Aliens, yay or nay?

[HempKat]

The same applies to God , that`s why i think there may be more chance of alien life existing that a massive fairy tale billions believe in .

Especially when that fairytale very easily could have been the way ancient man interpreted an alien visitation. I'm not saying it is just that it easily could have been given how much less man knew about the nature of the world around him back then. That and man has a history of explaining the unknown with religion.

 

[bombadil.360]

the whole argument of "it was not God, it was Aliens", is a classic 'sock-puppet' argument, and it answers nothing at all.

all you do is simply shift the question of "whence humanity" to "whence aliens".

pretty silly.

whether there are aliens or not, or whether we are some sort of alien experiment, has no relation to whether or not there is or there is not an Original Creator of all.

a question, which btw, is not allowed to be discussed in the forums for obvious reasons, mainly people's lack of ability to conduct themselves civilly.

 

[igrowone]

the whole argument of "it was not God, it was Aliens", is a classic 'sock-puppet' argument, and it answers nothing at all.
...

i would agree partly with that, but there is a difference
god is an extra-physical explanation
aliens are at least a plausible physical explanation

 

[bombadil.360]

i would agree partly with that, but there is a difference
god is an extra-physical explanation
aliens are at least a plausible physical explanation

ok, lets suppose since aliens are more plausible of an explanation due to their materiality; then we have to suppose that said aliens were also the creation of other physical aliens and like this ad-infinitum.

still a sock puppet argument.

not for nothing does philosophy tries to explain 'whence movement' without making the sock-puppet fallacy, i.e: Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, or Plotinus' Transcendent and Immanent One, etc... etc...

back on to the topic: tried watching the documentary again, but cannot find it... first time I watched it free on youtube, and now it's gone... copyright infringement possibly.

peace

 

[HempKat]

ok, lets suppose since aliens are more plausible of an explanation due to their materiality; then we have to suppose that said aliens were also the creation of other physical aliens and like this ad-infinitum.

still a sock puppet argument.

not for nothing does philosophy tries to explain 'whence movement' without making the sock-puppet fallacy, i.e: Aristotle's Unmoved Mover, or Plotinus' Transcendent and Immanent One, etc... etc...

back on to the topic: tried watching the documentary again, but cannot find it... first time I watched it free on youtube, and now it's gone... copyright infringement possibly.

peace

You get the same thing no matter who the creator is, if you try to say that one source did all the creating whether it be God, aliens or what have you, because it will always beg the question of who created the creator. So to say God is the creator of all would be just as much of a sock puppet argument then as you suggest aliens are. Why is it so hard to believe that God created beings that then went on to create other beings? We ourselves are on the verge of being able to do it ourselves and the only thing holding us back is the moral quandary of stepping on God's toes.

 

[bombadil.360]

You get the same thing no matter who the creator is, if you try to say that one source did all the creating whether it be God, aliens or what have you, because it will always beg the question of who created the creator. So to say God is the creator of all would be just as much of a sock puppet argument then as you suggest aliens are. Why is it so hard to believe that God created beings that then went on to create other beings? We ourselves are on the verge of being able to do it ourselves and the only thing holding us back is the moral quandary of stepping on God's toes.

philosophically speaking, it does not beg any such question at all.

as the 'attributes' of 'begininglessness' or 'that it has always been' does not beg the question of who created God.

not only philosophically but also theologically speaking.

this is way off topic though... but the info is available to anyone interested in studying the whole issue of what exactly is God through classic philosophy.

peace

 

[Anti]

philosophically speaking, it does not beg any such question at all.

as the 'attributes' of 'begininglessness' or 'that it has always been' does not beg the question of who created God.

Any reasonable hypothesis that includes God should go looking for evidence of said god and present such evidence to the world for peer review.

This goes for aliens as well.

 

[bombadil.360]

Any reasonable hypothesis that includes God should go looking for evidence of said god and present such evidence to the world for peer review.

This goes for aliens as well.

Anti, can you imagine the likes of Plotinus going around with a microscope, a doctor's white robe and a little note book, to gather empirical evidence for his conclusions in the Eneads? lol...

 

[SooperSmurph]

Mathematicians and Astrophysicists often look at the patterns that take hold in their relatively sterile / static fields of study as fleeting evidence as to the created nature of at least this reality.

Investigations are underway trying to use large scale images of space to determine whether or not we in fact live within a simulated reality, it was discussed last season on "Beyond the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman", his soothing voice made the possibility no less disturbing.

"Creator" doesn't have to mean "Myth".

 

[DrFever]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g44UuRp7D-g

 

[Anti]

I never suggested that creator = myth. I did ask for evidence of said creator, though.

 

[guineapig]

The alien EBE said that humans are the containers.

When you die, your soul is beamed to a facility on the dark side of the moon, where it is
collected and prepared for transmission across the universe to another planet.

This was claimed by Bill Cooper in his book "Behold A Pale Horse," you can youtube his
lectures and decide for yourself. He claims inner knowledge of government secrets, of
course, as do many UFO researchers.

kind regards from guineapig

 

[igrowone]

ok, lets suppose since aliens are more plausible of an explanation due to their materiality; then we have to suppose that said aliens were also the creation of other physical aliens and like this ad-infinitum.

still a sock puppet argument.
...

this is the extreme case where you simply substitute aliens for god
we can have 'first' aliens which evolved in some period of time before us
and not only are at a vastly higher level in the sciences, but have made progress in directions we might call religion/spirituality
i'm not trying to state there is compelling proof of this, but this thread is for conjectures

 

[SooperSmurph]

But that's simply a segway into asking how the first life came to be, something cannot be made from a literal nothing.

Even if you're coming from a purely naturalist point of view regarding the formation of life in the universe, you're left with a grander mystery than determining the origins of a single species, you need to investigate whether or not reality itself is conducive to the formation of life (matter + energy + time = life?), and if so why, leading you back to the possibility of answers which have no place in a naturalist pov. If it isn't, you're right back where we are now, wondering how something that shouldn't have happened resulted in me being here to consider it.

Instead of trying to manipulate, control, or mythologize the spirit, we can simply accept it like we do our with the gift of our intellect, and try to use these gifts in a balanced way to bring our species forward, progress with no philosophy eventually chokes on its own growth, and tradition with no dynamism stagnates inevitably into corruption.

 

[igrowone]

But that's simply a segway into asking how the first life came to be, something cannot be made from a literal nothing.

...

currently, the evidence is that things do come from nothing, at least once anyways
our universe seems to have sprang from nothing, i.e. big bang
life on Earth arose from chemical processes, or so the fossil record seems to show
the big bang origins though are quite murky, perhaps they will always be

 

[Suspect]

Just out of curiousity, how many of you are familiar with or have read The Law of One?

13.5 Questioner: Thank you. Can you tell me of the earliest, first known thing in the creation?
Ra: I am Ra. The first known thing in the creation is infinity. The infinity is creation.
13.6 Questioner: From this infinity then must come what we experience as creation. What was the next step or the next evolvement?
Ra: I am Ra. Infinity became aware. This was the next step.
13.7 Questioner: After this, what happened?
Ra: Awareness led to the focus of infinity into infinite energy. You have called this by various vibrational sound complexes, the most common to your ears being “Logos” or “Love.” The Creator is the focusing of infinity as an aware or conscious principle called by us as closely as we can create understanding/learning in your language, intelligent infinity.
13.8 Questioner: Can you state the next step?
Ra: The next step is still at this space/time nexus in your illusion achieving its progression as you may see it in your illusion. The next step is an infinite reaction to the creative principle following the Law of One in one of its primal distortions, freedom of will. Thus many, many dimensions, infinite in number, are possible. The energy moves from the intelligent infinity due first to the outpouring of randomized creative force, this then creating patterns which in holographic style appear as the entire creation no matter which direction or energy is explored. These patterns of energy begin then to regularize their own local, shall we say, rhythms and fields of energy, thus creating dimensions and universes.
13.9 Questioner: Then can you tell me how [the] galaxy and this planetary system were formed?
Ra: I am Ra. You must imagine a great leap of thought in this query, for at the last query the physical, as you call, it, universes were not yet born.

The energies moved in increasingly intelligent patterns until the individualization of various energies emanating from the creative principle of intelligent infinity became such as to be co-Creators. Thus the so-called physical matter began. The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was called by the creative principle.

This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies, and planets, all revolving and tending towards the lenticular.

 

[SooperSmurph]

currently, the evidence is that things do come from nothing, at least once anyways
our universe seems to have sprang from nothing, i.e. big bang
life on Earth arose from chemical processes, or so the fossil record seems to show
the big bang origins though are quite murky, perhaps they will always be

The Big Bang is kinda the opposite of the universe coming from "nothing".

Current Big Bang theories describe the thing that birthed our universe as everything from an infinitely dense ball of matter to a "jumbled mass of chaotic energies which existed in a constant state of flux that did not allow matter or stable energy forms to take shape" in the words of Stephen Hawking, hardly "nothingness".

Rather than thinking of a "God" as something that directed this process, instead perhaps "God" is the essence that came before which sacrificed itself in a grand cataclysm (the big bang) to give birth to something vast and wonderful (our universe), leaving us with a creator but nothing to watch over us.

"And when the creator looked at us, we felt not the fondness of a parent for its child, merely fleeting approval drowning in the need to create anew." - Star Maker

That which creates, creates, demanding that it fit our expectations, guide us, love us, prove itself to us, etc, would be entirely in our nature as a creation seeking out the approval of that which made it, but it's ultimately illogical, just us foisting imaginary obligations on a being / concept that does not or cannot consider our demands.

And how life arose on Earth is still quite a mystery, vats of chemicals simulating the primordial ooze have bubbled away under all sorts of stimuli in labs, but none have churned out new life, some simple proteins, sure, but nothing even close to telling us how the primordial hell of volcanoes and poison gases that was ancient Earth first created life, and then nurtured it (processes which require very different conditions) into an evolved form.

So, long story short, something really doesn't come from nothing.

 

[HempKat]

philosophically speaking, it does not beg any such question at all.

as the 'attributes' of 'begininglessness' or 'that it has always been' does not beg the question of who created God.

not only philosophically but also theologically speaking.

this is way off topic though... but the info is available to anyone interested in studying the whole issue of what exactly is God through classic philosophy.

peace

Sure it does, if you say one thing created everything then the next question is who created the creator because it's not rational to say the creator created itself. Even though it's a mix up of Bible scripture the average Christian who believes in creation thinks there was a point where there was nothing and then came the word and the word was God and then from that point on God created everything. Aside from that the Bible casts God as the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end which does not fit with the notion of an eternal being that just always was. So to say God just always was is not an argument that many accept or agree with. In fact I bet most see it as just an easy way to avoid the debate rather then trying to reason thru it based on what's considered accepted knowledge of God.

Nor do I see how this is off topic since many feel there are biblical references to Aliens and I'm pretty sure even you yourself talked about ancient artistic images of god like beings that might be interpreted as aliens.

Think about it too, given where we came from, if we decided to just go crazy with genetic manipulation and we got as far as being able to create a new sentient life form optimized to live in an environment we terraform on another planet. We then install this new life form on this terraformed planet. We would likely also create some sort of deity mythology for them to form a religion around seeing as how having a clear origin and purpose for being and why things are the way they are is so important to us. So to suggest we might be the result of an alien experiment and the whole notion of God was just some story we were given or we came up with to give us a sense of being and purpose (which is what I suggested) Is perfectly in line with this topic.

 

[igrowone]

The Big Bang is kinda the opposite of the universe coming from "nothing".

Current Big Bang theories describe the thing that birthed our universe as everything from an infinitely dense ball of matter to a "jumbled mass of chaotic energies which existed in a constant state of flux that did not allow matter or stable energy forms to take shape" in the words of Stephen Hawking, hardly "nothingness".

Rather than thinking of a "God" as something that directed this process, instead perhaps "God" is the essence that came before which sacrificed itself in a grand cataclysm (the big bang) to give birth to something vast and wonderful (our universe), leaving us with a creator but nothing to watch over us.

"And when the creator looked at us, we felt not the fondness of a parent for its child, merely fleeting approval drowning in the need to create anew." - Star Maker

That which creates, creates, demanding that it fit our expectations, guide us, love us, prove itself to us, etc, would be entirely in our nature as a creation seeking out the approval of that which made it, but it's ultimately illogical, just us foisting imaginary obligations on a being / concept that does not or cannot consider our demands.

And how life arose on Earth is still quite a mystery, vats of chemicals simulating the primordial ooze have bubbled away under all sorts of stimuli in labs, but none have churned out new life, some simple proteins, sure, but nothing even close to telling us how the primordial hell of volcanoes and poison gases that was ancient Earth first created life, and then nurtured it (processes which require very different conditions) into an evolved form.

So, long story short, something really doesn't come from nothing.

as far as something from nothing, the terms are not terribly precise
it's more metaphor than science, for what is nothing?
is empty space nothing? no, i think many would agree that space is something
big bang theories are mostly just that, long on theory, short on data
but it's a hell of a topic to discuss
now with life, we know more, i.e. there is more data
the commonality of genetics is remarkable with some very diverse life forms
but the recent kicker are some of the artificial 'lifes' that have been created
i believe a version of the polio virus was made from scratch so to speak
and there has been an artificial bacterium
a bacteria was gutted of it insides, just preserving the cell wall? something like that
and new genetics were inserted, and life was created, almost, not completely, but a huge step

 

[SooperSmurph]

But, how does life come from inert matter?

You're talking about evolution or modification of existing life.

No scientist or lab has yet given us compelling evidence for spontaneous biogenesis, if i'm wrong please give me a link, but as far as I know, every attempt to create simple cells starting with the building blocks available on ancient earth has failed.

A satisfactory scenario for spontaneous biogenesis requires the generation of “complexity” not “order”. Previous calculations based on simple combinatorial analysis over estimate the number of sequences by a factor of 105. The number of cytochrome c sequences is about 3·8 × 1061. The probability of selecting one such sequence at random is about 2·1 ×10−65. The primitive milieu will contain a racemic mixture of the biological amino acids and also many analogues and non-biological amino acids. Taking into account only the effect of the racemic mixture the longest genome which could be expected with 95 % confidence in 109 years corresponds to only 49 amino acid residues. This is much too short to code a living system so evolution to higher forms could not get started. Geological evidence for the “warm little pond” is missing. It is concluded that belief in currently accepted scenarios of spontaneous biogenesis is based on faith, contrary to conventional wisdom.

There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.