Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Religion of Aliens

Options
1…68101112

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    RichieC wrote: »
    I sure hope the ID proponents on hear are yanks...depressing to think I have country mates that dull :(

    I find it strange that intelligent design is dismissed outright as unscientific.

    It's said that it's unobservable and can't be measured. The same could be said for much of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology. An unobserverable/unmeasurable phenomenom or process is inferred as an explanation for certain facts and observations.

    If intelligent design is deemed unscientific then, if the same criteria are applied, so should a lot of other "science".


  • Options
    #213
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    This isn't directly related to the title of the thread but it's something I have been wondering about for a while. Why is so much emphasis placed on looking for water and Earth-like planets? Surely it could be just as possible for alien lifeforms to exist on planets that are nothing like Earth at all. While water may be the basis of life on this planet there is no reason to suppose it would be the same elsewhere, as far as I know anyway.


  • Options
    #214
    TeddyTedson
    Registered Users Posts: 10,758 ✭✭✭✭TeddyTedson


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    This isn't directly related to the title of the thread but it's something I have been wondering about for a while. Why is so much emphasis placed on looking for water and Earth-like planets? Surely it could be just as possible for alien lifeforms to exist on planets that are nothing like Earth at all. While water may be the basis of life on this planet there is no reason to suppose it would be the same elsewhere, as far as I know anyway.
    Scientists think they know it all. The periodic table is their holy grail :rolleyes:
    I think we are just tiny creatures on part of something else. Like bed bugs. We could just be in a cell of a gigantic being.


  • Options
    #215
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    mickrock wrote: »
    I find it strange that intelligent design is dismissed outright as unscientific.

    It's said that it's unobservable and can't be measured. The same could be said for much of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology. An unobserverable/unmeasurable phenomenom or process is inferred as an explanation for certain facts and observations.

    If intelligent design is deemed unscientific then, if the same criteria are applied, so should a lot of other "science".

    It's dismissed by science for several reasons, the core being it relies on the existence of a god and the question of a god's existence is not one science concerns itself with (because it's outside the realm of science).

    If the fundamental premise of ID is not science then ID immediately fails in the scientific arena.

    It's also not falsifiable, ID can not ever be proven false. We can present infinite number of more logical and probable possibilities but the IDer will simply say "God did it" or "It's a test".

    These examples of Physics or Evolutionary Biology you have do, by definition, qualify into the scientific method, they are not comparable in this context to ID.

    If you have specific examples I'm sure someone would be willing to explain why they are considered good science and how they are distinct from ID.


  • Options
    #216
    al28283
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭al28283


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    This isn't directly related to the title of the thread but it's something I have been wondering about for a while. Why is so much emphasis placed on looking for water and Earth-like planets? Surely it could be just as possible for alien lifeforms to exist on planets that are nothing like Earth at all. While water may be the basis of life on this planet there is no reason to suppose it would be the same elsewhere, as far as I know anyway.

    Because everywhere like Earth that we know of has life, and everywhere unlike Earth we know of doesn't


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    mickrock wrote: »
    RichieC wrote: »
    I sure hope the ID proponents on hear are yanks...depressing to think I have country mates that dull :(

    I find it strange that intelligent design is dismissed outright as unscientific.

    It's said that it's unobservable and can't be measured. The same could be said for much of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology. An unobserverable/unmeasurable phenomenom or process is inferred as an explanation for certain facts and observations.

    If intelligent design is deemed unscientific then, if the same criteria are applied, so should a lot of other "science".

    The SCotUS ruled creationism religion, not science so the proponents repackaged it as the more sciencey sounding intelligent design to shoehorn it into us science classes.

    so no, it isnt science it is religion.

    perhaps you arent aware of the long running battle in the US. I'm only glad to fill you in.
    I wont even entertain your dismissal of evolution and Quantum physics as non science. perhaps someone not on a andriod will destroy that argument instead.


  • Options
    #218
    psychward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    It strikes me as quite odd that some are absolutely certain that there is no God, but seem to be very open to the fact (or totally believe that) aliens exist.


    It strikes me as quite odd how most of those who believe in God cannot do so without claiming that their God is better than the God someone else believes in.

    It also strikes me as quite odd about many believers how their belief in a God also automatically justifies a belief in a wildly inaccurate book full of contradictions and hypocrisy, instructions from God e.g eat fish on a friday, dressing up as a transvestite , pomp and ceremony, banning of the Life of Brian, restrictions on condoms etc etc etc

    The belief in God once accepted seems to lead to a lot of additional taking the piss imo.


  • Options
    #219
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Seachmall wrote: »
    It's dismissed by science for several reasons, the core being it relies on the existence of a god and the question of a god's existence is not one science concerns itself with (because it's outside the realm of science).

    It's nothing to do with a god. It's about the universe possibly possessing a creative intelligence.

    Science is about trying to explain the nature of reality and if reality might involve a level of intelligence, science should embrace it instead of rejecting it outright.


  • Options
    #220
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    mickrock wrote: »
    It's nothing to do with a god. It's about the universe possibly possessing a creative intelligence.

    Science is about trying to explain the nature of reality and if reality might involve a level of intelligence, science should embrace it instead of rejecting it outright.

    It's about the universe having an intelligent creator and thus being designed intelligently.

    That intelligent creator is a god.

    A god, any god, is not science as that god would be outside the natural world and thus outside the realm of the natural sciences.



    .


  • Options
    #221
    Wereghost
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Wereghost


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Why is that? The human race hasn't spread all over the universe. Why would we assume another civilization is far more advanced than we are?
    True, but in the long run we're surely going to need to spread outward in order to secure our future. We got this far by being winners at the game of life, and life is largely defined by its tenacity and tendency to spread. We can expect that intelligent life elsewhere - if it exists - will have entertained similar thoughts.

    Also, note that my original post focused on societies that by definition have both the ability and the will to conquer the vast distances between stars. Why stop at two or three when the very same technology can take you much further and provide vital assurance against societal collapse or environmental disaster (the latter term covering everything from volcanic eruptions to gamma ray bursters that can ruin your plans from a distance of light-centuries)? Radio silence from the rest of the galaxy might make them think that other species have failed to get very far before the grim reaper came calling and that they're running against the clock.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 91,074 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    DrumSteve wrote: »
    I thought this was going to be about what sort of religion aliens would have. I an disappoint.
    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/census-2001-summary-theme-figures-and-rankings/390-000-jedis-there-are/jedi.html


  • Options
    #223
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    mickrock wrote: »
    Seachmall wrote: »
    It's dismissed by science for several reasons, the core being it relies on the existence of a god and the question of a god's existence is not one science concerns itself with (because it's outside the realm of science).

    It's nothing to do with a god. It's about the universe possibly possessing a creative intelligence.

    Science is about trying to explain the nature of reality and if reality might involve a level of intelligence, science should embrace it instead of rejecting it outright.

    Incredibly disengenous.. why are the religious right pushing ID if it's not about god?


  • Options
    #224
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    mickrock wrote: »
    It's nothing to do with a god. It's about the universe possibly possessing a creative intelligence.

    Science is about trying to explain the nature of reality and if reality might involve a level of intelligence, science should embrace it instead of rejecting it outright.

    I imagine that Science will embrace it just as soon as the evidence starts pointing that way.

    I've never seen Science publish a list of what it does and does not embrace though.


  • Options
    #225
    Wereghost
    Registered Users Posts: 324 ✭✭Wereghost


    Batsy wrote: »
    Aliens almost certainly exist.

    Of all the trillions of planets that exist in our own galaxy, never mind the quadrillions of planets that exist in the billions of other galaxies that make up the universe, the chances that Earth is the only one with life is almost nil.

    And the belief that humans are the only intelligent life in this vast universe is also very arrogant.
    It may be, if one assumes that the universe exists for the purpose of creating intelligent life in the first place. It would certainly be anthropocentric in the extreme. But, conversely, if the universe is assumed purposeless then doesn't it follow that there would be no meaning as such to the uniqueness of the human condition? Also, the many-worlds or brane theories would suggest that we can be alone in, respectively, this timeline and this dimension without being alone or special in the bigger picture.


  • Options
    #226
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    Seachmall wrote: »
    It's about the universe having an intelligent creator and thus being designed intelligently.

    That intelligent creator is a god.

    A god, any god, is not science as that god would be outside the natural world and thus outside the realm of the natural sciences.

    The mistake you're making is that God(if that's what you want to call it) is not a supreme being outside the universe but is part of nature itself or even is nature itself.


  • Options
    #227
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #228
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    RichieC wrote: »
    The SCotUS ruled creationism religion, not science so the proponents repackaged it as the more sciencey sounding intelligent design to shoehorn it into us science classes.

    so no, it isnt science it is religion.

    ID is not based on any religious texts.

    I'm not religious and think all organised religion is a load of nonsense.


  • Options
    #229
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    paulosham wrote: »
    Aliens would be natural beings, don't be a moron.

    Hey.. I only asked a question - and I'm glad I did, because the question has led to a decent thread, a good discussion & has informed me on some matters of which I knew nothing of previously.

    So quit your insults & don't be a fucking tool.


  • Options
    #230
    conor.hogan.2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭conor.hogan.2


    mickrock wrote: »
    The mistake you're making is that God(if that's what you want to call it) is not a supreme being outside the universe but is part of nature itself or even is nature itself.

    So more commonly known as nature, I do not see why you would refer to it as god/s if you were not coming at it from a religious viewpoint.


  • Options
    #231
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    mickrock wrote: »
    RichieC wrote: »
    The SCotUS ruled creationism religion, not science so the proponents repackaged it as the more sciencey sounding intelligent design to shoehorn it into us science classes.

    so no, it isnt science it is religion.

    ID is not based on any religious texts.

    I'm not religious and think all organised religion is a load of nonsense.

    as i explained already its not specific to christianity only so it can be argued that it is constitutional to teach it in biology classes in the US.

    that is where the ID movement arrised from.

    it is a 100% religious movement. this is not debatable.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    Logical Fallacy wrote: »
    I imagine that Science will embrace it just as soon as the evidence starts pointing that way.

    I've never seen Science publish a list of what it does and does not embrace though.
    How can an area of study publish a list?
    mickrock wrote: »
    The mistake you're making is that God(if that's what you want to call it) is not a supreme being outside the universe but is part of nature itself or even is nature itself.

    So your version of ID has god making god :pac:


  • Options
    #233
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    mickrock wrote: »
    The mistake you're making is that God(if that's what you want to call it) is not a supreme being outside the universe but is part of nature itself or even is nature itself.

    Ah in fairness mainstream religions do talk about a supreme type being... The whole nature is god and god is nature thing is rolled out a bit more as science pokes holes in "the holy stories"

    I find the idea of "God" comforting and I'm a semi-practising catholic... but I know there is this voice in the back of my mind saying " FFS, do you really beleive this stuff"..
    I see religion as a good method of controlling society... It helps instil a type of moral compass that would otherwise be missing, to this end I'm happy to have my children brought up in a religion...

    As stated before my belief's in the possibility of Aliens is a statistical one, given the vastness of the numbers of planets/stars/galaxies... surely one has life of some sort..

    My brother is convinced in the existence of God yet practices no religion, his argument "where did everything come from" gets tiresome yet is hard to argue down completely.. Everything did have to come from somewhere? there was surely a time when it went from nothing to something, something existed before the big bang and something started it, science has no plausible/definite answer so he feels his idea of God starting it is as plausible as any ?? I kinda see his point.. Still the idea of some supreme being deciding "yes, today it's time to make a Zebra, and just for the crack I give the fcuker stripes" it just doesn't work for me..


  • Options
    #234
    mickrock
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭mickrock


    conor.hogan.2 wrote: »
    So more commonly known as nature, I do not see why you would refer to it as god/s if you were not coming at it from a religious viewpoint.

    I don't refer to it as god. Other people keep doing that.

    God is just a word, one with a lot of baggage.


  • Options
    #235
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    bbam wrote: »
    I see religion as a good method of controlling society...


    So do religions, which is why they can be extremely dangerous.


    bbam wrote: »
    It inflicts a type of moral compass that would otherwise be missing,


    In fairness, that is complete bollox. Humans who don't practice religion don't suddenly lose their morals and there is no correlation between the influence of religion & the morality of society... if anything, religion has caused more problems in society than it has solved.


  • Options
    #236
    conor.hogan.2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,246 ✭✭✭conor.hogan.2


    mickrock wrote: »
    I don't refer to it as god. Other people keep doing that.

    God is just a word, one with a lot of baggage.

    As is ID, being a code word for god/s.


  • Options
    #237
    Icepick
    Registered Users Posts: 2,454 ✭✭✭Icepick


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    Anyone who claims to be certain there is no God is just as wrong as anyone who claims they're certain there is one.

    Anyone who claims to be certain there is no Tooth Fairy is just as wrong as anyone who claims they're certain there is one.


  • Options
    #238
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    mickrock wrote: »
    conor.hogan.2 wrote: »
    So more commonly known as nature, I do not see why you would refer to it as god/s if you were not coming at it from a religious viewpoint.

    I don't refer to it as god. Other people keep doing that.

    God is just a word, one with a lot of baggage.

    you are a Deist, so, Mick. ID carries just as much baggage as god.

    a lot of the us founding fathers were also Deists :)

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism


  • Options
    #239
    paulosham
    Registered Users Posts: 257 ✭✭paulosham


    Seachmall wrote: »
    We know the universe is expanding, it can't expand if it's infinite.

    Can it?

    The known universe.


  • Options
    #240
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    How can an area of study publish a list?

    Exactly.

    An area of study, made up of a huge number of different disciplines. I just see people talking about science as if it's just one huge area of consensus.

    Read enough of my posts and you will understand i am a huge fan of rhetorical questions.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    bbam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,410 ✭✭✭bbam


    starbelgrade wrote: »
    So do religions, which is why they can be extremely dangerous.

    In fairness a cuddly toy could be dangerous in the wrong hands...:rolleyes:
    starbelgrade wrote: »
    In fairness, that is complete bollox. Humans who don't practice religion don't suddenly lose their morals and there is no correlation between the influence of religion & the morality of society... if anything, religion has caused more problems in society than it has solved.
    Thats your opinion, I respect that fact even though I believe my original point to be true..


Advertisement