Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life?

[Mike375]

Let me ask you this. Would you prefer to have a doctor that believed he could perform surgery upon you based on his faith in his religion (whatever that happens to be), or one who had earned a medical degree from a reputable medical school?

The doctor who earned his qualifications etc

My opinion is that since I don't have anything with which to base the 1st doctor's skills off of, the second would be more likely to perform a successful surgery.

My guess is that you'll scoff at this example as being ridiculous. However, maybe you'll see the comparison. 1 thing is based completely on faith, another is based on facts. That's why I, as a nonbeliever, would be more willing to trust the 2nd doctor.

And I'd be willing to bet the fundamentalist would prefer the second doctor as well.

Agree

 

[Mike375]

Adam,

What are some of the facts that you have that result in you knowing there is no form of superantural or supernaturals. I assume the other atheists have the same facts.

"Atheists accept only facts" That is from the Australian Atheist Foundation website.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Adam,

What are some of the facts that you have that result in you knowing there is no form of superantural or supernaturals. I assume the other atheists have the same facts.

You keep coming from the wrong angle. See, you can't prove a negative, it is impossible. For example, you can't prove that elves don't exist. You can scour the world for them, and not find any, but does that prove they don't exist? Of course not.

Your line of questioning starts off with a premise, which is that supernaturals exist. Then you ask me to prove you wrong. But, as I mentioned, it is not possible. The way the scientific method works, is you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what you assert. If you want to assert that supernaturals or a god exists, the onus is on you to do so.

I've seen no solid evidence of supernaturals. I've seen no evidence that a god exists. In fact, I've seen evidence that leads me to the contrary.

So, while I can't prove to you that these don't exist, not being able to disprove their existence doesn't, in my mind, suddenly make them more reasonable.

You may see, in your daily life, non-scientific evidence (or what you think is scientific evidence) that backs up your thoughts or beliefs in a god, but so far no one has been able to prove that.

"Atheists accept only facts" That is from the Australian Atheist Foundation website.

Obviously I cannot speak for them. I don't put myself into one category either (atheist versus. secularist versus. humanist, etc). I simply consider myself in the umbrella of non-believers.

 

[Mike375]

Adam,

If someone leaves Australia and arrives in America I can prove no god was involved.

You prove something or someone does not exist or was not involved by showing or demonstrating.

Let me ask you a question. Are you 100% convinced that there has never been any form of supernatural or some being or beings that exist at a level above us etc. Or is your atheism more a statment of position you like to adopt.

 

[Adam Caramon]

If someone leaves Australia and arrives in America I can prove no god was involved.

How? Explain to me how you prove it.

You prove something or someone does not exist or was not involved by showing or demonstrating.

But if someone has unlimited powers, could they not make you see something they want you to see? And if so, how would you ever really know?

Example: Some religious people think the world is only 6000 years old. They reject carbon dating. I've heard it explained as god put bones on the earth and made them appear to be older than 6000 years old to test our faith.

Tell me how you prove these people wrong, because I've tried, and have always gotten the same answer.

Let me ask you a question. Are you 100% convinced that there has never been any form of supernatural or some being or beings that exist at a level above us etc. Or is your atheism more a statment of position you like to adopt.

No, I'm not 100% convinced of that, but it is all based on how you word the question. A "being that exists at a level above us" could be interpreted in far too many ways for me to give you a solid answer based on that.

I'm 100% sure that there is not a god as laid out in the bible. What that means is that after looking at all of the evidence I have before me, I see no logical way such a thing could possibly exist. Therefore, I'm sure.

If the evidence changes, what I am sure of would change.

 

[Mike375]

How? Explain to me how you prove it.

You can see them catch the plane. You could travel with them. Thus it is easy to prove that a god was not what got them from Australia to America

Some religious people think the world is only 6000 years old. They reject carbon dating. I've heard it explained as god put bones on the earth and made them appear to be older than 6000 years old to test our faith.

Tell me how you prove these people wrong, because I've tried, and have always gotten the same answer.

That goes with Adam and Eve who as you know appeared as adults. By the way it is not carbon dating for the real old stuff like dinosaurs etc.

You can't disprove that claim. However, disproving a god or God at the kick off point will knock that claim over. The way to disprove a god or God was involved is the same deal as the trip from Austalia to America.

Atheists often claim we are not born "religious" However, I think it becomes a default position. Its a bit like evolution in the sense that it is easy to see the relationship between different animals so then the gaps are filled in.

No, I'm not 100% convinced of that, but it is all based on how you word the question. A "being that exists at a level above us" could be interpreted in far too many ways for me to give you a solid answer based on that.

Is it possible that there is a being or beings that are well above us or maybe in the past.

I'm 100% sure that there is not a god as laid out in the bible. What that means is that after looking at all of the evidence I have before me, I see no logical way such a thing could possibly exist. Therefore, I'm sure.

I think the Bible has a basis in truth but like other stuff from the long distant past only the general theme will be correct. What I am trying to say is that things happened and the Bible was a response.

Do you believe the earth is the only place in the universe with life like us?

 

[Galaxiom]

You can see them catch the plane. You could travel with them. Thus it is easy to prove that a god was not what got them from Australia to America

Ah.... but that does not mean a God was not involved.

Planes only fly because the invisible hand of God reaches down from the sky and lifts them up. Everyone knows that a 150 tonne machine cannot possibly get leave the ground.

And why does God do this? Because passengers on the plane sit there praying "God, I hope this thing gets of the ground." Always has been since the Wright Brothers made up the prayer when first got one off to take off.

Anyone who disagrees and is just a faithful to the mystical cult of aerodynamics. You cannot prove that I am wrong.

Sound silly. Well it is no sillier than the idea that it takes faith to disbelieve the idea that God assembled the Universe and everything in it when the maths can be done to show how the think can do it without any supernatural help at all.

 

[Mike375]

Ah.... but that does not mean a God was not involved.

Planes only fly because the invisible hand of God reaches down from the sky and lifts them up. Everyone knows that a 150 tonne machine cannot possibly get leave the ground.

And why does God do this? Because passengers on the plane sit there praying "God, I hope this thing gets of the ground." Always has been since the Wright Brothers made up the prayer when first got one off to take off.

Anyone who disagrees and is just a faithful to the mystical cult of aerodynamics. You cannot prove that I am wrong.

But the plane trip can be repeated at will. If you turn the engines off it will come back to ground every time.

[/quote]

Sound silly. Well it is no sillier than the idea that it takes faith to disbelieve the idea that God assembled the Universe and everything in it when the maths can be done to show how the think can do it without any supernatural help at all.[/quote]

So the answer has been found

They don't even know how life started.

 

[Galaxiom]

They don't even know how life started.

The evidence is mounting for it having started in mineral structures in alkaline vents spouting from fissures in olivine bed rock on the ocean floor.

The structures are similar in scale to biological cells and the chemical processes involved are identical to those in the most fundamental metabolic steps common to absolutely every form of life ever observed on the planet.

 

[Mike375]

The evidence is mounting for it having started in mineral structures in alkaline vents spouting from fissures in olivine bed rock on the ocean floor.

The structures are similar in scale to biological cells and the chemical processes involved are identical to those in the most fundamental metabolic steps common to absolutely every form of life ever observed on the planet.

Do you believe they have the answer, that is, this is not a dead end.

 

[Galaxiom]

Do you believe they have the answer, that is, this is not a dead end.

Though I am very optimistic that they are on the money with this one it may not be THE exact answer. However I have no doubt it will be something very similar.

The divide between minerals which replicate crystal structures and what we think of as life is a very fuzzy line. I have no problem accepting this was the path that led to life. It makes complete sense.

 

[Adam Caramon]

You can see them catch the plane. You could travel with them. Thus it is easy to prove that a god was not what got them from Australia to America

Galaxiom said pretty much what I was going to regarding this. When you're dealing with people who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who is apparently mischievious, its hard to rule anything out.

You can't disprove that claim. However, disproving a god or God at the kick off point will knock that claim over. The way to disprove a god or God was involved is the same deal as the trip from Austalia to America.

Proof is only proof when people are using some reasonable system to measure it. As the studies/polls I linked earlier showed, and you agreed, the majority of educated people tend to be nonbelievers. This proves to me that education and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The more educated people get, the less religious they tend to be.

Other people could look at the same exact studies/polls and draw completely different conclusions, thus it doesn't prove anything to them. In fact, if they refuse to question their own beliefs/facts, then they won't accept any proof.

Atheists often claim we are not born "religious" However, I think it becomes a default position. Its a bit like evolution in the sense that it is easy to see the relationship between different animals so then the gaps are filled in.

You say easy, I say simplistic. The fact that there have been thousands of different religions throughout history, all which were based around what a society treasured/feared, tells me that religion is a man-made concept.

It would have to either be ignorance or arrogance to think that you've stumbled upon the 1 correct religion and the thousands of other ones were wrong. Which is why, once again, religion and education are at opposite ends. If you actually studied the evidence behind the major religions, you can see where they borrowed from previous religions.

Is it possible that there is a being or beings that are well above us or maybe in the past.

That's still not clear enough. You're going to have to explictly define "well above us". Is it possible that there is alien life out in the universe somewhere that can do things we cannot? I'd wager so. Do I think they use magic to do it? No.

I think the Bible has a basis in truth but like other stuff from the long distant past only the general theme will be correct. What I am trying to say is that things happened and the Bible was a response.

If you get your hands on an original copy of the bible, before it was translated several times and edited on whim, then you could probably find some kernels of truth from a historical perspective.

Do you believe the earth is the only place in the universe with life like us?

I think the odds are against that. With so vast a universe/galaxy, I think it would definitely be plausible that there is intelligent life on another planet somewhere.

 

[Pauldohert]

Proof is only proof when people are using some reasonable system to measure it. As the studies/polls I linked earlier showed, and you agreed, the majority of educated people tend to be nonbelievers. This proves to me that education and religion are at opposite ends of the spectrum. The more educated people get, the less religious they tend to be.

Other people could look at the same exact studies/polls and draw completely different conclusions, thus it doesn't prove anything to them. In fact, if they refuse to question their own beliefs/facts, then they won't accept any proof.

Your still ignoring the stats I posted that should in your mind "prove" the exact opposite?

And your pretending to be open minded, and others not.

If you cherry pick - you can "prove" whatever you like. This seems to be at the opposite end of the spectrum from educated too, I wouldn't call you religious however.

 

[Lightwave]

It is this kind of circular arguing which leads most scientific organisations to stay well clear of the subject.

As Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and to my mind neither side are able to rule out the others arguments. My default is that a lack of evidence is not evidence others draw other conclusions from that position.

Getting us back to the topic it is my understanding that after some funding Govt and Nasa shied away from SETI and are now coming at reseach into extra terrestrial life from an entirely more appropriate angle and it appears that they are making steady progress.

It would appear
Basic organisms can survive exposure to space and even re-entry
It looks as if some kind of energy gradient is required but that the banding is much larger than previously expected.
That life may be able to construct itself from the most prevalent elements in an environment and need not be solely carbon based.

My cursory reading of the release referred to in the opening topic was that arsenic had been found to have been substituted for another chemical within a living organism which improves the evidence for non carbon based life forms which will inevitably massively increase the likelihood of extra terrrestrial basic life.

If life is all pervasive throughout the Universe at a basic level. The chances of intelligent life are statistically much higher although as stated by the above poster our best calculations still suggest there is only maybe one intelligent life per galaxy. Lots if you count the galaxies but considering our technology completly out of our grasp.

Maybe one day we'll reach them but it would seem far far in our future.

 

[Adam Caramon]

As Carl Sagan said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and to my mind neither side are able to rule out the others arguments. My default is that a lack of evidence is not evidence others draw other conclusions from that position.

Many claims have been made throughout history. The Egyptians believed that their pharohs were demi-gods, or gods themselves. We cannot prove that they were wrong, but does that mean we must consider it a reasonable possbility? I think that's the crux of the argument.

It would appear
Basic organisms can survive exposure to space and even re-entry

I forget the name of it, but I recall watching a special about an organism (I want to say it was called "bear" something. It could survive outer space.

If life is all pervasive throughout the Universe at a basic level. The chances of intelligent life are statistically much higher although as stated by the above poster our best calculations still suggest there is only maybe one intelligent life per galaxy. Lots if you count the galaxies but considering our technology completly out of our grasp.

Now, here is the question that ties back into religion. If there is other intelligent life out there, does that invalidate any part of a religion? The Christians believe god made man in his image. Would these other intelligent life forms be less important?

What I think would be the greatest sense of irony would be for another intelligent life form to reach us and they happened to be incredibly religious. Their religion of course would declare how they are the creator's choosen people, etc.

But, as you mentioned, we're likely far away from being able to interact with other intelligent life forms. By the time our technology has progressed to the point where it would be more likely, religion will probably only be taught in history class.

EDIT:

I prefer the Stargate SG-1 take on Egyptian gods....... (Just a bit of levity)

I never watched the series much, but I really liked the Stargate movie that kicked it off. That series had quite the strong following.

 

[Kryst51]

Many claims have been made throughout history. The Egyptians believed that their pharohs were demi-gods, or gods themselves. We cannot prove that they were wrong, but does that mean we must consider it a reasonable possbility? I think that's the crux of the argument.

I prefer the Stargate SG-1 take on Egyptian gods....... (Just a bit of levity)

 

[dan-cat]

I think the Bible has a basis in truth but like other stuff from the long distant past only the general theme will be correct. What I am trying to say is that things happened and the Bible was a response.

I could list a huge amount of literary works that deliberately ground their storyline on top of a real context. It is a deliberate technique to make their own work of fiction seem more real.

Harry Potter > Private School > Quidditch matches. The private school acts as a bridge to transport you more smoothly to the land of fantasy.

If you think that there must be some divine truth to the Bible because of it's historical setting then I'm afraid you're just being fooled by this technique.

 

[Rabbie]

Let me ask you a question. Are you 100% convinced that there has never been any form of supernatural or some being or beings that exist at a level above us etc. Or is your atheism more a statment of position you like to adopt.

To answer your question I would say that it is likely there are more technically advanced beings than us somewhere in the universe. But I am sure that they are not supernatural. To our ancestors 200 years ago it would have seemed supernatural that we can watch sporting events in Australia while sitting in our homes in Europe. We all know now that this is not supernatural.

 

[dan-cat]

To our ancestors 200 years ago it would have seemed supernatural that we can watch sporting events in Australia while sitting in our homes in Europe. We all know now that this is not supernatural.

This is precisely why I don't understand the standpoint that religion is unfathomably illogical. It's actually very logical if you think about it.

I'll explain.

The human mind demands answers to what it doesn't understand. This is it's natural state. It's why good magicians are so fascinating. How did he do that? The mind MUST know how that tiger disappeared.

In absence of knowledge of modern science the mind naturally forms it's own conclusions to fill the gap. To avoid the chaos of not understanding how something works.

It doesn't actually mean the sun is being driven across the sky by a god in a chariot but in absence of technology there is nothing illogical about the step taken to adopt this belief. The alternative is a chaotic world where fantastically structured events occur for no reason.

People who scoff at the religious (not you) as uneducated irk me for this reason. They enjoy the luxury of what we know today and ignore the context of the role that religion played. It's a natural step of the mind to rationalize the unfathomable structure of what it perceives.

 

[Mike375]

Though I am very optimistic that they are on the money with this one it may not be THE exact answer. However I have no doubt it will be something very similar.

The divide between minerals which replicate crystal structures and what we think of as life is a very fuzzy line. I have no problem accepting this was the path that led to life. It makes complete sense.

Interesting. I was searching the internet a couple of weeks ago on the subject.

I have often thought if the conditions for life existed then it would commence.