Thread: Is it Hypocritical to believe in Extraterrestrial life, but not god?

One can be falsified, the other can never be. That is the main difference. If we find primitive lifeforms within the solar system and outside of our planet, then that'll show that extra-terrestrial life is possible. However, if you mean intelligent life, then that's a whole different dimension.

Given the immense size of the university, talking about potentialities and probabilities in the area of ET life is actually meaningful. Comparing scientists to religious leaders is just goofy. Yes, fully believing in something without evidence is stupid, but it's not stupid to consider the reasonability of possibilities.

By Webster's definition of hypocrisy, no.

a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not

I don't see how feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not is nessecary to believe in extraterrestrial life and not in a deity.

If you believe the universe is infinite, there must be an infinite amount of other life.

There is a logical reason for believing in extraterrestrial life; in fact that and believing in God are virtually mutually exclusive in my eyes. There is a vast amount of matter out there in the universe out of which some genetic code or other could arise through random reactions, like we did. So much that it's pretty much impossible that there aren't millions of other solar systems with life on; bearing in mind that there are about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems in the observable universe. There is pretty much no logical reason that I can see for believing in a conscious creator of the universe though, and absolutely no justification for any of the classical Gods like that of Christianity.

Originally Posted by Xei

There is a logical reason for believing in extraterrestrial life; in fact that and believing in God are virtually mutually exclusive in my eyes. There is a vast amount of matter out there in the universe out of which some genetic code or other could arise through random reactions, like we did. So much that it's pretty much impossible that there aren't millions of other solar systems with life on; bearing in mind that there are about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 solar systems in the observable universe. There is pretty much no logical reason that I can see for believing in a conscious creator of the universe though, and absolutely no justification for any of the classical Gods like that of Christianity.

You damn hypocrit >=(

Originally Posted by bluefinger

One can be falsified, the other can never be. That is the main difference. If we find primitive lifeforms within the solar system and outside of our planet, then that'll show that extra-terrestrial life is possible. However, if you mean intelligent life, then that's a whole different dimension.

The belief in extra-terrestrial life isn't really falsifiable (at least not for us). Its very possible to prove the existence of it, but the universe is so vast that it would be virtually impossible to disprove the existence of it.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Given the immense size of the university, talking about potentialities and probabilities in the area of ET life is actually meaningful. Comparing scientists to religious leaders is just goofy. Yes, fully believing in something without evidence is stupid, but it's not stupid to consider the reasonability of possibilities.

Well, given the immense size of the universe, there is a strong possibility that something fitting at least one of the earthly descriptions of god exists somewhere out there as well.

The existence of a god is one of the possibilities that should be reasonable to consider, by your argument.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well, given the immense size of the universe, there is a strong possibility that something fitting at least one of the earthly descriptions of god exists somewhere out there as well.

The existence of a god is one of the possibilities that should be reasonable to consider, by your argument.

Uh, no. God is supernatural, remember? The size of the universe is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Uh, no. God is supernatural, remember? The size of the universe is irrelevant.

If something actually exists, then it cannot be supernatural. I don't like the term, and few people who believe in god use it (in reference to god that is). I don't believe god is supernatural, since I believe it exists, and therefore must be somehow contained in what is 'natural', which is another word for existence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If something actually exists, then it cannot be supernatural. I don't like the term, and few people who believe in god use it (in reference to god that is). I don't believe god is supernatural, since I believe it exists, and therefore must be somehow contained in what is 'natural', which is another word for existence.

That doesn't change the fact that the word is used in the way I described. The god of the Abrahamic religions is said not to be a natural phenomenon and not part of the observable physical universe. He reveals himself through physical phenomena such as humanoid manifestations (Jesus), divine inspiration (Muhammad) and intervention (wonders) but these phenomena are not him and the size of the universe has nothing to do with his chance of existing. God cannot be found through rational or empirical investigation, not by traveling the universe and looking at stuff. Don't tell me that it doesn't make any sense, I didn't come up with it.

Originally Posted by Serkat

Given the immense size of the university, talking about potentialities and probabilities in the area of ET life is actually meaningful. Comparing scientists to religious leaders is just goofy. Yes, fully believing in something without evidence is stupid, but it's not stupid to consider the reasonability of possibilities.

Each decade the universe becomes about ten times bigger as far our understanding of it. The concept grows massively in size whenever we observe it again. To the atheist, it seems like a general concept that since you can't prove existence outside of this physical vibration, it should therefore be assumed it does not exist. Well, before telescopes, we couldn't tell if there was anything more than the Milky Way Galaxy. People train their minds to do transcedential meditation and they claim to witness existence beyond this single floor we call the Universe.

And the response is that it's still explainable on an exoteric level, these men obviously induce themselves into dreaming states or whatever the argument is, but so little is known about consciousness... it seems to me that if one has an unwillingness to try something just because it's possible to explain it on an exoteric level, then what's the point? A skeptic should not give up on searching for truth, they should never admit they found it, either. That's what Aristotle believed. But

I'm not aware of any scientists who will state for a fact that intelligent life exists in the universe apart from human beings. I am aware of scientists who will state for a fact that it is "possible" intelligent life exists out there. Or atleast has or will exist.

Well the problem is this, first of all this is not easy to come by, nor has this been discovered with Hubbles view's of millions of star systems.




And this is even more impossible, hubbles views of other galaxies doesn't give much to Astorphysics to indicate that some other galaxy has it as good as we have it. There just so happen to be a tiny area within both the Solar System and the Galaxy that inhabits complex life. That's the bottom line- Take it or leave it.

That's very speculative data. Nobody knows what the 'habitable zone' truly is, but that's probably based on the temperature of liquid water... which could well be wrong. I mean, Europa is said to be capable of sustaining life, and that's miles out of the habitable zone there, so the thing clearly doesn't allow for any kind of realistic estimate. And anyway, those zones are hardly 'tiny', they look like they're more than 10% of the total space. So instead of 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 habitable solar systems we only have 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000... and that's supposed to make life unlikely? Time to rethink your argument.

You need to learn to read. I said "Complex Life." Last I remember, I don't think they've found any, near or around Jupiter.

They haven't looked yet (it's supposed to be under the ice so it's quite hard to get to), but the biologists say it's possible. Which is the whole point.

I don't have any problems with reading by the way. The points above are completely unchanged by your statement. Quite clearly...

Although I doubt very much that your statement has any real basis. Why is being in that particular area essential to intelligence? If Europa's as warm as they say it is, I don't see why complex organisms couldn't evolve, if simple organisms can. And what if there was a planet with a large greenhouse effect much further from the sun, potentially giving it a climate very similar to that of the Earth? The whole thing is very very generalised.

Originally Posted by Xei

They haven't looked yet (it's supposed to be under the ice so it's quite hard to get to), but the biologists say it's possible. Which is the whole point.

They are attempting to look but like I said earlier complex life-forms will not appear on Europa period.

Originally Posted by Xei

I don't have any problems with reading by the way. The points above are completely unchanged by your statement. Quite clearly...

You do have a problem with reading, you're arguing microbial-life and I never even mentioned that, I said "complex life."

Originally Posted by Xei

Although I doubt very much that your statement has any real basis. Why is being in that particular area essential to intelligence? If Europa's as warm as they say it is, I don't see why complex organisms couldn't evolve, if simple organisms can. And what if there was a planet with a large greenhouse effect much further from the sun, potentially giving it a climate very similar to that of the Earth? The whole thing is very very generalised.

No real basis huh? So you actually believe there is a possibility that complex life forms are living currently on Europa? Please tell me you're not that stupid.

If you're not going to respond properly to what I actually said above but just go round making nonsense statements or completely ignoring what I've written or setting up little strawmen like an immature kid then there's really no point in my talking to you. Nothing you just said has absolutely any meaning in context. Grow up.

Originally Posted by Serkat

That doesn't change the fact that the word is used in the way I described. The god of the Abrahamic religions is said not to be a natural phenomenon and not part of the observable physical universe. He reveals himself through physical phenomena such as humanoid manifestations (Jesus), divine inspiration (Muhammad) and intervention (wonders) but these phenomena are not him and the size of the universe has nothing to do with his chance of existing. God cannot be found through rational or empirical investigation, not by traveling the universe and looking at stuff. Don't tell me that it doesn't make any sense, I didn't come up with it.

Some day you'll realize that a very large percentage of the world is not refering to YHWH when they say "god".

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

To me it seems there are a lot in common between a belief in life on other planets and a belief in a god

• There is no evidence for either. As far as i know there isn't any proof that there is life on other planets nor for a god besides the stories of abductions and miracles.
• There are high ranking officials who support them. Mainly scientists for alien life and religious leaders for god
• Both have millions (if not billions) of believers

This leads me to the question that is posed in the title, please respond with a thoughtful answer and not just a simple yes or no.

Earth=One rock. There are billions, if not trillions of rocks. Would at least one other rock have life?

God(deity)=air. Can't see it? Don't believe it. Some say even though you can't see air, it might be there.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Some day you'll realize that a very large percentage of the world is not refering to YHWH when they say "god".

Christians 33%, Muslims 21%

non-religious and anti-religious 14%.

The religious beliefs of almost all of the world's people can be grouped into four broad categories. The largest are the monotheists who worship the God of Abraham. These are the Jews, Christians, and the Muslims, and perhaps some other groups. These groups include about 53 percent of the world's population and that percentage is increasing because of Islam's growth.

53% is that God...and 33% of religious people that "could" refer to god...

What you have to do is make people accept the claim that you're making which is that something exists that can be called God that is natural and deserves to be called God.

Please present the argument for why we should consider your definition of God valid enough for us to use and then we can move on.

I do not accept the claim that "the universe is God," which is one of the many definitions of "God" I've heard.

A non-supernatural God is not a God but instead a natural force, I certainly do not call our comprehension of electricity at the moment to be God why should I consider an amalgamated blend of forces including electricity to be God.

Originally Posted by Dreamworld

God(deity)=air. Can't see it? Don't believe it. Some say even though you can't see air, it might be there.

Except that air has visible influence on reality while a dieties only visible influence is the same amount of influence that is posed on a child when you tell him about santa clause, the boogey man, or when he watches a scary movie.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Christians 33%, Muslims 21%

non-religious and anti-religious 14%.

The religious beliefs of almost all of the world's people can be grouped into four broad categories. The largest are the monotheists who worship the God of Abraham. These are the Jews, Christians, and the Muslims, and perhaps some other groups. These groups include about 53 percent of the world's population and that percentage is increasing because of Islam's growth.

53% is that God...and 33% of religious people that "could" refer to god...

Now, how many descriptions of god are there? Are you saying that because half of the world uses one description, they are more likely correct? Many religions use the term god, or one close to it to refer to things that you would call natural forces. The shinto religion worships the spirits in all things, which together make up something that could be refered to as 'god'. You may not accept that definition, but many people do, and I doubt they feel as though their beliefs are invalidated by your lack of acceptance.

My original statement still stands and is still valid. Given the size of the known universe, and I'll even go farther this time and say that even that size is most likely dwarfed by the 'real' size of existence, it is entirely possible and maybe even likely that something exists that fits at least one of the Earthly descriptions of God. If you describe god in a silly and impossible way, of course it will be easy to refute its existence.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Now, how many descriptions of god are there? Are you saying that because half of the world uses one description, they are more likely correct? Many religions use the term god, or one close to it to refer to things that you would call natural forces. The shinto religion worships the spirits in all things, which together make up something that could be refered to as 'god'. You may not accept that definition, but many people do, and I doubt they feel as though their beliefs are invalidated by your lack of acceptance.

My original statement still stands and is still valid. Given the size of the known universe, and I'll even go farther this time and say that even that size is most likely dwarfed by the 'real' size of existence, it is entirely possible and maybe even likely that something exists that fits at least one of the Earthly descriptions of God. If you describe god in a silly and impossible way, of course it will be easy to refute its existence.

A God that is possible to exist wasn't being refuted. The level of "correctness" for the definition of God is equal on all accounts. Given the size of the universe one of the definitions of a leprechaun or a fairy probably exist. In fact I know for a fact they do. Some people call short Irish men leprechauns...and some people call gay mean fairies...does that make leprechauns and fairies exist?

Calling God "the spirits in all things" is just another way of saying existence is God. Guess what, we have a word for existence, its called existence.

Every time someone says God doesn't exist someone shows up to say "I don't define God that way." Well guess what, that is fine, but some people do, thus THAT definition (which whether you like it or not is a definition for god) is the one in question not yours.

Just because I call a sock full of rocks God doesn't mean that YOU have to call it that too.

Originally Posted by Serkat

That doesn't change the fact that the word is used in the way I described.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Some day you'll realize that a very large percentage of the world is not refering to YHWH when they say "god".

Do you see my point? To be fair you did say "atleast one of the descriptions of God" but lets also be fair and state that "one of the descriptions of magic" exists too.