Page 1
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
Page 2
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.
Page 3
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
Page 4
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
Page 5
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
Page 6
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
Page 7
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
Page 8
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
Page 9
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!
Page 10
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
Page 11
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
Page 12
• 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 ›
Page 13
• 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 ›
Page 14
• 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 ›
Page 15
• 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 ›
Page 16
• 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 ›
Page 17
• 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 ›
Page 18
• 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 ›
Page 19
• 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 ›
Page 20
• 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 ›
Page 21
• 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 ›
Page 22
• 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 ›
Page 23
• 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 ›
Page 24
• 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 ›
Page 25
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 ›
Page 26
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