Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life?

[Mike375]

Proof is only proof when people are using some reasonable system to measure it. As the studies/polls I linked earlier showed, and you agreed, the majority of educated people tend to be nonbelievers. This proves to me that education and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The more educated people get, the less religious they tend to be.

That is 100% certain for "religion" but not so sure with atheism Vs "something out there" I think the percentage of the population that is true atheist is quite low.

You say easy, I say simplistic. The fact that there have been thousands of different religions throughout history, all which were based around what a society treasured/feared, tells me that religion is a man-made concept.

"religion" is a different matter to "something out there". Religions are the man made manifestation of the "something out there". There are even heaps of versions of the same basic religion, Christianity being a good example.

That's still not clear enough. You're going to have to explictly define "well above us". Is it possible that there is alien life out in the universe somewhere that can do things we cannot? I'd wager so. Do I think they use magic to do it? No.

Do you think the speed of light can be exceeded?

To a chemist in 1800 a nuclear reaction would have been superanatural.

Can a very advances species bend or change the laws of nature.

If you get your hands on an original copy of the bible, before it was translated several times and edited on whim, then you could probably find some kernels of truth from a historical perspective.


I think the odds are against that. With so vast a universe/galaxy, I think it would definitely be plausible that there is intelligent life on another planet somewhere.

And who knows, that form of life could have been responsible for the Bible. By that, i don't mean writing the Bible but causing events that led to the Bible being written.

And no, i am not referring to The Chaiots of the Gods. That was full of holes.

 

[Mike375]

If life is all pervasive throughout the Universe at a basic level. The chances of intelligent life are statistically much higher although as stated by the above poster our best calculations still suggest there is only maybe one intelligent life per galaxy. Lots if you count the galaxies but considering our technology completly out of our grasp.

Maybe one day we'll reach them but it would seem far far in our future.

If it turns out to be only one per galaxy then I am grabbing the Bible and going to church to do my confession.

Maybe there is one God per galaxy?

 

[Mike375]

I could list a huge amount of literary works that deliberately ground their storyline on top of a real context. It is a deliberate technique to make their own work of fiction seem more real.

Harry Potter > Private School > Quidditch matches. The private school acts as a bridge to transport you more smoothly to the land of fantasy.

If you think that there must be some divine truth to the Bible because of it's historical setting then I'm afraid you're just being fooled by this technique.

No technique to what I am referring to, just poor detail or detail lost.

As I have posted before, the dinosaurs are a good example. I have followed that subject with great interest all of my life and it changes all the time. But is is reasonable to say if we could go back a 100 million years then the animals we would see would be very reptile looking and with a much larger average size than todays animals. Just the othe day I posted an article from Science Daily where the new thinking is certain small theropods descended from birds, which is the exact opposite of what we have had in the last 30 years or so. But if that is true it does not change the basics of the land a 100 million years ago being rules by reptile like animals.

 

[Mike375]

To answer your question I would say that it is likely there are more technically advanced beings than us somewhere in the universe. But I am sure that they are not supernatural. To our ancestors 200 years ago it would have seemed supernatural that we can watch sporting events in Australia while sitting in our homes in Europe. We all know now that this is not supernatural.

Same response as I posted to Adam.

 

[Rabbie]

Dan-Cat, Thank you for your response. To me you have give a very good explantion of why humans have devised religion as a way of explaining that which we cannot at present explain. However this does not make me accept the idea of a supernatural god.

To clarify my position as regards religion I was brought up as a Christian and I agree with those teachings about loving your neighbour. The stumbling block for me is what I call the divine bit. I cannot believe in a supernatural deity without seeing any evidence at all for this.

 

[Rabbie]

No technique to what I am referring to, just poor detail or detail lost.

As I have posted before, the dinosaurs are a good example. I have followed that subject with great interest all of my life and it changes all the time. But is is reasonable to say if we could go back a 100 million years then the animals we would see would be very reptile looking and with a much larger average size than todays animals.

That's what I would expect as the dinosaur period still had 35 million years to go

 

[Mike375]

This is precisely why I don't understand the standpoint that religion is unfathomably illogical. It's actually very logical if you think about it.

I'll explain.

The human mind demands answers to what it doesn't understand. This is it's natural state. It's why good magicians are so fascinating. How did he do that? The mind MUST know how that tiger disappeared.

And which is why the "something out there" is our default position as opposed to atheists who say religion only exists because a child is taught.

In absence of knowledge of modern science the mind naturally forms it's own conclusions to fill the gap. To avoid the chaos of not understanding how something works.

Agree.

It doesn't actually mean the sun is being driven across the sky by a god in a chariot but in absence of technology there is nothing illogical about the step taken to adopt this belief. The alternative is a chaotic world where fantastically structured events occur for no reason.

Agree.

People who scoff at the religious (not you) as uneducated irk me for this reason. They enjoy the luxury of what we know today and ignore the context of the role that religion played. It's a natural step of the mind to rationalize the unfathomable structure of what it perceives.

And at the moment a supernatural or supernaturals is the only answer to how all this started.

That "supernatural" might also be a set of laws that will never be available to us.

Consider a group of aliens arrive on earth not long after man has wiped himself out. These aliens are missing the sense of sight and have never had the sense of sight. Just imagine all the weird ideas they would come up with the explain "glass inserts" in the middle of steel and/or concrete or computer monitors. However, if they suddencly gained the sense of sight then the whole mystery would fall into place.

 

[Mike375]

To clarify my position as regards religion I was brought up as a Christian and I agree with those teachings about loving your neighbour. The stumbling block for me is what I call the divine bit. I cannot believe in a supernatural deity without seeing any evidence at all for this.

I guess it comes down to what each of accept as evidence.

For me, one part of the evidence (or at least a strong suggestion) is just the fact that the earth is the right distance from the sun, the right size etc. and etc., you have heard all of them before.

The chances of a solar system forming in this way must be incredible odds, I magine a 1 followed by lots and lots of noughts.

 

[Adam Caramon]

I guess it comes down to what each of accept as evidence.

Exactly. I think that is it.

For me, one part of the evidence (or at least a strong suggestion) is just the fact that the earth is the right distance from the sun, the right size etc. and etc., you have heard all of them before.

But, odds are irrelevant after the fact. Its like if I win the lottery, then claim I was never destined to live a simple life. I'm an elite person who deserves all the best things life has to offer. My evidence? The fact that I won the lottery. Its a form of circular reasoning.

Or, in another way, it would be like saying "Of all the planets in this galaxy, what are the odds I'd end up born on Earth?" Well, if Earth was the only planet in the galaxy capable of supporting life, the odds are 1 to 1.

 

[Lightwave]

And at the moment a supernatural or supernaturals is the only answer to how all this started.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree.

The logic is flawed.

Its like children believing in Santa. The evidence with which they are presented supports their belief taking into consideration their understanding of the world at a particular point in time. As they grow older and understand the world better they understand the inconsistencies and see how it is actually built on dozens of mistruths and fables.

Just because you cannot comprehend any other explanation does not make your explanation the truth.

Again I say

A lack of evidence is not proof of a theory.

 

[dan-cat]

No technique to what I am referring to, just poor detail or detail lost.

I think you'll find the Bible to be incredibly detailed, down to the name and number of how many apostles there were. This is what happens when a story is written to make it more believable.

But if that is true it does not change the basics of the land a 100 million years ago being rules by reptile like animals.

and the basics for the myriad of religions is the human mind's reaction to the inexplicable. The notion of the supernatural which is then embellished by skilled writers who borrow from and add to previous lyrical devices.

If you want to argue that an idiosyncrasy of the human mind is good grounding for the existence of the supernatural then I wish you good luck with that.

 

[dan-cat]

And which is why the "something out there" is our default position as opposed to atheists who say religion only exists because a child is taught.

Yes. I don't think you can put down the mind's demands for instant conclusions to nurture. The fascination over a magician's slight of hand isn't taught.

And at the moment a supernatural or supernaturals is the only answer to how all this started.

I understand what you are saying but our mind's "stop-gap" reaction doesn't bear much relevance to what actually is.

 

[Mike375]

I think you'll find the Bible to be incredibly detailed, down to the name and number of how many apostles there were. This is what happens when a story is written to make it more believable.

Perhaps I should have said "accuracy of details"

There is enough detailed literature on dinosaurs but the details lack accuracy. But whether birds and dinosaurs are related or whether dinosaurs are warm or cold blooded etc. and etc. and etc. and etc. any reasonable person would say none of those "details" will mean there were not large reptile like animals walking about the place.

This is what happens when a story is written to make it more believable.

But if it was written in a way just to make it believable then why all the contradictions. Why so many parts of the book indicate a god of limited power and knowledge.

 

[dan-cat]

However this does not make me accept the idea of a supernatural god.

It wasn't meant to. It was an attempt to reject the claims of some that the adoption of theism is an absurdity.

Non-believers are always keen contributors to these kind of discussions. Why? Because their minds demand answers too and the rejection of theism is simply part of their process of elimination in their search for them.

 

[Mike375]

But, odds are irrelevant after the fact. Its like if I win the lottery, then claim I was never destined to live a simple life. I'm an elite person who deserves all the best things life has to offer. My evidence? The fact that I won the lottery. Its a form of circular reasoning.

Or, in another way, it would be like saying "Of all the planets in this galaxy, what are the odds I'd end up born on Earth?" Well, if Earth was the only planet in the galaxy capable of supporting life, the odds are 1 to 1.

I can't think of the name but there is a theory that covers that. Along the lines if it did not happen then we would not be here to observe.

But lets come from another angle. Someone post on the Access forum:

1) They just started learning Access a couple of weeks ago

2) Their post indicates a lot more, a real lot more knowledge than would be gained in two weeks.

Do assume they are someone with a super special gift for Access that worked 24 hours non stop for the 2 weeks OR do assume their post was written by someone else or the are lying about only starting 2 weeks ago.

The odds of the first scenario being the case is extremely remote, millions to one, so it is not the assumption you work on.

Back to the mother earth. The way i see it there are 3 basic ways we came to be here

1) Pure chance. Can't see it. Just too many things have to come together.

2) Some being or beings at work

3) Something with laws within the universe of which we have no idea.

2 and 3 would be the locgical choices and who knows, maybe 2 and 3 are related to each other.

I could see "chance" if there were thousands of planets in the solar system with a rock like structure (as opposed to the gas planets like Jupiter) and one every few million miles apart in their orbit.

 

[Mike375]

I understand what you are saying but our mind's "stop-gap" reaction doesn't bear much relevance to what actually is.

Agree.

However, atheism is an unatural position which is why I say mots atheists have that as a preferred public position.

Any by atheism I mean....no form of supernaturals, superior beings etc and etc. many atheists are not true atheists as they are only eliminating the Bible and similar.

We should have all this solved by Christmas day. I had better get Stephen Hawking's email address so I can send him the solution

 

[dan-cat]

But if it was written in a way just to make it believable then why all the contradictions. Why so many parts of the book indicate a god of limited power and knowledge.

It's been rehashed many times to suit it's current audience but it hasn't been completely rewritten out of "reverence" from the preceding original. This explains the combination of contradictions and lyrical detail (eg. five fishes and two loaves)

Did you know that the King James version used the term "hell" for three different words from the text it was translated from? A deliberate political attempt to fabricate a singular concept that was never actually written about whilst "holding" to the original text.

 

[ChipperT]

Exactly. I think that is it.



But, odds are irrelevant after the fact. Its like if I win the lottery, then claim I was never destined to live a simple life. I'm an elite person who deserves all the best things life has to offer. My evidence? The fact that I won the lottery. Its a form of circular reasoning.

Or, in another way, it would be like saying "Of all the planets in this galaxy, what are the odds I'd end up born on Earth?" Well, if Earth was the only planet in the galaxy capable of supporting life, the odds are 1 to 1.

No, the odds are 1 in 1 because if youu had not been born on Earth, then "you" would not have been "you". Just as the odds of you having been born of your mother and father, as opposed to having been born of another set, are 1 in 1 since genetics play an absolute role in your conception and a large role in everything else you are.

 

[ChipperT]

It's been rehashed many times to suit it's current audience but it hasn't been completely rewritten out of "reverence" from the preceding original. This explains the combination of contradictions and lyrical detail (eg. five fishes and two loaves)

Did you know that the King James version used the term "hell" for three different words from the text it was translated from? A deliberate political attempt to fabricate a singular concept that was never actually written about whilst "holding" to the original text.

Or to point out another, did Judas hang himself of dash his bowels out with a sword? It all depends on which text you are reading at the time.

 

[Mike375]

Did you know that the King James version used the term "hell" for three different words from the text it was translated from? A deliberate political attempt to fabricate a singular concept that was never actually written about whilst "holding" to the original text.

I have never studied the book that closely. I am aware that there can be different translations for words and phrases in the book.

One part of the book that has interested me is book of Job and reference to what some say is an elephant and a crodile but the description does not match. The bit about "a tail like a cedar" does not go with elephant but I remember reading that the translation to get to "cedar" was a bit of a variable.

I have always been interested in people such as medical specialists that can be religious right up to and including the 'born again" level. My only "answer" is they see something I don't see. Much the same as I see "telepathy or whatever" as sure as the sun rose this morning in Australia.

I am not sure about the US or UK but in Australia the medical specialist would have the highest level of tertiary education of anyone. First up he has about 7 years for his MBBS which allows him to be a GP then another 7 to 9 years (that is 99% of them) to get to Fellow of Royal Australian College of "fill in the gap"

However, I have never come across a "staff specialist" that is any more than "something out there" and most are closer to atheist or atheist. My only answer to that is the private practice bloke has to climb some extra high mountains and maybe that journey causes him to develop a faith.