5 ms·

I think you totally missed my point. I am literally saying there are Aliens only if GOD created them and it seems like there aren't. Even though i tried to be v

I think you totally missed my point. I am literally saying there are Aliens only if GOD created them and it seems like there aren't. Even though i tried to be very indirect for obvious reasons. I think it was clear enough.

bdefore 4y ago
Not who you responded to, but I thought you described your case elegantly neutral to the God question. I suspected you were coming from that perspective, but your argument stood on its own. Now that said, if we did find alien life, how would your feelings about God change?
- alienalp 4y ago
  I don't base existence of GOD on this. Simply GOD is only thing that does not need anything to be based on so it is possible to explain existence. I was trying to point that evolution is statistically close to impossible (from my understanding) and GOD made it possible. Thus aliens are unlikely. And it seems like there is no sign of aliens in holly books. If there was aliens and it was conflicting with holly books then it would mean that holly books i believe are fake however i am not saying that existence of Aliens would conflict with Holly books either (I am not sure about that). The explanation of this existence to you is what GOD means to you. And you need to define some element to explain this existence. And what would you define eventually means GOD to you.
  - Retric 4y ago
    Which logically means your definition of GOD would include a non sentient physical processes that lacks a free will etc. At that point why label it GOD rather than say space time or whatever?
    - alienalp 4y ago
      Existence of universe has nothing to do with something about universe. Or at leas not have to. You cannot explain existence of space time with space time
      - yibg 4y ago
        Why not? If GOD has always existed why can’t space and time?
        alienalp 4y ago
        That is the thing if you are talking about space-time it didn't existed before the Big Bang.
        Retric 4y ago
        That’s one model, but we really don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. Still labeling pre Big Bang as SpaceTimeTime or calling that Space Time and relabeling what we experience as local space time doesn’t really matter here. The point is our Big Bang could be happening infinite times in a multiverse without beginning or end. That’s one possibility where there isn’t anything conscious to point to as a GOD just the same kind of things which make up physical reality.
  - kgwxd 4y ago
    Every book, holy or otherwise, that was ever written was written by humans. What makes you think they are “real” in the first place? There’s no mention of a ton of very significant things we now know to be real in any holy book. Why isn’t that stuff enough “proof” they’re “fake”?
  - xerox13ster 4y ago
    I don't believe you have read your "holly" books. There are plenty of alien beings described in detail in that book. I also reject your out-of-hand assertion that whatever one thinks about the world's existence has the same meaning to someone as your mythical being has to you. How blown would your mind be if I posited to you that what you call "GOD" is the universe? Your holly book says he is everywhere and everything all at once, does it not? That "He is within all of us", and yet we are the universe observing itself. He came about out of nowhere with no trace of origin? We don't know what caused the big bang, it just happened. If aliens exist, it's because the universe "allowed" it to happen (aka the statistical probability is high enough for it to occur or we would not be alive having this conversation) not some conscious divine being.
Retric 4y ago
Sure, that belief isn’t backed up by existing evidence but it’s hardly worth rehashing again. Anyway something more interesting you said was the belief that all life came from a single cell. It’s unclear if all life ever to exist on earth had cells or if they evolved later. Also, we can’t tell if life showed up independently fairly frequently but was out competed or just once. This is somewhat dependent on how life is defined. Prions replicate, but aren’t generally considered alive, yet being fairly simple they should have shown up quite frequently due to random chance. The more complex self replicating matter must be to be considered alive the higher the hurdle for life to have formed randomly but the more likely for simpler self replicating matter to evolve into life. Yet, saying evolution of non living mater results in life seems to twist the meaning around unpleasantly. PS: Perhaps we should have a new definition between dead matter and living matter which is self catalyzing in the right environment. With viruses or prions siting at the complex side and crystals at the simple end.
- alienalp 4y ago
  Even if it doesn't define life obviously replication is the thing here. Without capability of replication there is no continuation and even if some matter is alive it has limited time to obtain this ability. Which is actually seems like slightly more possible than impossible to me. Not saying straightforward impossible just because we exist.
  - yarg 4y ago
    Any non infinitessimal probability leads to certainty given enough time. Consider it in terms of reactions per second - take the likelyhood of non-formation of replicators (call it 99.999999999% - because it actually does not matter), to the power of the number of reactors, to the power of the number of seconds since the universe began. The likelyhood that no self-replicators form rapidly plummets to a vanishing value.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      By that standard there hasn't been much time.
yarg 4y ago
Do we really need to bring the invisible sky-wizard into this? Also, the fact that you think a being of unfathomable complexity can just be, but everything else needs a source is rather silly. (The other possibility being infinite regression, which is equally silly.)

bdefore 4y ago

Not who you responded to, but I thought you described your case elegantly neutral to the God question. I suspected you were coming from that perspective, but your argument stood on its own. Now that said, if we did find alien life, how would your feelings about God change?

alienalp 4y ago
I don't base existence of GOD on this. Simply GOD is only thing that does not need anything to be based on so it is possible to explain existence. I was trying to point that evolution is statistically close to impossible (from my understanding) and GOD made it possible. Thus aliens are unlikely. And it seems like there is no sign of aliens in holly books. If there was aliens and it was conflicting with holly books then it would mean that holly books i believe are fake however i am not saying that existence of Aliens would conflict with Holly books either (I am not sure about that). The explanation of this existence to you is what GOD means to you. And you need to define some element to explain this existence. And what would you define eventually means GOD to you.
- Retric 4y ago
  Which logically means your definition of GOD would include a non sentient physical processes that lacks a free will etc. At that point why label it GOD rather than say space time or whatever?
  - alienalp 4y ago
    Existence of universe has nothing to do with something about universe. Or at leas not have to. You cannot explain existence of space time with space time
    - yibg 4y ago
      Why not? If GOD has always existed why can’t space and time?
      - alienalp 4y ago
        That is the thing if you are talking about space-time it didn't existed before the Big Bang.
        Retric 4y ago
        That’s one model, but we really don’t know what happened before the Big Bang. Still labeling pre Big Bang as SpaceTimeTime or calling that Space Time and relabeling what we experience as local space time doesn’t really matter here. The point is our Big Bang could be happening infinite times in a multiverse without beginning or end. That’s one possibility where there isn’t anything conscious to point to as a GOD just the same kind of things which make up physical reality.
- kgwxd 4y ago
  Every book, holy or otherwise, that was ever written was written by humans. What makes you think they are “real” in the first place? There’s no mention of a ton of very significant things we now know to be real in any holy book. Why isn’t that stuff enough “proof” they’re “fake”?
- xerox13ster 4y ago
  I don't believe you have read your "holly" books. There are plenty of alien beings described in detail in that book. I also reject your out-of-hand assertion that whatever one thinks about the world's existence has the same meaning to someone as your mythical being has to you. How blown would your mind be if I posited to you that what you call "GOD" is the universe? Your holly book says he is everywhere and everything all at once, does it not? That "He is within all of us", and yet we are the universe observing itself. He came about out of nowhere with no trace of origin? We don't know what caused the big bang, it just happened. If aliens exist, it's because the universe "allowed" it to happen (aka the statistical probability is high enough for it to occur or we would not be alive having this conversation) not some conscious divine being.

Retric 4y ago

Sure, that belief isn’t backed up by existing evidence but it’s hardly worth rehashing again. Anyway something more interesting you said was the belief that all life came from a single cell. It’s unclear if all life ever to exist on earth had cells or if they evolved later. Also, we can’t tell if life showed up independently fairly frequently but was out competed or just once. This is somewhat dependent on how life is defined. Prions replicate, but aren’t generally considered alive, yet being fairly simple they should have shown up quite frequently due to random chance. The more complex self replicating matter must be to be considered alive the higher the hurdle for life to have formed randomly but the more likely for simpler self replicating matter to evolve into life. Yet, saying evolution of non living mater results in life seems to twist the meaning around unpleasantly. PS: Perhaps we should have a new definition between dead matter and living matter which is self catalyzing in the right environment. With viruses or prions siting at the complex side and crystals at the simple end.

alienalp 4y ago
Even if it doesn't define life obviously replication is the thing here. Without capability of replication there is no continuation and even if some matter is alive it has limited time to obtain this ability. Which is actually seems like slightly more possible than impossible to me. Not saying straightforward impossible just because we exist.
- yarg 4y ago
  Any non infinitessimal probability leads to certainty given enough time. Consider it in terms of reactions per second - take the likelyhood of non-formation of replicators (call it 99.999999999% - because it actually does not matter), to the power of the number of reactors, to the power of the number of seconds since the universe began. The likelyhood that no self-replicators form rapidly plummets to a vanishing value.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    By that standard there hasn't been much time.

yarg 4y ago

Do we really need to bring the invisible sky-wizard into this? Also, the fact that you think a being of unfathomable complexity can just be, but everything else needs a source is rather silly. (The other possibility being infinite regression, which is equally silly.)