NEXTPREVIOUS

JAMIE FRATER NOVEMBER 3, 2008

We have done numerous lists of people and things that have had a great influence on man

and they are always popular, so today we are presenting another list of influential people –

but this time, they are people who never existed. There were hundreds of people to choose

from, so this has been a fun list to compile. We hope you agree with our choices, but if you

don’t, feel free to use the comments to tell us who you would have put here instead.

10Santa Claus

What child has not been frightened into behaving thanks to the ever-present youthful fear

of Santa not providing come Christmas? Almost all western children were told by their

parents that Santa would leave them nothing if they misbehaved. I speak from experience

MISCELLANEOUS

Top 10 Influential People Who NeverLived

9Barbie

As Barbie has progressed from a pretty young woman to whom all girls could aspire, to

something often verging on the likeness of a harlot, one can wonder whether it was Barbie

influencing children, or children influencing Barbie. There are certainly many similarities.

when I say that it was one of the most effective methods of stopping tantrums! Funnily

enough, though, the fear always dissipates on Christmas Eve as you just know that Santa

will be coming – even if you did slip up a few times.

Barbie has depicted almost every possible female lifestyle choice and I think there can be

no doubt that she has been at the start of the path many women have taken in life.

8Robin Hood

This could potentially lead to a debate about whether Hood existed or not, but I am of the

opinion that he did not. Therefore, he is listed as my number eight on the list. I am sure we

have all heard someone justifying theft because the victim is wealthy – and where did this

justification come from? Not just the principles of redistribution of wealth that many of us

live under in Western Society (read envy taxes) but the fact that to this day, we are all

raised believing Robin Hood was a hero – when, in fact, he was a thief. Stealing is almost

always wrong, and just because Robin Hood gave the proceeds of his crimes to poor

people, it is not a valid justification. As for the previously mentioned taxes, there is every

reason for us to believe that the majority of people accept these taxes because of their

prior belief in the false morality of the Robin Hood story.

7Cowboys

This is one for the boys obviously! Even in remote New Zealand where I grew up, all the

boys played “Cowboys and Indians”. The cowboy was a great hero with a shining gun who

represented the morality of Western ideals: manliness, defense of justice, protection of

women and children. No doubt many now cringe at the lack of political correctness

involved in the game and stereotype, but kids aren’t politically correct (thank God) and

certainly won’t be hindered because of it. The influence of the Cowboy movie genre is

indisputable an immense one. Oh – and for those who say “but cowboys are real!” – yes –

but this is about the concept – not about a specific person – just as we might say Santa

existed as St Nicholas, the concept is bigger than any one person.

6The Marlboro Man

How many men reading this list who smoke, are smoking cigarettes with filters? Venturing

a guess I would say all of them. Before the Marlboro Man campaign began, “real men”

didn’t smoke cigarettes with filters – they were for women. The aim of the Marlboro Man

campaign was primarily to get men smoking filtered marlboro cigarettes. The influence of

the campaign is abundantly clear today. The campaign is considered to be one of the best

in all history. According to Wikipedia, it transformed a feminine campaign, with the slogan

‘Mild as May’, into one that was masculine, in a matter of months.

5Rosie the Riveter

And now another for the girls! Rosie the Riveter may not be a familiar name, but her

picture certainly is. Rosie the Riveter told women that they can do anything – and they

did! Rosie managed to motivate an entire generation of working-age women to get out of

the home and in to factories to help the war effort. This is probably one of the most

influential events of the Second World War. Once the floodgates of women working were

open, they would never be closed again. All women working in traditional male jobs have

Rosie to thank.

4Daedalus and Icarus

In a short 24 hours, you can fly from one side of the planet to another. This (one of man’s

greatest achievements) may never have happened if it had not been for the mythological

characters Daedalus and Icarus. The story tells of Daedalus building mechanical wings for

his son Icarus and ever since the tale was told, man has lusted after the ability to take the

sky and fly. This eventually came true and the entire planet is a changed place as a

consequence of it.

3The Little Engine That Could

The moral of this children’s tale is that self-belief, optimism, and hard work result in

achievement – of even the most difficult tasks. The book first appeared in a slightly

different version to today, in 1906. It has been regarded by many as a metaphor for the

“American Dream”. The popularity of this book may also be a contributing factor to the

huge number of self-help and “positive thinking” seminars and books that we see today.

2Big Brother

A relatively modern addition to this list, Big Brother has been a influence in so many social

protests that he has to be included here. His name comes up every time a government

passes a restrictive law or a law which seems to remove aspects of our eternal freedoms.

Everyone recognizes his face, everyone knows what he stands for, and everyone is terrified

of the potential for our own lives to be governed by our own version of the fictional

character. Big Brother was, of course, created by George Orwell for his novel Nineteen

Eighty-Four.

1Romeo and Juliet

Not only can Romeo and Juliet be blamed for much of our ideas of the “perfect

relationship” – I think it can also be blamed for a high percentage of divorces. Couples

going in to marriage seek the ideal of a relationship based entirely on passion and

romance, and when that romance dims (as so often is the case) they feel cheated and

believe the marriage has failed. When in reality, passionate romance is not required for a

healthy marriage – while respect, love, and charity is. Romeo and Juliet have much to

answer for!

JAMIE FRATER

Jamie is the founder of Listverse. He spends his time working on the site, doing research

for new lists, and cooking. He is fascinated with all things morbid and bizarre.

Read More: Twitter Facebook

Facebook Twitter StumbleUpon Google+ Pinterest

Trending Today

Una madre de Buenos

Aires baja 7 kg en 14

d ías con este nuevo

secreto de dieta

Advanced Diabetes

Treatment

6 Tips For Creating The

Most K iller Viral Gallery

Content

7 Tips For Dining Out

And Eating Healthy

9 Ways To Exercise Your

Brain

5 Best CrossFit YouTube

Channels

Sponsored by Revcontent

MORE GREAT LISTS

MISCELLANEOUS

20 Fantastically Named People

SEPTEMBER 8, 2008

MISCELLANEOUS

10 Fabulous Things To Do Before You Die

FEBRUARY 1, 2009

MISCELLANEOUS

Top 10 Most Fatal Occupations

AUGUST 26, 2008

MISCELLANEOUS

10 Absurd Emergency Calls

JANUARY 8, 2013

621 Comments Listverse Login

Share⤤ Sort by Best

Join the discussion…

Bidisha Ghosh • 3 years ago

Recommend 7

10 Biblical Reasons Why

Hell Might Not Exist -

Listverse

10 Dark Reasons Saudi

Arabia May Be Our

Deadliest Ally -Listverse

10 Most Absurd Things

Banned On Politically

Correct CollegeCampuses - Listverse

• Reply •

What about Sherlock Holmes? This list is a sin.

109△ ▽

• Reply •

DarkAngel • 2 years ago> Bidisha Ghosh

It is a known fact miss that Sherlock Holmes IS a character portrayed by Sir Arthur

Conan Doyle.

13△ ▽

• Reply •

Ayushman G. • 2 years ago> DarkAngel

I thought all the names listed are of people who never reallyh existed. Who

believes Barbie is real? This effectively qualifies Sherlock as one of the

potential suitors for the list. While I am not advocating his incllusion or ruing

over the lack of it, its a valid suggestion by @Mahvash

8△ ▽

• Reply •

LadySonic • 2 years ago> DarkAngel

What's your point?

1△ ▽

• Reply •

candy • 2 years ago> Bidisha Ghosh

get over sherlock holmes already ...just because you like that silly prepostorous

character doesnt mean it is influential..

hell my personal preference would be hannibal lecter or maybe atticus finch or

maybe 1000 another characters i have read about.

apply your mind without passion before you make asinine suggestions

8△ ▽

• Reply •

Paritosh • 2 years ago> candy

Hows this for influence: Sherlock Holmes is the only fictional character to be

named as an honorary member of the Royal Society of Chemistry. How

many of the above characters are named in any similar august list?

9△ ▽

• Reply •

Kimberly • a year ago> candy

hi, Mr. Holmes, the character, is very influencial in how scientists approach

modern forensic study. Yes, he is just a character but he is based on an

actual professor of Doyle's.

△ ▽

• Reply •

The Yes Guy • a year ago> Bidisha Ghosh

Even James Bond for that sake.. How can you not include Mr. Bond.??

3△ ▽

Eleeth • 4 months ago> Bidisha Ghosh

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

Eleeth • 4 months ago> Bidisha Ghosh

And Vincent Corleone

△ ▽

• Reply •

Irene Enriquez • 9 months ago> Bidisha Ghosh

I was thinking the same thing. When I read the title, Sherlock was the first name that

came to mind.

△ ▽

• Reply •

matt • 3 years ago

What about Jesus? He's a pretty influential guy... and he never existed... fits both criteria of

this list.

113△ ▽

• Reply •

Ihatelistverse • 3 years ago> matt

There is easily historical evidence that Jesus did exist. Maybe not god, but for Jesus

there are roman documents proving his existence. Nice try.

140△ ▽

• Reply •

ethan • 3 years ago> Ihatelistverse

ummm.... no, those have all been proven forgeries. and the name 'christ', is

not a name, but a title, that more than one person had used. nice try.

51△ ▽

• Reply •

Jet Guanlao • 2 years ago> ethan

Accounts by Tacitus on the historicity of Jesus are accepted as

authentic. Your explanation of the title "Christ" is not even necessary

because it was never a name in the first place. Nice try...

67△ ▽

• Reply •

Albert • 2 years ago> ethan

Why do you need Roman documents to prove Jesus existed? Can't

that be done via the 66 separate books of the bible?

12△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago> Albert

Being written in a book -- how does that prove jesus existed?

Wouldn't that also mean fairies, vampires, intelligent extraterrestrials,

and Brahma are real, too?

30△ ▽

pollitttyler • 2 years ago> Rivethead

Extraterrestrials are real.

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

Extraterrestrials are real.

24△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago> pollitttyler

In the form of microscopic organisms, perhaps. The jury is still out on

that one.

As in, "sentient alien life?" There's as much proof for extraterrestrials

as there is proof of god. Still, alien life is far, far more probable than

"god(s)."

6△ ▽

• Reply •

pollitttyler • 2 years ago> Rivethead

Of course there is no proof, but as I said to Albert, I don't find it

possible we are the only intelligent life in the universe. Why would we

be the one and only among trillions of planets and stars?

8△ ▽

• Reply •

Matt Sharrett • 2 years ago> pollitttyler

I agree. The probability that were are alone is infinatly small.

4△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago> pollitttyler

Of course it's possible that we're the only intelligent life in the

universe. It's just not probable. I never said that we were the only

planet with life among every star with planets.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

pollitttyler • 2 years ago> Rivethead

Do you believe in extraterrestrials? You seem really skeptic about it,

and, like you said, it is very probable they exist. Also, why is the

existence of God not probable?

2△ ▽

Rivethead • 2 years ago> pollitttyler

I believe life - intelligent or not - exists elsewhere in the universe

based on mathematical odds and our current understanding of

cosmology and stellar physics. I have no reason to believe it has ever

visited earth. Speculation and conjecture are all we have.

I never said "god is not probable."

However, the definition of probable being: likely to be or to happen -

then yes, I think god is improbable.

Based on all of mankind's observations, with our current level of

technology and scientific methods, and with our recorded history of

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

see more

technology and scientific methods, and with our recorded history of

events, there has never been a single, objective demonstration of

anything supernatural to exist. God, by its definition, is a supernatural

being.

The only means we have of conclusively measuring, cataloging,

comparing, and corroborating anything in life is to use science or a

tool of science.

If god is supernatural, it defies the laws of physics and science as we

know them.

7△ ▽

• Reply •

pollitttyler • 2 years ago> Rivethead

Miracles happen all the time. There have been numerous cases of

injuries that have happened to people, life-threatening ones, ones that

doctors don't exactly know how they survived. According to science,

those people should have died, how do you explain that? Science

also can't explain exactly how we got here. What happened?

Everything couldn't have evolved from nothing.

6△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago

see more

> pollitttyler

So what are you suggesting? That just because we don't have the

answer to something it must be magic, or aliens, or god? I really

hope you’re not that intellectually dishonest and logically

handicapped.

If you define "miracle" as a random stroke of fortune that otherwise

had almost no chance of occurring, then you are right. "Miracles"

happen all the time, but there's nothing supernatural or magical about

random chance or conveniently good luck.

If by "miracle" you mean some kind of magical power or sentient

supernatural deity, no, there's not a single shred of evidence behind

any such claim.

Two thousand years ago people thought lightning was magic power

from the gods and people were pretty damned certain of it.

Today, science has explained it is an electrical discharge between

ionized sources.

Six hundred years ago people thought the Earth was the center of the

universe and that diseases were caused by magic curses and evil

6△ ▽

pollitttyler • 2 years ago> Rivethead

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

pollitttyler • 2 years ago> Rivethead

Isn't the idea of the big bang theory that everything came from

nothing? Science will never be able to explain the origins of our

universe because everything would had to of started from nothing.

There are a lot of things in this universe that the answer to will never

be discovered. I'm not intellectually challenged or anything of the sort,

I just happen to be a Christian who has, does, and always will believe

in God. Please, do not associate God with fairies and dragons, fairies

and dragons have been proven to NOT exist, God and aliens have

not. You speak of physics and all the laws of the Earth, but we, as a

species, have not been able to travel anywhere personally passed

the moon. We haven't explored outside of our solar system due to

the incapability to do so. What makes you so sure the Earth's laws

are the fundamental laws of the universe?

8△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago

see more

> pollitttyler

”Isn't the idea of the big bang theory that everything came from

nothing?”

No. Not at all. As I said, that argument is a fallacious stance often

vomited up, usually by the religious community, in order to discredit

anyone who doesn’t believe exactly as they do.

Try reading about it.

”Science will never be able to explain the origins of our universe

because everything would had to of started from nothing.”

Again, you’re wrong. Try reading at least a little bit about something

before you speak as if you have absolute knowledge of it.

And again you’re wrong by saying that science will "never" be able to

explain the origins of the universe. You don’t know that. Science has

answered more questions about life, the universe, and existence

than any other method and, including questions that were previously

thought to be completely un-answerable. You have no basis for your

5△ ▽

pollitttyler • 2 years ago> Rivethead

The Big Bang is believed to have began when everything we see in

this world was compressed into a singularity and expanded to create

everything. How did the singularity occur? Matter or radiation must

reach infinite temperatures and densities, but where did the matter

and/or radiation come from? It will keep going, if there is an

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

and/or radiation come from? It will keep going, if there is an

explanation for that then how did THAT occur? It will just keep

reverting back to nothing. Which is why I say science will never be

able to explain the origins of our universe.

I am not trying to push my faith upon you or demanding that you

believe as I do. We're just discussing our differing view points.

Research carried out at UNSW discovered that electromagnetism

seems to vary across the universe, one of the four fundamental

forces. The researchers looked at 300 galaxies and discovered the

atoms behaved differently than the ones on Earth. This discovery

violates Einstein's Theory of Relativity. If this is confirmed, then it

seems that our laws of physics may only be "local" so to speak,

therefore negating your argument against God's existence based on

laws of physics.

7△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago

see more

> pollitttyler

”The Big Bang is believed to have began when everything we see in

this world was compressed into a singularity and expanded to create

everything.”

More or less. Still, that is by no means an explanation that “everything

came from nothing.”

Thank you for taking the time to inform yourself of it.

”How did the singularity occur?”

I don’t know and neither do you. Knowledge can be demonstrated.

Do you have a problem with saying “I don’t know?”

I sure don’t. I say it all the time. It’s also a hell of a lot more honest

than saying “I don’t know, so *supernatural creature* must have done

it.”

It still doesn’t change that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence

that “god” did it.

”Matter or radiation must reach infinite temperatures and densities,

1△ ▽

ZachStorm • 2 years ago> pollitttyler

Actually, Dragons used to exist.. As for fairies... They haven't been

proven to NOT exist. The human race has only yet found about 1.7

million of 8 million + species (from what I last read). There could be

fairies with some sort of invisablity.. Or some sort of serpent that can

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

see more

fairies with some sort of invisablity.. Or some sort of serpent that can

fly without wings by manipulating the air currents. I won't believe it

until I see proof, but you are just holding onto the idea that you're

right. Rivethead makes great points, and the only combatant you

have against them is theory and magic/miracles. I haven't read the

rest of this post, seeing as I'm in class --so I don't have long-- and

you're arguments annoyed me. I'm 17, so yeah I might (most likely

do) sound stupid/idiotic. Please, explain how God was made, or what

made that, or what made that, and so on. Nothing in this universe

makes sense if you think about it. But from what we THINK makes

sense, or has been "proven" is the closest thing we have. In my

honest opinion, people who believe in a God, are weak. You hope for

some mythical being to lead you and tell you what is right and wrong.

Nothing is truely right or wrong, only what humans have thought it to

be. There is "proof" that this world is MUCH older than 6,000 years

△ ▽

• Reply •

Guest • a year ago> ZachStorm

I used to think like that too that because religion is illogical and

ridiculous means that there is no higher power. I don't believe god in

religion is the same as the universal energy of the universe, which

everything is made of. Also, something that seems to be missing is

common respect online and I am sick of it. Not just you, but everyone

needs to stop saying other people or stupid or need to use their brain.

There are many many opinions and beliefs, some absolutely crazy

and stupid, but it is very rude to instead belittle people and gets you

nowhere. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, that is a fact.

Energy is the creative force of the Universe, ie the "Creator". There is

a divine energy that determines life, although its not a guy in the sky

type thing. You can believe in science and a higher power, because

science is discovering the higher power and universal energy. From

cells to galaxy there is an order to things. Look into David Wilcock.

1△ ▽

Albert • 2 years ago> Rivethead

You said, "If by "miracle" you mean some kind of magical power or

sentient supernatural deity, no, there's not a single shred of evidence

behind any such claim."

If this is what pollittyler means, then what kind of evidence are you

expecting for such a claim?

When you look at the definition of the word miracle from Webster's

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

When you look at the definition of the word miracle from Webster's

dictionary it is, "1) an extraordinary event manifesting divine

intervention in human affairs. 2) an extremely outstanding or unusual

event, thing, or accomplishment. 3 Christian Science : a divinely

natural phenomenon experienced humanly as the fulfillment of

spiritual law.

You seem to be concluding that something that is considered to be a

miracle has to be explained in a naturalistic way. Why is that if that

would not fit the definition of a miracle?

It seems that you are implying that miracles are not a "god in the

gaps" answer but rather they are a "naturalism in the gaps" answer.

In other words, a miracle has to be explained naturalistic-ally, is that

correct?

And if we don't find a naturalistic explanation then we declare 'we just

don't know (yet)' every time, right?

2△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago> Albert

What way other than scientific could you conclusively demonstrate

proof of anything?

As I said, there is a difference between "I don't know" and "I don't

know, therefore god/aliens/magic."

4△ ▽

Albert • 2 years ago> Rivethead

Do you believe that intuition could be another way to know something

is true?

Do you exist? Did you require science to demonstrate it is true, or did

you just know?

If you didn't require science to know if you exist, then you used

something other than science to conclusively demonstrate proof of

anything, right?

The thing though is you are not discounting miracles based on the

evidence for each miracle, are you?

You are actually making a priori argument in regards to miracles. You

are not viewing the evidence of these miraculous events but looking

at them through your Philosophically of science.

Your argument is basically "No matter what evidence is presented in

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

Your argument is basically "No matter what evidence is presented in

favor of miracles, such events never occur because they would

contradict the laws of nature."

You said, "there is a difference between "I don't know" and "I don't

know, therefore god/aliens/magic."

You are correct. I completely agree. But what does this gain you if

you are doing the same thing but replacing god/aliens/magic, with

science?

3△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago

see more

> Albert

For starters, it can easily be argued that your intuition is generally fed

by your unconscious ability to calculate probability and by data

gathered from your senses. Your intuition may tell you that there's a

snake under that rock, but it is likely that your unconscious mind

determined that by observing the hole, the local ecology, the time of

day and year, and by applying everything you already know of

snakes. The result is a "feeling" that informs your conscious mind

"not to stick your hand in the hole under that rock."

More to the point -

Anything your intuition tells you must still be verified. How does one

do this? Objective observation.

Therefore you intuition can only coincide with what is true and

demonstrable. Until something is verified as true, it is not

"knowledge," it is belief.

Example: How many places does your intuition tell you to look where

your keys are not before you finally find where your keys are? And

isn't the process of elimination a method of objective observation

anyhow?

1△ ▽

Albert • 2 years ago> Rivethead

You said, "This existence is currently the only existence we know and

can quantify. Science was forged by using objective observations

about the world

around us dependent on the laws of physics that govern the

existence of

our world."

Hinduism views the world as Maya, or in other words, we are not

real. God is just dreaming about us and we are part of that dream, so

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

see more

to speak. Our "salvation", according to Hinduism, involves us

transcending the illusion and to get back to the godhead.

How do you quantify your view of this existence is the real one and

we are not just a part of God's dream?

What objective observation did you use to know you exist?

You said, "If you feel science is so flawed, supply a better method."

When did I say science is so flawed?

2△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago

see more

> Albert

”Hinduism views the world as Maya, or in other words, we are not

real. God is just dreaming about us and we are part of that dream, so

to speak. Our "salvation", according to Hinduism, involves us

transcending the illusion and to get back to the godhead.

How do you quantify your view of this existence is the real one and

we are not just a part of God's dream?”

If they are going to make the positive claim that we are god’s dream,

the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate and prove it. Why is

that my responsibility?

What other alternatives are there to demonstrate existence?

”What objective observation did you use to know you exist?”

Science.

My existence has been objectively observed by thousands of other

people.

What other method should I use to provide knowledge of my

3△ ▽

Albert • 2 years ago> Rivethead

First of all, I'm not trying to piss you off. I'm just asking you to prove

your claims. I'm sorry if that is upsetting you.

Me reiterating your claims back to you is only for clarification in

context of all these comments. If you would be more comfortable, I

could simply cut and paste your comments from now on and then

you can't accuse me of dictating your stance, is that fair? Oh, and

asking followup questions for clarification is not dictating your stance,

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

see more

asking followup questions for clarification is not dictating your stance,

it is confirming if I understood you correctly. If I didn't, then I'm more

than happy to hear you reiterate your claim in different words.

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding in how we interpret words that

each other is using?

Plus I have said nothing to say that my stance is, so to claim that I

only want to be right is completely incorrect. Sorry, I can't say I'm

right about something if I don't make any claims, can I?

You said, "I said negative claims could not be proven – NOT that they

require no proof. Big fucking difference."

2△ ▽

• Reply •

Albert • 2 years ago> Rivethead

Well, do you know you exist? If so, what science method did you use

to determine that? Or do you think, therefore you exist?

If it's the latter, wouldn't you say there are other ways to know things

other than through science?

If not, then how do you prove science is the only way to know truth?

You would enter into circular reasoning, wouldn't you?

Can you science prove math?

I'm thinking you're not saying, "I don't know" but rather you are saying,

"I don't know therefore, we wait til science gives us a naturalistic

explanation." Or naturalism in the gaps even if a miracle, by

definition, doesn't fit natural occurrences. You are wanting to use

science to prove something it can not explain and then dismiss it

because the science has a limitation, wouldn't you agree?

2△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago> Albert

I don't understand why you have such a hard time answering a

simple question.

What method, other than science and objective observation, can be

used to conclusively prove anything?

If you feel science is so flawed, supply a better method.

3△ ▽

• Reply •

intpope • a year ago> pollitttyler

http://listverse.com/2013/12/0... :)

△ ▽

Matt Sharrett • 2 years ago> pollitttyler

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply •

Aliens... Aliens explains everything.

△ ▽

• Reply •

maria christodoulou • 2 years ago> Rivethead

yes but human logic and what can describe and analyse cover only a

small spectrum of the reality. We cannot see and measure and

understand everything that is real without our small minds we have

invented mathematics, and physics is only our way to describe

nature. Physics is a subject developed by humans, . the universe

exists, the way we can understand it , is very small compared to

what exists. you are right that we do not have the means to prove

god's existence. God does not comply to this universe's laws

anyways. But imagine that there are other levels and universes

where other laws govern.

1△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago> maria christodoulou

"God does not comply to this universe's laws anyways."

1) How do you know god doesn't comply with the laws of this

universe? Have you met him and talked to him about it? Is it in the

bible in some passage that claims god can't be scientifically

quantified thousands of years before modern science?

Then how do you even know god exists and why should anyone

believe in god?

"But imagine that there are other levels and universes where other

laws govern."

OK, sure, I'm imagining it. I can also imagine faeries and unicorns,

but that doesn't mean they exist., and you don't know either.

And even if such places do exist, how would we detect them

considering how proving their existence would require conclusive

scientific data based on the laws of our universe?

5△ ▽

• Reply •

Albert • 2 years ago> Rivethead

You said, "There's as much proof for extraterrestrials as there is

proof of god."

Such as?

You said, "Still, alien life is far, far more probable than "god(s).""

How do you come to that conclusion?

2△ ▽

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

• Reply • 2△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago> Albert

The proof would be zero. Zero proof (or a lack of, if you wish) that

ET's exist, and equal proof that god(s) exist. Thus the evidence of

ET's is as available as the evidence of god.

There is life on this planet. We have conclusive evidence to show life

can exist in the universe.

Show me a god, or evidence of a god, to demonstrate they exist. We

have no reason to believe there is a god in this universe as no

evidence has ever been found to demonstrate one.

That is how I came to that conclusion.

PS:

I only barely skimmed over your last novel to me, and only about a

third of the way through, because I got to the point where you, again,

tried dictating my stance to me.

You said I made a claim to "know god/jesus/whatever" (can't fully

remember, as you are no longer worth the time so long as you play

these games) does not exist.

I don't recall ever saying such a thing. In fact, I can't remember the

last time I made a knowledge claim about god.

Show me where.

5△ ▽

Albert • 2 years ago> Rivethead

You said, "There is life on this planet. We have conclusive evidence

to show life can exist in the universe. Show me a god, or evidence of

a god, to demonstrate they exist. We have no reason to believe there

is a god in this universe as no evidence has ever been found to

demonstrate one."

So based on this statement, how do you get that alien's are more

probable than god(s)?

Why do you dismiss god(s) existing but are willing to allow the

possibility of aliens existing just because we can see there is life on

this planet or that there is evidence to show life can exist in the

universe?

What is your conclusive evidence to show life can exist in the

universe?

P.S.

Share ›

Share ›

Load more comments

• Reply •

see more

P.S.

Sorry that my post was so long, I was only trying to answer all the

1△ ▽

• Reply •

Ren • 2 years ago> Albert

Hebrews 11:1

King James Version (KJV)

11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of

things not seen.

4△ ▽

• Reply •

Albert • 2 years ago> Ren

What are you addressing by posting this verse?

△ ▽

• Reply •

Rivethead • 2 years ago

see more

> Albert

Does life exist in the universe?

Yes. It exists on Earth. Therefore we can demonstrate that life is not

only possible, but that it in fact does exist in the universe.

If life exists on Earth, it is possible that it exists elsewhere. Given the

Drake Equation, and factoring in enormity of the universe, and what

we know of astrophysics and cosmology, it is possible that there is

life elsewhere in the universe. Again, we have already established

proof positive life in the universe.

Possibility - no matter how slim or remote - based on demonstrable,

conclusive data supersedes possibility based on zero demonstrable,

conclusive data.

Additionally, all known life in the universe exists as scientifically

observable and quantifiable forms detected and catalogued by

science. No such god has ever been detected as a life form, sentient

creature, or being of free will.

Simply put:

We have millions upon millions of examples of how life can already

exist.

4△ ▽

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

Share ›

10 Bizarre Fads From The Early 20thCentury

36 comments • 7 days ago

Lisa 39 — I knew about some of these but it

was nice to learn the background story for

them, I also learned some …

10 Most Influential Things To HaveHappened In A Bathroom

31 comments • 14 hours ago

CesarFelipe — This toilet humor needs to

be flushed out.

10 Adorable Animal Behaviors Right Out

Of A Disney Movie

23 comments • 2 days ago

Hillyard — Dancing boobies, always

enjoyable.

10 Bizarre Cases Of Blackmail That

Turned Into Complete Disasters

45 comments • 5 days ago

Andy West — #5 'Four years after being

released from prison, he had worked his

way into the same social circle as …

ALSO ON LISTVERSE WHAT'S THIS?

Subscribe✉ Add Disqus to your sited Privacy�

Listverse is a Trademark of Listverse Ltd.

Copyright (c) 2007–2015 Listverse Ltd

All Rights Reserved.

Web Design by FHOKE