Do you think there are "Q" like beings (Star Trek) out there or near here in the universe...?

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,678
51
✟314,959.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Absolutely. I think this is in the bible somewhere. One of my favorite African American preachers, 'Wendel Archie' mentioned it once, I researched it a bit, and found there to be credible evidence that God is perpetually in the planet and people and making buisiness. I'll look it up for you if I can.
I think we may be at cross purposes.

To what do you think I'm referring to?
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,291
5,252
45
Oregon
✟960,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Well, a side note, we could spread to other planets when we can and they would not have to be "perfect" planets, like our earth is where life occurs naturally, we would just have to have tolerable conditions, and we could survive on it, if we spread there, with the assistance of technology...

To put it in Star Trek terms... they would have to be "class M" planets... And we could colonize these other planets maybe, (maybe one day terraform them) but they would not nearly be like earth, which is like a jewel in the galaxy... Without the assistance of technology and technological advances to assist us, I don't think we could though...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,678
51
✟314,959.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
An atmosphere.

One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever. The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, thither they return again. All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing. The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us. There is no remembrance of former things; neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that shall come after.
How does that passage relate to an Earth like atmospher on an exo planet?
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,264
20,266
US
✟1,474,838.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Gene Roddenbery seemed to think that this (Q like beings) was a very likely possibility by his belief that life was more common than it was extremely rare...

Roddenberry introduce "Q"-like beings (such as Trelaine and Apollow, even in TOS) for the specific purpose of preaching that if there really was a god, he should not be worshiped.
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,264
20,266
US
✟1,474,838.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If intelligent life was all that common, presumably SETI would have found it by now.

How far and how much of the universe has SETI been able to go or send a signal to to try and reach...?

SETI is searching for beings with the ability to modulate a star for wide-beam light-speed communications as though they wouldn't have long earlier developed a more superior means than modulating a star...and getting nothing but light-speed communication even from that.

The level of civilization advanced enough to modulate a star would have to be a vanishingly small percentage of a vanishingly small percentage.

Also superior beings to us might have a kind of "prime directive" of sorts...

Or they'd simply ignore us. How much time do you spend trying to communicate with a random ant colony off on the side of the road.
 
  • Useful
Reactions: Neogaia777
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,264
20,266
US
✟1,474,838.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
In that case: life might be common.

No, it would still be "uncommon."

"Common" means "more often than not." If there were only one small tribe of persons on each continent of earth, that would not make human life "common."
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,291
5,252
45
Oregon
✟960,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
No, it would still be "uncommon."

"Common" means "more often than not." If there were only one small tribe of persons on each continent of earth, that would not make human life "common."
What does "more common than rare" mean...?
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,291
5,252
45
Oregon
✟960,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Roddenberry introduce "Q"-like beings (such as Trelaine and Apollow, even in TOS) for the specific purpose of preaching that if there really was a god, he should not be worshiped.
Well, were not to worship angels, and I see Q and most all of the Q beings, being like angels (or demons)...

Angels are very great and powerful, and are a awe to behold, but, were not to worship them, only the God of both them and us...

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,264
20,266
US
✟1,474,838.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Well, were not to worship angels, and I see Q and most all of the Q beings, being like angels (or demons)...

Angels are very great and powerful, and are a awe to behold, but, were not to worship them, only the God of both them and us...

God Bless!

That's how you would like to see it, not how Roddenberry saw it or intended it.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,264
20,266
US
✟1,474,838.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
What does "more common than rare" mean...?

I said "more often than not."

"Common" would mean that most planets would have life or that most stars would have planets that have life.

One in a billion would not be "common" even when speaking of trillions of stars.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,291
5,252
45
Oregon
✟960,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
That's how you would like to see it, not how Roddenberry saw it or intended it.
Oh, well, that's how I do...

Also, there was a "Q continuum" and the series never went into whether or not they had, a single, main ruler of them all, or if it was like a board or seats that is a ruling counsel of them, or what..?

But, he would say (Q would say) my "superiors", and "orders" including rules, borders and boundaries with their orders from the Q continuum...

As Q put it, "Do you think it is reasonable for us (The Q) to allow omnipotent beings to roam free through the universe, (by free, he means no rules, borders, or boundaries)...

And as Guinan put it when talking about the Q, she said "not all of the Q are the same..." She said, "some, are almost respectable" (yet in our case some are actually respectable 2/3rd's of them)...

Anyway,

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

Leading a blameless life
Jul 14, 2015
12,340
7,678
51
✟314,959.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
No, it would still be "uncommon."

"Common" means "more often than not." If there were only one small tribe of persons on each continent of earth, that would not make human life "common."
It might be common compared to a planet with no humans.
 
Upvote 0

Neogaia777

Old Soul
Site Supporter
Oct 10, 2011
23,291
5,252
45
Oregon
✟960,197.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
What? Planets with no humans are far more common than planets with humans.
Sea and animal life, plant life, and maybe a once humanoid-like race on or from another planet, but have been in that form (humanoid like) for much much longer than us, maybe some of them, even beyond the physical, who knows...?

But the technology would be way, way more advanced than our is even now, and, with what we'll think of the near future. Their's and their technology could be way, way, way more advanced than that even is, possibly. They might have once started out humanoid, or humanoid-like, in a humanoid-like form that is still kinda like that now but they've been around on their home planet, much, much longer and are way more advanced or evolved than we are...

If their is such or such things that is...?

God Bless!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,261
8,056
✟326,532.00
Faith
Atheist
Do you think there are "Q" like beings (Star Trek) out there or near here in the universe...?

If you subscribe to the ToE and think life is rather more common than it is rare, then, you should, cause it is only logical in that case...

Cause there would have been beings like us, but long before us, who have already gone through the same as us, but are now way long past, and way, way beyond that/us, (where we are now)...
What makes you think Q is a likely distant future for beings like us?

To calculate the number of civilizations likely to be capable of communicating at interstellar distances, you need the Drake Equation - the problem is, we only have reasonable data for 3 of the 7 multiplers, so it's pure guesswork.
 
Upvote 0