UFOs and the bible

[Byronazriel]

It's theoretically possible that in a finite universe we are the only life ever, but if the universe is in any way infinite then it becomes an impossibility. It is still however ridiculous to assume that we're all there is.

I don't think any of us are claiming to KNOW anything about aliens, and neither do I think any of us are taking this on faith. If we are given evidence that contradicts our position, I'm sure we'll believe differently. We're, or at least I am open to the possibility of being wrong.

[The Magic Pudding]

-You are all right! The universe is so huge that some super-duper-intelligent life has probably evolved on some star-system zillions of light-years from us! The only problem is that we can never know for sure because the universe is so huge. So...why not just assume they exist! We'll be just like the religion folks, only smarter! We know fer shure because our delusion is logical!

Oh! there is a great religion for you guys:  http://www.rael.org    

Rael is atheistic, and they have their own planet and flying saucers. Just perfect for that weekend getaway to Epsilon Eridani 4.

 

Theists seem to be carrying around this heavy burden of ludicrous thought, and they frequently encourage us to chain ourselves to some bizarre notions because it's so liberating.  No thanks, I'll try to keep my delusions to a minimum if you don't mind.
Live long and prosper.

[AreEl]

Theists seem to be carrying around this heavy burden of ludicrous thought, and they frequently encourage us to chain ourselves to some bizarre notions because it's so liberating.  No thanks, I'll try to keep my delusions to a minimum if you don't mind.
Live long and prosper.

My posts here have not been from the point of view of theism at all. I could have been a #10 hard-atheist and written the same thing. So, in my opinion, your reaction has more to do with the Christian label on my profile than sober consideration of what I wrote. What does that say about you?

The fact remains that without a single shred of evidence re extraterrestrial life, any assumption that it does/probably does exist must come from faith. Here is a definition of faith from my Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Faith:...2a, firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof. Uncritical grounds for belief.

Bingo! Any theist or atheist who believes in the posibility of ET life without a shred of evidence is doing so on faith.

I don't care if you have faith - I really don't - and I won't rub your nose in it.

[Davin]

Some problems with your statement here:

The fact remains that without a single shred of evidence re extraterrestrial life, any assumption that it does/probably does exist must come from faith. Here is a definition of faith from my Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Faith:...2a, firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof. Uncritical grounds for belief.

Bingo! Any theist or atheist who believes in the posibility of ET life without a shred of evidence is doing so on faith.

I don't care if you have faith - I really don't - and I won't rub your nose in it.

The definition cites "firm or unquestioning belief", while you used the words "does/probably" and "believes in the posibility". The problem here is that when you say something like "probably" and "believes that there might be a possibility," you're already stating that it's not the same as "firm or unquestioning."

Saying, "Bingo! Any theist or atheist who believes in the posibility of ET life without a shred of evidence is doing so on faith." is categorically wrong, especially by the definition of faith that you provided. Now if someone said that there definitely was other life in the universe without a shred of evidence, that would be faith.

[The Magic Pudding]

Theists seem to be carrying around this heavy burden of ludicrous thought, and they frequently encourage us to chain ourselves to some bizarre notions because it's so liberating.  No thanks, I'll try to keep my delusions to a minimum if you don't mind.
Live long and prosper.

My posts here have not been from the point of view of theism at all. I could have been a #10 hard-atheist and written the same thing. So, in my opinion, your reaction has more to do with the Christian label on my profile than sober consideration of what I wrote. What does that say about you?

The fact remains that without a single shred of evidence re extraterrestrial life, any assumption that it does/probably does exist must come from faith. Here is a definition of faith from my Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Faith:...2a, firm or unquestioning belief in something for which there is no proof. Uncritical grounds for belief.

Bingo! Any theist or atheist who believes in the posibility of ET life without a shred of evidence is doing so on faith.

I don't care if you have faith - I really don't - and I won't rub your nose in it.

The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that often have planetary systems not unlike our own.  Although christians have brutally murdered people in the past for saying so, I think most of us accept this now.  So we know one star intimately, and it supports life, there are a billion billion more stars so we recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere.  I don't consider this a leap of faith, it is not unquestioning or uncritical, the difficulty of extrapolating from one instance of life the probability of other life is not ignored.  So if I estimate it's 50% likely there is life within 100 light years this is faith? 50% faith?
Can a 0.00000000000000000001% belief/faith in Jesus get me into heaven if I'm wrong?  Did you actually read that definition you quoted?  And did you know there are other definitions for the word, lets have a look at good old Wordweb.

1) A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
2) Complete confidence in a person or plan etc
3) An institution to express belief in a divine power
4) Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person

I've seen christians stick this faith virtue of theirs on Atheists as a proof of their wrongness.  The thing is we don't have to know, the answer can be left open without resorting to fantasy, though the reasoned search for answers is a great thing.  The defence of goat herder whimsy is bad for ones brain, in extreme cases it renders a person unable to understand the simplest of definitions.

[februarystars]

There's a series on the History Channel called "Ancient Aliens" that is pretty entertaining. My favorite episode is the one that asserts that Hitler and the Nazis were secretly getting instructions for advanced weaponry and aircraft from extraterrestrial visitors. You just can't make that stuff up... oh wait, yes you can. But I love the ancient alien concept, and all the imagery left behind from ancient civilizations that suggest they learned this or that from extraterrestrial visitors. It is so farfetched, yet there is something so intriguing that makes me want to believe it (cue Fox Mulder).

[AreEl]

The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that often have planetary systems not unlike our own.

Above is a faith-based statement. More accurate and fitting observation would be: The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that may have planetary systems like our own.

Although christians have brutally murdered people in the past for saying so, I think most of us accept this now.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing but it does serve to reveal that you do see our discussion as a theist/atheist debate. Remember what I said:

My posts here have not been from the point of view of theism at all. I could have been a #10 hard-atheist and written the same thing. So, in my opinion, your reaction has more to do with the Christian label on my profile than sober consideration of what I wrote.

Remember: both the theist and the atheist who believe in extraterrestrial life are doing so on faith alone. Both are in the same situation; one isn't ''better'' than another. This isn't a theist/atheist discussion at all. Indeed, our discussion has more to do with hypothesis, knowledge, logic, opinion and reasoning.

So we know one star intimately, and it supports life, there are a billion billion more stars so we recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. I don't consider this a leap of faith,

It is a leap of faith. Without one shred of hard evidence, you have determined that there probably is (or may be) life elsewhere in the universe. You have based your belief solely on the universe's size and number of stars. You are rationalizing your faith - and that is fine - but recognize what you are doing.

Did you actually read that definition you quoted? And did you know there are other definitions for the word, lets have a look at good old Wordweb.

I did read the definition of ''faith'' I provided. The definition I quoted was two sentences from an entry 3 paragraphs long written in 6 point type. It fits perfectly with the faith you manifest in ET life. The definitions you quoted are also interesting, especially #2 and #4:

2) Complete confidence in a person or plan etc

#2, you seem to be defending what you perceive to be atheist dogma in relation to ET life. Whoever said that atheism (or theism!) and ET life have anything in common? These concepts have nothing to do one with the other, period. Think independently! stop following the crowd.

4) Loyalty or allegiance to a cause or a person

#4, You have a twisted allegiance to what you perceive to be atheist dogma. There is no such thing as atheist dogma! Think independently!

I've seen christians stick this faith virtue of theirs on Atheists as a proof of their wrongness.

I'm not doing what you perceive. Everything I wrote, I could have written as a #10 hard atheist but...you are too mired in your loyalty to your dogma to see that (see #4 above).

The thing is we don't have to know, the answer can be left open without resorting to fantasy, though the reasoned search for answers is a great thing.

Congratulations. You have said something intelligent above. Somewhere under your dogma and the dislike of religion stifling your mind, there is evidence of intelligence.

Strive to think independently. This will always serve you well.

[Davin]

The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that often have planetary systems not unlike our own.

Above is a faith-based statement. More accurate and fitting observation would be: The universe is very very big, with lots and lots of stars that may have planetary systems like our own.

Not the same thing as a faith-based statement.

Gliese 581c
GJ 1214b
Found 500 exosolar planets in just 20 years after the first exosolar planet is discovered

Remember: both the theist and the atheist who believe in extraterrestrial life are doing so on faith alone. Both are in the same situation; one isn't ''better'' than another. This isn't a theist/atheist discussion at all. Indeed, our discussion has more to do with hypothesis, knowledge, logic, opinion and reasoning.

Yes, one who believes in extraterrestrial life is doing so on faith.

So we know one star intimately, and it supports life, there are a billion billion more stars so we recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. I don't consider this a leap of faith,

It is a leap of faith. Without one shred of hard evidence, you have determined that there probably is (or may be) life elsewhere in the universe. You have based your belief solely on the universe's size and number of stars. You are rationalizing your faith - and that is fine - but recognize what you are doing.

It is not a leap of faith to recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. It would be leap of faith if one said there was (or wasn't), but not so long as one is only accepting that there is a possibility. Accepting a possibility means one is open to there both being life elsewhere and not being elsewhere.

Congratulations. You have said something intelligent above. Somewhere under your dogma and the dislike of religion stifling your mind, there is evidence of intelligence.

Please refrain from insulting people, especially in the Laid Back Lounge.

[fester30]

I think arel is a bit confused on the difference between faith and probability.  I don't have faith that there is extra-terrestrial life.  I don't know one way or another until there is proof.  Based on the vastness of the universe and number of star systems out there, I believe there is a decent probability that the processes that formed Earth and the life on it occurred elsewhere, but I don't know for sure, and I don't claim that extra-terrestrial life definitely exists... until there is proof.  

If I were to make such a claim without proof, then that would be faith.  Those who believe in God do so on faith, as they don't have any proof.

[februarystars]

I do, in fact, believe without proof that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. You can call it faith if you want. The difference between my belief in extraterrestrials and any belief in theism is the supernatural factor. To me, there is no difference between Jesus and the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. When they start delivering presents to children all over the world in a single night, or flying around at night collecting children's teeth in exchange for money, or transmuting water into booze, it's just a dealbreaker.

The idea that the right mixture of molecules can cause a chemical reaction resulting in conscious organisms just blows my mind, and it's fascinating to think how differently life forms could have evolved elsewhere in the universe. The idea of sentient beings that look and behave in ways that we could never imagine, having sensory receptors that we could never ever comprehend, maybe even having some entirely different way of functioning than a central brain with nerve impulses. It's something totally beyond us. It's almost agonizing to know that we'll never see any of it.

[AreEl]

It is not a leap of faith to recognise the possibility or likelihood of life occurring elsewhere. It would be leap of faith if one said there was (or wasn't), but not so long as one is only accepting that there is a possibility. Accepting a possibility means one is open to there both being life elsewhere and not being elsewhere.

Hmmm...the part about your sentence that bugs me is in italics, above. I'm fine with the possibility of ET life but when you say ''likelihood'' you are expressing hope. Hope is evidence of something not seen and for which there is no evidence.* Check the dictionary definition of ''hope'' and you'll see that there's a important component of faith there.

Please refrain from insulting people, especially in the Laid Back Lounge.

I didn't insult The Magic Pudding. I'm sorry you took it that way. I meant the comment you quoted as a compliment. If he feels insulted, he need only contact me and I'll apologize.

I think arel is a bit confused on the difference between faith and probability. I don't have faith that there is extra-terrestrial life. I don't know one way or another until there is proof. Based on the vastness of the universe and number of star systems out there, I believe there is a decent probability that the processes that formed Earth and the life on it occurred elsewhere, but I don't know for sure, and I don't claim that extra-terrestrial life definitely exists... until there is proof.

I'm not confused about the difference between faith and probability; you seem to be, though, as one has absolutely nothing to do with the other. You may want to re-read the part I put in italics above and explain - to yourself - how you can ''...believe there is a decent probability'' of ET life.

If I were to make such a claim without proof, then that would be faith. Those who believe in God do so on faith, as they don't have any proof.

The sentence quoted above has nothing to do with the discussion but it does show that my Christian label has tainted your thinking here. Be careful of that. It tells me that you are not focused.

I do, in fact, believe without proof that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. You can call it faith if you want. The difference between my belief in extraterrestrials and any belief in theism is the supernatural factor.

An honest admission, congratulations. Honesty will serve you well in life. However, while theism may** have a supernatural factor, belief in ET life has a ''science-fiction'' factor.


*exosolar planets are not evidence of ET life. They are evidence of exosolar planets.
**there are atheistic religions; these are without supernatural elements.

[februarystars]

An honest admission, congratulations. Honesty will serve you well in life. However, while theism may** have a supernatural factor, belief in ET life has a ''science-fiction'' factor.

You're absolutely right, but in regard to your footnote down there, I did mention that my problem lies with theism, i.e. belief in one or more deities, and not necessarily with atheistic religions â€" though atheistic religions may still have the supernatural factor that just really holds no shred of possibility as far as my own personal beliefs are concerned.

My description of the idea of alien life is without question science fiction. But this belief is based on what I think is the reality of the origin of life-forms on earth, so it makes perfect sense for me to come to the conclusion that the same thing might happen anywhere else in the universe. This is definitely all speculation, but it is derived from what I know of science, and scientific evidence is the only truth I know.

[Melmoth]

AreEl, could you define 'hard evidence'? As others have already said (i think?) the sheer volume of the universe is evidence in itself, for it renders the probability of life occuring elsewhere very great. That's how all evidence works: by increasing or decreasing the probability of things. Ie. finding X's fingerprints on a murder weapon increases the probability of X being the murderer.

If you're saying that the laws of probability themselves could be 'faith based,' then you could also expand this to include such basic assumptions as a) the universe exists and b) it's possible to gain knowledge from it, in which case it's a little trite to ask for evidence when you might as well just jump ahead to the 'all evidence is faith-based' bit. Anyway, as it happens, if this is what you are saying, then I sort of agree with you. Except on one point: even if you don't openly accept these things as 'true', and from some lofty intellectual level you denounce even your own existence, you still can't avoid behaving as if you accept them fully. You have no choice but to act on the presumed truths you've extrapolated from the world as you've experienced it, finding patterns, balancing probabilities and so on, however superficial you may consider this system to be. You only get up to go to work in the morning on the basis that the world probably still exists. It's pragmatically impossible to evade or rise above or grow out of that kind of 'faith'. However, this is not so with the kind of faith people put in, say, God, which is a voluntary faith that can very easily be done without. That would be the important difference for me.

[xSilverPhinx]

The chemical elements life, made out of mainly carbon, oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen, are among the most common in the universe (there's nothing rare about our chemistry, we're made of common nuclear waste) since they are among the lightest, having come into existence through nuclear fusion from the simplest - hydrogen - which is the most abundant in the universe. Organic compounds (carbon molecules) have even been found in asteroids. Life depends on complex molecules, and we're organic based (named that way because of carbon, which allows for very long and complex chains to form) but some speculate whether other chains could give rise to life, such as silicon. Not as good as carbon, but could it? After what point does something go from becoming complex chemistry to alive?  

Even if we one day find a non intelligent lifeform, as simple and complex as a bacteria, it would in no way be a secondary prize, because there are chances are it's different from us in it's chemistry and constitution, having not shared a common ancestor with us. Even if we found something that came from another strand here on Earth it would be amazing.  

The presence of liquid greatly increases the chance for complex molecules to form because they increase the odds of molecules reaching and clashing into eachother, as opposed to a place where there is no liquid where molecules are stationery. Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. Water is the universal solvent, which in us aids chemical communication, but maybe life could be based on a liquid that is not water, we don't have the knowledge to know.

Scientists have not figured out the details of how life could've started, but pieces here and there (like the cellular membrane forming, amino acids which are a constituent part of the building blocks of RNA and DNA etc) suggest that life is the inevitable chemical occurrence when placed in a specific condition, or chemical and energetic context. Parts organise themselves based on what they are and how they interact with their surroundings.

We only have what we know to assume if there could be extra-terrestrial life elsewhere. Therefore we assume that there are higher odds of life on rocky planets with liquid water close enough to an energy source (either solar or geothermal) which aren't very different from our own (narrow search options, IMO, but like I said, we base higher odds based on what happened here). Rocky planets are extremely difficult to detect with instruments so we rely on estimates based on what we do detect as our instruments get better. One I've come across is a figure of roughly 100 million habitable environments per galaxy, which in the visible universe would be 10 to the 18th power, or 10 million trillion. Even if you want to halve that number, it's still quite a number. The habitable zone is where liquid water can exist, as opposed to ice or vapor, but one of Jupiter's moons, which is way outside this solar system's habitable zone could have liquid water under it's ice sheets because of the energy (heat) it gets from Jupiter's gravity compressing and decompressing it. Some speculate there might be life there.

So you see, we only have what we know based on life on Earth to speculate. The universe could be teeming with lifeforms beyond our wildest imagination and we probably wouldn't even recognise it as "life" at first if we saw it.  There's even debate on what is alive and what's not here on Earth!

Intelligent life needs time to evolve, which lessens the odds. The chances of simple lifeforms having arisen in the universe is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay higher than intelligent life able to send messages through space, and simple lifeforms are not restricted to narrower conditions for life. Just look at archaebacteria and extremophiles we have here...mega tough little critters.

And even if technological intelligent life did arise out there and is still alive, just because we have instruments to detect signals, the fact that we don't doesn't mean much. Once again, take us for instance, our earliest transmissions have been travelling through space for just as long as we have radio and TV, which would be about 60-70 years. That got our message just past the nearest star. The milky way is huge, and the visible universe much more. Assuming those transmissions survive, it'll take a bit less than 100 000 years to cross just our galaxy. If there's something there, it'll only know after all that time. It would be like sending a text message and having to wait for it to reach it's destination, for them to send another and for their message to reach us. To the other side of the milky way a reply would take almost 200 000 years, which is more or less the time Homo sapiens have been around. Hardly practical.

As Carl Sagan pointed out, how close would you have to be to our own planet to see that there's intelligent life here? Have you ever thought of that? From not too far away it just looks like another waterworld, if an alien were to look through an optical telescope. For them to watch our TV shows, they would have to be within the 60-70 lightyears, which is nothing[/u] in galaxtic distances.  

The odds are high for simple life, but stacked against us of finding intelligent life out there. Don't confuse the two.  

It's a speculative belief based on a little more than blind faith, as you seem so eager to suggest it is...

***edited for clarity.

***edited again to add some additional info

[AreEl]

AreEl, could you define 'hard evidence'? As others have already said (i think?) the sheer volume of the universe is evidence in itself, for it renders the probability of life occuring elsewhere very great. That's how all evidence works: by increasing or decreasing the probability of things. Ie. finding X's fingerprints on a murder weapon increases the probability of X being the murderer.

The dictionary definition of ''evidence'' is what I go by. The size of the universe is not evidence for ET life; at best, it is only evidence for...size. Here's an analogy: in a lottery, there is only one winner whether there are 5000 entries or 5-zillion entries. There may be 5 winning tickets among all the entries and each ticket will have the same winning number. The ''winning number'' - life in this analogy - may have something to do with the number of entries but many other factors are involved.

 

If you're saying that the laws of probability themselves could be 'faith based,

That's not what I've been saying. The rest of your paragraph shows signs of nihilism:

then you could also expand this to include such basic assumptions as a) the universe exists and b) it's possible to gain knowledge from it, in which case it's a little trite to ask for evidence when you might as well just jump ahead to the 'all evidence is faith-based' bit. Anyway, as it happens, if this is what you are saying, then I sort of agree with you. Except on one point: even if you don't openly accept these things as 'true', and from some lofty intellectual level you denounce even your own existence, you still can't avoid behaving as if you accept them fully. You have no choice but to act on the presumed truths you've extrapolated from the world as you've experienced it, finding patterns, balancing probabilities and so on, however superficial you may consider this system to be. You only get up to go to work in the morning on the basis that the world probably still exists. It's pragmatically impossible to evade or rise above or grow out of that kind of 'faith'. However, this is not so with the kind of faith people put in, say, God, which is a voluntary faith that can very easily be done without. That would be the important difference for me.

I'm not a nihilist. Nor am I sitting on a mountaintop handing out wisdom. You're funny!

The odds are high for simple life, but stacked against us of finding intelligent life out there. Don't confuse the two.

Simple life? Maybe...but this is still hoping for a secondary prize.  I'll deal with this matter of hope/hypothesis when I get back from work this evening.