Don't talk to aliens - Stephen Hawking
- Thread starter Sentinel
- Start date
ubermeyer
Hall of Fame
I've believed this since I was five- at first I thought aliens would be really cool, but when my common sense began developing, I realized that if intelligent extraterrestrial life does exist, which in all probability is true, they may be some kind of life-forms that we cannot communicate with and would most likely be hostile.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20100429/sc_space/couldextraterrestrialsreallyinvadeearthandhow
exceprt:
Other experts who, like Hawking, have devoted their careers to thoughtful exploration of the possibilities of alien contact say that we don't have anything to fear.
"In movies, aliens only come here for two reasons," Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) told Life's Little Mysteries, SPACE.com's sister publication. "They either come here to find some resource they don't have on their own planet, or they want to use us for some unauthorized breeding experiment." These scenarios play on our most primal human fears of losing the resources we need to survive or not being able to reproduce, Shostak said.
In reality, it isn't logical to think that aliens would want to do either of those things, Shostak said. Space travel is expensive and requires an enormous investment, he said.
"Anything that we have here, they could find where they live," Shostak said. If there was a resource found on Earth that did not exist on the aliens' home planet, there would certainly be easier ways to get or make the resource than coming here.
And if an alien civilization was advanced enough to engage in interstellar travel, they would also probably have very advanced robotic machines, Shostak said. If they wanted to research our planet, they would be more likely to send those machines here than to come here themselves.
"It's not like, the hatch will open and we'll see a strange, alien paw coming out," he said. "It's more likely to be a robotic arm."
Contact with aliens is extremely unlikely, agrees David Morrison, Director of Space at NASA-Ames Research Center. Any communication that may occur would likely be in the form of radio waves sent from one civilization to another, he said.
"We're listening for radio signals," Morrison said, "And we can assume that any civilization that we receive a signal from is more advanced than we are."
We have only had the technology to listen and send radio waves for the last century, so if an alien radio signal reaches us from a distant planet hundreds or thousands of light-years away, that civilization would have to be more advanced than ours, Morrison said.
Morrison doubts that an advanced alien civilization would come here to harm us.
"Someone once suggested that if a civilization can last for hundreds of thousands of years, it almost surely has solved the problems we have. I would hope so," Morrison said.
Even if aliens existed, knew about us, and could travel here, they wouldn't be likely to send an army or the equipment needed to launch an attack on the Earth, said science fiction writer Jack McDevitt.
"Imagine putting together an invasion force, only to stick them in containers to travel here for years," McDevitt said.
Although contact between humans and aliens has been a key part of many of McDevitt's books, he doesn't think that it's likely to actually happen. It would take a great amount of time for aliens to reach Earth, and any civilization capable of this feat would not want to delegate its fighting force to the task, he said.
exceprt:
Other experts who, like Hawking, have devoted their careers to thoughtful exploration of the possibilities of alien contact say that we don't have anything to fear.
"In movies, aliens only come here for two reasons," Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) told Life's Little Mysteries, SPACE.com's sister publication. "They either come here to find some resource they don't have on their own planet, or they want to use us for some unauthorized breeding experiment." These scenarios play on our most primal human fears of losing the resources we need to survive or not being able to reproduce, Shostak said.
In reality, it isn't logical to think that aliens would want to do either of those things, Shostak said. Space travel is expensive and requires an enormous investment, he said.
"Anything that we have here, they could find where they live," Shostak said. If there was a resource found on Earth that did not exist on the aliens' home planet, there would certainly be easier ways to get or make the resource than coming here.
And if an alien civilization was advanced enough to engage in interstellar travel, they would also probably have very advanced robotic machines, Shostak said. If they wanted to research our planet, they would be more likely to send those machines here than to come here themselves.
"It's not like, the hatch will open and we'll see a strange, alien paw coming out," he said. "It's more likely to be a robotic arm."
Contact with aliens is extremely unlikely, agrees David Morrison, Director of Space at NASA-Ames Research Center. Any communication that may occur would likely be in the form of radio waves sent from one civilization to another, he said.
"We're listening for radio signals," Morrison said, "And we can assume that any civilization that we receive a signal from is more advanced than we are."
We have only had the technology to listen and send radio waves for the last century, so if an alien radio signal reaches us from a distant planet hundreds or thousands of light-years away, that civilization would have to be more advanced than ours, Morrison said.
Morrison doubts that an advanced alien civilization would come here to harm us.
"Someone once suggested that if a civilization can last for hundreds of thousands of years, it almost surely has solved the problems we have. I would hope so," Morrison said.
Even if aliens existed, knew about us, and could travel here, they wouldn't be likely to send an army or the equipment needed to launch an attack on the Earth, said science fiction writer Jack McDevitt.
"Imagine putting together an invasion force, only to stick them in containers to travel here for years," McDevitt said.
Although contact between humans and aliens has been a key part of many of McDevitt's books, he doesn't think that it's likely to actually happen. It would take a great amount of time for aliens to reach Earth, and any civilization capable of this feat would not want to delegate its fighting force to the task, he said.
Sidd Finch
Rookie
"TO SERVE MAN"
It's a cookbook!!!!!!!!!:shock:
It's a cookbook!!!!!!!!!:shock:
That's a good point. If they're as intelligent and developed to the extent where they could "raid our planet for resources and move on" as Hawking hypothesises, then why would they bother coming? Surely they'd be doing rather well for themselves anyway.
Rui
Semi-Pro
Aliens that get here will definately be at the top of their food chain. And if they can get here, they'd be at the top of ours as well. It's a nice thought that they would come down and "show us the way" to peace and brotherhood. But, they won't be our brothers. There's no rule that says intelligence equals pacifism.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
'Two possibilities exist: Either we are alone in the Universe or we are not. Both are equally terrifying'
Arthur C. Clarke
Arthur C. Clarke
Last edited:
mary fierce
Banned
It's time to build a wall.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I suggest we put up some scarecrows
[*] on the Moon and Jupiter. That should frighten the little green men away for good.
[*] Posters of Radek Step should do quite well.
One of the big mysteries I have not seen discussed much (and which could be nicely used by religion to its advantage) is why life is evolvable at all. Why did not a form of life get created which could not change? Either it never died (in the conventional sense - it could just have grown new stuff inside to replace the old stuff) - or it could have died but reproduced only as clones. Chances of such a form surviving against changes in the environment is slim. So evolvability was a huge advantage. But how did this evolvability evolve or get created in the first place?
In fact, it has been speculated that intelligent life could exist just as a series of electromagnetic pulses.
Talker
Hall of Fame
It could just be imperfect replicas but occasionally the replica will be better than the original as far as survival. Just random events and having nothing to do with design.
mtommer
Hall of Fame
I disagree. We've been around for millenia and are essentially unchanged. The only that changes is what we conflict over, not that we somehow avoid conflict. More importantly, the reasons why we conflict etc. has to do with the very essence of life. Namely, material acquisition, mortality and the balance in life, ie there is no such thing as something from nothing and everything has a cost. Where there is cost you will find those who seek advantage at the cost of others.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Random chemical reactions seem to have created the pre-biotic molecules (this has been proven on laboratory; it's a quite simple experiment) and further random reactions and molecule associations seem to have created more complex structures that we call life, like DNA and so.
But these complex structures keep suffering the same random or provoked reactions. DNA and life structures keep changing just like pre-biotic molecules changed in the first place. Why would they stop changing, if they're subject to the same chemical reactions.
What I'm trying to say is: life forms are made of the same molecules that changed and created them as a result of those changes. So life forms are subject to changes too, because they're made of change prone material.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Very interesting point.
But let me answer the second bolded part. I recently posted a link in the Useless Info thread of a jellyfish or some kind of thing, that actually keeps regenerating. It cycles between old age and childbirth and keeps going on. No death. That's what the article said.
Perhaps, and i am just throwing out the first thing that comes to mind. Your point of evolvability evolving is probably what is coming to mind. Thinking aloud ...
Assume 2 strains of some life form: one gives birth to perfect copies of itself. The other one, there's always some error in the copy so the offspring are always slightly different.
Now the environment on earth is changing. Lets say the temperature rises at that place. Strain A no longer is viable since it is not adapted to the change. Strain B - 10% of the offspring are able to survive the change long enough to reproduce.Basically, in a changing environment any strain that makes perfect copies will not last long.
"It could have grown new stuff inside" -- doesn't that speak of something that's very evolved. If life started off as single cells and slowly evolved to more complex, for an eternal, ever adaptable life form to start off as the first one .... well ... who says that it had to start off as a single cell too.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I read your post several times thinking that sureshs is praps coming not from the perspective of what actually happened in our universe, but how else it could have happened. And then i saw that word "life" being a complex structure ... and a sort of something popped in my head ;-)
I am finding it very hard to translate into words or concepts ...
If life is some structure or some configuration of molecules, lets just say in computer terms ... a certain series of 0s and 1s. Then every thing we know, believe in, our very knowing we exist, is just some series or permutations of these bits ... ??
I am at a loss totally to express the loss of words. The fact that i know i exist also is a derivative of some configuration of molecules. Am i making sense ??? My knowing I exist popped up arbitrarily at some point of time ???
Polaris
Hall of Fame
Hmmm. Interesting point. But, I'm not sure that the "evolvability" evolved or got created at all, since the process of evolution is only visible after the fact. I mean, evolvability is not built in; there is nothing in the basic genetic makeup of an organism (exclude human beings here for simplicity) that actively makes it evolve. "Survival of the fittest" is an a posteriori statistical consequence. One might also apply this to the evolution of non-living entities such as the solar system, for example. After all that interplanetary billiards for millions of years, it is a reasonable consequence that the system as a whole is cleaner with less interplanetary debris than before.
Am I completely missing the point, here? I totally discounted epigenetic and behavioral angles to evolution here, so maybe your answer lies there.
Last edited:
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Then every thing we know, believe in, our very knowing we exist, is just some series or permutations of these bits ... ??
As long as we know, that seems to be the case, yes.
Yes, and, why not? Your brain needs all those molecules to allow you to know. If your brain molecules get damaged, you'll stop knowing.
You are genetically programmed to know you exist.
Do you make sense? Do you mean if your existence makes sense? Yes, why not? We don't need Adam and Eve to believe we make sense. We have (or we try to have) moral and ethics regardless of every other consideration. We think and we feel as a result of molecular configuration: that's as good as thinking and feeling as a result or a supernatural soul.
We are made of molecules, so what. Music is made of mere air vibrations (nothing more than just that!) but we certainly know it makes sense.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Are these proven in any way or only conjecture ?
malakas
Banned
Yeah..we've been around for millenia and only in the last century we also fly,we don't die from every other bacteria,we have established sex equality and have abandoned slavery.
This is not me being optimistic,this is me refusing to be absolute about anything that involves human and the future.Even mortality in the future is not absolute.
malakas
Banned
I am not sure I exist.And furthermore,I am sure I don't make any sense.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
a) Proven. You are genetically programmed to know you exist: the brain is a structure created as a product of DNA, as any other part of our body. You self-consciousness, the idea of yourself existing, emanates from the brain. We know that because when the brain is seiously damaged or it dies, you're not able to know that you exist anymore. In fact you're not able of any cerebral function anymore. Individuals stop existing and acting in a conscious way whne they have not a functional brain. I think you'll agree on that.
b) Proven for the same reason as point a. We think and feel because our brain and nervous system (and hormones, etc). Brain and nervous system are made of certain molecular estructures and are the result of the building information contained in DNA, another molecular structure. So we think and we feel as a result of molecular configuration: the DNA configuration that dictates every other molecular configuration in our body.
---
On the other hand, there's absolutely no prove of any kind that could make us believe that there are 'other things' involved in our self-consciousness, our thinkings or our emotions. All of that emanates from the body and the body is genetically determinated.
So, if we have a simple, perceptible and logical explanation for the way we think and feel, there's no reason for us to not accept it.
We know you exist because you typed this.
TonLars
Professional
Funny how we can accept this, but the concept of God and the complexities that go with it (and are difficult for anyone to understand) are simply rejected absolutely and mocked by some arrogant atheists. Perhaps Rees might have said this part with the idea of God in mind.
It is interesting to think about. This train of thought for example can demonstrate how God is all knowing and is everywhere. We are like ants in this way, with limited understanding.
Last edited:
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Think twice.
We've proven on a lab that organic matter -the previous step to life- can emerge in a simple way: it only takes the presence of certain chemical elements (four or five, very common in the universe) and a source of energy. That's an experiment that anyone can replicate: organic matter appears easily. So it could appear in a large number of extrasolar planets, and there are thousands of billions out there. In fact, we know there is organic matter (although not life) in places as strange as Jupiter. So the raw materials seem to be common in space and we know that, under some conditions, those raw materials will turn into life. We have a prove of that: ourselves and the life on our planet. So we know the process that convert chemical elements in organic matter. And we know organic matter can turn into life. There's no reason to think it didn't happen in other places.
But, what's the prove of the existence of God according to you? Where are the raw materials, what is the process? It's just a matter of faith.
I'm not a beligerant atheist, but I have to stick with reality. And the reality is that we know much about how life originates and what is life made of, we have the evidence of the fact life could emerge anywhere because it did on Earth and the raw materials are largely common in the universe.
But we know NOTHING about how a God originates and what is God made of, because God didin't emerge in our Earth as life did. God is not difficult to understand: it's an intellectual creation, there's absolutely nothing out there that stands as evidence of God's existence.
I respect people who believe in God, as I come from a Catholic family. But I ask religious people to keep their beliefs in the terrain of pure faith, where they belong. You can't compare the faith about God -based on absolutely no measurable evidence- to the idea of life happening in other places, because we DO KNOW that life happens.
TonLars
Professional
Sure, simple forms of life could evolve with the right conditions. But for life as we know it on this planet? A ton of things would have to fall into the right place, and while possible coincidentally as you would imply, its astronomical and I doubt it. Maybe it has happened though. Regardless, to me, the likely intelligent life in the universe is God. It is not merely faith, but along with any sort of observations which include that of science and space that leads me to conclude in a creator. The decision for people is whether to believe things as from God, or without. There may not be concrete pictures or evidence like that of God for you, but there is plenty pointing toward it enough for a large number of people to support and strengthen the faith.
And the only argument I made was regarding how one can speculate that the "life" out there could be so intricate and above us that we wouldnt understand it, wouldnt know we were being observed, etc, but yet if one is to say the exact same such things being described are about God and label it that way, the notion is scoffed at by more arrogant atheist individuals. Even though it is way beyond our capability and understanding, as in the chimpanzee example. Its interesting to me and some kind of double standard.
Last edited:
That is a good point. So you are saying the evolvability was just a by-product of using materials which are imperfect for copying. Very good. The last possible religious argument also got demolished.
That doesn't imply anything about God. Ignorance by one does not mean omnipotent knowledge by another. If I play bad tennis, there is someone who plays better tennis, but it doesn't mean that even the GOAT (Nadal) is God.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Yes, it is merely faith. The concept of "creation" may be a need for you, but not for me. The universe exists, but that doesn't mean that it was created. Existence doesn't need to be intentional. Intentionality is a human creation, because we act intentionally. So some people extrapolate their own way of acting to the whole universe, and therefore they come to the unnecessary conclusion that there is an intention behind it.
All we know about the Universe is perfectly compatible with the idea of being totally unintentional. There are no traces of intentionality in the universe. In fact, the more we know about how the universe works, the more it seems to be totally automatic. From the beginning to now, from the small to the big. It just happened and there's no need of an author. Authority, intention, those are human behaviours. How could we be arrogant enough to believe the whole Universe responds to a humanlike way of acting.
Because what you do with levelling both speculations is what we call a logical phallacy.
Those who speculate of alien life may assume that we could not understand that alien life. But they extrapolate a FACT: life evolved on Earth, so life could evolve elsewhere, in understandable or ununderstandable shapes. But life happened once, so it could happen twice. And the extrapolated fact (that there is life on Earth) is something that ANYONE can witness and prove.
But those who speculate about God are not extrapolating a fact but an idea. Noone can witness God on Earth, so there's no actual fact to be extrapolated to the universe. You extrapolate an idea of God that is in your head, but I can't witness your idea as a proven evidence.
Another logical phallacy is comparing alien life to God because both are said to be ununderstandable. It's like comparing God to chess because both are complex. But I can prove chess exists; nobody can prove God exists though.
TonLars
Professional
But it isnt a matter of ignorance, its a matter of capability. The example was that a chimpanzee does not have the ability to understand quantum theory. You also have animals that do not recognize their own image in a mirror. The examples are endless of course and is just showing the limitations. The example is in regards to an alien life that which we do not understand in the same way. The ant example was concerning how we could be observed without even knowing it. Apparently people can speculate in this way about "aliens" but not about God.
TonLars
Professional
No, it is not merely faith at all. You seem to present as an absolute that it is intellectual creations, or a need of people. It does not have to be at need at all, and things could have been created. I respect your right and belief that there is no God, so please dont be rude and impose upon me that I have a need as the only way to make God real, rather than a belief. Through what I can observe and have learned, it has further strengthened my belief. We have simply interpreted what is before us differently. I believe it was intentional and with authority.
There is no fallacy in what I was saying. I realize we do not have concrete evidence of God, such as a picture, for you to accept. There is much faith behind it as you have said. But the comparison is valid because you, like the chimpanzee not having the capability to understand something like quantum physics, have the same limitations in comparison to God. You cannot see God but that does not mean God does not exist, much like the speculation that aliens may exist even though we havent proven them to be.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
The chimpanzee doesn't say he believes in quantum physics.
If God was really out of our comprehension, we couldn't say that we believe in God. There are not limitations that keep us from understanding the idea of God; in fact, WE created the idea of God.
By the way, I don't think I've been rude at all. I just adopted what I think is a logical and realistic point of view. If you feel that's an 'imposition', there's not much I can do about it. At least I'm not giving you moral rules about sex, abortion or whatever, based on my beliefs or disbeliefs.
Last but not least, saying thet you said a phallacy is not rude or offensive at all. Logical phallacies are what they are: contradictions, inaccuracies, unfair comparisons or weak points in a logical chain of arguments.
I'll say it yet again:
We have proven life exist at least on Earth, so we can speculate that the conditions can appear elsewhere to make alien life possible.
We haven't proven God exists not even on Earth. So it's still to be proven what are the conditions and nature of God's supposed existence.
But if you feel that I'm trying to attack your faith, we better leave the discussion at this point. I don't feel attacked at all, and I don't want anyone to feel attacked also.
TonLars
Professional
The chimpanzee doesnt need to claim to understand quantum physics or anything else. The point the man was making was that a form of life may exist that is completely outside of reality and any laws of nature as we currently know it to be. This speculation is exactly what God is in relationship to human. We have no direct physical and concrete proof for those who need it to acknowledge God. What we do have is indirect evidence which an individual may or may not interpret to show God exists, which as stated before requires a bit of faith.
The example is similar to a more abstract example of imagining 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional characters that are like people, and the 2 dimensional character within that realm simply would not comprehend 3D since it is nothing like anything ever seen before in his experience. The 2D character could be told of the 3D, and believe or not believe it to be true, but would he truly understand what 3D is? Im fairly sure one could actually argue that your argument of "since life has been proven to exist here on Earth then it is possible alien life may exist as fact, rather than an idea like God" is a fallacy because considering this theoretical alien life is so different and beyond our life as we know it, there is no way we would even necessarily know it existed, much less understand it. It is in much the same way as whether God or a heaven existed in the same sentence line, just simply substitute God for the aliens and you will understand the original argument I was making from the beginning. If youre going to say that God is an idea, its the same for the aliens. We equally do not really understand or know of either of them directly.
I understand you may not think you are being rude, and I dont feel attacked at all. It is good to have a discussion like this, but it is in a way arrogant at least, to continue to pose as straight up fact that God is an idea we created, when you definitely do not know this. I try to respect the atheist belief that there is no God or creator, and I would hope, I guess perhaps in a perfect world, that the atheist would respect my interpretation of things which lead to my belief that there is a God, while still having an intelligent discussion.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
There's a point you're missing here:
Alien life 'could' be much different or even understandable. BUT alien life could be somewhat similar to life as we know it. In fact, if alien life exists, more likely is similar to terrestrial life, because terrestrial life is made of the most common chemical elements in the universe (carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc).
Those elements combine and react according to certain laws and being those elements that common, the major probability of alien life is that alien life is based on carbon, oxygen, hydriogen, etc. It 'could' be other way, but if the most common elements are red bricks, you'll likely find red brick made houses rather than steel made houses.
So not, the comparison with God is not accurate. We know life can emerge from the most common raw materials in the universe; we can't say the same of God.
Not competely outside of reality or laws of nature. Just different to the life we'd expect to find: for example based not on carbon but, to say, silicon. Not with a solid body but, to say, under a free form of energy pulses. That's not outside the laws of nature. It's just we wouldn't expect life to be that different, but it could happen that way. That would be under the laws of nature though.
There are facts and there are abstract ideas. Facts are measurable, abstract ideas aren't.
DNA, carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, are not an abstract idea we created. They are right there in front of our eyes. When we look inside a living organism, we find all those materials. We know we are made of carbon and water. Not an abstract idea: we can take a piece of us and analyze it, and there are those elements.
Alien life is just an idea because hasn't been proven, but is not an abstract idea. Is the extrapolation to other places of actual measurable facts. It is possible according to every single law of nature we know. So is an idea, but a concrete, reality based, non-abstract idea.
I disagree. In a perfect world, an atheist respects your prorrogative to believe in God and to worship Him in the way you prefer. No question about that.
But accepting intellectual arguments as valid when they aren't based on evidence is another matter. You have right to believe in God, but you don't have the right to think your interpretations are out of discussion and can't be discussed under logical premises. That's the main problem, I think and no offense intended, when reasoning with some religious people. At the end the faith is present in the debate, and the faith, because of its own nature, is not open to logical discussion.
And the idea of God is not logical. It may be beautiful, spitually enriching, but it's not logical and has no support other than faith. This is not an attack to religion, this is only an analysis.
More than that: if a believer admits to have faith, I don't see the point of him/her defending the supposed logic of his/her beliefs. Faith is by definition 'to believe in that you can't see'. So why not simply admit that logic has not much to do with it.
TonLars
Professional
Here is the original quote from the OP:
Similarly, Lord Rees, the astronomer royal, warned in a lecture earlier this year that aliens might prove to be beyond human understanding.
“I suspect there could be life and intelligence out there in forms we can’t conceive,” he said. “Just as a chimpanzee can’t understand quantum theory, it could be there are aspects of reality that are beyond the capacity of our brains.”
This man is speculating in opposition to the way things are here on Earth, with humans being the most intelligent life form. Here, we can reason, use mathematics, etc, while cats and birds cannot. What the astronomer is posing is that somewhere else, in comparison to us, we may be as unaware, incapable and different to the aliens as we humans are to chimpanzees. Everything you said above makes sense but you are not accounting for how much in reality we may not understand, and have not discovered. This thought is what I found interesting, and is exactly the same sort of difference we have with God. That is why I find it interesting for someone to speculate about such aliens, but some do not have an open mind to the existence of God (as it seems for you as well). You as a human do not know everything, and all one would have to do is look into our past and see how much knowledge we have acquired, and how much of what was originally thought to be understood with any science or study was later found to be inaccurate altogether, or incomplete.
The main problem that I can observe from many who are atheists, is the inability to accept that which we do not know, or may be possible. For many things we have concrete elemental and observable proof of something, but when it comes to God, since we do not have this, you have a closed mind to the possibility that God exists and acts outside of what we have knowledge of. It actually makes perfect sense logically for God to be this way, considering what he is supposed to be. It just doesnt fit with the non-believing paradigm where everything must fit into our current knowledge. I disagree with you also, again, that believing in God is not logical. That is your personal interpretation of things. From what I can see and observe with both science and people themselves, it makes sense to me that there would be a God. In my opinion, the way things are would not happen coincidentally. No, I have not seen God, but I havent expected to. That is where the faith is.
The beauty of it, as opposed to God simply being here to rule us in the present and flesh, is that we have a more meaningful life to live with a free will, which is much more difficult to do than a Big Brother watching you approach. Since this is a tennis board, heres an example: When I workout and run in my tennis training, it is easy to do it if someone is there forcing me and watching me do it. When im all alone, it is my decision, and to still get it done is what is difficult yet enriching. Thats the way it is meant to be. Following God and having the faith, without being forced.
Last edited:
The problem is very few commit to what they mean by "god." They change the meaning if they are asked. Do they mean a human-like being who understands our morality? Is it someone who is always entering into an Excel spreadsheet our plus and minus actions to total them up and divert us to heaven or hell? Is it someone who created us? Is it a universal energy or spirit which pervades everything and not something human-like? Is it both? Is it someone who has any good intentions towards us or just a passive observer who has set us up as an experiment? Unless someone says what they mean, how can you have a discussion with them? That is why the term atheism is such a joke, because it is supposed to not believe in something which itself is not explained. Sort of like being aTingTing - someone who does not believe in TingTing but I can't tell you what TingTing is.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
It's a contradiction: if God exists outside of our knowledge and understanding, how can we say how God is supposed to be or how God is supposed to act? We can't even talk about His existence because it's beyound our limitations, as you said.
I agree we ignore a lot about the universe, but we can't fill what we ignore with stuff we have no the smallest evidence and stuff that, according to yourself, we're not able to understand. We better keep investigating and trying to find out actual probable information.
And no, the idea of God is not logical, because the sylogism 'if something exist ---> that something was created' is an anthropocentrism, not a logical necessary conclusion. Universe could be simply spontaneous. In fact, all natural phenomenons that we know of are spontaneous and automatic, with the unique exception that those phenomenons human beings (and other animals with intelligence) provoke on purpose.
More than that: if there are physical laws in the Universe, that doesn't mean there was an intention behind it. We don't know of an alternative (there's no universe without laws) so we can't even know if chaos is even possible.
Atheism is not the problem. If I go into a house and the owner tells me there are spectres in there and I see nothing, I'll say spectres don't exist. If the owner, though, say that spectres are out of my understanding, is he who's being arrogant: because he pretends to understand spectres while I don't. Of course this gets worse if the owner tells me spectres say we have to behave in certain ways (you didn't say that, but many religious people do) so we may have a conflict on the making: homosexual sex is bad because the spectres told me so, darwinian evolution is wrong because spectres told me so, etc etc.
But this was being not your case I admit, so let's get back to the logic discussion: if you admit not knowing about something, then you have a blank, inexplorated terrain there. How can you pretend that the idea of God, belonging to the inexplorable and ununderstandable, is a logical deduction? We have to stick to the probable.
Imagine a closed refrigerator. You ask me what I think it contains, without opening it. So the interior of the refrigerator is unexplored terrain, a complete mistery. The more logical answer is 'I just don't know', or being agnostic. The second more logical answer is sticking to the probable: if there is food and beverage in all other refrigerators, we'll probably find food in this one too.
But the least logical answer is saying that inside that refrigerator is an unknowledgeable spectre called God.
If the fridge keeps closed, both you and me know the same about what's in it: we know really nothing. But your answer doesn't stick to the probable, while mine, at least, takes in consideration what refrigerators use to have inside. I could be wrong, but at least I'm basing my opinion on the smaller or bigger evidence I have about the nature of refrigerators.
If you fill a mistery with the unprobable, why to stop in the idea of God? Why not believe in magic, for example? Arthur C. Clarke used to say that 'any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic'.
Maybe for some people, any sufficiently complex universe is indistinguishable from God's intentional work.
The subjacent deductive process is the same in both cases. And in both cases is a incomplete and biased deductive process.
Good one.
sureshs makes a good point about needing to define terms before being able to discuss them.
In your definition of God, is he/she/it bound by the laws of the universe?
If your answer is no, then I believe your substitution is invalid. You are substituting an entity with constraints (aliens bound by the laws of the universe) with an entity without constraints (God not bound by the laws of the universe).
If your answer is yes, then I believe your substitution is valid. However, it turns God into merely a synonym for alien.
TonLars
Professional
Ok.... so youre just nit-picking. The point actually, is that in the same way there may be alien life different from our reality and outside our comprehension, those same traits are true of God. That is the traits being compared.
TonLars
Professional
What we know of God is from the accounts from the Bible. Other than that, we indeed do not fully understand scientifically, if at all, many things such as how the universe began. It is written that God is all knowing and powerful, but we obviously will not comprehend the details of this. We can continue to study and learn as you said, which only further proves that it never ends and we do not have a full understanding of many things, and are probably far from it in many areas. That is our human limitation, and hopefully you understand now that is what I was getting at, with God outside of our human knowledge and understanding. Just like the cat to human example.
Thinking about what you said, maybe the "why" there is a God is not "logical" in itself, because there just would or wouldnt be without necessarily a reason. But the "how" we can infer there is a God, and the "what" God has done can be logically reasoned, and it is merely your opinion if you disagree and interpret so differently, as I have stated all along. You are right, it is possible everything was just coincidental, but it doesnt have to be logically.
We are not just looking at a closed fridge. You may not accept the Bible, but many do. We are sticking to science and logic alone however in this discussion, and looking at much of this one can infer what is "in the fridge". The complexity of our planet, people and animals. Causation of the beginning of the universe. DNA genetic code. The physical laws of the universe which you say do not need an intention behind it, very well indicate to many that there is intention. There is no logical necessity for a universe that obeys rules, let alone one that abides by the rules of mathematics. Some recognize that the universe doesn't have to behave this way. It is easy to imagine a universe in which conditions change unpredictably from instant to instant, or even a universe in which things pop in and out of existence. Theres all kinds of things that one can say point toward God, and you might be familiar with these and many others. Just because you do not see these observable evidences as indirectly pointing toward a creator, doesnt mean there is no God. We are not looking from the outside at this "refrigerator" blind, and I totally disagree and say that what I listed above makes it very probable that God exists. And of course, thats not ALL that Im using to come to my belief that there is a God, it is simply strengthening my belief as part of the whole.
You dont know any more than anyone else whether or not there is a God. You can believe what you want just as I can, considering the logic and observable. Of course, you would need direct contact and observation to accept God. That is where it goes beyond what you can see and hear, and into what you feel and reason to be true. It honestly doesnt make sense in consideration of everything, to me, for there not to be a God.
Last edited:
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
TonLars, although I'm afraid we won't agree, it's a pleasure to find someone who is able to reason his points of view about such a delicate matter with intelligence and good tone. Thank you.
Back to the matter, we've arrived to a difficult point: if you consider the Bible as a starting point of true knowledge about physical/metaphysical questions, we're standing at a road fork with you heading south and I heading north. I know many people accept the Bible, as many people accept the Coran and many people accept other religious texts/oral traditions as revelated truths.
But I can't accept the Bible in that sense.
Of course the Bible is an invaluable historical, anthropological and literary source of knowledge. Most of it may be mythical and other parts may be just philosophically testimonial, but it's one of the most important works in the history of human creation. I even think the figure of Jesus (who I believe existed as a human being, although some people think he's a myth, but I think he was real) must have been a truly outstanding character, one of the greatest philosophers and moral references in mankind.
But I just can't accept the Bible as source of knowledge about the origen and nature of the whole universe. At the end of the day, the Bible talks about human beings, because to me it was written by human beings. It may be wonderful as it is, but I don't think it has any criteria to take it in consideration as explanation of the world's origin and nature.
Absolutely right. But my whole point consists not in pretending I know if God exists or not. My point is: as long as we have no prove of God's existence, I can't defend the idea of God over other phenomenoms which existence we've proven.
For that reason, I can't put a theological logic over (or at the same level) the scientific logic. Of course science has not all answers, in fact it raises more questions with every answer. But it has some measurable answers at least. It has some verifiable truths, and I think we need those verifiable truths to reveal further verifiable truths.
I also think 'unverifiable truths' as the religiuous may conduct to verifiable truths... or may not. It's an ambiguous, confusing way in which we can't separate truth from lie.
I respect that. As I said I come from a Catholic family in a Catholic country. Spain was part of the Roman empire from the beginning, and as you know the Catholic Church is a direct heritage of our Roman ancestors. My family was religious and I was raised in those beliefs, although I was not forced to believe in anything. I just got the things explained.
So I see why God makes sense to you. I just don't need that sense. I think the universe makes sense in itself: it's a perennial dance of energy and matter that works under its own laws. It just appeared spontanously or was always there, I don't know, but it makes sense to me.
So my whole personal point is: why turn my eyes to the invisible when I think the visible explains itself. Why distorting our knowledge with the (to me) unnecesary theological cosmogony. And, specially, why level the theological and the scientific cosmogonies (for example by teaching creationism or intelligent desing in schools) when they can't just be levelled.
As Jesus said: give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give God what belongs to God.
Science, logic, explanations, belong to Caesar I think.
Back to the matter, we've arrived to a difficult point: if you consider the Bible as a starting point of true knowledge about physical/metaphysical questions, we're standing at a road fork with you heading south and I heading north. I know many people accept the Bible, as many people accept the Coran and many people accept other religious texts/oral traditions as revelated truths.
But I can't accept the Bible in that sense.
Of course the Bible is an invaluable historical, anthropological and literary source of knowledge. Most of it may be mythical and other parts may be just philosophically testimonial, but it's one of the most important works in the history of human creation. I even think the figure of Jesus (who I believe existed as a human being, although some people think he's a myth, but I think he was real) must have been a truly outstanding character, one of the greatest philosophers and moral references in mankind.
But I just can't accept the Bible as source of knowledge about the origen and nature of the whole universe. At the end of the day, the Bible talks about human beings, because to me it was written by human beings. It may be wonderful as it is, but I don't think it has any criteria to take it in consideration as explanation of the world's origin and nature.
Absolutely right. But my whole point consists not in pretending I know if God exists or not. My point is: as long as we have no prove of God's existence, I can't defend the idea of God over other phenomenoms which existence we've proven.
For that reason, I can't put a theological logic over (or at the same level) the scientific logic. Of course science has not all answers, in fact it raises more questions with every answer. But it has some measurable answers at least. It has some verifiable truths, and I think we need those verifiable truths to reveal further verifiable truths.
I also think 'unverifiable truths' as the religiuous may conduct to verifiable truths... or may not. It's an ambiguous, confusing way in which we can't separate truth from lie.
I respect that. As I said I come from a Catholic family in a Catholic country. Spain was part of the Roman empire from the beginning, and as you know the Catholic Church is a direct heritage of our Roman ancestors. My family was religious and I was raised in those beliefs, although I was not forced to believe in anything. I just got the things explained.
So I see why God makes sense to you. I just don't need that sense. I think the universe makes sense in itself: it's a perennial dance of energy and matter that works under its own laws. It just appeared spontanously or was always there, I don't know, but it makes sense to me.
So my whole personal point is: why turn my eyes to the invisible when I think the visible explains itself. Why distorting our knowledge with the (to me) unnecesary theological cosmogony. And, specially, why level the theological and the scientific cosmogonies (for example by teaching creationism or intelligent desing in schools) when they can't just be levelled.
As Jesus said: give Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give God what belongs to God.
Science, logic, explanations, belong to Caesar I think.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Hey wait, how do you know I do not know i exist when my brain is damaged. C;mon.
This is the problem i have with science. I've grown up on the side of science. Today, I am in position where i cannot accept one side and reject the other.
But i find that despite all the "scientific method" blah blah that people takl off, there are such major assumptions and logic jumps that happen when it comes to what is alive or consciousness. We just assume something is a scientific fact because everyone believes it.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
Look at the assumptions here you take as facts. From the little i have read, we've mixed elements in labs but never did it actually come to live. We've NEVER created life afresh.
Its astonishing how you can be talking of faith wrt God and yet use faith in your own args.
BTW, WARNING !!! I've desisted from bring God into this thread. Please note that the thread can be deleted if you start religious discussions.
Dilettante
Hall of Fame
Wait, you have misreaded me or maybe I didn't explain properly.
In labs we have created organic matter from raw elements (Miller-Urey experiment) but I've never said life has been created in labs. Organic matter does not equal life, like a bunch of bricks do not equal a built house.
What I said is that organic matter, under certain conditions (like the conditions present on Earth millions of years ago) can create life. Those conditions happened once and could happen twice. What we don't know is what are the precise parameters of those conditions. We don't know yet how common are those conditions in universe. We couldn't get to explore even our own solar system yet.
Because we associate the act of thinking to cerebral functions and without those cerebral functions present we can't say the individual is thinking.
So how could you think about your own existence when your thinking organ is disabled?
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I did not talk of thinking about existence, but of KNOWING one exists. Huge difference.
btw, back on topic, the main url is down so here's a cached page.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ace&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in&client=firefox-a
"Can".
But did it ? Where is the link between the 2. How do you know for certain that it did create life. Or become life.
People in scientific areas have made a huge leap or assumption, without thought, because its just so convenient to miss a step ?? ...
How are you placing life subservient to matter ? How does life come about within matter and die within matter ?
How is life limited to matter ?
What scientific proof do we have make this assumption and then build over it. At the very least, we can mark this as an area we are not clear on, and then proceed. But then we must remember that all conclusions are based on one assumption that could be false.
There is an equal possibility (/ies) that:
- life is independent of matter
- life has only one state, and that is alive - there is no off state or any other
- life has no start or finish
- life has no other properties, other than "being alive". If it had other properties, then again, i would ask you to abstract them away and see what's left. So we finally come back to "life" shorn of all other properties.
Please don't take me to be cantankerous. These are burning questions.
Sentinel
Bionic Poster
I am half-way through this ...
http://www.tedxamsterdam.com/2009/video-wubbo-ockels-on-time-and-gravity/
by a dutch professor and astronaut ...
http://www.tedxamsterdam.com/2009/video-wubbo-ockels-on-time-and-gravity/
by a dutch professor and astronaut ...
Sherlock
Rookie
Interesting thread this. Way to keep the discussion calm guys
In fact, I think the second paragraph is an anthropocentrism. Anyways, the first paragraph is built upon the premise that you would be able to observe intentionality behind a natural phenomenon. I agree that there is no measurable intention to say a star imploding, but that does not prove there is not one. How would you go about intentionality? How do you know when you find a watch that there is an element of intentionality? Answer this and I think you begin to build a way to prove/disprove the existence of God. At the moment it seems the only way to see intentionality is by common sense. TonLars common sense is telling him there must be a God. It looks like your decision is based off scientific evidence alone, so not being able to measure intentionality means you choose to not believe in a God.
I think there is validity in comparing belief in God and belief in intelligent alien life which is beyond our understanding, and it is a refreshing analogy to consider. The latter is an accepted (though occasionally scoffed at) belief by science based on statistical probabilities. As you said Dilettante, if life started once it could probably start twice. Although it hasn't been proven that life can be created. Essentially most believers in intelligent alien life use probability as their defense despite there being no evidence to support their claim. Thus the claim is accepted though not proven, because it is a cogent induction.
Belief in God is not accepted by science because there is no evidence to support the claim either. However there are also cogent arguments which support this existence (I won't go into them because it would get us off topic into debating those). I think this is what TonLars was trying to get at. Neither the existence of intelligent alien life nor the existence of God is a demonstrable fact at the moment. Yet the belief in the existence of intelligent alien life is accepted by science because it is a cogent argument, while the belief in the existence of God is not accepted despite cogent induction supporting it.
In fact, I think the second paragraph is an anthropocentrism. Anyways, the first paragraph is built upon the premise that you would be able to observe intentionality behind a natural phenomenon. I agree that there is no measurable intention to say a star imploding, but that does not prove there is not one. How would you go about intentionality? How do you know when you find a watch that there is an element of intentionality? Answer this and I think you begin to build a way to prove/disprove the existence of God. At the moment it seems the only way to see intentionality is by common sense. TonLars common sense is telling him there must be a God. It looks like your decision is based off scientific evidence alone, so not being able to measure intentionality means you choose to not believe in a God.
I think there is validity in comparing belief in God and belief in intelligent alien life which is beyond our understanding, and it is a refreshing analogy to consider. The latter is an accepted (though occasionally scoffed at) belief by science based on statistical probabilities. As you said Dilettante, if life started once it could probably start twice. Although it hasn't been proven that life can be created. Essentially most believers in intelligent alien life use probability as their defense despite there being no evidence to support their claim. Thus the claim is accepted though not proven, because it is a cogent induction.
Belief in God is not accepted by science because there is no evidence to support the claim either. However there are also cogent arguments which support this existence (I won't go into them because it would get us off topic into debating those). I think this is what TonLars was trying to get at. Neither the existence of intelligent alien life nor the existence of God is a demonstrable fact at the moment. Yet the belief in the existence of intelligent alien life is accepted by science because it is a cogent argument, while the belief in the existence of God is not accepted despite cogent induction supporting it.
