Extraterrestrial life

[nipprdog]

I feel science has proven the existance of God;

that's a new one

 

[Lpherr]

Now that religion has entered the conversation...

I feel science has proven the existance of God; not that He needed scientific proof. I feel people decline that conclusion for reasons specific to them and their lifestyle / character.

Exactly how has science proven the existence of a deity, any more than it has proven the existence of extraterrestrial life?
I feel people accept that conclusion for reasons specific to them and their lifestyle/character.
How can one believe in a deity, but deny the possibility of any form of life off our planet?

People are raised to believe in a deity to explain their existence and the unexplained world around them. These same people gather their information from a book, and rely on their interpretation of a message the book implies.
Every single religion has their own book, and their own deity. They each believe something different and will argue that their religion is the only Devine scripture, and their deity is the only one.

Please enlighten myself, as to the proven evidence of any deity; scientifically or otherwise.

There is no evidence, and that is one reason religion is such a controversial subject.
Believing something, doesn't make it real, or fact.

 

[phylodog]

Believing something, doesn't make it real, or fact.

SSHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

You're gonna make liberals have a nationwide stroke with that kind of scary talk.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Now that religion has entered the conversation...




Exactly how has science proven the existence of a deity, any more than it has proven the existence of extraterrestrial life?
I feel people accept that conclusion for reasons specific to them and their lifestyle/character.
How can one believe in a deity, but deny the possibility of any form of life off our planet?

People are raised to believe in a deity to explain their existence and the unexplained world around them. These same people gather their information from a book, and rely on their interpretation of a message the book implies.
Every single religion has their own book, and their own deity. They each believe something different and will argue that their religion is the only Devine scripture, and their deity is the only one.

Please enlighten myself, as to the proven evidence of any deity; scientifically or otherwise.

There is no evidence, and that is one reason religion is such a controversial subject.
Believing something, doesn't make it real, or fact.

First, let me clarify a term. I don't believe that science has proven the existence of God. Science cannot prove anything, it only provides evidence for something, sometimes very strong evidence, but can never place something beyond doubt.

Having said that, science has provided strong evidence for the existence of God in many ways, but I'll list just a few of them:

1) Concerning the material universe, you must either believe that a) it has existed forever or b) it was brought into existence through something that is not part of the material universe. While it may have been reasonable to go with option "a" in the past, with our current understanding of thermodynamics, that no longer seems reasonable. So while science may not tell us much about this immaterial entity that brought the universe into existence, it does point to something outside of the material universe, that is not governed by the constraints of time and space as we know them. (I suppose there is technically a third option, that you believe the universe started to exist at some point, but there was no cause. In that case, you've completely rejected the fundamental idea of causation, and any attempt at scientific analysis, or even plain logic, is pretty much worthless.)

2) Certain miracles which in the past could have been ascribed to flukes of nature that we did not yet understand have been much more thoroughly studied using modern scientific methods, and these studies, far from coming up with a natural explanation for these occurrences, have instead indicated more strongly that many of them have no natural explanation (and before you say it: yes, you will find examples of debunked miracles out there; people will fake these things just like they'll fake anything else, and having a faked miracle debunked through examination no more proves that miracles do no exist than finding a man pretending to be a police officer would prove that police don't exist. I'm not saying science has confirmed all purported miracles, I'm saying there are some.) If you have any openness to this subject at all, there's a good documentary out there called, IIRC, "Science Tests God" made by a former atheist who set out to study a variety of different purported supernatural occurrences, and interview the scientists who had studied them, and ended up becoming Christian as a result of his findings.

3) In the past, when the internal functioning of life forms was poorly understood, it may have been reasonable to believe that life forms could form spontaneously from inanimate materials. Ironically, while most people associate this belief with modern evolutionary theory, it was a widely held belief throughout much of history, before science began to understand the true level of complexity of even "simple" life forms, such as bacteria. With our current understanding of the complex organic structures required for even the simplest life forms, it is becoming harder and harder to articulate a reasonable process by which random, lifeless chemicals could have come together in just the right way to make a life form, and all the attempted explanations seem, IMO, rather contrived. Given point number 1, from a logical standpoint, it seems much more likely that whatever supernatural/immaterial entity caused the universe to come into existence, also had a hand somehow in the creation of life forms.

In conclusion, I don't believe that any of the above will change your mind, and I've found that online conversations such as this are a poor format for topics that require such in-depth discussion, and thus are rarely productive. I only list the above because I find that it easily demonstrates that to state that there is "no evidence" seems quite an overstatement. You can argue against the evidence, or say it's not reasonable, but I have a hard time understanding how you would truly believe that everyone out there who believes in a deity does so without any evidence whatsoever.

 

[HoughMade]

It could happen anywhere.

 

[Lpherr]

First, let me clarify a term. I don't believe that science has proven the existence of God. Science cannot prove anything, it only provides evidence for something, sometimes very strong evidence, but can never place something beyond doubt.

Having said that, science has provided strong evidence for the existence of God in many ways, but I'll list just a few of them:

1) Concerning the material universe, you must either believe that a) it has existed forever or b) it was brought into existence through something that is not part of the material universe. While it may have been reasonable to go with option "a" in the past, with our current understanding of thermodynamics, that no longer seems reasonable. So while science may not tell us much about this immaterial entity that brought the universe into existence, it does point to something outside of the material universe, that is not governed by the constraints of time and space as we know them. (I suppose there is technically a third option, that you believe the universe started to exist at some point, but there was no cause. In that case, you've completely rejected the fundamental idea of causation, and any attempt at scientific analysis, or even plain logic, is pretty much worthless.)

2) Certain miracles which in the past could have been ascribed to flukes of nature that we did not yet understand have been much more thoroughly studied using modern scientific methods, and these studies, far from coming up with a natural explanation for these occurrences, have instead indicated more strongly that many of them have no natural explanation (and before you say it: yes, you will find examples of debunked miracles out there; people will fake these things just like they'll fake anything else, and having a faked miracle debunked through examination no more proves that miracles do no exist than finding a man pretending to be a police officer would prove that police don't exist. I'm not saying science has confirmed all purported miracles, I'm saying there are some.) If you have any openness to this subject at all, there's a good documentary out there called, IIRC, "Science Tests God" made by a former atheist who set out to study a variety of different purported supernatural occurrences, and interview the scientists who had studied them, and ended up becoming Christian as a result of his findings.

3) In the past, when the internal functioning of life forms was poorly understood, it may have been reasonable to believe that life forms could form spontaneously from inanimate materials. Ironically, while most people associate this belief with modern evolutionary theory, it was a widely held belief throughout much of history, before science began to understand the true level of complexity of even "simple" life forms, such as bacteria. With our current understanding of the complex organic structures required for even the simplest life forms, it is becoming harder and harder to articulate a reasonable process by which random, lifeless chemicals could have come together in just the right way to make a life form, and all the attempted explanations seem, IMO, rather contrived. Given point number 1, from a logical standpoint, it seems much more likely that whatever supernatural/immaterial entity caused the universe to come into existence, also had a hand somehow in the creation of life forms.

In conclusion, I don't believe that any of the above will change your mind, and I've found that online conversations such as this are a poor format for topics that require such in-depth discussion, and thus are rarely productive. I only list the above because I find that it easily demonstrates that to state that there is "no evidence" seems quite an overstatement. You can argue against the evidence, or say it's not reasonable, but I have a hard time understanding how you would truly believe that everyone out there who believes in a deity does so without any evidence whatsoever.

There are people on here, that stated to the effect, of not trusting science. Yet, turn to science to reinforce their belief.

Nothing you've stated, has proven "evidence" of a deity. It's all hypothetical, and doesn't/can't provide "evidence".
Evidence leads to proof, and proof can not be provided for, or against a deity. It simply can not be proven.

Miracles, Devine intervention, supernatural, or any other term that's applied, is just as you stated...
it's beyond our understanding, or an explanation that makes sense to us, but still doesn't show evidence of a deity.
It only shows that we are not all knowing and in time, like other things that weren't understood in the past, may come to light
when our knowledge and tech advance to the degree required. Science states, we only utilize approximately 10% of our brain.
As the human race, we turn to religion for things we don't/can't comprehend, thinking it will provide the answers, or justification.
I have a hard time understanding how everyone that does believe in a deity, can't accept the possibility of life beyond our microbial spec in the unfathomable size of space.

We have a significantly better chance of proving life on another planet, than we do of proving a deity.

 

[eldirector]

And some folks forget how "science" even works. Other than mathematics, there is no concept of "proof". Evidence, sure. Observations, even better.

Only governments, media, and laymen look for "proof". The rest look for more evidence, and adjust models to fit.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

I admit that I am very confused by your response. Maybe we are reaching the point that I mentioned where communication in this format becomes difficult, but if you'd like to continue the discussion, I'm happy to, but I have a few questions about what you wrote:

There are people on here, that stated to the effect, of not trusting science. Yet, turn to science to reinforce their belief.

Other people may have said that on here, but why are you bringing that up to me? I don't vouch for them.

Nothing you've stated, has proven "evidence" of a deity. It's all hypothetical, and doesn't/can't provide "evidence".
Evidence leads to proof, and proof can not be provided for, or against a deity. It simply can not be proven.

What are you saying is "hypothetical"? The laws of thermodynamics? The complexity of life forms?

Miracles, Devine intervention, supernatural, or any other term that's applied, is just as you stated...
it's beyond our understanding, or an explanation that makes sense to us, but still doesn't show evidence of a deity.
It only shows that we are not all knowing and in time, like other things that weren't understood in the past, may come to light
when our knowledge and tech advance to the degree required. Science states, we only utilize approximately 10% of our brain.
As the human race, we turn to religion for things we don't/can't comprehend, thinking it will provide the answers, or justification.

When something is beyond our full understanding, isn't the reasonable response to take the parts that we do understand, and try to formulate what the most likely answer is given the evidence that is available? I do agree that science cannot prove the existence of God, and anything we understand right now through science is subject to change with new information coming to light, as you say, but does that really mean have to, right now, throw our hands up in the air and say, "Well, I guess we really can't know anything about it, then"? (Maybe that's not what you mean, and I'm just misunderstanding, but that's how it came across.)

I have a hard time understanding how everyone that does believe in a deity, can't accept the possibility of life beyond our microbial spec in the unfathomable size of space.

We have a significantly better chance of proving life on another planet, than we do of proving a deity.

I already stated that I am open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and that I actually find it more likely given the existence of God than otherwise.

 

[Ingomike]

There are people on here, that stated to the effect, of not trusting science. Yet, turn to science to reinforce their belief.

I am tired of this kind of BS statement. Just because one does not trust scientists on politicized topics like global warming or wuwho flu doesn’t mean those people do not believe some things science has presented…

 

[manifest destiny]

"Space man f'd an ape then cut out on the date" - Song lyrics.
Some observations: Our graphic depictions of atoms with a nucleus being orbited by electrons and neutrons is eerily similar to our depictions of solar systems and galaxies with their suns, planets and moons. If accurate it would suggest that the scale of space is far greater than we can measure or even understand. The images being released from .gov of unexplained aerial phenomena (aka ufo's ) aren't much better than 1970's pics of bigfoot. The most advanced detections systems on earth and we only get a black tic tac shape on a grey screen. A few years ago Discovery Channel highlighted drawings by ancient man that look almost exactly like modern NASA space suits worn by astronauts. They were carbon dated to verify they were actually created that long ago. Maybe the aliens are us?? We have a theory that black holes consume all matter. Yet we built the Hadron Collider in an effort to see/measure a black hole. Perhaps humans aren't the intelligent life form?? If Pelosi isn't a reptilian space monster, then reptilian space monsters don't exist.

 

[Lpherr]

I admit that I am very confused by your response. Maybe we are reaching the point that I mentioned where communication in this format becomes difficult, but if you'd like to continue the discussion, I'm happy to, but I have a few questions about what you wrote:


Other people may have said that on here, but why are you bringing that up to me? I don't vouch for them.

What are you saying is "hypothetical"? The laws of thermodynamics? The complexity of life forms?

When something is beyond our full understanding, isn't the reasonable response to take the parts that we do understand, and try to formulate what the most likely answer is given the evidence that is available? I do agree that science cannot prove the existence of God, and anything we understand right now through science is subject to change with new information coming to light, as you say, but does that really mean have to, right now, throw our hands up in the air and say, "Well, I guess we really can't know anything about it, then"? (Maybe that's not what you mean, and I'm just misunderstanding, but that's how it came across.)

I already stated that I am open to the possibility of extraterrestrial life, and that I actually find it more likely given the existence of God than otherwise.

I agree, that it's difficult to convey thoughts through a forum.

Hypothetical is, any statement attempting to provide evidence of a deity.
When a person doesn't understand any circumstance, or event, they claim it's God's work.
That makes no sense, as there's an answer for the event. It isn't some intervention of a God.

I'm not saying throw your hands up; I'm saying just because it doesn't seem logical, or we don't understand it, don't pass it off as a deity intervened. Accept that there are things we just don't have the knowledge to comprehend.

Your last statement is definitive in saying God exists.
Have you met God? That would be compelling evidence, but believers only hope that they will get the opportunity to discover if they were correct.

I neither accept or deny the existence of a higher power.
The same is true for other life.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Our graphic depictions of atoms with a nucleus being orbited by electrons and neutrons is eerily similar to our depictions of solar systems and galaxies with their suns, planets and moons.

 

[femurphy77]

Gotta love INGO, someone asks for opinions, and we're on page 4 already arguing who is right.


GAWD is this a GREAT forum or what????






Oh and bonus points for the Animal House reference!

 

[AndreusMaximus]

When a person doesn't understand any circumstance, or event, they claim it's God's work.
That makes no sense, as there's an answer for the event. It isn't some intervention of a God.

I'm not saying throw your hands up; I'm saying just because it doesn't seem logical, or we don't understand it, don't pass it off as a deity intervened.

Okay, I think we're getting to the crux at the matter. If I'm starting to understand correctly the point you're trying to make, it's that we can't just take any random event that appears to be unexplained and insert God as the explanation. If that's your point, then I agree with you on that. Yes, there are some people like this, but that's not the argument I'm making here.

Have you met God? That would be compelling evidence, but believers only hope that they will get the opportunity to discover if they were correct.

But there are lots of people who do claim to have met God. Sure, you could just as easily explain that away by saying they're lying or delusional, and even if you yourself met God you could choose to believe that it was just a hallucination or a false memory. My argument is that these claims alone don't provide sufficient evidence, but science can be a useful tool (among others) for evaluating these sorts of claims.

If our scientific understanding of the physical laws of the universe indicates that there must be some sort of creative force outside the laws of the material universe, and if many people throughout history claim to have met God in some way, and these claims are accompanied by supernatural signs, and we can find a logical pattern among the sorts of claims accompanied by signs that hold up to scientific scrutiny, as opposed to those that are debunked, then things can start to add up as evidence towards a certain conclusion. Science alone may not be able to give us a very complete picture of what this "God" thing is (or, if you prefer, from a scientific perspective we don't even have to say "God", we could just say "immaterial cosmic force that created the material universe" or something like that.) But to claim that science cannot give us any indication one way or the other on the existence of such an entity? I just don't see the grounds for that claim.

To get back to the question of extraterrestrial life, which is a very similar debate in many ways:

If someone claims something like "My dog kept barking the other day even when there was clearly nothing there, it must have been sensing something that I couldn't see, and clearly it must have been aliens. Plus humans have advanced far too much in technology for them to have done it on their own, they must have been coached by some extraterrestrial force." Sure, I'm not going to count that as evidence, as there are many more possible explanations that one could logically give besides the one they claim.

But if someone shows me videos of unexplained flying objects performing maneuvers that are impossible with flight craft at our current level of technology, coupled with testimonies of multiple people in the same area as the footage was taken saying that they had met aliens, in that case I may dispute their evidence by claiming the videos were doctored, or the testimonies were just a cheap ploy for attention, or I may provide what I believe are stronger counter-arguments against the existence of aliens. But I'm not going to be so brash as to still insist that they have "no evidence."

 

[Ziggidy]

First, let me clarify a term. I don't believe that science has proven the existence of God. Science cannot prove anything, it only provides evidence for something, sometimes very strong evidence, but can never place something beyond doubt.

Having said that, science has provided strong evidence for the existence of God in many ways, but I'll list just a few of them:

1) Concerning the material universe, you must either believe that a) it has existed forever or b) it was brought into existence through something that is not part of the material universe. While it may have been reasonable to go with option "a" in the past, with our current understanding of thermodynamics, that no longer seems reasonable. So while science may not tell us much about this immaterial entity that brought the universe into existence, it does point to something outside of the material universe, that is not governed by the constraints of time and space as we know them. (I suppose there is technically a third option, that you believe the universe started to exist at some point, but there was no cause. In that case, you've completely rejected the fundamental idea of causation, and any attempt at scientific analysis, or even plain logic, is pretty much worthless.)

2) Certain miracles which in the past could have been ascribed to flukes of nature that we did not yet understand have been much more thoroughly studied using modern scientific methods, and these studies, far from coming up with a natural explanation for these occurrences, have instead indicated more strongly that many of them have no natural explanation (and before you say it: yes, you will find examples of debunked miracles out there; people will fake these things just like they'll fake anything else, and having a faked miracle debunked through examination no more proves that miracles do no exist than finding a man pretending to be a police officer would prove that police don't exist. I'm not saying science has confirmed all purported miracles, I'm saying there are some.) If you have any openness to this subject at all, there's a good documentary out there called, IIRC, "Science Tests God" made by a former atheist who set out to study a variety of different purported supernatural occurrences, and interview the scientists who had studied them, and ended up becoming Christian as a result of his findings.

3) In the past, when the internal functioning of life forms was poorly understood, it may have been reasonable to believe that life forms could form spontaneously from inanimate materials. Ironically, while most people associate this belief with modern evolutionary theory, it was a widely held belief throughout much of history, before science began to understand the true level of complexity of even "simple" life forms, such as bacteria. With our current understanding of the complex organic structures required for even the simplest life forms, it is becoming harder and harder to articulate a reasonable process by which random, lifeless chemicals could have come together in just the right way to make a life form, and all the attempted explanations seem, IMO, rather contrived. Given point number 1, from a logical standpoint, it seems much more likely that whatever supernatural/immaterial entity caused the universe to come into existence, also had a hand somehow in the creation of life forms.

In conclusion, I don't believe that any of the above will change your mind, and I've found that online conversations such as this are a poor format for topics that require such in-depth discussion, and thus are rarely productive. I only list the above because I find that it easily demonstrates that to state that there is "no evidence" seems quite an overstatement. You can argue against the evidence, or say it's not reasonable, but I have a hard time understanding how you would truly believe that everyone out there who believes in a deity does so without any evidence whatsoever.

Thank or the clarification on my behalf. I agree.

 

[Ingomike]

If evolution is true, where is the missing link in the homo sapiens evolutionary track?

 

[Hoosierdood]

All this arguing about religion, the existence of God, extraterrestrials, science, etc. Here is the thing… none of it can be proven.

Atheists cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.

Christian’s cannot prove that God does exist.

The theory that the universe evolved from compressed molecules is just a theory.

The theory that an all powerful deity created everything that you see is a theory.

Intelligent life beyond our own planet cannot be proven nor disproven.

Evidence can be compiled to support any one of these positions. And it’s not fair to say that any time something unexplained occurs that people dismiss it based on their beliefs. People have reasons for their beliefs and most often those reasons are based on the vast amounts of evidence that they have compiled. More times than not, those beliefs are a mixture of religion and science.

But back to the original question, is it possible that there is intelligent life beyond our planet? Possibly. I personally don’t think there is enough evidence to confirm or deny the possibility.

 

[yote hunter]

Some say they live among us & have for awhile !?

 

[Lpherr]

All this arguing about religion, the existence of God, extraterrestrials, science, etc. Here is the thing… none of it can be proven.

Atheists cannot prove that God doesn’t exist.

Christian’s cannot prove that God does exist.

The theory that the universe evolved from compressed molecules is just a theory.

The theory that an all powerful deity created everything that you see is a theory.

Intelligent life beyond our own planet cannot be proven nor disproven.

Evidence can be compiled to support any one of these positions. And it’s not fair to say that any time something unexplained occurs that people dismiss it based on their beliefs. People have reasons for their beliefs and most often those reasons are based on the vast amounts of evidence that they have compiled. More times than not, those beliefs are a mixture of religion and science.

But back to the original question, is it possible that there is intelligent life beyond our planet? Possibly. I personally don’t think there is enough evidence to confirm or deny the possibility.

This is precisely why I remain agnostic about such subjects.
Although, it's good to hear individual ideals, and what lead to them.

 

[tv1217]

The way I see it, we will never prove(or disprove) the existence of deities such as God as they are purported to exist beyond our reality/natural laws/etc.. Just as if we live in an advanced computer simulation, we will never be able to prove the programmer's existence because he didn't code us the tools to do so.