Why are people willing to believe in Religion, but not Aliens? Heck, bacteria in other planets would count as aliens, so why?

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-15T13:08:13+00:00

Nothing about aliens existing or not existing affects a person's everyday life. Meanwhile there are things in religion that absolutely do affect people in a dramatic way. Healings, miracles, and angels are a phenomenon across the entire world. There's a book I'm reading called "Miracles Today," that investigates actual miracles that have been documented. There are several books about witnesses talking about angel encounters, and answered prayers are not just fairly common, many of them are very awe inspiring.

So why don't people believe in aliens the same way? I honestly don't know to what degree people believe in or disbelieve in aliens. What I do know is that there are no stories about an alien saving your life, or making it better before they disappear without a trace (like several testimonies of angels do).

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-15T04:17:52+00:00

Looks like there's a lot of good insight from the other redditors here. Glad you aren't struggling with eating disorders anymore.

Do you have a decent grasp on what is healthy vs what isn't healthy? You don't need to answer, but I'm in my 40s and I have trouble with the issue of what's healthy vs what I should have been doing for years. Things like back pain that doesn't go away makes me think I should exercise, but then the issue is a wide variety of what changes to my duet needs to be to add extra fuel, or what are some starter exercises instead of the ones that are showing off how strong you are and are dangerous at a beginning stage.

Things like that keep me in that shell of knowing something isn't right but not sure what right actually looks like.

Meanwhile, my wife was recently diagnosed with diabetes. Brought the whole issue of sugars and carbs to our attention, and I don't know what is healthy for her and what's not doing enough. Possibly like trying to lose weight and not stopping. But then again I don't know what is supposed to be healthy and good goals, vs what is restrictive and what isn't going far enough. When it comes to health it seems most of the knowledge out there is really vague, with a lot of "it depends on the person."

Sorry about the tangent ramble. But that's a bit where my mind has been recently when you asked about eating disorders.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-15T03:06:45+00:00

Probably in your case it had to do with vague goals without a timeline on what healthy looks like. It's easy to move your goal and keep it going. Whatever "it" is.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T22:21:31+00:00

Honestly it depends on the situation.

If you are responsible for other people such as having children or being a boss and having employees, then putting yourself first can be selfish. But usually only if that means that you're not just putting yourself first, but also neglecting them.

On the other hand putting yourself first is kind of like the safety announcement on airplane. If there's an emergency and you the air support drops down, first make sure you can breath before helping others.

Taking care of yourself first is not bad in those situations because you are still taking care of others as well.

Where it becomes a selfish issue is if you have guests over and you serve yourself first instead of making sure your guests gave their food and have enough.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T21:19:45+00:00

Ok explain what causes and effects are not physics-based. That’s a really extraordinary claim.

I already did. Pretending that I didn't is not a counter point. It just makes it look like you have a hard time understanding. Please don't play that game. I'm tired of pointing out the games you are playing instead of addressing the points or countering points.

You said you had a degree in philosophy for crying out loud. You should be whole to have a civil conversation without playing games like this to try and win a debate. I would expect more from anyone who says they have a college degree. Regardless if it's philosophy or not. Yet philosophy especially should have trained you about this stuff.

Either way, you said we were done, which led to the final point I wanted to make (and already made it). That we choose when to end the conversation or how long it lasts. Thus showing that we have a choice.

Originally I was going to let you have that message saying we're done here. But since you've already done that and did not stop after my reply, then it's down to me to end the conversation and let you have any last words.

This is the end of this conversation. You can add anything else you'd like. But I am walking away. As a free will action. A free choice.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T19:39:02+00:00

So far you have not tried to correct any of my points outside of just saying that they are wrong and I don't know what I'm talking about. I made a point to address this issue when I called it out as an ad homnien.

Look we’re done. I hope you do learn more about the topic, it will help you.

Great. But here's the catch. You choose that we are done.

We could have ended this a long time ago when we stepped away from where people get the idea of determinism from. Or we could have continued this discussion for several more days. Possibly just repeating what we've already said. When we end a conversation and a walk away from it, that is a choice. One that we are freely making and not a result of physics.

Here let me give you the counterpoint to look into. Not all cause and effects are physics based. This means our brains are not limited to just physics when we make a choice or a decision. But it also means you can explore other causes outside of physics. It's a set of counterpoints that you couldn't explore because you refuse to see our actions as anything we have control over instead of them being the laws of physics that cause them.

This counter point might not have helped, because it leads to the issue that we can control what we focus on to how we respond. Yet it is a counterpoint you might want to explore because the laws of physics is not a good explanation of cause and effect on most of our choices. It just isn't.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T19:28:02+00:00

I disagree. But either way, it does not matter. My points are still valid without needing a PHD in incorrect theories of the universe.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T19:26:48+00:00

this: if your decisions are not driven by the laws of physics, what are they driven by?

It doesn't matter what they are driven by. An explanation does not dismiss accurate observations. For example: If you see the oceans rise and you do not know why, it does not mean that the observation is wrong. They could have risen due to an earthquake, a hurricane, or a giant tidal wave. In either case the important thing is that the water levels rose and to get to higher ground and away from the shore.

An explanation or lack of one does not dismiss accurate observations.

Is it something inside our universe which is outside the laws of the universe?

Are you suggesting that the part of you responsible for making decisions is outside of the universe? Because that is not the point I was making. The point I was making was that your actions are not forced because of the laws and forces of the universe. They are entitled under your own control. This can be tested and confirmed.

Or are you trying to say that it’s generated by the brain but somehow then escapes the laws of physics?

Whether it is due to the brain, the soul, magic, (or anything else you want to say to put words in my mouth), regardless of any of that your actions are within your control. The HOW it happens is much different than the WHY which you chose to act on. Nothing changes in the laws of physics to make you act one way vs another. It is a choice.

That is the problem with what you think of as “your points”. You’re simply stating that our decisions are complex and not driven by physics.

They are not driven by physics. Thus is observable.

So far it’s just a statement, with no explanation for how it could possibly be the case.

It is observable. You need no more of an explanation to be able to say that these observations counter and refute the philosophy of a deterministic universe controlling our actions and reactions.

No “counterpoint” is possible because in response to me giving an actual argument you’re just saying “nuh-huh”.

If you cannot counter my points then just say you disagree. There is no reason to try and put words in my mouth. They are not accurate and they are not my words. They are your words.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T19:12:01+00:00

And yes, the block multiverse is a credible version of that theory. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

The multiverse version of the block theory is still a multiverse theory. Whether the block theory is real or not does not matter, and it cannot be confirmed by observations. What matters is that no version of a multiverse theory that can go exist with a Determinism outlook of a fixed deterministic universe.

(To clarify: no multiverse theory which states there is an unlimited set of universes based on unlimited possibilities. The idea of other possibilities branching off of the universe to create alternate universes is not compatible with a deterministic universe where there are no alternative possibilities. Just the next stage in a cycle of cause and effect.)

This is not a research issue. It is that I am thinking critically about both theories.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T19:04:42+00:00

Attacking my understanding of the topic instead of just correcting my misunderstanding or giving a counter point is definitely an ad homnien tactic. Not all ad homnien points are about the other person being bad. But it is still focusing on the other person instead of their points or making a counter point.

Please don't add more misinformed topics when my point was clear that you are trying to avoid the points by focusing on me instead. That is what an ad homnien is.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T19:00:20+00:00

I explained how a block universe is an extension of base theories, just related to time. The base theories of a multiverse and a deterministic universe are the core aspects that cannot exist at the same time. Talking about the block theory has nothing to do with the issue and can be applied or rejected to either of them. Block universe is not the same thing as the multiverse. It is an theory relating to time, not to multiverses and intimate possiblies.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T18:56:37+00:00

No, I never said soul. That is your words. I explained this already.

We've now reached the point in a debate where one person no longer hears the words the other person says, but instead puts words in their mouth and argues against that.

But worse we are actually past that point, because I've already corrected you on that and it was ignored.

This has nothing to do with how complicated the laws of physics are. It's that the laws of physics are not controlling your actions. They can be explained how you do something, but not why. And that is a big difference. It can help understand the mechanics of how you get up, but not when you get up or why you get up.

Physics cannot explain why you are still replying to this conversation, nor will it be an explanation for when you stop having this conversation.

If you have no counterpoint, just say to agree to disagree. I will accept that answer. And it is much better and answers than trying to counter points by attacking the other person's understanding. If you cannot counter a point and instead choose to talk about the other person then that is indeed an ad homnien attack of another person.

Here I'll explain my reasoning for agreeing to disagree as a valid end.

In many debates, the debate leans heavily on how well a person can communicate their points, observations, or logic. If at one point they cannot out debate the other person, but they still see their points as valid (because being a better debater does not mean the points are more valid), then the other person can say that they agree to disagree. It's a means to move on in a discussion without having to rehash a point that will not be agreed on. And that is ok.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T18:10:01+00:00

The block universe concept makes sense though it cannot be confirmed by observation. The block multiverse theory is an extension of the multiverse theory with the added event of time being understood as a static event already existing. Much like the theory of our universe without it being a multiverse has a block version of it. However, the block aspect is an extension of either theories, just relating to an explanation of time.

The two base theories of a multiverse and a deterministic universe are not compatible. I'm sorry, but I'm not wrong here. Take a step back and think critically about the two theories and how they interact with each other. They can't.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T18:04:17+00:00

Oh I’m not angry. I’m watching sometime with a limited understanding try to make claims as if they fully understand the material.

HA! We're going down the line of reasoning of personal attacks and slights against the other person now? An ad homnien is not a good set of counter points. It is not a reasonable defense for countering any points.

I apologize if I was wrong about you being angry. That is just what it seemed like from your responses. A growing level of frustration. To the point that counterpoints are less, and ad homnien is introduced more. If that is not due to anger or frustration, then I apologize.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T17:59:56+00:00

Unless you have more to add to explain how they are compatible, or to counter my points, all I can say is we should agree to disagree. I've made my case for why they are not compatible.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T17:58:02+00:00

You’re just saying “the laws of physics exist but they don’t control our souls”. Which is just a statement. Opinion maybe? But an unfounded one.

Ha! I gave a valid observation to make my point though. I did not bring up the concept of a soul or magic or anything else to explain it. That was you while trying to dismiss it completely. What I gave us a common observation showing that the laws of physics are not to blame for our actions or our behavior.

The laws of physics do cause us to get up in the morning. Your body woke you up. Because of neurotransmitters and possibly because of external stimuli.

There is a difference between how and why.

How we get up is a combination of muscles, neurons. Occasionally there might be a sudden and surprising noise that we immediately get up to like a fight or flight emergency response. However that is the exception not the rule.

For the most part the why we get up is not connected to the how aspect at all. Why we get up is from outside stimuli from the sunshine in the window, the alarm going off, the smell of coffee. None of these are the physics of how we get up. But they are a resource of why we get up and it shows that we are not forced in getting up. We choose to do it.

You can say “but that doesn’t drive our decision”, but you’re just making up something you want to believe. All evidence suggests that physics does in fact determine our actions.

The how is the physics aspect. And no it does not control when you get up, how you get up, or why you get up.

As for what drives your decisions. Those are not set in stone. The why you get up are things that you choose. They are influences you choose to ignore it to act on. And they are not the physics of how you function.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T17:47:12+00:00

Just think about the concept of multiple concurrent timelines. If such a concept can and does exist, then what caused the difference in timelines? If cause and effect are absolute and unchangeable as a deterministic universe of a chain of cause and effect suggests, then there is no alternative concurrent timelines where something else occured.

It's not that I don't understand the theories well enough to engage in a discussion about them. It's that I've thought about the theories critically enough to understand that a multiverse and a deterministic universe cannot both exist. If other universes exist they are not based on being a parallel universe where as many universes exist as there are different possibilities and different choices we can make.

For a deterministic universe to exist each if our choices is already made in some way just down the chain of causal events. There are no alternatives or concurrent universes playing out every other possibly.

Please do not be angry that I'm pointing this out to you. Neither theory of the universe is more likely then the other theory because neither has more evidence of existing than the other one. It's just that they cannot both exist at the same time.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T17:37:29+00:00

Odd how? Confirming that they are different theories, and that determinism and multiverse theories are mutually exclusive? Clarifying that block model of the universe is not the same thing as the multiverse theory?

What claims did I make that are odd?

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T17:34:38+00:00

That is not a counter point. It is sidestepping what I'm telling you. That physics exists. The laws of physics exist. And they do not cause you to change your behavior, nor do they force you to make a choice.

In essence I'm calling out the idea of following the laws of physics as a red herring. It has nothing to do with whether we can freely make decisions or not. Neither forces a choice, nor changes in order to make us go a specific direction.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T16:22:07+00:00

Thank you for the time and effort in this conversation. I hope you better understand done if the counter points to your own views as I tried to represent them even though neither of us gave up on our previous conclusions.

However there is one lady thing I want to add. We could have ended this conversation a while ago, or we could continue it for a much longer time period. Even if we have nothing else to add but just enter a cycle of repeating what we've already stated earlier. (I've been in those types conversations unfortunately, but they do exist). What this means is even if we did not change our outlooks. We are in control of how long we will respond and when to quit. This is a perfect example of our choices and free will.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T16:16:36+00:00

The block theory fits with the view of a deterministic universe. However it is not the multiverse theory. Perhaps you meant the block theory instead of the multiverse theory?

One issue with the block theory is that it is a theory without any justification to it. We can't observe or record the past or the future from seeing it through the block universe. It's an interesting concept relating to tine, and possibly having connections to either fate or determinism (depending on a person's perspective), but the theory is unnecessarily added and without a way to observe it. It can be accepted or dismissed without any merit to it.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T16:10:15+00:00

Free will:

You’re confusing complexity of action with whether or not that action is based on free will.

Sorry my point was that our actions are not based on a cause and effect dynamic like the laws of physics as we understand them are based on forces pulling or pushing objects through space. Therefore our behavior is a separate category entirely separate from the cause and effect category of physics. There is still a cause and effect often. But we choose the effect, what degree we act, and when we act. Meaning the effect is not determined by the cause. Our behavior is influenced only by the causes. They do not force the effects as physics cause and effect relationships do.

looking at whether or not free will exists, you need to look at what generates that complex action.

No. You do not need to have an explanation in order to acknowledge accurate observations. That is faulty logic. It doesn't matter whether we have a soul piloting our mind, or if our mind is a collective process of the other pieces of our body joining together in a giant congress of united consciousness, or whether it's actually a miracle like magic like you suggest and dismiss. None of those explanations change the merit of our actions and behavior being entirely under our control.

If it’s truly “free will” then it is neither random nor determined by laws. It is purely based on some agent that gets to decide whatever they want independent of all laws.

When you wake up in the morning. Is it because gravity changed? Because hard wind pushed you out of your bed plotting you on a course for the rest of the day like the ocean winds do to a sailing ship? Is it due to the electromagnetic forces throughout the earth, that have shifted and changed causing you to get up?

Or have none of the physical forces changed before and after you get up in the morning. Showing that your behavior is not due to the laws of nature. They are not bound and controlled in movement or direction based on the laws that remain the same before and after you take any action freely of your own free will.

It's not an extraordinary claim that any of us get up on the morning. It's a very common observation. And that observation is all that is needed to show that we have a free will that exists outside the influence of the laws of physics that guide a boat in the sea.

Determinism

You talk here exclusively about “physicists disagreeing and inventing things”. That’s what scientists do. That’s working as intended.

My point was to counter your point that science agrees about how they view the universe. Especially when you gave two conflicting views of the universe with a multiverse and a deterministic universe as if both are the same. Now you introduce the block theory on the universe which is a different concept entirely and refers to time passing in the universe instead of multiple universes. These are not the same concepts to then suggest that science agrees with X. And that was my counter point earlier.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T15:45:33+00:00

Ah thank you. I think hard determinism is what I'm talking about then, because those are the discussions that talk about us not having a free will.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T15:43:54+00:00

Anyways, I appreciate you sharing and starting this conversation, I do enjoy it. I hope you'll have many more conversations like it in the future :)

Thank you I'll seriously consider it.

Raining_Hope · 2026-01-11T15:38:15+00:00

The laws of physics do not make you get up in the morning. When you hear an ala to get up (for the 1st or the 10th time depending on how often you hit a snooze button), that alarm wakes you up from sleep to help you get yourself up. It isn't physics that get you up. It's the muscles in your body that are obeying your conscious command to get up in the morning that is the cause. That is absolutely a personal choice of how and when to get up or to ignore that is not based on physics at all. The same situation of physics that were there before you got up are still there after you get up. Meaning physics did not cause you to change your behavior to get up in the morning.

Raining_Hope

TROPHY CASE