Moontanman

If they employ technologies we have no way to detect and they live in artificial habitats how would you detect them, in my scenario such colonies would roam the galaxy ignoring planets...

Or civilizations fall and rise and we just happen to be in an area of the galaxy that is fallow at the moment, or technology quickly rises above our level and negates low tech civilizations like ours detecting them..

For what ever it's worth, I meant to say "real or photo shop" but I was in a hurry...

What do you guys think, it looks very suspicious to me...

An argument from incredulity?

It's a false dichotomy because you cannot establish with any certainty that those are the only two possibilities, it's a straw man because you want everyone else to argue your points that you have arbitrarily assigned as the only points and it's an argument from incredulity because you can't imagine how there could be any other choices so you assume there are none...

Which is of course a false dichotomy... Not to mention a straw man...

I am not sure that exponential growth is a defensible model, no biological growth of complex life forms is ever truly exponential... accidents of one type or another, wars, even disease and i think expansion would proceed with out all the resources of one system being used before any habitats diffused into the next star nor do i think every wave of such colonies would leave an area devoid of resources and technology could dictate what resources are used...

I think that planets will be left behind as habitats once we start building artificial habitats, cylinders or torus', can be spun to induce gravity inside them, sunlight or artificial light used to make a pseudo natural habitat and or space like mega cities inside. Once we start living in artificial worlds, planets and the potential problems of mixing eco systems will make the man made colonies preferred and moving out into the galaxy by simply colonizing the ort clouds and eventually merging into the next star system, over generations this will allow us to slowly colonize the galaxy , a few million years tops...

Yeah religions tell me the same thing but i don't believe them either...

Care to post the representation you are talking about? There are two illustrations there and what evidence do you have that it is a brown dwarf up close rather than a free floating planet 80- light years away?

Some empirical evidence of that "truth" would seem to be in order...

The last two are basically the same and with out some evidence "I don't know" is the most honest answer that can be given...

I've already given you at least two other possibilities in this thread, I suggest you go back and look at them again, i do not mean to be condescending but it appears you have your own standards and they do not include considering anything but those two possibilities.

The logic is flawed because you are strawmanning the question, those are not the only possibilities. As i pointed out earlier everything we know has a naturalistic explanation, I would be willing to bet quite a bit that the universe we see will eventually be found to have a naturalistic explanation, I see no reason to assume it will not, just like the formation of planets has a naturalistic explanation that we didn't understand at one time....

The Believer, you keep questioning where the universe came from and don't seem to be willing to accept that at this point we don't know as an answer. So i want to ask where do you think it came from and can you back that up with evidence?

What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

Well then why don't you provide something besides your baseless assertions to prove it?

So the only correct answer was to agree with you?

If I understand it correctly fear of snakes would be a nocebo effect. Most humans who are unfamiliar with snakes assume they are all dangerous because a few are. In nature this is a good thing because mistaking a deadly snake for a harmless one will result in your death so fear of snakes, harmless or not is a positive evolutionary effect from the stand point of survival...

An empirical rationalist would require you demonstrate the reality of angels before he would debate how many can dance on the head of a pin...

You are missing my point, we have no example of anything being "created" why do you require an example of he universe being created? Everything we know comes from something, at this point in time we cannot answer where the universe came from. It's here, we are a apart of it. If you had no knowledge of where humans came from, lets say you lost your long term memory and were isolated on an island, how would you answer the question of where do people come from? You would look around, see animals reproducing, and see the similarity of humans to other animals and be willing to surmise that humans come in the world via some similar process even if the animals you observed reproduced in ways that had nothing to do with the ways humans reproduced. We are in that predicament, all we have is the universe, we have no examples of any other universe to postulate from but we do see natural processes causing many things to form. It's not a stretch to think the universe came about due to natural processes you have yet to observe.