I mean, if one's god is essentially Earthly (human-like), then how do the aliens fit in?


or does belief in an anthropomorphic god tend to make one a disbeliever in aliens?

1/6/2008 7:14:45 PM

Would you worship him?

1/6/2008 10:43:12 PM

What does God need with a starship?

1/6/2008 10:50:29 PM

Quote :

"or does belief in an anthropomorphic god tend to make one a disbeliever in aliens? "

As a Christian, I believe God created the universe one way or another, and everything in it.

So did he create other worlds that had their own sentient beings?

The only correct answer: I don't know...and neither does anyone else.

The one controversial part, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that we believe our messiah was born roughly two millenia ago. When Galileo's telescope discovered a far greater universe beyond what people at the time could see with a naked eye, there was one Catholic monk/priest that theorized all these other stars had worlds just like our own that God had created, and that not only had the messiah come to our planet, but the messiah had come individually to all these other planets he reasoned. If this is so, it would mean we're going beyond the idea of "trinity" where the son is one with God and the Holy Ghost, but we would instead be talking about multiple messiahs that all came to different civilizations, which was/is a very controversial proposal. Cause how would people on other planets be saved from damnation by a messiah on our planet when their civilization had no knowledge and never heard of Jesus of Nazereth?

The Catholic Church convicted and burned him at the stake as a heretic.

[Edited on January 6, 2008 at 11:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2008 11:41:04 PM

or was it because he was a crazy person?

1/6/2008 11:43:09 PM

^ Yes, but they still convicted and burned him at the stake as a heretic.

[Edited on January 6, 2008 at 11:45 PM. Reason : .]

1/6/2008 11:44:23 PM

Quote :

"there was one Catholic monk/priest that theorized all these other stars had worlds just like our own that God had created, and that not only had the messiah come to our planet, but the messiah had come individually to all these other planets he reasoned. If this is so, it would mean we're going beyond the idea of "trinity" where the son is one with God and the Holy Ghost, but we would instead be talking about multiple messiahs that all came to different civilizations, which was/is a very controversial proposal."

so, let's say there is intelligent extraterrestrial life

do you, (or other christians you know) believe that these alien worlds have prophets like jesus or mohammed?

if so, they're certainly not human prophets (right?), so if god created all life, are we human really that special?

I thought christians believe that we were "created in god's image", right?

or does evolution fit it somewhere?

or perhaps panspermia?

1/9/2008 7:40:42 AM

I would bet you money that if we encounter aliens they won't have religion.

1/9/2008 8:55:37 AM

Quote :

"I would bet you money that if we encounter aliens they won't have religion will be anthropomorphic."

Problem solved.

1/9/2008 8:59:51 AM

Quote :

"I would bet you money that if we encounter aliens they won't have religion."

why?

1/9/2008 10:56:04 AM

BEKOS THEY R SO MUCH COOLR AND SMRTR THAN US

1/9/2008 11:07:12 AM

I found these videos provacative. The first takes the stance of a creator, the other takes the stance of chance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zidVyQe7NCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWtWwN6HATk&feature=related

I'm willing to bet, that we'll never know...

1/9/2008 11:29:25 AM

Quote :

" THE URANTIA BOOK PART III - THE HISTORY OF URANTIA PAPER 72 - GOVERNMENT ON A NEIGHBORING PLANET By permission of Lanaforge and with the approval of the Most Highs of Edentia, I am authorized to narrate something of the social, moral, and political life of the most advanced human race living on a not far-distant planet belonging to the Satania system. Of all the Satania worlds which became isolated because of participation in the Lucifer rebellion, this planet has experienced a history most like that of Urantia. The similarity of the two spheres undoubtedly explains why permission to make this extraordinary presentation was granted, for it is most unusual for the system rulers to consent to the narration on one planet of the affairs of another. This planet, like Urantia, was led astray by the disloyalty of its Planetary Prince in connection with the Lucifer rebellion. It received a Material Son shortly after Adam came to Urantia, and this Son also defaulted, leaving the sphere isolated, since a Magisterial Son has never been bestowed upon its mortal races. 1. THE CONTINENTAL NATION Notwithstanding all these planetary handicaps a very superior civilization is evolving on an isolated continent about the size of Australia. This nation numbers about 140 million. Its people are a mixed race, predominantly blue and yellow, having a slightly greater proportion of violet than the so-called white race of Urantia. These different races are not yet fully blended, but they fraternize and socialize very acceptably. The average length of life on this continent is now ninety years, fifteen per cent higher than that of any other people on the planet. The industrial mechanism of this nation enjoys a certain great advantage derived from the unique topography of the continent. The high mountains, on which heavy rains fall eight months in the year, are situated at the very center of the country. This natural arrangement favors the utilization of water power and greatly facilitates the irrigation of the more arid western quarter of the continent. These people are self-sustaining, that is, they can live indefinitely without importing anything from the surrounding nations. Their natural resources are replete, and by scientific techniques they have learned how to compensate for their deficiencies in the essentials of life. They enjoy a brisk domestic commerce but have little foreign trade owing to the universal hostility of their less progressive neighbors. This continental nation, in general, followed the evolutionary trend of the planet: The development from the tribal stage to the appearance of strong rulers and kings occupied thousands of years. The unconditional monarchs were succeeded by many different orders of government--abortive republics, communal states, and dictators came and went in endless profusion. This growth continued until about five hundred years ago when, during a politically fermenting period, one of the nation's powerful dictator-triumvirs had a change of heart. He volunteered to abdicate upon condition that one of the other rulers, the baser of the remaining two, also vacate his dictatorship. Thus was the sovereignty of the continent placed in the hands of one ruler. The unified state progressed under strong monarchial rule for over one hundred years, during which there evolved a masterful charter of liberty. The subsequent transition from monarchy to a representative form of government was gradual, the kings remaining as mere social or sentimental figureheads, finally disappearing when the male line of descent ran out. The present republic has now been in existence just two hundred years, during which time there has been a continuous progression toward the governmental techniques about to be narrated, the last developments in industrial and political realms having been made within the past decade. -- http://www.urantia.org/papers/paper72.html "

oh, and by the way, people really believe this stuff... they've got a whole religion around it.

its a bit less menacing, and only slightly less pathetic, than the cult of Scientology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Urantia_Book



[Edited on January 9, 2008 at 3:42 PM. Reason : ]

1/9/2008 3:23:57 PM

Quote :

"I thought christians believe that we were "created in god's image", right?"

We are, just that its not our physical representation that is the chief point in the statement. The "image of God" (being without sin, morally aware of good/evil, aware if God, desire for fellowship, etc.) that we held was corrupted when Adam ate the apple.

1/10/2008 2:04:19 AM

right, but even if it's not our physical representation (our current biological form)

it's still Earthly

adam and jesus lived on Earth, right?

so then, did/does/will god have other [physically real] mortal offspring in other alien worlds?

are they alien prophets?



also, adam and eve were australopithecines, right?

and the apple is just symbolic for language-provoking entheogens?

I mean, most of the bible stuff is just symbols, isn't it?

1/10/2008 4:57:00 AM

Quote :

"adam and jesus lived on Earth, right?"

this sentence just popped a picture into my head of Adam and Jesus being roommates or something

1/10/2008 8:58:58 AM

Quote :

"right, but even if it's not our physical representation (our current biological form) it's still Earthly adam and jesus lived on Earth, right? Correct so then, did/does/will god have other [physically real] mortal offspring in other alien worlds? Unknown answer. It's like asking what color are alien dogs. are they alien prophets? See comment above also, adam and eve were australopithecines, right? Unknown answer. Again, we only have inconclusive evidence. They could have been single cell organisms for all we know. and the apple is just symbolic for language-provoking entheogens? Unknown answer. Like most things in life, it's up to your personal interpretation. I mean, most of the bible stuff is just symbols, isn't it? Partially incorrect. MOST of the Bible is third person history. If you open up a Bible and actually read it, you would know. Of course, there is a large amount of prophetically charged information in the Old Testament. The New Testament is filled with more of the same third person history reading. But, the difference is that it tries to teach and guide more than it tries to just spell out everyday events like in the OT. "

1/10/2008 9:35:46 AM

I see no logical problem with the existence of aliens from a Christian perspective. We already know of the existence of aliens in scripture. Moreover, we already have partial evidence that their eternal fate is separate from that of mankind. I believe 1/3 of the angels followed Lucifer aka the Devil and the other 2/3 followed God. It appears to me that may be a permanent allocation of allegiance, but the Bible is not really written for angels so I can't be certain.

Jesus Christ specifically came to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve. Hence, that sacrifice was for their progeny. If there are aliens then they may or may not be fallen races, if they have chosen to reject God as we humans did then it may well be that God finds a way to offer them salvation as He has done for us. Of course the Bible is silent on this issue because perhaps there are no aliens and even if there are the Bible is written for us not aliens.

All of this said, the God of the Bible is far from anthropomorphic, so perhaps I digress from the point of the thread.

As far as being made in God's image, there are a variety of understandings of that verse. I would like to think we are a homomorphism of God. We are an unfaithful representation, there is much that is lost in the portrait and only part of the structure is maintained.

1/10/2008 10:10:39 AM

Quote :

"If there are aliens then they may or may not be fallen races"

right, but are they also created "in God's image" like humans are?

Quote :

"Cause how would people on other planets be saved from damnation by a messiah on our planet when their civilization had no knowledge and never heard of Jesus of Nazereth"

exactly

if jesus is the son of god, then other alien "fallen races" must have their own [non-human] "god offspring" prophets, right?

iow, IF aliens exist, and at least one is a "fallen race" (like us,) and the god of the bible is the only god,

then isn't god "sleeping around" in that "he" "fathered" half-mortal "children" with other [non-human] beings?

or do some christians then believe that if there are aliens, they must be human, like us and god?

Quote :

"All of this said, the God of the Bible is far from anthropomorphic"

how do you figure?

the god of the bible is referred to as "he", "him", "father", etc. and "he" had a [half?-]human son, born of a human

and even before that, "he" created (and presumably designed,) the first two humans "in his own image", right?

that's pretty damn anthropomorphic



anyway,

I know that many christians do believe that god is human, that humans are the center of everything,

and that if there are aliens, then they're also human, (like us, god, jesus, satan and angels, etc.)

or that this means there can't be any aliens. (?)

can any of you that happen to be literal creationists clarify this? (I know some of you lurkers disbelieve in evolution)


(is this apparent inconsistency a major factor in some christians' belief or non-belief in aliens?)

4/8/2008 2:50:53 PM

Quote :

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

4/8/2008 4:27:57 PM

Quote :

"I know that many christians do believe that god is human, that humans are the center of everything"

I don't know of any Christians that believe this. Most generally hold to the idea that God adopted a human body, but that's a very different concept.

I think most of your apparent confusion is rooted in your insistence on ignoring the omnipotence that Christians generally believe God to have. An omnipotent entity having, by definition, the ability to look like whatever the hell it wants, to say nothing of the ability to create a whole separate race of creatures with a whole different set of angels and devils in a whole separate heaven and hell, if he so choses. It also isn't as though He'd be obligated to tell us if He had.

Quote :

"and even before that, "he" created (and presumably designed,) the first two humans "in his own image", right?"

Image needn't refer explicitly to physical appearance; given religion's general emphasis on the spiritual self rather than the corporeal one, it does not seem to me unreasonable to assume that it is being used in one of its other senses here. The human soul, more accurately, is an (albeit fuzzy) image of God, neither of these necessarily having any physical manifestation.

4/8/2008 5:09:36 PM

There is always the off chance that if there are 'aliens', they may be soulless and therefore are no different than animals.

As a Christian, I've always wondered... why all that extra 'space' if there really is nothing out there? So as everyone else has been saying... we don't know and we'll probably never know.

When we compare the universe to our planet. Our planet is enormous and yet every corner of it is inhabited by some creature. So why not the universe?

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 5:19 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2008 5:17:20 PM

If one were to believe in an omnipotent God, then I wouldn't see any problems with simply assuming that any alien civilizations are made up of humans just like us.

4/8/2008 5:17:39 PM

I don't get why an omnipotent God would create a universe full of humans.

We're pretty boring once you pear off the Mozarts and Ghandis.

4/8/2008 5:18:42 PM

he didn't create a universe of simply 'humans'. What the heck are all the other creatures roaming about? Inventions of science?

4/8/2008 5:20:39 PM

Quote :

"There is always the off chance that if there are 'aliens'"

Statistically, the chance that there is other forms of life somewhere else in the universe is nearly 100%. With the sheer number of galaxies, stars and planets in the universe, there is almost certain to be life elsewhere, if not in thousands or millions of other places. Only within our current visible view of the universe, we can count/estimate 10^11-12 stars in the Milky Way alone, and another ~10^12 visible galaxies, for a conservative estimate of 10^24 stars (in the visible sky only).

This is why the tired old creationist argument of the is only a 0.00001% chance (or whatever) for life to be formed on earth without a God because everything seems so perfect for life here on earth (forget that the calculations to get to that number are always inherently flawed anyway). Even with a 0.00001% chance of life forming under certain situations, given the number of stars and solar systems in the universe, it is still going to happen thousands or millions of times.


Of course, once we can use science to begin to see the vastness and greatness of our universe, the more silly the idea of a "Personal God" (a god who not only created the entire universe, but has a vested interest in the daily actions of humans on one planet) becomes.

4/8/2008 5:56:14 PM

Quote :

" We already know of the existence of aliens in scripture."

que?

4/8/2008 6:09:36 PM

Quote :

"Of course, once we can use science to begin to see the vastness and greatness of our universe, the more silly the idea of a "Personal God" (a god who not only created the entire universe, but has a vested interest in the daily actions of humans on one planet) becomes."

Actually I would expect the opposite conclusion. Christians already believe that an all powerful being that has existed for all time and is simply the ultimate anything in our univers has a personal vested interest in what they do. Being able to see the tremendous vastness of space would just hit home even more how small we are and inspire even more awe at what God has created.

4/8/2008 6:22:04 PM

^ yeah, that's fine, if one wants to use the greatness of space to see how awesome a Creator or God would be.
But my point was, with a universe so vast and great, why would humans one one tiny planet elicit the least bit of interest in an omnipotent god? Back when we thought the earth was the center of the universe and there was hardly anything outside our own solar system (i.e. when Christianity and other major religions were created), I can see how people might feel that they were the center of the universe and God touches each and every one of us.

But now we know for a fact that human life has occurred in the smallest microcosm of time in a 14 billion year old universe, on one planet out of millions of trillions of stars and/or planets in the universe. Therefore, why and how could we be the center of attention for any higher being?

Scott Adams went over some of this briefly in his short thought experiments God's Debris and The Religion Wars, and concluded that basically an all-seeing, all-knowing, omnipotent God that the Christian God supposed is would have absolutely no reason to create things like humans and take a vested interest in our lives. I mean, the very definition of omnipotent is that he already knows everything past, present and future, so there is no free-will and there is no reason whatsoever to believe he would have an interest at all in what we do on earth (he would also have no reason to exist himself anyway, which set's up the contrived scenario for God's Debris)

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 6:54 PM. Reason : .]

4/8/2008 6:49:24 PM

Quote :

"Statistically, the chance that there is other forms of life somewhere else in the universe is nearly 100%. With the sheer number of galaxies, stars and planets in the universe, there is almost certain to be life elsewhere, if not in thousands or millions of other places. Only within our current visible view of the universe, we can count/estimate 10^11-12 stars in the Milky Way alone, and another ~10^12 visible galaxies, for a conservative estimate of 10^24 stars (in the visible sky only). This is why the tired old creationist argument of the is only a 0.00001% chance (or whatever) for life to be formed on earth without a God because everything seems so perfect for life here on earth (forget that the calculations to get to that number are always inherently flawed anyway). Even with a 0.00001% chance of life forming under certain situations, given the number of stars and solar systems in the universe, it is still going to happen thousands or millions of times. Of course, once we can use science to begin to see the vastness and greatness of our universe, the more silly the idea of a "Personal God" (a god who not only created the entire universe, but has a vested interest in the daily actions of humans on one planet) becomes."

you're a fucking nutjob if thats your response to the phrase "off chance"

4/8/2008 6:53:33 PM

"off chance" implies a low probability. I content that there is nearly a 100% probability that life outside earth exists. That is my reason why.

4/8/2008 6:55:42 PM

you took what i said completely out of context. I, being a Christian believer, didn't protest that alien life can exist. And yes, off chance because we haven't discovered anything yet and we've been on this planet for a fucking long ass time. Chances are some other civilization would have run into us by now.

4/8/2008 7:01:23 PM

Quote :

" discovered anything yet and we've been on this planet for a fucking long ass time"

Umm no. This is not even close to right. For a person who seems otherwise reasonable, I'm shocked you believe this.

4/8/2008 7:05:28 PM

^ what he said.

the fact that you think that humans, who have been aware of radio technology and electromagnetic information transmission for less than 100 years, and who have just started actively seeking alien technology or contact within the past couple decades, who also live on a planet that is 20,000 light-years away from the closest earth-like planet that we have found so far, really shows that you simply do not grasp the enormity of space and the vast amounts of time it takes for information, much less intelligent beings, to travel between stars, much less galaxies

4/8/2008 7:37:41 PM

^ Who says aliens use radio waves? Also, who says it has to take a "long time" to get from one star to the next?

Quote :

"moron: que?"

I'm guessing that was a Nephilim reference. Genesis definitely contains reference to a race of giant, non-humans who walked the Earth alongside humans.

Ezekiel makes mention of such controversial imagery as well.

If you broaden the scope beyond Hebrew religious texts, you'll find similar weirdness with respect to "alien" creatures hanging out with humans in early times. The Sumerians had the Annunaki for example.

Ancient man was one trippin' motherfucker.

Quote :

"Golovko: we haven't discovered anything yet and we've been on this planet for a fucking long ass time"

Oh?

Tell me, Earth-man, had humans been on Earth a fucking long ass time before we "discovered" bacteria?

They were right under our noses, too.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 7:44 PM. Reason : "discovered" != "manifested into existence" after all...]

4/8/2008 7:41:09 PM

Quote :

"There is always the off chance that if there are 'aliens', they may be soulless and therefore are no different than animals."

This brings up an extremely interesting ethical question on the off chance we do have contact with an extra-terrestrial species.

4/8/2008 7:48:39 PM

Humans can't even agree on what a "soul" is, nutsmackr.

There will be blood.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 7:51 PM. Reason : ...]

4/8/2008 7:51:01 PM

Quote :

"I'm guessing that was a Nephilim reference. Genesis definitely contains reference to a race of giant, non-humans who walked the Earth alongside humans. "

I thought the religious used this to explain away dinosaurs (or blacks or genetic diversity)?

I have never heard anyone say they were aliens, and i've gone to church A LOT in my lifetime.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 8:36 PM. Reason : ]

4/8/2008 8:34:53 PM

In Shinto our "deities" are kami which are nature spirits. This doesn't limit them to simply earth spirits therefore I have no problem seeing kami interacting with creatures/being on other planets. The problem is that when people hear "gods" they either think of Greek/Roman gods or the monotheistic God/Allah/Yaweh and then they hear "alien" they think of little green men.

4/8/2008 8:40:19 PM

Genesis 6:v1-4 contains this passage:

Quote :

"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them."

Dinosaurs impregnating women?

Well...maybe. I guess.

4/8/2008 8:48:00 PM

Well, the other explanation was that adam and even obviously couldn't have fathered the entirety of humanity sans defects without god's perfection, so they had babies with the undesirable creatures that also existed, but weren't created for the perfection of god. Without knowing more about the history of how genesis was written, i'd say this is a better explanation than aliens.

I have no problem with the idea that we're the spawn of aliens, but I've just never heard that this is part of christian theology, and it'd seem if it were, Christians would want to know more about these aliens.

4/8/2008 8:54:46 PM

I never said it was canon.

You're looking for some other pope.

4/8/2008 9:08:44 PM

Quote :

"^ Who says aliens use radio waves? Also, who says it has to take a "long time" to get from one star to the next?"

nobody says aliens use radio waves, but that is our area of focus for listening for alien communication, mostly through SETI. So if aliens are trying to contact us by yelling really loudly, well that's not what we're listening for (not that any sound makes it through space anyway, of course). It is a good chance, though, that anyone else out there would use some kind of electromagnetic wave for communication, as electromagnetic waves are universal constants and are naturally generated by stars and can be generated easily any any sophisticated level of technology.

and a "long time" is measured in light years, because no matter what other kind of advanced technology other life may have mastered, they are still limited by the speed of light (if you don't believe this, then i'm sorry, but it's not our problem to school you in physics). Even in the unlikely event that an alien technology has mastered nearly speed-of-light travel, that still doesn't mean they would or could be anywhere near contacting earth yet. It's safe (very safe) to assume other planets would not and could not be aware of our existence on earth except through our own radio transmissions. Given that we've only been transmitting radio waves for ~100 years, and only explicitly transmitting them into space for the purpose of contacting other life for ~30 years, then by definition, even our earliest radio transmissions are only 100 light-years away from earth.

Like I said earlier, it's not likely that there are any earth-like planets containing intelligent life within at least 10's of thousands of light years away. Therefore, it will be (e.g.) 20,000 years before they even have the potential to receive our messages. Then they will either respond back via radio wave, which will take another 20,000 years to make it back to us, or hop on whatever kind of near-light-speed travel technology they have and still take over 20,000 years to get back here. More likely, the closest life is in the 100,000's or millions of light years away, and of course statistically, most other life would be billions of light years away. So if you don't think tens of thousands to millions to billions of years as a "long time", then i don't know what is.

4/8/2008 9:55:22 PM

^ "Yelling really loudly" and "using a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum outside of the narrow AND inefficient scope of radio waves" are hardly comparable. SETI is a joke. We're looking for the equivalent of smoke signals through a hurricane.

Quote :

"No matter what other kind of advanced technology other life may have mastered, they are still limited by the speed of light (if you don't believe this, then i'm sorry, but it's not our problem to school you in physics)."

You reflect a very common problem with the scientific community. Every bit as ready to announce heresy as the Catholic Church.

We've already been able to break the speed of light ourselves. Measly old monkeys with lasers and vibrating Cesium gas. (Look it up.) To proclaim it impossible to technologically overcome c in light of such recent experimental conclusions in such a proximate field is every bit as arrogant, stupid, and outright preposterous as the scientific community's overwhelming disbelief in asteroids in the 1800s.

The Universe, you'll need to remember, is not only stranger than you imagine. It's stranger than you can imagine.

Quote :

"Even in the unlikely event that an alien technology has mastered nearly speed-of-light travel, that still doesn't mean they would or could be anywhere near contacting earth yet."

LOL

Unless their planet, planetary system, or otherwise-named point of origin was fully formed...let's say...a billion years before our own?

You're being flatly ridiculous. Even by your own flatly ridiculous assumptions. Even by conventional travel, that permits plenty of time for colonizing and star-hopping.

Quote :

"It's safe (very safe) to assume other planets would not and could not be aware of our existence on earth except through our own radio transmissions."

God knows, all alien species must be as sedentary and incurious as the average TWWer. Otherwise, they may just get up and look around on their own.

Let's start with a logical question about your first unstated assumption. Since you seem willing to engage on the topic:

Why is it "safe (very safe) to assume" an alien species would need to (a) detect radio transmissions, (b) desire to understand/interact with humans, or even (c) travel to this planet at all to be aware of our existence on Earth?

Remember, bacteria were right under our noses long before we "discovered" them. And discovery by humans (or even white people, say the Native Americans) does not manifest anything into existence that wasn't there before.

Quote :

"Given that we've only been transmitting radio waves for ~100 years, and only explicitly transmitting them into space for the purpose of contacting other life for ~30 years, then by definition, even our earliest radio transmissions are only 100 light-years away from earth."

By definition? Are you aware of dispersion? Of interference? Once you get past the Oort Cloud, we're as much a source of static as any other rock in the muck. There's a reason you can't pick up 102.7 KIIS FM in LA here, you realize...

Not only is SETI looking for smoke signals in a hurricane, they're casting them, too.

Joke. Joke. Joke.

Quote :

"Like I said earlier, it's not likely that there are any earth-like planets containing intelligent life within at least 10's of thousands of light years away."

Truth by repeated assertion is neither a logical nor a scientific precept.

Quote :

"Therefore, it will be (e.g.) 20,000 years before they even have the potential to receive our messages. Then they will either respond back via radio wave, which will take another 20,000 years to make it back to us, or hop on whatever kind of near-light-speed travel technology they have and still take over 20,000 years to get back here. More likely, the closest life is in the 100,000's or millions of light years away, and of course statistically, most other life would be billions of light years away. So if you don't think tens of thousands to millions to billions of years as a "long time", then i don't know what is."

My argument is very basic and grounded in rock solid physics.

With a few million years longer than we've had to evolve, or a more stable planetary configuration, who knows what technology or scientific discovery an advanced species could make. The rate of planetary discovery has rapidly accelerated recently, even of terrestrial planets like our own. It just takes a group of older ones to shatter your conclusions.

You seem awfully confident that the advancements made in physics over the last few hundred years represent the so-called End of History of Science and that no further achievements are possible.

I have a much wider view of the Universe, I guess. I don't think it gives one shit what a bunch of primates on a water balloon think about how it should behave at any given time. No matter how convinced they are that they're right about it.

Simply put, the Universe cares not for your laws. Or Einstein's. Bohr knew that much. And it sure as hell doesn't care about your limited scenarios under which aliens could exist, find humans, and/or visit Earth.

You seem to be of the mind that life beyond Earth is possible. With the discovery of planets in the so-called habitable zone around other stars this isn't exactly groundbreaking. I'm just asking you to consider the prospect that any of those stars or planets were millions of years older than Earth. Or in more stable configurations.

What would dinosaurs have turned into in 65 million years, I wonder, without an asteroid to interrupt?

Whether it's the non-existence of falling bodies (i.e. meteorites circa. 1800s), water on other planetary bodies (i.e. the moon, Mars, etc. disc. within living memory), planets themselves (litany of gas giants discovered late 90's), and Earth-like planets (disc. ~2005).

Humankind's primacy, too, shall pass.

I'm ready for my physics lesson, now. Please don't disappoint me.

[Edited on April 8, 2008 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ...]

4/8/2008 11:02:12 PM

Quote :

"Humankind's primacy, too, shall pass."

What will be our ultimate downfall?

Another asteroid? Our ability to self-destruct?

4/8/2008 11:58:57 PM

I don't think the two beliefs at issue are mutually exclusive.

4/9/2008 12:10:25 AM

Quote :

"Measly old monkeys with lasers and vibrating Cesium gas. (Look it up.) To proclaim it impossible to technologically overcome c in light of such recent experimental conclusions in such a proximate field is every bit as arrogant, stupid, and outright preposterous as the scientific community's overwhelming disbelief in asteroids in the 1800s. "

That experiment was kind of a trick. The light didn't actually travel faster than light, but it's a weird mathematical thing where it looks like it does but functionally doesn't (in that no information can be transmitted this way). It's essentially the same thing as these bozos claiming sound moved faster than light: http://www.livescience.com/technology/070112_ftl_sound.html

So no, we have no actual evidence yet that the light barrier can meaningfully be broken. The closest is quantum tunneling, but that's a different beast entirely. The only* way to move matter faster than light in the way people normally think about moving would be wormholes or hyperspace. Essentially entering a domain where relativity doesn't exist, then exiting somewhere else back in this universe.

* I realize it's brash to say only, but you can't so cavalierly assert that FTL travel is inevitable either.

Quote :

"Unless their planet, planetary system, or otherwise-named point of origin was fully formed...let's say...a billion years before our own? "

And if planet was fully formed a billion years before us, it's VERY, VERY likely that it's about a billion light years away too. A billion light years is still no small feat at even FTL speeds.



[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 12:18 AM. Reason : ]

4/9/2008 12:14:51 AM

^ We don't need to find evidence it can be broken. Similar to how North America didn't need white people to lay eyes on it for it to exist. Similar to how bacteria didn't need microscopes to exist.

Per your deconstruction of my 300x faster than light experiment, I qualified by calling it a proximate field for a reason. We've figured out how to move something -- if not information -- faster than light by monkeying with the waves. This is after a few hundred years of technological experimentation.

You're also presuming we've evolved to a point of scientific advancement as fast as any species possibly can, or even on the same timeline. Again, in a more stable planetary configuration, humans could theoretically have evolved into a 65 million year old species. We're discounting multiple universes as well, for no good reason, I'll add.

The assumptions you have to make to positively assert a Universe isn't teeming with life are frankly limitless. You'll never be able to escape that because...well...YOU EXIST.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: What will be our ultimate downfall? Another asteroid? Our ability to self-destruct?"

Well, I don't lay claim to any kind of crystal ball. That kinda shit gets you into trouble. Like Iraq.

This is worth it's own thread and discussion.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 12:33 AM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 12:31:26 AM

Quote :

"We don't need to find evidence it can be broken. Similar to how North America didn't need white people to lay eyes on it for it to exist. Similar to how bacteria didn't need microscopes to exist."

I don't necessarily buy this line of reasoning. I fully accept that there's going to be some amazing things we'll discover that'll blow our minds. It happens every day (well maybe every week) in science. But our understanding of the universe and science in general is FAR greater than it was in Leeuenhook's day, to the point where we can reasonably determine limits on what may or may not be. And a good many (i'm comfortable saying most) people are firm in the "speed of light" as a fundamental constant of the universe (gravity for examples propagates at this speed, the universe expands at this speed, etc.). And traveling IN this universe at relativistic speeds, let alone above them, is not practical, even if it were possible, because of relativity. To bypass relativity would mean accepting the purely theoretical ideas of an alternate universe that our matter can exist in and remain coherent.

There's a lot of problems with FTL travel that aren't limitations of our instruments (like bacteria or injuns), but limitations of logic and math. There was no math saying bacteria weren't possible.

Quote :

"Per your deconstruction of my 300x faster than light experiment, I qualified by calling it a proximate field for a reason. We've figured out how to move something -- if not information -- faster than light by monkeying with the waves. This is after a few hundred years of technological experimentation."

I don't think you understand the experiment yet. NOTHING "moved" faster than the speed of light. It's completely disingenuous, borderline lying, for those scientists to say something travelled faster than light. Let's say you were looking at a conveyor belt of red balls moving down a line. ANd you put your red ball on the conveyor belt, then looked down the line and saw a red ball, then claimed that was your ball, and it teleported their instantly. That's obviously not moving faster than light, but by a limited set of measurements you can make that claim. That's basically what those guys are doing. (they were measuring group velocity) . There's lots of info on google about this. Look at this too, maybe: http://Galileo.phys.Virginia.EDU/classes/109N/more_stuff/Applets/sines/GroupVelocity.html Set the group velocity to 0 and the frequency to the highest. Buy that standard, the velocity of the wave is 0, but how can that be? It's still propagating, but that's merely the group velocity.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 12:52 AM. Reason : ]

4/9/2008 12:49:45 AM

Quote :

"moron: But our understanding of the universe and science in general is FAR greater than it was in Leeuenhook's day, to the point where we can reasonably determine limits on what may or may not be."

Again, with the End of History of Science.

Humankind does not and cannot define what may or may not be according to the Universe. Such a stiflingly ignorant statement makes more sense coming out of the mouths of religious zealots.

What makes us qualified today to make these reasonable determinations?

A couple hundred years of applying math to our powers of observation?

Quote :

"Gamecat: You're also presuming we've evolved to a point of scientific advancement as fast as any species possibly can, or even on the same timeline. Again, in a more stable planetary configuration, humans could theoretically have evolved into a 65 million year old species."

Quote :

"moron: To bypass relativity would mean accepting the purely theoretical ideas of an alternate universe that our matter can exist in and remain coherent."

Is that so unbelievable? It's simply presuming that the universe can operate according to principles yet undiscovered by mankind. Whether due to our limited recorded observations in our history, limited sophisticated experimentation, or even more broadly, the VERY limited portion of the electromagnetic spectrum we as a species can perceive; the argument is not an embracing of any particular theory so much as a recognition of our limitation to accurately understand, perceive, and describe the universe.

Quote :

"moron: There's a lot of problems with FTL travel that aren't limitations of our instruments (like bacteria or injuns), but limitations of logic and math. There was no math saying bacteria weren't possible."

Particle accelerators are instruments, no?

Also, IIRC, Einstein's Theories of Relativity implied mathematically the existence of the aforementioned wormholes. What was the logical failure to those, again? It's not like we've discovered one or anything...

But the math sure is there.

Dogma is as much a problem in science as it is in religion.

The Cesium experiment is one of many like it. Do what you will. It's a proximate field, and there are other examples like it on Google. Here's a great one where physicists literally stopped light nearly a decade ago.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/lightstop_010119.html

The Universe is never limited by our understanding of it.

[Edited on April 9, 2008 at 1:19 AM. Reason : ...]

4/9/2008 1:19:35 AM