept not a number meaning boundless/endless

Unrestricted (beyond brackets)

This is what has come to be known as potential infinite, even though it's just studying the ∞ possibilities within (1).

If we accept (∞) as anything more it would be the greatest oxymoron in the history of mankind.

There is also another restriction of the number (1)

That is because by itself can not do much.

It needs a medium or a language to communicate.

multiple, divide, square root Etc are all fancy and group methods of doing the core symbols of maths.

Addition and subtraction

+ -

Just like (1),

(+|-) addition and subtraction can explain themselves and every other type of calculations.

Example

(1+1+1) + (1+1+1) = (1+1+1+1+1+1)

So inside every (1) we have (+|-).

E.g

Man = (1)

And he has (+|-) within himself.

Think of anything Positive and negative, Addition subtraction, Time space, Proton electron, Good Bad, Right Wrong, Light Dark

We can even say

Yin Yang for good measure

All we have is equal and opposites and one can not exist without the other. Black exists because of white and vice versa.

Think of anything, chemistry, biology, physics even non scientific subjects like morale; you can even say from a materialistic morale point of view, water is our greatest asset, the reason for life yet, our greatest restriction.

Anything from a positive and a negative within a finite position can be explained quite easily.

(+ -) within (1)

Now to make it interesting..........

Scientifically we know we are living in 1 x (E=mc2), we are restricted.

My question is say we calculated everything that exists in our (1) universe.

Hypothetically lets say

everything = (100)

What would be

1 + (100) = ?

It can not be 101

Reason

Everything has already been calculated and it equalled (100)

Let me rephrase the question

from my brief explanation above what would be

1 + (finite)

1 + (maths)

1 + (1)

1 + (universe)

1 + (everything)

1 + (100%)

1 + (E=mc2)

1 + (+|-)

????

It must be something outside of the bound and end (brackets)

Our concept of this is called

Absolute (meaning 100%)

Infinity

∞

A CONCEPT (NOT A NUMBER) beyond all bounds "(" and ends ")"

So in an equation

1 + (1) = ∞

Or as explained before the core language of (1) is maths (+|-)

The theory of Absolute Infinity

1 + (+|-) = ∞

Even though I have not surpassed our laws of mathematics, it displays something beyond mathematics.

What so special about this equation?

LETS GET INTO SCIENCE:

__________________

Quote: "If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light."

So if something exceeds this limit (1) its mass becomes infinite.

1 + (1) = ∞

__________________

Mathematics studies the (+ | - ) laws to understand the (1) value.

Science studies the (1) value to understand the ( + | - ) laws.

__________________

Quantum Mechanics states for nothing to create something, laws must be in place for nothing to produce something.

The equation covers this aspect quite easily.

A law is something that governs its subjects. It is not an actual physical entity and can not be expressed as the value 1.

It is however an addition which must preexist our mathematical restrictions, as quantum mechanics states.

+ ( + | - ) This is the equation of Quantum mechanics,

And this (+|-) is what governing physics studies

__________________

RELIGION

It explain outside of our brackets

God is complete 1

100%

Yet he is incomprehensible

∞

It explains that we have the option of either choosing a + path or - negative

If on the day of judgment "=" (The day of TOTALLING/Tallying/equal sign)

our good deeds out way our bad

1 + ( + > - ) = + ∞

You will end up in eternal positive or heaven

Respectively

1 + ( + < -) = - ∞

Hell

God 1 = ∞

Created +

Everything (+ - )

and he only gives + "good" to all creation

and everything (1) was made in pairs (+ - )

__________________

Prisca Theologia

+(+|-) Atheist, understand natural law exist and Quanta

(∞)=∞ Pantheist, the universe is God

(1)=∞ Buddha said, look within yourself (1) and find your personal (∞) nirvana.

( 1 + (+|-) = ∞) Christianity,

father 1=∞

holy spirit +

son (+|-)

Exterior brackets trinity

(holy spirit is the deliverer of the law, the son is earthly bound (+-) son)

Even though Jesus can have potentially have an (∞) possibilities within him, he can never be God. That is why he always said the father ∞ is greater than I (1)

Islam

Surah 112

Say he is one

1

on all whom depend +

he begets not, (+)

nor is begotten (-)

(+|-)

and none is like him ∞

within the ayat he mentions his name as l-Samadu meaning the Eternal the Absolute

---->It is everywhere (on every page in every Surah) in the Quran .<--------

Cantor actually coined the word “transfinite” in an attempt to distinguish the various levels of infinite numbers from an Absolute Infinity 100% ∞ , an incomprehensible concept beyond mathematics itself, which then Cantor effectively equated with God (he saw no contradiction between his mathematics and the traditional concept of God)

I'm merely saying the same thing. It doesn't matter if you call this concept Allah, God, Absolute Infinite. Whats important to understand is that a concept beyond anything calculable (including all the potential infinities) does exist, as Cantor proclaimed.

IN RESPONSE TO Pi or other pardoxes

For all those who are going to give the response what about irrational numbers like Pi or other infinity paradoxes, well.....

This equation is explaining the Absolute Infinite beyond any restricting and governing laws.

Pi is restricted to and only potentially infinite.

To explain, Pi is the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter and is restricted to the circle's circumference. It is within a 100% complete and enclosing "circle".

Same goes for every type and size of infinite we know.

For example take the hilbert hotel paradox, It is still within a hotel.

This infinite is bounded and ended by the governing laws of its confinements. When Time/Space ends, the numbers within it must end with it.

Absolute Infinity can not be governed or restricted by numerical properties

Also 3.1415926535... is basically (1)+(1)+(1)

We have "3" individual 100% complete (1)s and we are 0.85840734641021...

away from the next complete (1), or the 4th (1)

And for anyone who wants to argue for zero

Then I ask what is 0?

Cause if we mean something was there and then wasn't then it never can be 0 and if it never existed we wouldn't know the 0 of it exists

Something that exist can not "not" exist because it has existed.

If the entity is removed it is the absence of an existence, not uncreated.

Nothing can only exist because it was something.

Something can never become nothing because it was once something and nothing can not be subtracted unless it becomes an additional something.

As soon as we label it nothing, it becomes something even if there is nothing there. The reason is when we identify its nothing, we give a no value (even if its nothing) within mathematical laws.

This doesn't only apply to physical or tangible entities.

For example we can create (or add on) using our imagination. The unique imaginative something that we created exists at a certain time within your space so even if forgotten and never remembered again, it can never become nothing, only the addition it supplied is removed.

However even this imaginative something is still restricted and can only be created because of our experiences.

We can not imagine what someone else imagines nor can we conjure up something unimaginable because everything you imagine is subject to your experiences or, your moment in time within the space of your life.

E.g

Say I dreamt of monster in my childhood.

Did that monster ever exist?

Actually yes, even though I just imagined it subconsciously it existed and was definable at that present time, even if none of the details can be remembered or is totally forgotten.

I.e it must be recorded for that particular time of my space

More so, for me just to give the above example I am creating something.

I've defined a nonexistent for example purposes so even if I never had any dreams of a monster in my life, it still exists because of my example.

Hence we can never identify "Absolute Zero" for as soon as we label "it" , "it" becomes the absence of something rather than becoming from nothing.

I got 1 - 1 = 0. So 1 and 0 are all I need to make a career as a computer scientist.

There's the invisible particles of quantum mechanics, too. Apparently, they must have some mass while God is immeasurable. The only qualities they share are being invisible.

My evidence for God is this video. With enough circumstantial evidence, one can discern the truth. Most of the time we do not have the direct evidence.

 

[Thumper]

What does that prove? Each of the other combinations would have the same possibility. Yet one must come up.

Exactly.

 

[QuestioningMind]

The first three points described features that the current theories of reality fail to explain. They are in the same vein as if a quantum gravity theory lists the points that GR an QM fail to explain about observations of reality (like Planck scale interaction, dark matter etc.) They provide the motivation for investigating something over and above current physical theories, nothing more.

In the next steps linked below the properties and predictions of the proposed theoretical entity Brahman that can potentially explain these features are listed, just like a string theorist will list the properties and predictions (non-existent in that case) of string theory that is put forward to explain the as yet unexplained features of the universe.

Every scientific paper I have ever seen follows this two step procedure. It explains what is known in the field till today, then lists what is yet unexplained by the current theory and then proposes the new mechanism/method/data that the scientific author believes help explain partly and fully these as yet unexplained parts. Then it lists the properties of this new entity/theory and what predictions (to be tested in future) can be made from them to establish its validity.

The string hypothesis (it is FAR from being classified as a theory at this point) will forever remain nothing more than a hypothesis until scientists find a means of testing the hypothesis. Scientists who follow the string hypothesis are constantly trying to find a way to test their predictions. A hypothesis without any means of testing it is basically useless. Your hypothesis of a Brahman entity will forever remain an unverifiable hypothesis until you come up with a means of testing it. How can your theory of a Brahman entity be tested?

 

[columbus]

To prove an intangible God. Consider the following: A scientist claimed he could make a human himself because the elements which constitute a human being can all be found in dirt. So, to begin his demonstration he grabbed a handful of dirt from the ground. A voice boomed down from the sky saying, 'GET YOUR OWN DIRT'.

This god would no longer be intangible, now would He? It would not prove an intangible god, it would disprove all the intangible gods.
Tom

 

[Laughing Coyote]

I have made the following argument in another as to why materialism is unlikely to be the final word and why the Hindu idea of Brahman may be promising,
As we uncover the workings of the natural world certain things become clear:-

1) Physical entities (matter-energy-space-time) interact with each other in highly predictable ways which we call "laws of nature", "causality" etc. However the reason for the existence of this structured patterns of behavior and their invariable attachment with physical entities is unknown.

2) The laws of nature themselves are mathematical. Mathematics is a domain of abstract and extraordinarily rich non-empirical reality that is "somehow" glued into "stuff" through these laws and accessible to knowledge through rationality. Why should there be such a realm of abstract rational world of mathematics and why they intermingle with stuff via the laws of physics is also not known.

3) Stuff..connected with the mathematical world via the laws of nature, is also extraordinarily and unexpectedly fecund, coalescing in property rich groups with utterly novel qualities and functions starting from molecules, crystals, living things, stars, galaxies and sentient beings. The repeated (and apparently limitless) potential of emerging wholes with novel properties all stacked on top of each other (from molecules to man i.e.) from "stuff" is observable and describable; but why stuff has such emergence potential is unknown.

Certain strands of Hinduism propose that there is something more fundamental than matter-energy, laws of nature, mathematics and consciousness/information. On this more fundamental entity all these domains rest, and of which these various domains are aspects of. And this singular fundamental entity, which is called Brahman, provides the connecting glue and the structural richness around which stuff/mathematics/laws etc. is coalescing to make it manifest in the sensory plane. This provides a "why" explanation rather than a what and how explanation. Such an explanation is needed as the interconnectivity of stuff, laws, maths, information, consciousness and repeated emergence are not mere facts, but extraordinary features that cannot be left unexplained.

And just like biology has provided us with senses to see physical entities and rationality to see mathematics..it has also provided us with inner capabilities, which when honed through meditation or other proper spiritual practices, can help us grasp this fundamental entity undergirding all these domains of knowledge...at least to some extent.

That is the argument that I would ask atheists and materialists to consider.

Further points:-
Is mathematics really a separate realm, or is it also based on empirical experiences?
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
Characteristics of Brahman as described in early Upanisads
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
Certain predictions that could be confirmed and disconfirmed by science
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument
How these predictions logically arise from the nature of the proposed entity, Brahman
Why materialism is probably false: A Hindu argument

But why, necessarily need this be Hindu, or that many elements of Hinduism that are supposed to follow from this actually do? Each of the things can be proven false from the standpoint of Hinduism can be done so from the standpoint of metaphysics coming out of the Greeks (which has shared origins with Hinduism), but why does it follow that Hinduism can explain them when the premises it uses remain unproven and the edifice Hinduism builds on them thus is not necessarily consistent? And what do you mean by Hinduism, it is not a unified or consistent thing any more than metaphysics is. Why exclude other possibilities prior to addressing them? The Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead also dealt with the same things you did, coming from math, physics, metaphysics and theology, among other things, while inspecting their premises. What he couldn't find basis for, he gave necessity of existence of a God, but defined in terms of a primordial possibilities given by the initial creation of the universe and which continues to find subjectivity and substance through the working of every moment of every particle of the universe. I think Whitehead would say a consistent theory would require premises that include Hinduism in them, but the rest of experience as well.

Ideas have their context. Both Hinduism and Greek philosophy are themselves premised on human social evolution and migration out of Africa, they arose out of the engagement of humans with ecosystems that gave birth to and nurtured them, and so on. Are your premises inclusive of these?

 

[columbus]

We are continually learning how common planets are, even Goldilocks planets, and we've just begun to scratch the surface. You have no idea how many potential habitable planet there might be ... to date, nobody does.

Mark your calendars folks.
On this I agree with @Guy Threepwood.
Nobody knows what constitutes what "earthlike" even means in this context. There is no way to know exactly what characteristics earth has that resulted in life, much less sentient sapient life. Venus would appear utterly earthlike from a lightyear away.
Nor does anybody know how likely it is for life to appear under any circumstances, much less sentience. It may be about as likely as drawing 4 royal flushes in a row. Having only one episode of life to examine means we can't really tell anything about odds under any particular set of conditions. So humans may well be alone in the universe.
Tom

 

[Thumper]

Mark your calendars folks.
On this I agree with @Guy Threepwood.
Nobody knows what constitutes what "earthlike" even means in this context. There is no way to know exactly what characteristics earth has that resulted in life, much less sentient sapient life. Venus would appear utterly earthlike from a lightyear away.
Nor does anybody know how likely it is for life to appear under any circumstances, much less sentience. It may be about as likely as drawing 4 royal flushes in a row. Having only one episode of life to examine means we can't really tell anything about odds under any particular set of conditions. So humans may well be alone in the universe.
Tom

But Guy claims to know how likely it is.

I, on the other hand, claim that we have no where near enough data to even begin to speculate.

Who is it you agree with again?

 

[QuestioningMind]

"No they don't" Dave Smith 2017 All any claim requires is the willingness to accept it. if you believe that something comes from nothing and life starts from lifelessness despite all physical evidence to the contrary then all that was required to validate that hypothesis was your willingness to accept it. Have you ever seen something, anything, just a grain of sand, come from nothing (let alone a whole universe) Have you ever seen a rock or a mix of chemicals come to life, just a single cell would do - No! but you are willing to believe that it could and did happen, why, because you refuse to believe that it could happen any other way and that is the only other option. "Two miracles and time - Allow me two miracles and time which brings all things to fruition and I'll give you the answers to the universe and everything" - Athiests everywhere

True, there are SOME people who will believe ANYTHING. MOST logical rational thinking people however DO think that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have EVIDENCE for random chance. I've seen it in action before. So the suggestion that the universe came about via random chance is at least based on something I've observed. I've yet to presented with anything close to EVIDENCE for an all-powerful creator being. Suggesting that a God created everything is not based on anything I've ever observed. Thus it has far less credibility than an explanation based on something that I HAVE observed.

 

[rrosskopf]

No the nonsense is all yours.

Like many Mormon apologists you are pretending that the accounts area fictional, that there was no 1826 trial, that if the Pearsall and Purple accounts had any basis in fact it was blow by from Smith’s 1830 trial for vagrancy.

In 1971 the original bills for the fees charged by the judge and constable in the trial in question were found, proving the date and the subject of the trial. There are now available from: http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/the-papers#/L2L/JSPPL1-SUB02

You can find the Pearsall and Purple accounts in Russell Anderson’s FairMormon article. https://www.fairmormon.org/fair-conferences/2002-fair-conference/2002-the-1826-trial-of-joseph-smith

There is no question: Smith was charged with defrauding Josiah Stowell by charging him money for “glass looking.”

There is no question that Joseph Smith was charged with a crime; but the fees prove it was just a hearing, and not a trial. It never went to trial. No jury was ever called and no conviction was ever entered.

 

[columbus]

But Guy claims to know how likely it is.

I will let him speak for himself. But that isn't the impression I have gotten.
What he seems to have said is "Claims that the universe must have other life forms and civilizations are not fact based claims. They are wishful thinking given what little we know. "
I could be wrong about his opinion.
Tom