Alien Life? You better hope God exists!

[G.T.]

Whereas, evidence for god is merely speculative.

Philosophically speaking, even REALITY is speculative.

Einstein said, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."

I understand that, and have often said that solipsism is unsolved ~ to date.

But I operate as though reality is real, as does any philosopher who has pondered solipsism.....

Its def. a problem! lol! to say the least

 

[G.T.]

The scoreboard is that there's sentient life that's observable in the Universe without leaving our front door....

Whereas, evidence for god is merely speculative.

WTH does that mean exactly?

UFO sightings?

Ufos?

Do I really need to walk you through my post?

I was talking about OURSELVES.

 

[alang1216]

Let me clarify: we have found intelligent life on 100% of the planets on which we have found life.

Which is ONE planet with a series of extraordinary circumstantial events and phenomenon. You aren't helping your argument.

Only extraordinary to you, maybe quite ordinary in the universe.

 

[alang1216]

We may have a semantic disconnect but you will agree that those monkeys didn't have a goal of cognitive rationalization. At the time and place they lived greater cognition only provided for enhanced survival.

I didn't say evolution had a goal. I said it had a direction. The semantic disconnect is because you are replacing words I said with other words. You should avoid that to avoid those disconnects.

So what exactly is "a directional process which took many thousands of years to develop"? Is it directed by some force? What is a direction that only goes to where you currently are?

 

[alang1216]

Accidents alone would not have led to us but you may choose any word you prefer.

Many remarkable things happen without the necessity of an intelligence. Northern lights, the Grand Canyon, cosmic nebula, etc.

But those we can observe and/or duplicate in some way.

And we can observe that there is intelligent life on this planet while 4.5 billion years ago there was none. There were an almost infinite number of steps along the way. Which were critical and were required for intelligent life to appear and which only determined hair color? No one knows.

Wait...wut?

An infinite number of steps along the way?

An infinite number of coincidences?

This is suppose to happen somewhere else in the universe?

Do tell.

If I walked from L.A. to NYC there are an infinite number of paths I could take but I'd end up in the same place.

 

[Boss]

So what exactly is "a directional process which took many thousands of years to develop"? Is it directed by some force? What is a direction that only goes to where you currently are?

I believe that any directional process is guided by some force. I see no logic in concluding otherwise. As for your second question, I don't understand it.

 

[Votto]

Accidents alone would not have led to us but you may choose any word you prefer.

Many remarkable things happen without the necessity of an intelligence. Northern lights, the Grand Canyon, cosmic nebula, etc.

But those we can observe and/or duplicate in some way.

And we can observe that there is intelligent life on this planet while 4.5 billion years ago there was none. There were an almost infinite number of steps along the way. Which were critical and were required for intelligent life to appear and which only determined hair color? No one knows.

Wait...wut?

An infinite number of steps along the way?

An infinite number of coincidences?

This is suppose to happen somewhere else in the universe?

Do tell.

If I walked from L.A. to NYC there are an infinite number of paths I could take but I'd end up in the same place.

Yes........Ok......thanks for that.

Can you be observed doing this and now many travel that path every day?

It seems to be a one way road for one time in history that no one can ever observe or verify or duplicate.

Funny how that happens.

 

[alang1216]

So what exactly is "a directional process which took many thousands of years to develop"? Is it directed by some force?

I believe that any directional process is guided by some force. I see no logic in concluding otherwise.

Are we still talking about evolution? What is the force?

 

[Boss]

So what exactly is "a directional process which took many thousands of years to develop"? Is it directed by some force?

I believe that any directional process is guided by some force. I see no logic in concluding otherwise.

Are we still talking about evolution? What is the force?

Any means ANY. If you want to apply it to evolution, that's fine. The forces of natural selection guide the direction of change. Apply it to the water flowing down the Colorado River... the forces of gravity guide the direction of the water from north to south. The water doesn't flow south just because it wants to be in the south. I think Isaac Newton settled this argument long ago. Things in motion are set into motion by some force and they remain in motion until some force acts upon them. Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia, baby!

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

SSOB,
I'm of the opinion that finding life elsewhere is proof that Christian theology is at least flawed.

Nowhere does the Bible mention God creating man other than man on Earth, correct?
Is there any mention in the Bible of life other than on Earth.

SO if we do NOT find life elsewhere, that seemingly astronomical impossibility would seem to serve to reinforce that Christianity is correct.

 

[Votto]

SSOB,
I'm of the opinion that finding life elsewhere is proof that Christian theology is at least flawed.

Nowhere does the Bible mention God creating life other than man on Earth, correct?

SO if we do NOT find life elsewhere, that seemingly astronomical impossibility would seem to serve to reinforce that Christianity is correct.

Not so fast.

The entire Bible concerns itself with the nation of Israel. It does not really seem to mention other countries and nations that did not effect Israel.

Does this mean they did not exist as well?

 

[G.T.]

SSOB,
I'm of the opinion that finding life elsewhere is proof that Christian theology is at least flawed.

Nowhere does the Bible mention God creating life other than man on Earth, correct?

SO if we do NOT find life elsewhere, that seemingly astronomical impossibility would seem to serve to reinforce that Christianity is correct.

All I know, is that Kepler 11, Thursday ~ should be a sweet press conference.

 

[alang1216]

SSOB,
I'm of the opinion that finding life elsewhere is proof that Christian theology is at least flawed.

Nowhere does the Bible mention God creating man other than man on Earth, correct?
Is there any mention in the Bible of life other than on Earth.

SO if we do NOT find life elsewhere, that seemingly astronomical impossibility would seem to serve to reinforce that Christianity is correct.

If you're looking for Biblical omissions you have a number to choose from much closer to home.

 

[alang1216]

SSOB,
I'm of the opinion that finding life elsewhere is proof that Christian theology is at least flawed.

Nowhere does the Bible mention God creating life other than man on Earth, correct?

SO if we do NOT find life elsewhere, that seemingly astronomical impossibility would seem to serve to reinforce that Christianity is correct.

All I know, is that Kepler 11, Thursday ~ should be a sweet press conference.

I believe it will be about applying Google AI to finding planets. We will likely find that EVERY sun has multiple planets.

 

[bgrouse]

I constantly hear the speculations over the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in our universe from people who completely dismiss any possibility of a Creator God. I find this extraordinary to say the least. I know this thread will spark a contentious debate but I believe it's one well worth exploring. This, of course, is simply a matter of philosophy, which is why I chose the Religion and Ethics forum instead of Science and Technology. We have no evidence life exists anywhere but planet Earth.

I would like to set aside the various arguments for religious philosophies and focus on the aspects of logic and reason in examining the question at hand. Does intelligent life exist elsewhere? The primary argument to conclude that it likely does, relies on the sheer number of stars and planets. Because there are trillions of stars and each one is likely to have a rocky planet in a zone compatible for conditions of life, some will assume the possibility is very likely. I would like to disabuse you of this notion.

First of all, we have to consider that intelligent life on this planet is the result of many circumstances over the course of 4.5 billion years, if we are to believe the modern scientific theories regarding evolution, etc. We'll stick with the current scientific parameters as opposed to quirky young earth creationist dogma, and let's see how this works out.

We don't know how life originated. Whatever happened was extremely unusual and rare because it doesn't seem to be happening anymore and there is no evidence of it happening anywhere else. But let's take for granted that some mysterious combinations in the forces of physics and nature combined at the perfect place and time to originate life on Earth. It seems reasonable to conclude the unique conditions of our planet may have contributed in some way, but they certainly contributed to the "evolution" of life once it had originated. Our wobbly orbit, caused by a careening body which formed our Moon, which fell into perfect geosynchronous orbit and caused tides and seasons to happen... all of which tremendously contribute to the sustainability of life and life cycles. The presence of abundant water in liquid form. A molten iron-nickel core which gives us a protective magnetic field. Atmospheric pressure which prevents our liquid source of water from evaporating into space. And dozens of other things which contribute to an environment conducive to life in general.

Logically, when we begin to narrow down the billions of possible planetary candidates which could even support life, the odds become exponentially less and less with each of these criteria applied. Okay, so maybe one in a billion planets could support life? That still means there is a good possibility it might exist elsewhere. But what form does it take? All we have to go by is what data we have here on Earth.

Nature, left to it's own evolution, produced a planet teaming with dinosaurs. Big giant lizards and flying reptiles... nothing approaching intelligent life. It took a rare cosmic event, supposedly an asteroid striking the planet and wiping out the dinosaurs but not wiping out all life forms. From there, the reemerging life spawned mammals which gave rise to primates and then humans. So now we have at least two distinct cosmic events of interaction, the moon collision and the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, which had to happen at a precise point in time for there to be any form of intelligent life on Earth. And that is if you don't count whatever cosmic phenomenon gave us all the water while no other planets around us seemed to get any.

Setting aside religion, at some point, don't you have to consider the number of miraculous events which had to happen as they did, for intelligent life to exist here? What would be the odds of those same events happening elsewhere? I believe it is all but impossible that another intelligent life form exists elsewhere unless there is a Creator. A force beyond the physical which intelligently set into motion the precise events and phenomenon which had to occur for intelligent life to emerge.

So you doubt the existence of other intelligent life despite the fact that you belong to that species of intelligent life and know for a fact that at least one instance of it exists, but you don't doubt the existence of some "beyond the physical" intelligence (a god) for which you have absolutely no evidence and which you have never seen? That doesn't make any sense. You KNOW intelligent life can come about at least based on the fact that it DOES exist. You even explain HOW it came about. But you don't think it's possible for it to happen again. OK, but then why would you believe in a god? There's no evidence it exists, we can't explain what it is, and we certainly have no way to even begin to discuss how it came about.

I would think you'd sooner believe another instance of something you have already seen exists vs believing that something which nobody has ever seen exists.

There are LOTS of things I've never seen but I know they exist. The human's sense of sight is a single, somewhat mediocre stimulation of nerves. We don't even do it better than many other species and we've already proven through technology that the universe consists of things much smaller than we are able to see with our naked eyes. So what is this obsession you have with being able to see something?

People used to think some of those previously unproven things were the work of god, too, until proven otherwise.

There are MANY things we cannot explain. Origin of life, for one. But beyond that, many things regarding physics and quantum physics are yet to be fully understood. So there goes your complaint that not being able to understand something should mean we dismiss it. Quite the contrary, that's why Science was invented.

The definition of science isn't "god did it unless we prove otherwise," which seems to be your position.

Yes.. One existence of life exists and it's here on Earth. I'm not disputing that. The OP questions the existing of life elsewhere and I made the case for why I think that would be a near impossibility unless there is a Creator capable of orchestrating miraculous series of cosmic events to enable intelligent life to emerge. I base that on the fact that intelligent life on Earth only exists because of such a series of extraordinary events.

You've not convinced me otherwise.

So who created the creator? Surely if a creator is needed for intelligent life to exist, then a creator is even more needed to create something as powerful and intelligent as "the creator."

 

[ABikerSailor]

Christians will tell you that God (or the Creator) doesn't have a beginning or end, because God is eternal. That is the Christian way of dodging the question bgrouse.

 

[Boss]

People used to think some of those previously unproven things were the work of god, too, until proven otherwise.

Nothing has been proved otherwise. You mean, since we discovered how God did something? That doesn't disprove God did it.

The definition of science isn't "god did it unless we prove otherwise," which seems to be your position.

Nope, not my position and I never said anything remotely close. You seem to suffer from a comprehension problem. God did everything unless you can prove otherwise, that's a given. That's why I never understood why you think anyone is claiming that is science... It's an altruism, not science. It has no scientific explanatory value.

So who created the creator? Surely if a creator is needed for intelligent life to exist, then a creator is even more needed to create something as powerful and intelligent as "the creator."

"Created" is a word we apply to physical things in a physical universe. A Spiritual Creator doesn't require physical creation. Can you use this same reasoning and explain to me what created physical nature?

 

[Boss]

I believe it will be about applying Google AI to finding planets. We will likely find that EVERY sun has multiple planets.

There is a fundamental problem when it comes to the possible existence of "Goldilocks" planets. Physicists say there is a small likelihood of any star having more than one habitable planet. To have two, they would have to be on identical orbital paths in transverse orbits around their sun at identical speeds, a very unlikely scenario. Otherwise, two such planets in the same general vicinity would eventually collide due to gravitational attraction or they would become binary planets, causing neither to be life-sustainable due to the wild swings in distance from their sun and volatility from the constant gravitational pull on each other.

 

[Boss]

Christians will tell you that God (or the Creator) doesn't have a beginning or end, because God is eternal. That is the Christian way of dodging the question bgrouse.

It's not a dodge of any question. God created time as a dimension of a physical universe. We've proven with physics that time is a physical dimension.

What I keep seeing, in absolute amazement, is people who simply can't seem to wrap their minds around a God that isn't physical.

 

[bgrouse]

People used to think some of those previously unproven things were the work of god, too, until proven otherwise.

Nothing has been proved otherwise. You mean, since we discovered how God did something? That doesn't disprove God did it.

The definition of science isn't "god did it unless we prove otherwise," which seems to be your position.

Nope, not my position and I never said anything remotely close. You seem to suffer from a comprehension problem. God did everything unless you can prove otherwise, that's a given. That's why I never understood why you think anyone is claiming that is science... It's an altruism, not science. It has no scientific explanatory value.

So who created the creator? Surely if a creator is needed for intelligent life to exist, then a creator is even more needed to create something as powerful and intelligent as "the creator."

"Created" is a word we apply to physical things in a physical universe. A Spiritual Creator doesn't require physical creation. Can you use this same reasoning and explain to me what created physical nature?

Why do you think physical nature was "created?" It may have always existed (and existed in such a way as to eventually bring about the existence of intelligent life). After all, you have no trouble believing in a "creator," saying it doesn't need to have been created (implying it has always existed), despite never having any evidence of it (visible with the naked eye or otherwise). Maybe nature always existed. That's far easier to believe since nature is proven to exist.