Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sentient life in the universe
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 7 of 42 (541511)
01-04-2010 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Anquetas
01-02-2010 6:08 PM


Hi, Anquetas.
Anquetas writes:
Imagine that they gave us their own belief system, which is based on evidence and logic - that they are children of the universe.
I'm having a hard time imagining what kind of "evidence and logic" could possibly demonstrate that any particular entity is a "child of the universe." In fact, I don't even know what you mean by"children of the universe," nor whether that is a particularly profound or important thing to recognize, and I would be sure to ask for very specific definitions and explanations for them about this particular point.
-----
Anquetas writes:
Will you accept their belief system (and why) or will you try to convert them to your religion - Christianity or whatever, and how?
Have you ever read Ender's Game and its sequels? I think it's the third book in the series when some primitive aliens become converted to Catholicism and then ridicule another alien of a different species who dares question them about this rather peculiar course of action by saying, "Maybe you evolved, but we were created."
Even though I was only 15 when I read it, it struck me as one of the most odd exchanges I had ever read in a science-fiction book.
-----
But, to answer your question, if they could demonstrate to me that faith in their particular belief system is required before immortality is achievable, then I would join their belief system (immortality sounds like a good thing to me, though it would depend on the conditions---if I could spend it with my wife; if I had to be an inert brain in a jar; etc.).
If, however, their methodologies were capable of making a skeptic immortal, I would doubt that their belief system had anything to do with obtaining immortality, and would neither attempt to convert them to my belief system nor feel the need to take on theirs.
Logically, why would I change my current belief system for something else if the new system is not inherently superior to the current system? Until I find something that's demonstrably more effective than my current system, I think I'll just stick with Mormonism.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the purpose of this thought exercise. Is your question simply, "If you found that another religion was superior to yours, would you switch?" Frankly, that's boring.
Or, maybe you were trying to see whether we would change our beliefs if someone else offered us a practical version of the same benefits, to determine whether our motivation to believe is purely selfish and practical?
Or, maybe you were trying to see whether any amount of evidence could lead us to believe in a religion in which we were not the special, "chosen race" of God?
Those would be more interesting questions, but I don't think your scenario actually gets at any of that: you need to be more specific and more direct. Furthermore, nobody religious is going to just come out and say, "Yep, I'm a hypocrit!"
Let me make a prediction: no religious person is going to directly engage your scenario, and will instead pick bones about how your scenario is set up.
Case in point: Slevesque (easily among the more logic-minded quantile of our religious contingent here at EvC) has started this off with a comment about how the scenario would trigger a logical tangent that would mean that your question is meaningless under the given conditions, thereby dodging the commitment to actually answer the question posed.
That will most likely be the closest you will get to a response to your actual question. We religious folks are notoriously immune to hypothetical scenarios that require us to deny our religion.
Edited by Bluejay, : Several typos.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Anquetas, posted 01-02-2010 6:08 PM Anquetas has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 9 of 42 (541552)
01-04-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by slevesque
01-04-2010 10:30 AM


Hi, Slevesque.
slevesque writes:
And of course, I do think genesis implies that humans were the summum of God's creation, ''created in is image'' etc. etc.
There are many Christians who believe that God created more worlds than just Earth, and that many of these worlds are also inhabited by His creations. After all, if He did it once, why couldn't He do it again?
Nothing I've ever read in the Bible (or the Book of Mormon, for that matter) rules out the possibility that some of God's children live on other worlds.
-----
slevesque writes:
Intelligent alien life doesn't fit at all with christianity. Since they aren't descendant of humans, they wouldn't need to be saved from his sinful nature.
If God created life on other worlds, what's to say they wouldn't have a sinful nature of their own?
Furthermore, only evolutionary concepts require beings to be descended from humans to be humans; creationary concepts hardly require that.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by slevesque, posted 01-04-2010 10:30 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 01-05-2010 11:21 AM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 18 of 42 (541729)
01-05-2010 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by slevesque
01-05-2010 11:21 AM


Hi, Slevesque.
slevesque writes:
Adam is presented in the Bible as being the father of humankind, the first through which all of humankind stems from.
I can't find where the Bible actually says this.
It says Adam is commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and it calls Eve the "mother of all living," but it doesn't say that Adam is the father of all humans.
I think you read that into the text.
-----
slevesque writes:
(Something like: My son has died for your sins, but it was on another planet. but I'll tell you how it happened their is this thing called a cross, which is made out of wood, which is a material which come from trees, which is a plant on this planet. And these crosses were used by romans, who were a nation of human, who were conquering all of the known world, under Caesar, etc. ????)
First, if these aliens and their world are substantially similar to us and ours, this is a moot point.
Second, even if wood and Rome and crosses are not intuitive for aliens, it's not all that different conceptually from explaining the same thing to Taoists in Taiwan (which I have done, by the way)... would you allow me to cite this as evidence that Jesus didn't die for the sins of Chinese people?
Third, why assume that the aliens can't understand the Gospel? If, as I suggested, they were created by the same God, why would He have made them incapable of understanding something so vital to their eternal destiny?
Fourth, it's not as if we really understand how the Atonement works either, so what difference would a few logistical concerns about explaining the Romans' method of murder make for the factuality or importance of Jesus's sacrifice?
Fifth, one could make the case that the Atonement of Christ only applies to this world (John 1:29, John 3:16, John 4:42, John 12:47, and 1 John 2:2 say the atonement of Christ was "for the sins of the world"). Under this model, other worlds may have their own Saviors.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by slevesque, posted 01-05-2010 11:21 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 01-05-2010 11:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 20 of 42 (541731)
01-05-2010 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by ZenMonkey
01-05-2010 10:56 PM


Hi, ZenMonkey.
Can you delete that picture now?
Even when you use the thumbnail codes, it still loads the full jpeg at first each time you open the thread. That takes a long time, and it spreads the window out so that it's wider than the screen.
Maybe you could just use a hyperlink to the picture elsewhere on the web?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-05-2010 10:56 PM ZenMonkey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by ZenMonkey, posted 01-05-2010 11:24 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 25 of 42 (541780)
01-06-2010 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by slevesque
01-05-2010 11:42 PM


Hi, Slevesque.
I'm not going to put my scriptural knowledge up against ICANT's, but I did read 1 Cor 15 after your original post.
Here is the NIV text of that scripture:
quote:
44 If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.
45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.
46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.
47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
It isn't really talking about Adam as the first of all human beings: it's talking about two different men (bodies), and identifying them as the first and the second.
-----
slevesque writes:
Also, Rom 5:12 says that death came into the world through one man (Adam) and that because of this death spread to all men, which is pretty straightforward that Adam was all humanity's ancestor.
That's a little bit oblique, don't you think?
It says, "death came into the world." Doesn't the world include animals and plants? So, doesn't Romans 5:12 already have Adam's Fall bringing death to things to which he isn't related?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by slevesque, posted 01-05-2010 11:42 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by slevesque, posted 01-07-2010 2:26 PM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 29 of 42 (558605)
05-02-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Zoinks
05-02-2010 1:41 PM


Hi, Zoinks.
Welcome to EvC!
Zoinks writes:
If we are alone then there is every possibility we are here by chance.
If we have a universe full of Alien life, that suggets that the universe is intelligenty designed.
This doesn't follow at all.
Lots of life could easily point to a very high abundance of suitable locations for life to arise naturally.
Likewise, having only 1 planet with life on it could easily point to a Creator who either takes His time and hasn't gotten to creating life a second time yet, or likes to make myriads of planets and stars with no life on them.
I think you'll find that there will be strong disagreements about this statement, no matter which of the debate you take: you'll find just as many creationists arguing that we are the only life that God created as you will atheists arguing that there should be numberless concourses of living things throughout the universe.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Zoinks, posted 05-02-2010 1:41 PM Zoinks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Zoinks, posted 05-03-2010 2:37 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 33 of 42 (558667)
05-03-2010 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Zoinks
05-03-2010 2:37 PM


Hi, Zoinks.
Zoinks writes:
The chance of us being alone in the universe is 1 billion trillion.
First, you didn't really express a probability here: I'm going to assume you meant "1 billion trillion to 1 against."
Second, you seem to be basing this probability estimate on the number of planets in the galaxy, and the number of galaxies in the universe. Have you any estimates for the proportion of planets on which suitable conditions for life exist? Or for the proportion of suitable planets that actually will result in life? Or for the proportion of suitable planets on which God would be interested in creating life?
Frankly, you've got estimates for the quantity of planets, but no way to correlate this data with the quantity of life, so you still have to start with an assumption about the abundance of life in relation to the quantity of planets in order to say how abundant life is.
This is circular reasoning, which means it is meaningless.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Zoinks, posted 05-03-2010 2:37 PM Zoinks has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Zoinks, posted 05-04-2010 3:42 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 41 of 42 (558925)
05-05-2010 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Zoinks
05-04-2010 3:42 PM


Hi, Zoinks.
Zoinks writes:
We are finding possible earth like planets in other galaxies all the time now.
No, we're not. We know of about half a dozen extrasolar planets that are even close to Earth, though all of them are significantly larger than Earth, and none of them really seems to meet the requirements for life as we currently theorize them to be.
The closest thing we've found to an Earth-like planet is Gliese 581 c, which is twice the size of Earth, and it probably isn't even in the habitable zone of its solar system.
Also, all extrasolar planets found so far have been in this galaxy, so you're wrong about the "in other galaxies" part too.
-----
Zoinks writes:
Also possibly when our solar system came into existence, Both Earth and Mars were somehow very similar. Where as Earth has flourished with life, water somehow has dissapered on Mars leaving it a dead barren world.
There are all kinds of stories about what Mars might have once been, about how Europa has oceans that might be teeming with alien life, etc. None of this is really meaningful to the discussion of how likely life is to exist until life is confirmed in one of these locations.
All we know is that life exists on Earth, and we suspect that conditions at least vaguely similar to Earth are required for Earth-like life to exist elsewhere. In reality, we have no idea how often life will crop up even if the conditions are just right, so any prediction about the commonness of life in the cosmos is still complete speculation.
A strong case could be made that there is probably plentiful opportunity for life to arise in the galaxy, but we just don't know how opportunity translates into reality, and we also don't really know what constitutes an opportunity anyway.
So, it's just a complete shot in the dark.
-----
By the way, since you're new here, why don't you click on the "peek" button at the bottom right corner of this message, and that will show you the codes I used to make quote boxes and text formats.
In the "Reply to Message" screen, you've also got a "dBCodes On (help)" option on the left-side menu: that will tell you all you need to know about formatting messages using codes.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Zoinks, posted 05-04-2010 3:42 PM Zoinks has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2718 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 42 of 42 (558926)
05-05-2010 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Zoinks
05-04-2010 3:26 PM


Hi, Zoinks.
Zoinks writes:
Intelligent life though is another matter. We may be alone in our own galaxy as any intelligent not many light years from ours would know we are here! This planet is so noisy.
Just like we know whether or not they are there?

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Zoinks, posted 05-04-2010 3:26 PM Zoinks has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024