Do Aliens Exist?

[Anguspure]

I did not offer it as a superior candidate. I offered it, along with several other alternatives, as a candidate. What scientific objection do you have to it?

No scientific objection. I do however object to a point of view that is presented as the only plausible option when it is quite clear that the point of view excludes other points of view from the argument apriori. Clearly the scientific method (in so far as it is committed to methodological naturalism) is the incorrect method to asses truth on subjects that present evidence of phenomena that falls beyond the material world.

 

[Ophiolite]

No scientific objection. I do however object to a point of view that is presented as the only plausible option when it is quite clear that the point of view excludes other points of view from the argument apriori. Clearly the scientific method (in so far as it is committed to methodological naturalism) is the incorrect method to asses truth on subjects that present evidence of phenomena that falls beyond the material world.

1. You are dismissive of the plausibility of visits to the Earth by aliens, as in this instance (post #85):
"I am skeptical of the idea that Aliens could or would travel to this planet without using hyperspace of some sort, even if they did originate from a physical planet somewhere. "
Yet you offer no evidential support for that position.

2. Feel free to re-read all my posts on the topic; note that I do not exclude the possibility of the spiritual; then apologise for implying that I do.


Aside: Hyperspace is an SF concept, but as such is very much a material concept, not in any way spiritual.

 

[Anguspure]

1. You are dismissive of the plausibility of visits to the Earth by aliens, as in this instance (post #85):
"I am skeptical of the idea that Aliens could or would travel to this planet without using hyperspace of some sort, even if they did originate from a physical planet somewhere. "
Yet you offer no evidential support for that position.

Vast, incredibly vast tracts of space filled with God knows what, is pretty good grounds for scepticism.
As I have pointed out, to suggest that any material technology we can even conceive of at this point of time is capable of carry anybody on a voyage of discovery or whatever around the universe is like suggesting that we could ride a bicycle to the moon.
Do you have any concept of the sheer vast size of the universe. As Douglas Adams put it:

"Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space."​

The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy

2. Feel free to re-read all my posts on the topic; note that I do not exclude the possibility of the spiritual; then apologise for implying that I do.
Aside: Hyperspace is an SF concept, but as such is very much a material concept, not in any way spiritual.

Anything that exists in a hyper space, exists (perhaps momentarily but not necessarily) beyond space and time as we know it.
This is very much a definition of what it means for something to be spiritual. Look at the way the disciple describe the way in which Christ gets around after His resurrection, for example (and irrespective of whether you believe it or not, I am pointing out the concept). Very "magical" and yet entirely physical and He is described as having a spiritual body.
It seems to me that Athur C Clarke's first law has a bearing here: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." When we deny the spiritual because we can't see any "material technology" at work, we miss the point.
That we look for the path to hyperspace by increasing the amount of material throw at the problem seems to be rather an oxymoron. A bit like a visitor from the 1800's trying to recreate a smartphone with gears, steel and steam, our views on how we somebody might achieve space travel are somewhat steampunk and pedestrian.

 

[Ophiolite]

Vast, incredibly vast tracts of space filled with God knows what, is pretty good grounds for scepticism.
As I have pointed out, to suggest that any material technology we can even conceive of at this point of time is capable of carry anybody on a voyage of discovery or whatever around the universe is like suggesting that we could ride a bicycle to the moon.
Do you have any concept of the sheer vast size of the universe. As Douglas Adams put it:

"Space is big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it’s a long way down the road to the chemist’s, but that’s just peanuts to space."​

The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy, The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy


Anything that exists in a hyper space, exists (perhaps momentarily but not necessarily) beyond space and time as we know it.
This is very much a definition of what it means for something to be spiritual. Look at the way the disciple describe the way in which Christ gets around after His resurrection, for example (and irrespective of whether you believe it or not, I am pointing out the concept). Very "magical" and yet entirely physical and He is described as having a spiritual body.
It seems to me that Athur C Clarke's first law has a bearing here: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." When we deny the spiritual because we can't see any "material technology" at work, we miss the point.
That we look for the path to hyperspace by increasing the amount of material throw at the problem seems to be rather an oxymoron. A bit like a visitor from the 1800's trying to recreate a smartphone with gears, steel and steam, our views on how we somebody might achieve space travel are somewhat steampunk and pedestrian.

Since you have no interest in actually responding properly to any of my posts, I have lost any interest in continuing the discussion. If you decide to actually address them you can send me a pm to let me know.

 

[Anguspure]

Since you have no interest in actually responding properly to any of my posts, I have lost any interest in continuing the discussion. If you decide to actually address them you can send me a pm to let me know.

"Correlation overhead with duck chequerboards on rye bread ensconces filibuster silk beforth rainbow elbows."

 

[Ophiolite]

"Correlation overhead with duck chequerboards on rye bread ensconces filibuster silk beforth rainbow elbows."

Misapplication. I posted that nonsense in response to your nonsense. You reposted it in response to my intelligible post of information.

 

[Anguspure]

Misapplication. I posted that nonsense in response to your nonsense. You reposted it in response to my intelligible post of information.

You've just cut off the branch upon which you were sitting.

Since you have no interest in actually responding properly to any of my posts, I have lost any interest in continuing the discussion. If you decide to actually address them you can send me a pm to let me know.

Given that you just responded to nonsense after saying that you had no wish to, am I not vindicated in my response above?

 

[Strathos]

Maybe if the Area 51 raiders hadn't wimped out, we'd now know the answer to that question.

 

[DennisTate]

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?

The Book of Enoch was part of the Christian canon for five centuries or so. It certainly indicates that Watchers / alien sons of G-d.... produced children with human women.

 

[Davidz777]

I will suggest those pondering the question first read the 2000 best seller, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist. Their work overturned the dominant views of Carl Sagan and Frank Drake who professed the universe is probably teeming with life and intelligent life, because the universe is a very hostile place over time spans of hundreds of millions of years that multicellular DNA life needs to develop. Further the geological and atmospheric history or Earth shows an incredible number of unlikely events, for instance the carbon cycle that give credibility to a possible intelligent design influence.

I reject omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, precognition, time travel into the past or future, simultaneous planes of existence, multi-universes within the same physical space, or miracles that are logically impossible, and rather put such in the realm of impossible fantasy science fiction. I have also rejected inerrancy and infallibilty and that has allowed me to look at the Bible's text with an open mind. And from that lean towards God and his angels being the result of the rise of artificial intelligence possibly near infinite time into the past beyond endless Big Bangs and universes that has ever since dominated all in existence. Thus intelligent entities with limitations in a fine tuned universe with limitations. Accordingly if we are being visited and watched it won't be by little green men as the time required to travel between stars is too vast for organic life forms.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I reject ... time travel into the past or future..., multi-universes within the same physical space, ... and rather put such in the realm of impossible fantasy science fiction.
... And from that lean towards God and his angels being the result of the rise of artificial intelligence possibly near infinite time into the past beyond endless Big Bangs and universes that has ever since dominated all in existence.

Remarkable, considering that time travel into the future is a demonstrated fact (and not just the fact that we age at 1 second per second), and that some forms of multiverse are predictions of current physical theories - and yet you don't think that "God and his angels being the result of the rise of artificial intelligence possibly near infinite time into the past beyond endless Big Bangs and universes that has ever since dominated all in existence"(!) is in the realm of impossible fantasy science fiction, despite having all the key hallmarks...

I think you're having a laugh.

 

[Davidz777]

Scientist laugh at notions of time travel outside of difficult to describe quantum effects math. And likewise multiverses existing within identical space are fringe ideas not surprisingly embraced by scifi writers and religious philosophers while multi-universes as isolated realms as suggested by Susskind (The Cosmic Landscape) are considered more seriously. Thus the latter are considered individual outcomes of say Big Bangs or whatever that result in different fine tuned physical parameters, the majority of which result in properties in which a universe as we have with stars, galaxies etc, much less organic life would not exist.

 

[Ophiolite]

I will suggest those pondering the question first read the 2000 best seller, Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, a book by Peter Ward, a geologist and paleontologist, and Donald E. Brownlee, an astronomer and astrobiologist. Their work overturned the dominant views of Carl Sagan and Frank Drake who professed the universe is probably teeming with life and intelligent life, because the universe is a very hostile place over time spans of hundreds of millions of year that multicellular DNA life needs to develop.

I've highlighted a portion of your post that I would challenge. Ward and Brownlee presented an argument that contradicted the alternative view of a universe that imagined abundant instances of intelligent life. A contradiction is not equivalent to an overturning. Their argument is informed and well considered, but far from conclusive. I routinely caution extrapolating from a sample size of one.

That said, I thoroughly agree that the book is essential reading for anyone interested in the topic.

 

[SelfSim]

Remarkable, considering that time travel into the future is a demonstrated fact ...

'Demonstrated fact' to whom, exactly? Highly misleading claim.
State your assumptions supporting such an extraordinary claim.
Is your context here purely theoretical?

... (and not just the fact that we age at 1 second per second),

... a meaningless metric ...

 

[Shemjaza]

Personally I'd count taking advantage of time dilation as time travel into the future.

The ability to accelerate a craft to near the speed of light, or to orbit near a super massive black hole are practical engineering and resource problems not physical impossibilities.

 

[SelfSim]

Personally I'd count taking advantage of time dilation as time travel into the future.
The ability to accelerate a craft to near the speed of light, or to orbit near a super massive black hole are practical engineering and resource problems not physical impossibilities.

No .. they are physically untested hypotheticals, which may still, in fact, be impossibilities.

 

[Shemjaza]

No .. they are physically untested hypotheticals, which may still, in fact, be impossibilities.

You should be aware that we need to account for time dilation even with GPS satellites.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

'Demonstrated fact' to whom, exactly? Highly misleading claim.
State your assumptions supporting such an extraordinary claim.

It's all relative, so I'm referring to relative rates of motion through time. The canonical, and literally down-to-Earth, example is of muons generated in the upper atmosphere by cosmic ray impacts; their half-life is around 2.2ms which, at their velocities, would allow them a travel distance of < 500m without relativistic effects. But given relativistic effects, they can travel much further, > 1,300m, which allows them to reach the ground and some way below it. So, from the muon's perspective, they have traveled forward in time faster than we have; 2.2ms of their time was much longer to us.

The same applies, to a considerably lesser extent, to astronauts.

 

[Davidz777]

I've highlighted a portion of your post that I would challenge. Ward and Brownlee presented an argument that contradicted the alternative view of a universe that imagined abundant instances of intelligent life. A contradiction is not equivalent to an overturning. Their argument is informed and well considered, but far from conclusive. I routinely caution extrapolating from a sample size of one.

Agreed that "overturning" could be more broadly interpretted than I had intended, thank you. It is true that it has begun to overturn the dominant public understanding of the probability of alien multicellular life on other worlds while obviously not a concensus of astrobiologists and astronomers, some of which remain in the more optimistic camp after the considerable following re-assesments. Science media is no longer making it all look like the Star Wars Cantina while ordinary non-science educated people will likely continue to embrace anything they absorb in scifi movies, comic books, and tv...Beam me up Scotty!

 

[SelfSim]

You should be aware that we need to account for time dilation even with GPS satellites.

Hmm .. I'm aware of this.
What does this have to do with 'the ability to accelerate a craft to near the speed of light, or to orbit near a super massive black hole', such that we can rule out 'physical impossibilities' in that context?