Do extra terrestrials exist? If so...
- Thread starter airrunner
- Start date
In that context I guess yeas that is correct but we already know the likelihood that life on Earth was kick started from deposits being brought here early on in Earth's life by meteors from somewhere else in the Universe is quite likely. Evidence of this is always cropping up every few years. So then, the likelihood of life being out there is far greater than the likelihood of there being a heaven, hell and multiple Gods who can accommodate the billions of people in each of their respective heavens.
I'm not dissing on any religion here though, I wouldn't even think of doing that. I can see where people are coming from on each side but one side certainly makes more sense than the other.
It could also be argued that a self destructive race is still a primitive race so if there are any intelligent beings out there they'd want to remain far away from us
I think that the idea that a Comet/Asteroid bought the organic material (amino acid) that kickstarted the process of life on Earth doesn't neccessarily state that life was seeded specifically, rather that another chemical was introduced to an already and possibly unique set of circumstances that led to the creation of life on Earth.
I will not dispute that the likelihood of life is probably greater than that of certain definitions of God(s).....only that you need to be careful when assigning fact to probability.
Also, I don't think that the concept of God in this context should be confused with Religion, the two are not neccessarily the same.
I think that basically the question is whether Life ultimately exists by chance or by design and the answer to that question we simply do not know.
Last edited:
Depends on the ingredients, the ingredients the scientists have found are the ones that are required for life to form so it makes sense to speculate its origins and likelihood of those same ingredients depositing elsewhere on planets not unlike our own. We already know there are planets out there outside of our solar system that have water and are in habitable zones of their parent Stars so it's not far fetched to assume that given how long we've been looking at the same areas of space (not very long at all) and what we've observed so far, that there are countless others further away that we can't see that actually could have life as we know or not know it as well.
As for the chance vs design concept, I don't think it's as simple as one or the other. We know the Universe follows a set of rules, there is cause and effect. By that definition then, it is a design but we also know that a set of random events start off the process for cause and effect to happen (The Big Bang, for example).
It's far deeper than anyone can debate or speculate but IMO both concepts exist and they need each other to exist at the same time.
Pretty much what has been said.
Yes I think life and intelligent life is out there and maybe life that doesn't follow the same rules as it does on Earth. However distances are vast and Earth is beyond microscopic in comparison so no I don't think we have been visited.
I also don't think we should be spouting out about our existence either. I'd much rather discover than be discovered as the chances are you will be less developed then them. Only have to look at what's happened here on Earth when the new world was discovered for example.
Yes I think life and intelligent life is out there and maybe life that doesn't follow the same rules as it does on Earth. However distances are vast and Earth is beyond microscopic in comparison so no I don't think we have been visited.
I also don't think we should be spouting out about our existence either. I'd much rather discover than be discovered as the chances are you will be less developed then them. Only have to look at what's happened here on Earth when the new world was discovered for example.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 1 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 12,681
- Location
- Tyneside
The universe is vast enough to suggest we aren't alone.
Arthur C Clarke summed it up nicely a few years back.
Arthur C Clarke summed it up nicely a few years back.
I understand that the theory of life being created by a meteor strike is speculative, I have not heard of any solid actual evidence to suggest that is actually the case.
Also as I said earlier, their is no actual solid proof that simply being in the speculated life zone of a Sun enables life on a planet....neither is their conclusive proof that any of the exo-planets have liquid water (possible that they may do, but but we do not KNOW..), it is suggested that they have due to various indicators....that is far from conclusive however. As I mentioned earlier, liquid water and being in a particular orbit around a Star doesn't mean life exists, it doesn't even make it likely...remove the Moon (or even make it further away, or slightly smaller, or larger, or closer, or slightly different orbit and so on) from the Earth and you remove one of the major factors that it is believed that Life began on Earth...
The possibility is obviously there, but it is not as straight forward as people seem to believe. For all intents and purposes the more you consider the myriad of things that had to happen and in a very specific way, and the inherent fragility of it all (Just the Gas Giant Jupiter being in a different orbit and not acting as a Solar Hoover, may have drastically altered the likelihood of Life beginning or evolving beyond the most basic of life on Earth) the likelihood of Life existing elsewhere begins to look more and more open to questioning......we have the immense size of the Universe in which to speculate the probabilities, but that is all they are, probabilities which with every added variable become more fragile themselves...
We could, as Asimov speculated be the original [intelligent] life in the Universe and in that way ultimately unique, at least for now.....who can say.
I agree that it is a complex and speculative area to debate (partly why I said what I did earlier) however it does seem that some people are quite happy to take some speculation as being the truth, not because of the truth value of it, but simply because they want it to be so...while criticising others for doing the same albeit from a different perspective or position.
Having said all that, as I said at the beginning......"I want to Believe".
Last edited:
you are missing the point somewhat, it is about attributing assumptions to make definitive statements as if they are fact without sufficent evidence to support that definite position. You can use the question 'does life exist elsewhere' if you wish, the criteria of having sufficent evidence to support the proposition still applies. The original question wasn't 'does life exist' anyway, it was 'does extraterrestrial life exist'.......to which the criteria regarding evidence remains the same from the perspective of those who dismiss one proposition for the lack thereof, yet accept the proposition for the other regardless of the lack thereof......
Whether one proposition is more likely than the other is immaterial, as the point was the acceptance of a definitive, therefore factual position for the positive with one, but the negative with the other using contradictory positions to assess the relative validity.
So it is not about whether ETs are more likely than God, but attributing a ' Yes Aliens definitely exist' based on limited evidence and assumption against attrubiting a 'No God definitely doesn't exist' based on the same......you can say 'The likelihood of God is somewhat less than the likelihood of Extraterrestrial life' and base than on the statistics, example of life on Earth etc...and assumptions made from that, but not that one definitely exists while the other does not......I hope that clarifies my opinion somewhat.
Also, with Life, we define it by our own experience of it, with God there is no such universal definition...if I define God as being the Universe in which we inhabit, can you say that there is no evidence for such......or simply that you don't accept the definition.
Does a chocolate teapot orbit the planet Jupiter?
Is there a giant pink rhinoceros floating around the Adromeda system?
I am quite comfortable to say with great confidence that neither of the above hold true in this universe and as evidence is the entire sum of science and mathematics that provide conclusive evidence that there are no such chocolate teapots and pink rhinoceros.
You cannot possibly compare the possible existence of a God with the existence of ET life. Scientific understanding, empirical evidence and mathematical proofs dictate that alien life in some form or another is highly likely. Furthermore, by the same evidence there is almost no sound theory to suggest the opposite, that there is no alien life of some form. The only real questions that a scientist would contemplate is the frequency of occurrence (or density) and the ability of primitive life to evolve into complex forms. The fact that primitive life could form on other planets/moons is a scientific fact. This is why so much time and money is being invested to find physical proof because the scientific theory suggest it should be there. The same was true for Black Holes, with mathematical proof and sound physics theories that predicted obseravle quantitive evidence, which was only discovered some years later. Life on per planets does not require any surprising physical mechanisms. The inverse is not true, if there was no other life in the whole universe it would be a very strange occurrence (still not evidence of a God though)
While proof for God is 100% non existent. In fact the opposite is true in that there is a large body of evidence that suggests God is not at all needed to explain anything in the universe. There are then 2 theories, one where there is no God and the universe operates based on laws of physics, or one where the universe still operates based on the laws of physics but a God exists that seemingly does nothing or at least is not needed to do anything and furthermore, this God purposely erases all evidence of its existence. Actually, I should not use the word theory to suggest a universe with a God because that is the wrong use of the word theory which requires objective empirical evidence, mathematical Proofs and quantitative predictive capabilities. There is no such theory of a universe with a God that supports any 3 of these requirements. Let's call this notion of a universe which has a God an "idea".
That may not be proof that God doesn't exist but that is pretty inconsequential as it makes zero difference as clearly the universe can exist and function without the presence of a God seemingly in an identical manner. Occam's razor will tend to indicate that the theory, or "idea", without a God is much more likely, thus can be accepted until substantial alternative evidence is discovered.
Last edited:
D.P......define God. I always find that when people begin with chocolate teapots and such nonsense that it is generally of little point to discuss the points as it is simply not being taken seriously and that the assumption that positive truth claims somehow have a burden that negative ones do not ignores that all claims of definitive truth whether positive or negative have a burden of proof. This also ignores that by choosing a specific defined object you are not considering that God has a myriad of definitions and none, so we would first have to define what and who God is to a suitably universally accepted definition to then begin to assess the relative likelihood of existence......for example if I defined God as the Laws of Physics (and any other laws of the Universe that we are as yet unaware of), is it so easy to dismiss....this is where I am sceptical of anyone who uses Russell's teapot in such an arbitrary way as Bertrand himself used it to counter the likelihood of a defined God, in this case the Christian one. In short a teapot is a verifiable object whereas God is not....
Anyway, as there is no accepted universal definition of God, you cannot possibly make definitive statements as to the existence or non existence of either the evidence or the actual concept.
However, you have also missed the entire point of the post insofar that it is not the subject (it could be about anything, not necessarily God or Aliens but whatever), but the attribution of what people accept as definitive, not the relative likelihood thereof....
I don't know if you have the the whole thread, but I have answered this question numerous times already so I refer you to those posts as it is becoming repetitive.
Also I am sure you are aware that I am not theist of any description. I agree with the point about Occam's Razor, but this ignores the difference in the way the relative proofs are ascertained, either from a scientific perspective or conversely a Religious one.....which makes it difficult to verify objectively.
I also did not make any statements about the likelihood or veracity of any position, as I have explained in earlier posts and the one in which you quoted. I did make it clear that ETs may very well be far more likely that God(s)...it was simply about attributing definitive truth to various positions.
On a different note, I picked up Machine Consciousness (Journal of Consciousness Studies) by Owen Holland the other day (well from the rainforest anyway), I haven't had the opportunity to read it as yet, but I will......
Anyway, as there is no accepted universal definition of God, you cannot possibly make definitive statements as to the existence or non existence of either the evidence or the actual concept.
However, you have also missed the entire point of the post insofar that it is not the subject (it could be about anything, not necessarily God or Aliens but whatever), but the attribution of what people accept as definitive, not the relative likelihood thereof....
I don't know if you have the the whole thread, but I have answered this question numerous times already so I refer you to those posts as it is becoming repetitive.
Also I am sure you are aware that I am not theist of any description. I agree with the point about Occam's Razor, but this ignores the difference in the way the relative proofs are ascertained, either from a scientific perspective or conversely a Religious one.....which makes it difficult to verify objectively.
I also did not make any statements about the likelihood or veracity of any position, as I have explained in earlier posts and the one in which you quoted. I did make it clear that ETs may very well be far more likely that God(s)...it was simply about attributing definitive truth to various positions.
On a different note, I picked up Machine Consciousness (Journal of Consciousness Studies) by Owen Holland the other day (well from the rainforest anyway), I haven't had the opportunity to read it as yet, but I will......
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,677
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Oh dear, I know Lazar's story well but here's a bit of info about the liar - .
However, his credibility has come under fire after "schools he was supposed to have attended had no record of him, while others in the scientific community had no memory of ever meeting him
Lazar claims to hold degrees from the California Institute of Technology and Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 1993, the Los Angeles Times looked into his background and found there was no evidence to support those claims.[1] Stanton Friedman was only able to verify that Lazar took electronics courses in the late 1970s at Pierce Junior College.[3] The Times did discover that in 1990 Lazar had pled guilty to felony pandering, when he installed a computer system for a local brothel,[4] declared bankruptcy and listed his occupation as self-employed photo processor on documents.[1] A 1991 Times article reported, Lazar was "on probation in Clark County, Nevada, on a pandering charge. His educational and professional background cannot be verified -- a fact he attributes to government deletion of records."[5] However military officials claim Lazar never worked in any of their facilities, German researcher Michael Hesemann (see his book Beyond Roswell)[6] found an incoming payment on Lazar's bank account. The number of the sender's account refers to a salary payments from military facility in Nevada.
You cannot compare the question of life elsewhere in our universe with the question of whether God exists or not.
We already know the mechanics of Alien life by looking at ourselves and the evolutionary process. They would be creatures born from the same elements (note; not necessarily our elements, but those found inside the universe), obey the same laws and have many similar mechanics that we have observed and imagined of life on this planet.
The universe while vastly varied, does have a limited number of elements.We are made of the same elements found in stars and planets all around the universe, we're just arranged differently through a slow process which included chance, the right ingredients and lots and lots of time.
Life elsewhere in our universe would not be able to exist outside the laws of the universe. It would have to have originated using the same evolutionary process that all life on earth originated.
God or any deity on the otherhand is supposed to be something outside of our universe. Something of which we have absolutely no measured and observed science to even begin to talk about.
The existence of God and life elsewhere in our universe cannot be compared.
We already know the mechanics of Alien life by looking at ourselves and the evolutionary process. They would be creatures born from the same elements (note; not necessarily our elements, but those found inside the universe), obey the same laws and have many similar mechanics that we have observed and imagined of life on this planet.
The universe while vastly varied, does have a limited number of elements.We are made of the same elements found in stars and planets all around the universe, we're just arranged differently through a slow process which included chance, the right ingredients and lots and lots of time.
Life elsewhere in our universe would not be able to exist outside the laws of the universe. It would have to have originated using the same evolutionary process that all life on earth originated.
God or any deity on the otherhand is supposed to be something outside of our universe. Something of which we have absolutely no measured and observed science to even begin to talk about.
The existence of God and life elsewhere in our universe cannot be compared.
I wish people would actually read the entire thread....or at least the posts relevant to the position being made rather than making assumptions about what I was stating.
Anyway, I have been neglecting other things so I will bid everyone in this thread adieu for now and refer you to my previous posts as that is effectively all I have to say on the subject.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,979
- Location
- Way up High.
I think it would be a little egotistical to presume we are the only life and understand about life....we only know greed...lust ...killing...and love when its the selfish kind.
Although we could believe the bible about adam and eve....hahaha...lol
Hang on there is the big bang....so if nothing existed before the big bang how did the big bang happen......hahahaha.
We are SCUM and if karma exists from the seeds you plant....we got a whole load a turds gonna come our way.
Although we could believe the bible about adam and eve....hahaha...lol
Hang on there is the big bang....so if nothing existed before the big bang how did the big bang happen......hahahaha.
We are SCUM and if karma exists from the seeds you plant....we got a whole load a turds gonna come our way.