Do Aliens Exist?

Pavel Mosko said:

Hugh Ross has made some very good arguments in some of his books and lectures over the last few decades that they don't exist (the universe as a whole is an extremely hostile place when it comes to being able to support life)

Click to expand...

This appears to contradict the fine-tuning argument.

Pavel Mosko said:

the UFO phenomenon is actually a manifestation of demonic activity/the occult

Click to expand...

I have been mildly interested in UFOs for more than 50 years, and in my opinion most of them are either misinterpreted natural phenomena (e.g. planets and bright stars, meteors and fireballs, will o'the wisps, mock suns and similar optical phenomena, unusual clouds, and birds) or man-made objects (aircraft, balloons, artificial satellites, etc.). A few UFO reports are probably dreams or hallucinations rather than real events, and some others are deliberate hoaxes. I have never seen a UFO report that required a supernatural explanation.

Joshua S said:

Hello

I've always wondered if aliens existed. Many Christians say yes while many say no. Something I just read stated many Christians believe they do as why would God create such a huge universe? The answer to that was that to our minds it's huge but to God's, probably not. However, despite this, many Christians still believe aliens could exist.

Would God have created aliens and not told us? Would He have visited each creation separately and created a Bible separate for each species?

Click to expand...

How will we ever know, unless we all stop fighting over stupid stuff that doesn't mean anything. Pull all our resources together and learn how to bend space & time so we can get out there and find out. Or we could just keep fighting until we become extinct.

Joshua S said:

Hello

I've always wondered if aliens existed. Many Christians say yes while many say no. Something I just read stated many Christians believe they do as why would God create such a huge universe? The answer to that was that to our minds it's huge but to God's, probably not. However, despite this, many Christians still believe aliens could exist.

Would God have created aliens and not told us? Would He have visited each creation separately and created a Bible separate for each species?

Click to expand...

Celestial beings of various types and quantity exist in vast numbers in a universe teaming with inhabited planets. They are ALL the creation of God.

Anguspure said:

SETI would have picked up signals from any civilisation advanced enough for this sort of thing less than a couple of centuries old, then they have to come from somewhere and no plausible candidates for star systems capable of supporting intelligent life are anywhere near within that sort of range.

Click to expand...

No. Your statement carries too many assumptions. Here are the counterpoints:
1. Are alien civilisations a close enough match to human to civilisation so that they make use of EM transmissions for communication? This may be true, but it is presumptuous to assume it.
2. Loss of signal strength over distance makes it highly improbable that signals can be detected from anything other than close neighbours.
3. At present the Earth is a "bright" radio source. Increased use of directional signals and fibre optics will reduce then practically eliminate this brightness.
4. If aliens are sensibly paranoid they will make sure they are not detectable

You've made an apparently random decision as to the range these travel methods could operate. What do you think it is the limit for each one? You must have a precise idea, for you are basing your rejection upon it.

Fear2Believe said:

How will we ever know, unless we all stop fighting over stupid stuff that doesn't mean anything. Pull all our resources together and learn how to bend space & time so we can get out there and find out. Or we could just keep fighting until we become extinct.

Click to expand...

Yeah. That's a tough one. It's the old 'fight or spaceflight' dilemma. We should probably toss a coin.

Astrophile said:

This appears to contradict the fine-tuning argument.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't the fine tuning argument is that the Earth is finely tuned not the rest of the universe.

Ophiolite said:

Yeah. That's a tough one. It's the old 'fight or spaceflight' dilemma. We should probably toss a coin.

Click to expand...

You can't toss a coin in this universe and think your odds are always 50/50 whatever side it lands on. To many variables that interrupt the coin flip itself, even a sweaty hand is enough to throw the odds off.

Astrophile said:

A few UFO reports are probably dreams or hallucinations rather than real events, and some others are deliberate hoaxes. I have never seen a UFO report that required a supernatural explanation.

Click to expand...

I largely agree that the bulk are mis-identification, hoaxes etc. But there are some reports that have to do with multiple witnesses, leaving behind physical evidence etc. that shoots that down. Even the famous Roswell case that had a good cover story that explained some things, had problems with it as far as inconsistencies etc.

Fear2Believe said:

You can't toss a coin in this universe and think your odds are always 50/50 whatever side it lands on. To many variables that interrupt the coin flip itself, even a sweaty hand is enough to throw the odds off.

Click to expand...

I guess the toss of the coin generated air currents that swept the irony of my suggestion into oblivion. I had imagined the solution was obvious - we must rig the coin toss to assure a cessation of fighting.

Even If aliens do exist, I don't think "alien first contact" will be an issue to worry about.

Ophiolite said:

I guess the toss of the coin generated air currents that swept the irony of my suggestion into oblivion. I had imagined the solution was obvious - we must rig the coin toss to assure a cessation of fighting.

Click to expand...

I understood what you were talking about, I'm just not interested in your beliefs.

Fear2Believe said:

I understood what you were talking about, I'm just not interested in your beliefs.

Click to expand...

1. I don't have beliefs. The provenance of beliefs is demonstrably ambiguous and uncertain.
2. I accept certain things as being provisionally likely based upon evidence. My observations here have been based upon evidence - most of it implicit, but available as an expansion upon directed requests.
3. If you were not interested in what you incorrectly identified as my beliefs, why did you bother responding?

Ophiolite said:

No. Your statement carries too many assumptions. Here are the counterpoints:
1. Are alien civilisations a close enough match to human to civilisation so that they make use of EM transmissions for communication? This may be true, but it is presumptuous to assume it.
2. Loss of signal strength over distance makes it highly improbable that signals can be detected from anything other than close neighbours.
3. At present the Earth is a "bright" radio source. Increased use of directional signals and fibre optics will reduce then practically eliminate this brightness.
4. If aliens are sensibly paranoid they will make sure they are not detectable

You've made an apparently random decision as to the range these travel methods could operate. What do you think it is the limit for each one? You must have a precise idea, for you are basing your rejection upon it.

Click to expand...

So we should recognize that the whole lot is highly speculative and carries about as much weight as any other interpretation.

All that we really have is perhaps sufficient evidence to say that "something" is going on and has been going on throughout history, but whether it is something that fits with materialist assumptions or whether it is hyper spatial is open to investigation.

The common thread that runs through many of the spiritual/alien encounter stories throughout history is a lack of openness and a fair bit of dishonesty which tells me that we should be leary of any explanation put forward.

Here is a crazy "alien" story. One time in the tiny town of Nazareth in the land of Israel, a full fledged celestial being "suddenly appeared" in a lady's living room. He informed Mary that his boss was in her belly. Similarly, after a mysterious man named Melchizedek appeared on the scene in the same lands prior, ratifying an agreement from heaven with a dude named Abram, he had an encounter with 3 such celestial beings who appeared to him at the Oaks of Mamre.

Pavel Mosko said:

No it doesn't the fine tuning argument is that the Earth is finely tuned not the rest of the universe.

Click to expand...

No; the fine-tuning argument is that the physical constants and characteristics of the universe are such that even tiny divergences would result in a universe unable to support life:

Anguspure said:

So we should recognize that the whole lot is highly speculative and carries about as much weight as any other interpretation.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. You made an assertion loaded with assumptions. I identified those assumptions, thereby substantially devaluing your assertion. Please remember - for I think you may have lost sight of it - this is in regard to your assertion that "SETI would have picked up signals from any civilisation advanced enough for this sort of thing less than a couple of centuries old, then they have to come from somewhere and no plausible candidates for star systems capable of supporting intelligent life are anywhere near within that sort of range."

Anguspure said:

All that we really have is perhaps sufficient evidence to say that "something" is going on and has been going on throughout history, but whether it is something that fits with materialist assumptions or whether it is hyper spatial is open to investigation.

Click to expand...

And when incidents have been investigated they generally turn out to have mundane explanations, obscured by the inexperience, incompetence, gullibility or deceitfulness of witnesses. The tiny, tiny fraction of unexplained instances lack any consistency of character that permit a firm conclusion, but application of Occam's razor points to simple, "materialist" explanations. (Not "materialist assumptions".)

Anguspure said:

The common thread that runs through many of the spiritual/alien encounter stories throughout history is a lack of openness and a fair bit of dishonesty which tells me that we should beware of any explanation put forward.

Click to expand...

I am aware of three categories of dishonesty. Firstly, appropriate government disinformation designed to protect secret military projects. Secondly, deliberate hoaxes. Thirdly, and by far the commonest, witnesses who lie to themselves, pretending their eye witness testimony is reliable and of substantive value.

Ophiolite said:

And when incidents have been investigated they generally turn out to have mundane explanations, obscured by the inexperience, incompetence, gullibility or deceitfulness of witnesses. The tiny, tiny fraction of unexplained instances lack any consistency of character that permit a firm conclusion, but application of Occam's razor points to simple, "materialist" explanations. (Not "materialist assumptions".)

Click to expand...

Yes; it's worth noting that if we assume that all UFO observations have 'mundane' explanations, and given a very large number of such observations, we would expect to find a small minority that we are unable to explain for various reasons. IOW we should not expect 100% resolution of a large number of mistaken claims.

Ophiolite said:

Nonsense. You made an assertion loaded with assumptions. I identified those assumptions, thereby substantially devaluing your assertion. Please remember - for I think you may have lost sight of it - this is in regard to your assertion that "SETI would have picked up signals from any civilisation advanced enough for this sort of thing less than a couple of centuries old, then they have to come from somewhere and no plausible candidates for star systems capable of supporting intelligent life are anywhere near within that sort of range."

And when incidents have been investigated they generally turn out to have mundane explanations, obscured by the inexperience, incompetence, gullibility or deceitfulness of witnesses. The tiny, tiny fraction of unexplained instances lack any consistency of character that permit a firm conclusion, but application of Occam's razor points to simple, "materialist" explanations. (Not "materialist assumptions".)

I am aware of three categories of dishonesty. Firstly, appropriate government disinformation designed to protect secret military projects. Secondly, deliberate hoaxes. Thirdly, and by far the commonest, witnesses who lie to themselves, pretending their eye witness testimony is reliable and of substantive value.

Click to expand...

My point is that we all interpret what little evidence and draw our conclusions on this subject based upon our favorite assumptions.
One assumes that nothing living exists beyond the material universe and so the evidence (again, if there is any at all) is evaluated on this basis. Another is skeptical of the materialist claim and considers the bigger picture presented by some sort of spiritualism and so possible explanations of this nature become a possibility.

Anguspure said:

My point is that we all interpret what little evidence and draw our conclusions on this subject based upon our favorite assumptions.
One assumes that nothing living exists beyond the material universe and so the evidence (again, if there is any at all) is evaluated on this basis. Another is skeptical of the materialist claim and considers the bigger picture presented by some sort of spiritualism and so possible explanations of this nature become a possibility.

Click to expand...

I understand your argument, but I think it is demonstrably mistaken.

Firstly, science follows the philosophy of methodological naturalism. That is, it does not exclude the possibility of the supernatural, or the spiritual; it simply notes that these are beyond the capacity/interest of science to investigate. An analogy would be that a chef can be expert in culinary skills yet have no interest in the decompression regime for a scuba diver. This is not an assumption, but a practical decision in defining the field of investigation.

Secondly, several scientists have taken an interest in phenomena whose origin and character are uncertain. They have not assumed they are natural, or non-material. They have simply investigated them to clarify, as far as possible, their character. Without any significant exception this has demonstrated that they are material. There is a strong motivation on the part of those scientists with a hunger for novelty, or deeply held religious beliefs, or just plain old mavericks, to turn the scientific world upside down by lifting the curtain and exposing the non-material behind it. Thus far, all we have found is a charlatan from Omaha, Nebraska.

I spent considerable time in my youth investigating clairvoyance, telepathy, telekinesis and spiritualism (in a rather amateurish, but nonetheless committed way). So I certainly never assumed that nothing living exists beyond the material universe. If anything my bias was too strongly inclined the other way.

Let us restrict the discussion to UFOs - that's relevant topic on this thread. I am always willing to examine my position in order to identify false premises and hidden assumptions. So, I would welcome you identifying for me which assumptions you think I am making that prevent me from giving further substantial consideration to non-material explanations. (To put it another way: been there, done that, got the T-shirt.)