If you're an atheist should you not at least believe in aliens?

[Cerpin Taxt]

I think a fundamental discrepancy in a debate like this centers around the supposedly objective distinction between "life" and "non-life."

When people ordinarily conceptualize "alien life," they automatically project upon it our own usual terrestrial concepts of what "life" is as opposed to "non-life."

The fact is that "life" is not materially different from "non-life." Life is a pattern exhibited by particular configurations of matter, but a pattern is just an abstraction. It is a category that people have created in their minds in order to compartmentalize their experience.

There may be patterns of matter out their capable of consciousness that we would never recognize as such. For that matter, there may be patterns of matter on our own planet capable of consciousness that we will never recognize as such.

If the question is, "will we find 'life' on another planet that resembles terrestrial life," my answer is maybe, but improbably. If you ask me, "are there conscious entities in our ordinary experience to which we do not attribute consciousness," I would say yes, but I would not purport to have sufficient evidence to convince a skeptic, or "proof," as it were.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, at least you're slowly learning to quit before making yourself seem completely retarded.

Some arguments are not worth making...especially those that essentially invalidate themselves.

Originally posted by: BD2003
There was a meteor from mars that fell back on earth a few years ago that *may* have had microbial fossils. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shread of possible evidence.

Sorry, too much irony for me to leave it at that, I promise, after this, I'm done!

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
Well, at least you're slowly learning to quit before making yourself seem completely retarded.

Some arguments are not worth making...especially those that essentially invalidate themselves.

Originally posted by: BD2003
There was a meteor from mars that fell back on earth a few years ago that *may* have had microbial fossils. Impossible to determine for sure, but it's a shread of possible evidence.

Sorry, too much irony for me to leave it at that, I promise, after this, I'm done!

lol, nice try.

That doesnt invalidate itself. It's just mentioning how there is possible circumstantial evidence for life elsewhere, and not enough other evidence to corroborate it. It's filed away and waiting for other meteors to drop, or for us to go to mars and look for ourselves.

Whereas the statement

It is a man who claims that these rocks may be proof of alien life.

Is arguing that a man's judgement of something is not adequate for proof or evidence, but the statement itself was made by a man, therefore by it's own logic, completely invalidates itself.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: BD2003
stuff

impossible = possible

Got it. I'll try to remember that next time. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: randay

Originally posted by: BD2003
stuff

impossible = possible

Got it. I'll try to remember that next time. Thanks for letting me know.

Now you're resorting to conjuring up fake posts and posting nonsense?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Vic, I only skimmed the thread, but are you suggesting that thinking "it is likely that bacteria exist elsewhere" and "it is unlikely that god exists" contradict each other?

Only insofar as we have zero proof for either. Likelihood thus becomes a moot point, all arguments of likely or unlikely being nothing more than conjecture.


If you think about it, believing in even microbial alien life is pretty comparable to believe in intelligent design.

Not really, even if you lack proof, you can still consider things and thier likelihood.

Example: Two poeple come up to you, one says "there is a cat at cooridate 50°45'65' 12 6°34'1' right now" and the other says "there is a pink elephant at coordinate 50°45'65' 12 6°34'1' right now". Strictly speaking you have no proof, nor a way to prove it, so any official view should be "I don't know", and despite this, you certainly can tell which one is the likelier of the two.

The probmem is that you think all conjectures are created equal, which is most certainly not the case at all.

Hey man, whatever props your faith up. Just doing real science a favor and don't claim that your faith is based on science, cause it ain't.

 

[huberm]

I didn't really read the entire post, but do any of you believe in ghosts?

I am not an atheist but I believe in ghosts (sort of).

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Vic
Thank you for proving that the believing in aliens and God requires the exact same circular logic.
We exist, so aliens must exist.
-or-
We exist, so God must exist because he created us.

It. is. the. same.

Wow... weak logic there. The second is based on a belief in a "magical" being, the first just requires belief that life similar to what we know exists exists elsewhere. Not. The. Same.

Really? And how are aliens, flitting through the sky in their faster-than-light flying saucers, any less "magical" than God?

Vic, to clarify 'our' argument. By life I meant at a minimum biological processes occuring with the general scientific definition of 'life'. I am in no way equating that to intelligent life forms with ability to reach this planet being here or contacting us. I do agree that people who believe that (without facts) are using the same 'faith' that others use in God to account for their beliefs. I *really* hope you see the difference between what I argued to you and the above.

Would finding something like a volcanic tube worm on a moon of Saturn really surprise me? No. Finding grey's and Elvis in a secret moon base? Yes

Well (and to clarify something I posted earlier), you have to think about the ramifications that discovering even the most basic form of alien life would have on science as we know it. Currently, evolution tells us that life on earth evolved independently (and that's real science BTW). If we were to find recognizable life on an alien planet, that basic premise of evolutionary theory would fly out the window. Questions like, did life evolve separately on the 2 planets, or did the chicken come before the egg (did life evolve on one and then spread through space to the other), etc. would have to be brought up.
Current science simply does not support the notion of alien life. It is in the category of "God," i.e. possible, but unlikely and (most importantly) unnecessary.

 

[bsobel]

Well (and to clarify something I posted earlier), you have to think about the ramifications that discovering even the most basic form of alien life would have on science as we know it. Currently, evolution tells us that life on earth evolved independently (and that's real science BTW). If we were to find recognizable life on an alien planet, that basic premise of evolutionary theory would fly out the window. Questions like, did life evolve separately on the 2 planets, or did the chicken come before the egg (did life evolve on one and then spread through space to the other), etc. would have to be brought up.
Current science simply does not support the notion of alien life. It is in the category of "God," i.e. possible, but unlikely and (most importantly) unnecessary.

That is simply incorrect. Nothing in evolution theory prevents life from occuring in multiple places in an unrelated fashion. Also, many scientists have not dismissed the seeding theory (which you are correct, leads you into a chicken and egg problem). But in either case, nothing precludes both theories as you suggest nor does it discount it as unlikely. Unncessary to our existance sure (cept for the seeding theorist), but irrelevant for the argument your making.

 

[Soybomb]

Originally posted by: huberm
I didn't really read the entire post, but do any of you believe in ghosts?

I am not an atheist but I believe in ghosts (sort of).

Sorry no ghosts, witches, fairies, unicorns, leprechauns, invisible pink elephants, or anything else here.

 

[bsobel]

Vic. One more note. One other difference is the ability for us to scientifially answer the question. We could perform an exaustive search of all the planets we can reach in the universe (given time, don't expect me to have this done next week ). So in theory we can answer the question. However, we can not perform the same search for 'god' (and it would be irrelevant), as no conidtions for the 'detection' of god can be provided.

You may feel both are unlikely. But scientifically they are different as one is 'proveable' and one is not.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic
Well (and to clarify something I posted earlier), you have to think about the ramifications that discovering even the most basic form of alien life would have on science as we know it.
Not at all, Vic, evolution has been proven.
Currently, evolution tells us that life on earth evolved independently (and that's real science BTW).
Yes and no - yes, it's science, but it's abiogenesis, a theory completely independent of evolution
If we were to find recognizable life on an alien planet, that basic premise of evolutionary theory would fly out the window.
not at all, again, abiogenesis would be a little weaker, that's it.

Questions like, did life evolve separately on the 2 planets, or did the chicken come before the egg (did life evolve on one and then spread through space to the other), etc. would have to be brought up.
this is true
Current science simply does not support the notion of alien life. It is in the category of "God," i.e. possible, but unlikely and (most importantly) unnecessary.
your conclusion doesn't follow at all from the facts you've presented. If life could evolve here, why would it be any less likely to evolve in similar conditions somewhere else? All extraterrestrial life would do is make hypotheses about interplanetary seeding more interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Vic. One more note. One other difference is the ability for us to scientifially answer the question. We could perform an exaustive search of all the planets we can reach in the universe (given time, don't expect me to have this done next week ). So in theory we can answer the question. However, we can not perform the same search for 'god' (and it would be irrelevant), as no conidtions for the 'detection' of god can be provided.

You may feel both are unlikely. But scientifically they are different as one is 'proveable' and one is not.

IMO the likelihood of actually proving the existence of alien life, given the vastness of space and limitations of speed, are as great as shaking the hand of every person on earth. A P=NP problem does not meet the definition of provable, not even in theory.

Plus, when discussing God and alien life, it helps IMO to realize that many religions consider those to be the same thing. Got your Bible handy? Read Ezekiel 1.

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Vic
Well (and to clarify something I posted earlier), you have to think about the ramifications that discovering even the most basic form of alien life would have on science as we know it. Currently, evolution tells us that life on earth evolved independently (and that's real science BTW). If we were to find recognizable life on an alien planet, that basic premise of evolutionary theory would fly out the window. Questions like, did life evolve separately on the 2 planets, or did the chicken come before the egg (did life evolve on one and then spread through space to the other), etc. would have to be brought up.
Current science simply does not support the notion of alien life. It is in the category of "God," i.e. possible, but unlikely and (most importantly) unnecessary.

WTF? Current science doesn't support the notion of alien life? How the hell do you figure that? Since when did science say life could only be on this planet? You seem to be confusing two different subjects. The debate over whether life evolved independently here or was "seeded" from elsewhere has nothing to do with the basic evolution. The "seed" would have had to have evolved somewhere either way. And none of this has anything to do with the likelyhood that a god exists.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Vic
Well (and to clarify something I posted earlier), you have to think about the ramifications that discovering even the most basic form of alien life would have on science as we know it.
Not at all, Vic, evolution has been proven.
Currently, evolution tells us that life on earth evolved independently (and that's real science BTW).
Yes and no - yes, it's science, but it's abiogenesis, a theory completely independent of evolution
If we were to find recognizable life on an alien planet, that basic premise of evolutionary theory would fly out the window.
not at all, again, abiogenesis would be a little weaker, that's it.

Questions like, did life evolve separately on the 2 planets, or did the chicken come before the egg (did life evolve on one and then spread through space to the other), etc. would have to be brought up.
this is true
Current science simply does not support the notion of alien life. It is in the category of "God," i.e. possible, but unlikely and (most importantly) unnecessary.
your conclusion doesn't follow at all from the facts you've presented. If life could evolve here, why would it be any less likely to evolve in similar conditions somewhere else? All extraterrestrial life would do is make hypotheses about interplanetary seeding more interesting. Nothing more, nothing less.

- Evolution is not proven, it is observed. There is a difference. It's comparable to gravity. We don't know why or how gravity works, therefore it is not proven, but it is observable.
- I clearly said evolution, not abiogenesis, and I do understand the difference between the 2.
- What part about the word UNNECESSARY do you and Thraxen not understand?

 

[bsobel]

IMO the likelihood of actually proving the existence of alien life, given the vastness of space and limitations of speed, are as great as shaking the hand of every person on earth. A P=NP problem does not meet the definition of provable, not even in theory.

We are an invasive species. Given enough time and no opposition (and barring any extincition level events before we get off this rock) we will explore all planets. Its simply mathmetically once you start

Plus, when discussing God and alien life, it helps IMO to realize that many religions consider those to be the same thing. Got your Bible handy? Read Ezekiel 1.

Your changing the debate. Happy to have this discussion with you in another thread (my personal view is much of what is written in these quasi-historic texts can be explained by intelligent non-earth life). Especially when you account for angels, the fight between yahwea and lucifer, etc. Burning bush but without fire or smoke? Yea, it's called a lightbulb. But this is all irrelevent for this discussion where god is defined as the christiain omni-potent which exists outside of our laws of science.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bsobel
Vic. One more note. One other difference is the ability for us to scientifially answer the question. We could perform an exaustive search of all the planets we can reach in the universe (given time, don't expect me to have this done next week ). So in theory we can answer the question. However, we can not perform the same search for 'god' (and it would be irrelevant), as no conidtions for the 'detection' of god can be provided.

You may feel both are unlikely. But scientifically they are different as one is 'proveable' and one is not.

IMO the likelihood of actually proving the existence of alien life, given the vastness of space and limitations of speed, are as great as shaking the hand of every person on earth. A P=NP problem does not meet the definition of provable, not even in theory.

Plus, when discussing God and alien life, it helps IMO to realize that many religions consider those to be the same thing. Got your Bible handy? Read Ezekiel 1.

You're right there, knowing what we know today, unless we get REALLY lucky and find out that there's life in the neighborhood (I.E. within a few dozen lightyears).

HOWEVER, within a century, we may be able to build a Von Neumann probe and know for certain within a million years weather or not there is life in the milky way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_probe

Not fast, but it's conceivable that human civilization could go on that long.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bsobel

IMO the likelihood of actually proving the existence of alien life, given the vastness of space and limitations of speed, are as great as shaking the hand of every person on earth. A P=NP problem does not meet the definition of provable, not even in theory.

We are an invasive species. Given enough time and no opposition (and barring any extincition level events before we get off this rock) we will explore all planets. Its simply mathmetically once you start

Plus, when discussing God and alien life, it helps IMO to realize that many religions consider those to be the same thing. Got your Bible handy? Read Ezekiel 1.

Your changing the debate. Happy to have this discussion with you in another thread (my personal view is much of what is written in these quasi-historic texts can be explained by intelligent non-earth life). Especially when you account for angels, the fight between yahwea and lucifer, etc. Burning bush but without fire or smoke? Yea, it's called a lightbulb. But this is all irrelevent for this discussion where god is defined as the christiain omni-potent which exists outside of our laws of science.

- It will never be possible to explore every planet in the universe, especially when one considers that the rate of the universe's acceleration means that eventually the universe is going to start moving away from itself at speeds greater than that of light. P=NP doesn't even need to enter there. But when it does, you hit the brick wall of the life cycles of star and planets, ad naseum.

- You might say that I am changing the debate, but I would say you are engaging in straw man. If you wish to pigeonhole the idea of God in such a way, then I will insist that aliens be defined as grays flitting around in their faster-than-light saucers who anally-probe Bush and Cheney at Area 51 with Elvis and the 2nd shooter.

 

[randay]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Your changing the debate. Happy to have this discussion with you in another thread (my personal view is much of what is written in these quasi-historic texts can be explained by intelligent non-earth life). Especially when you account for angels, the fight between yahwea and lucifer, etc. Burning bush but without fire or smoke? Yea, it's called a lightbulb. But this is all irrelevent for this discussion where god is defined as the christiain omni-potent which exists outside of our laws of science.

oh. my. god.

 

[Kev]

Gravity isn't proven?

Here's an experiment for you:

Ready?




Still with me?




Here goes....








Jump

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Kev
Gravity isn't proven?

Here's an experiment for you:

Ready?




Still with me?




Here goes....








Jump

Excellent observation. Now how did it happen?

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Kev
Gravity isn't proven?

He's confusing "proving" with understanding how something works. I had the same thought when I read his post, but I didn't bother to respond. This debate is pretty ludicrous to begin with.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Kev
Gravity isn't proven?

Here's an experiment for you:

Ready?




Still with me?




Here goes....








Jump

Excellent observation. Now how did it happen?

So, you don't accept science on any level?

 

[bsobel]

- It will never be possible to explore every planet in the universe, especially when one considers that the rate of the universe's acceleration means that eventually the universe is going to start moving away from itself at speeds greater than that of light. P=NP doesn't even need to enter there. But when it does, you hit the brick wall of the life cycles of star and planets, ad naseum.

Fair enough, I will have to change that statement to 'observable universe'. However I dod suspect we will find life long before we get our of the milky way. Do I believe that, no, waiting for it to happen. Will it surprise me? Based on our understanding of science, not at all.

You might say that I am changing the debate, but I would say you are engaging in straw man. If you wish to pigeonhole the idea of God in such a way, then I will insist that aliens be defined as grays flitting around in their faster-than-light saucers who anally-probe Bush and Cheney at Area 51 with Elvis and the 2nd shooter.

Tell you what. We've all agreed that 'life' is non earth based life existing 'elsewhere'. Pretty self explanatory. What definition of god would you like to use, as that does change the debate quite a bit. This is the first message were you suggest that you have a problem with defining life as life outside vs the specific greys in faster than light saucers that visit this planet. Totally different discussion than what you were arguing. And (to be fair) much more of a 'belief' discussion than the straight science vs religion discsuion up to that post.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

"Proof," as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. Science works with models -- particularly (to tie into what Vic said), models of our observations.