Alien Life? You better hope God exists!

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's not faith to make evidence-based determinations....

YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE OF LIFE ELSEWHERE!

Irrelevant. I am not claiming with 100% certainty that there is life elsewhere. Please pay better attention to what is being discussed.

I am saying that we have evidence that life likely has or will form elsewhere at least one other time. This evidence comes in the form of the fact that life has formed at least once, the fact that the chemicals involved in the type of life we know about are abundant in the universe, the apparently short amount of time it took life to form on this planet, amd the sheer size of the universe.

"Evidence-based determinations" are made with 100% certainty or they are speculations. So now you're doing a cute little tap dance for us.

You do not know for a fact that life formed at least once, that is your speculation based on the fact that life exists and rejection of the possibility of a Creator, which you've not disproved. Furthermore, you still have no evidence life exists elsewhere or how it originated here.

"Evidence-based determinations" are made with 100% certainty or they are speculations"

100%, hilariously wrong, and I see you have, once again, retreated to your goofy Alamo of "everything is subjective, therefore equally subjective".

It's not "speculative" at all. It is a determination on how to proceed, based on the evidence available. Would I say with 100% certainty, on penalty of death, that my new car will start tomorrow? No. But I am not going to have a taxi on standby, because I am going to prpceed as if it will start tomorrow. That is not speculation, and is, in fact, precisely the opposite. It is an informed determination that allows me to proceed.

The determination is, "The odds are good that my car will start tomorrow." That is not speculation. It's an informed, fact-based determination.

Sorry Boss, but I am quite immune to your tired charlatan's tactics. They are for gullible, irrational people, to be used in order to fool them. In the same way, you are quite skilled at foolimg yourself. For instance, founding your entit's argument on a known, amateurish fallacy. This has been demonstrated to you in some detail; yet you have managed to fool yourself that, somehow, this fallacy is valid logic, when you wield it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

We both have faith

Shameless lie. In no way did he demonstrate faith. You are just doing your little pathetic dance again....the one where, being wholly unable to elevate your magical bullshit out of the murk of bullshit, you can only call everyone else's determinations "faith". Only on this way can you fool yourself into not realizing the qualitative differences between your magical bullshit and evidence-based thought.

 

[sealybobo]

The OP assumes the existence and reality of the god the OP believes in out of thousands of gods humans worship.

First provide evidence any god exists and then provide evidence the one you believe in is the only 'real' good and all the other gods are not real and all the other billions of people that don't believe as you do are wrong.


Now let the circular illogic storm begin.

How about the possibility that all gods exist while also not existing?

Provide evidence that isn't true.

You can't defend your beliefs. At least you admit it and that is a start.

Beliefs are beliefs, no need to defend them. You have a problem admitting your faith.

I just heard a great point. I have no problem with someone having faith. But most theists tell us their holy books are divine. They are claiming god visited or sent his son. They have crossed a line you won’t cross. They aren’t telling facts.

 

[sealybobo]

We both have faith

Shameless lie. In no way did he demonstrate faith. You are just doing your little pathetic dance again....the one where, being wholly unable to elevate your magical bullshit out of the murk of bullshit, you can only call everyone else's determinations "faith". Only on this way can you fool yourself into not realizing the qualitative differences between your magical bullshit and evidence-based thought.

I have faith in logic and reason and evidence

 

[MaryL]

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.

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

 

[sealybobo]

The OP assumes the existence and reality of the god the OP believes in out of thousands of gods humans worship.

First provide evidence any god exists and then provide evidence the one you believe in is the only 'real' good and all the other gods are not real and all the other billions of people that don't believe as you do are wrong.


Now let the circular illogic storm begin.

How about the possibility that all gods exist while also not existing?

Provide evidence that isn't true.

You can't defend your beliefs. At least you admit it and that is a start.

Beliefs are beliefs, no need to defend them. You have a problem admitting your faith.

Right, you believe 'just 'cause'.

Same thing Flat Earthers say and Bigfoot followers. They don't have any evidence either, they just believe. Again fair enough, glad to see someone admit it.

Noooooo... YOU believe in "just because" and I believe in God.

We both have faith.

I just Heard another example of how religion makes you stupid. Hundreds of years ago Arabic people were big into mathematics and science but after they were conquered and taking over and forced to be Muslims they haven’t been very scientific at home for the last few hundred years. However long it’s been. Point is since the time they’ve been forced to be Muslims they have been discouraged from looking into science and math. Arabic people have been held back since Islam was introduced.

25% of Nobel winners are Jews and only .05 have been Muslim even though Muslims way out number the Jews.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It’s a childish understanding of the universe. Or uneducated or primitive explanation.

And honestly I love the debate. I just don’t like Muslims Christians or Jews pointing to their holy books as evidence they have knowledge about this god. No they don’t.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have faith in logic and reason and evidence

No you don't, you have reason to trust those things, and only when they earn it. You would not believe anything just because I labeled it "logic" or "evidence". So no, you are not employing faith in those things.

 

[Boss]

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It's not vapid or pointless. It's tautological. Unless something is eternal (beyond the bounds of time), then it must have been created if it exists. So, either physical things exist and were created or they are eternal. IF they are eternal, that defines divinity. Then, the physical universe is God. IF not eternal, physical things require creation, if they exist.

God is not a physical thing, so demanding explanation for God's creation is not relevant.

 

[sealybobo]

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It's not vapid or pointless. It's tautological. Unless something is eternal (beyond the bounds of time), then it must have been created if it exists. So, either physical things exist and were created or they are eternal. IF they are eternal, that defines divinity. Then, the physical universe is God. IF not eternal, physical things require creation, if they exist.

God is not a physical thing, so demanding explanation for God's creation is not relevant.

And you admit no religions holy book is the divine word of this god right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It's not vapid or pointless. It's tautological. Unless something is eternal (beyond the bounds of time), then it must have been created if it exists. So, either physical things exist and were created or they are eternal. IF they are eternal, that defines divinity. Then, the physical universe is God. IF not eternal, physical things require creation, if they exist.

God is not a physical thing, so demanding explanation for God's creation is not relevant.

It's not only vapid and pointless, it's circular. "Everything needs a creator; therefore everything was created."

Oh, and the hilarious hedge: "If they weren't created, then they are God. How do we know? God was not created, and everything else was."

Two circular arguments... It's hard to tell which is more vapid and pointless than the other!

 

[sealybobo]

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It's not vapid or pointless. It's tautological. Unless something is eternal (beyond the bounds of time), then it must have been created if it exists. So, either physical things exist and were created or they are eternal. IF they are eternal, that defines divinity. Then, the physical universe is God. IF not eternal, physical things require creation, if they exist.

God is not a physical thing, so demanding explanation for God's creation is not relevant.

It's not only vapid and pointless, it's circular. "Everything needs a creator; therefore everything was created."

Oh, and the hilarious hedge: "If they weren't created, then they are God. How do we know? God was not created, and everything else was."

Two circular arguments... It's hard to tell which is more vapid and pointless than the other!

I don’t have a problem thanking the creator of the universe for creating me. That’s it though. I’ll try to be good

 

[MaryL]

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It's not vapid or pointless. It's tautological. Unless something is eternal (beyond the bounds of time), then it must have been created if it exists. So, either physical things exist and were created or they are eternal. IF they are eternal, that defines divinity. Then, the physical universe is God. IF not eternal, physical things require creation, if they exist.

God is not a physical thing, so demanding explanation for God's creation is not relevant.

If god is the master creator, God's existence hinges on creation, why can't we question were god came from, then? Perhaps the universe always existed and never needed a creator...

 

[MaryL]

I don't have a problem with the existence of a GOD, it's people's imaginary artificial fictional dogmatic interpretations of GOD I have a problem with. Religion is made by man. If god is real, well, it seems moot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If god is the master creator, God's existence hinges on creation, why can't we question were god came from, then? Perhaps the universe always existed and never needed a creator...

Or, perhaps God is the ultimate "nothingburger" idea. It literally makes no difference whatsoever in how we understand anything to say, "There is a god". It explains exactly nothing. It provides no useful predictions, and it does not inform us on any choices. Do you want to say there is a creator? Fine by me. You can point at anything and say, "God did it!". Doing so has no effect on anything at all, and it will certainly not inform the actions of those tasked with coming up with actual explanations for things. So, it not only has no usefulness whatsoever, it also, thankfully, doesn't actually get in anyone's way!

Say there is a god, or don't. This simple principle, by itself, makes no difference at all. Now, religious dogma? People pretending to know not only that God exists, but what he's all about? Now THAT makes a difference.

 

[Boss]

No I can't wrap my mind around it. You're saying unless a god put the moon just right and wiped out the dinosaurs for us INTENTIONALLY that it would be impossible otherwise for intelligent life to exist. I think this is ignorant to think that it doesn't just happen naturally especially when it's looking more and more like life used to be on Mars and Venue and there may even be living things in Europa.

Bottom line is we know so little about other stars and the history of other planets even within our own solar system that it is foolish to conclude that it doesn't happen elsewhere. And to think that it can only happen if a god does it? I don't even know what to say to that. Again here is where you think a god POOFed things into the way they are. Just nonsense. Do you want me to take this seriously? I can't. Because what you are saying is you believe life on earth could only have happened it god made it happen. You can't even prove this god exists and here you are giving it credit for how life formed on earth?

Of course then he isn't perfect....

Before we get into whether a spiritual energy force is (by your definition) "perfect" we need to unpack what you have stated thus far. First of all, I've not said there is no living thing elsewhere in our universe. No conclusion has been made on my part, yet you continue to insist this is my argument. I really wish you'd pay attention but I fear it's a mental condition you suffer from. So, I'll just keep repeating myself to correct you every time you misstate something I've said.

As for life on Mars or Venus, show me the fossils. If you can't provide evidence, then what you have is a faith-based belief, and that's fine but we're going to be honest about that. The truth of the matter is, life on Earth is all the evidence of life we have. There is evidence there COULD be life elsewhere, but we've not discovered it yet. Until we do, it is a faith-based belief that we MAY.

Finally.... Let's get to this "doesn't happen naturally" statement. I never said life doesn't happen naturally. I maintain that it's the result of something beyond physical nature but that doesn't mean it's not natural. I believe in a spiritual nature that you don't accept. It's as much a part of overall nature as physics and chemistry.

My belief is rooted in logic and reason. Physical nature cannot have created itself. So it either always existed, making it the very definition of divinity (God), or something outside of physical nature created it (God). Or.... there is the possibility that nothing exists and reality is an illusion. But IF something does exist in reality, then something ultimately "POOFED" it into existence.

Now... I don't know how life would work on another planetary body because we've never found any to study. All I can go by is how life works here on Earth. Best I can tell, there are very intricate and detailed systems of life with cycles and symbiotic relationships with other life, etc. Biogenesis remains true, life comes from life. Evolution happens but it also relies on significant cycles, seasons, tides, atmospheric pressure, electromagnetic field, gravitational force, etc. Take those parameters away and there is no evidence evolution could happen or that life could even survive.

 

[Boss]

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It's not vapid or pointless. It's tautological. Unless something is eternal (beyond the bounds of time), then it must have been created if it exists. So, either physical things exist and were created or they are eternal. IF they are eternal, that defines divinity. Then, the physical universe is God. IF not eternal, physical things require creation, if they exist.

God is not a physical thing, so demanding explanation for God's creation is not relevant.

It's not only vapid and pointless, it's circular. "Everything needs a creator; therefore everything was created."

Oh, and the hilarious hedge: "If they weren't created, then they are God. How do we know? God was not created, and everything else was."

Two circular arguments... It's hard to tell which is more vapid and pointless than the other!

Well, because most of us understand English.

"CREATE" literally means "to bring into an existent state of being." This means, in the context we are talking, a PHYSICAL state. God is NOT physical. There is no "circular argument" here, it's just a term that doesn't apply to God. We all 100% agree that God is not physical.

"DIVINITY" literally means "the property or state of being a deity or godlike entity." This means, if physical nature is eternal and always existed, it is itself, in a godlike state. Therefore, the physical universe becomes God.

 

[MaryL]

If god is the master creator, God's existence hinges on creation, why can't we question were god came from, then? Perhaps the universe always existed and never needed a creator...

Or, perhaps God is the ultimate "nothingburger" idea. It literally makes no difference whatsoever in how we understand anything to say, "There is a god". It explains exactly nothing. It provides no useful predictions, and it does not inform us on any choices. Do you want to say there is a creator? Fine by me. You can point at anything and say, "God did it!". Doing so has no effect on anything at all, and it will certainly not inform the actions of those tasked with coming up with actual explanations for things. So, it not only has no usefulness whatsoever, it also, thankfully, doesn't actually get in anyone's way!

Say there is a god, or don't. This simple principle, by itself, makes no difference at all. Now, religious dogma? People pretending to know not only that God exists, but what he's all about? Now THAT makes a difference.

Well, the thing is, god's existence IS ambiguous at best. And to base the moral certainty of any religion on the intimate knowledge on such shaky ground, undermines religion, yes?

 

[cnm]

Alien Life? You better hope God exists!

I'd imagine the aliens would be pissed off god chose a bronze age tribe of earthmen over them.

 

[Boss]

And you admit no religions holy book is the divine word of this god right?

Do you mean, is this my personal belief? Because, I honestly don't know if that is true or not. It's not my personal belief but I keep an open mind that I could be wrong.