God & Aliens

This is probably a very weird question to ask most of you...but this has been on my mind.

If God created the universe, did He create other forms of life somewhere else out there? Or is it all just vastly empty...did He make us and us alone?

My religious preference is that of Protestantism but I also am very much passionate about astronomy. I've read the articles, seen the shows and considered the evidence that the Earth most certainly can't be the only home to intelligent life in an endless and bountiful universe.

But...since this is where science and religion clash the most...what is one left to assume when we look up at the stars? I mean, wouldn't God have mentioned something, somewhere in the Bible that He had created other beings. Or maybe we're just on a need-to-know basis?

I don't know how I feel about this and am confused, any opinions are entirely welcome!

Very confusing indeed.

I find it hard to believe we are the only creatures in the whole univers. But I also find it hard to believe otherwise.

=S.... wow that was confusing..

firstly, God never wrote the bible. bible is the work of men, and men didnt know too much about outer space around the time when a certain jew claimed he was the son of god.

He probably told some dude everything about space and so-called aliens, but the dude forgot. sadly. or maybe they thought it inappropriate to include such thoughts in the bible?

I understand that God never physically sat down and wrote the Bible; also I understand all the Bible is is a collection of several different texts written and organized by men. But God was the inspiration for these men, well these prophets, to write His word.

Thanks for the opinion though! =]

If JC existed and was the son of God, and if he knew about the existence of Aliens, [though of course he wouldn't have thought of them as such]..i think he would have kept quiet about them so that we wouldn't have gotten distracted making our own world a nice evolved place before going looking for others worlds and races to evolve us.

In the same way a parent keeps information from children they know will only distract them.

Deleted... Sorry.

"A few thousand years ago.. if people knew about the American continent.. they would have been baffled as to "Why?' would God make so much land for so little people. It's never going to be used.."

Wow, Undead....that's deep! I've never thought of it that way.

As we look through more and more of the universe, we are increasingly dismayed at the lack of life present. We have built stronger telescopes, and have developed ingenious methods for locating planets of comparable distance to comparable suns, but still nothing shows up.

I've read an above-average amount on the 'science' for extraterrestrial life, and as far as 'intelligent' life goes, the chances don't look so good right now. Microbes and other unicellular organisms, on the other hand, may exist in different locales within our very own solar system.

As far as the science part of this discussion is concerned, I think you should just give it some time to develop. We'll know relatively soon whether or not God made anything living outside of our planet... Although I don't think that refutes anything in the Bible.

Hey maybe God is an Alien and J.C.
Now that would make sense Huh

N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL

This is the Drake equation. The premise is that there are certain conditions that are favourable for life to spring up. Using this equation seti scientists believe there is one new civilisation reaching the technological capability to use radiowaves and therefore be detectable from another planet (such as ours).

There is much merit for the theory that the Norse, Roman, Incan and Greek Gods were aliens. Sounds absurd to many, but it makes sense when you look at the myths and the god's abilities from the perspective of today's technology.

Using this reasoning it is not out of logical thinking to believe that Jesus could have been from another solar system too.

Genesis Chapter 6: verse 4: 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. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.

At the end of the day it all comes down to perspective. Personally I think that God lets us learn what we can as and when we are wise enough as a race to comprehend it. Look at dna. Religion versus Science. Why should they fight? DNA just explains the method God used to create us.

Go to Seti.com for more information.

Aliens Aliens Aliens Galore...

Wow I can see that in the future replacing the quintessiantial strip joints...

Anyhoo, do I believe that there are aliens, well let's see, isn't God himself an alien....No think about it.

Is God of this earth...Nope...

Has God ever entered our domain...Yes..

Excuse me if i become a bit "far out"

Maybe the aliens are hiding from us; not necessarily on purpose, but just beyond the vibrations we perceive. Supercamouflage. Maybe they don't use radio-waves or whatever it is that we use to look for them.
It's assumed that they'd be like us.. cellular; dependent on water.. but why? Because we can only imagine things that are familiar to us?

God is this earth, God is movement, growth, everything. Stars imploding. I think he's just showing off!
really though.. if god was to encompass everything, the moment you fomulate anything close to him he'd expand just beyond those limits...

personally i think the aliens have made better use of whatever a mind, or consciousness, is.

Clearly, acid or DMT are the microscopes to use when searching. Clearly

Actually I would think that seeing as God lives up in the heavens...That in itself would make him an alien...

I mean he ain't an earthling...Now is he...

And God bringing down his son, clearly shows that aliens once walked among us...

Lol...Just kidding...

Anyways, I would say that this subject of God and Aliens, brings to question whether God himself, although he created us and imprinted his name into our DNA...Is an alien?

Aaargh!

There is no God, there are no Aliens...arrgh!

I am a Pirate today, a little Pirate of truth and justice.

What is so wrong and unsatisfactory about being human that we must constantly search for something more than we are?...Look to the skies, if not for God, then for Aliens, who might be God...or did he make them too?

You are all getting really baffled here with nonsense. I weep for you, : ).....When will we wake up from the God/Aliens Illusion.

Aaargh! There is no God, there are no Aliens...arrgh! I am a Pirate today, a little Pirate of truth and justice. What is so wrong and unsatisfactory about being human that we must constantly search for something more than we are?...Look to the skies, if not for God, then for Aliens, who might be God...or did he make them too? You are all getting really baffled here with nonsense. I weep for you, : ).....When will we wake up from the God/Aliens Illusion."

Clearly Kevin I should weep for you, because you seem to endlessly parade your "intelligence" to the normal folk, and tell them that they are wrong for what they believe...

I am sorry but we normal folk believe that there is the existance of God, because well I am speaking for myself here...It keeps us human, and makes us what we are today...

Clearly religion although many of you hate it, is a supposed factor in thriving societies and civilizations...

From the dawn of the stone age, where the people carved out reliefs of goddesses....To now where there are more religions than the stars at the sky...

Religion holds a firm grip on humanity, because it distingushes us from the rest of the denizens that live in this earth...

As for the aliens: Come on, in this vast universe do you not believe there exist other life forms living in the many galaxies...

These little green men or grey men with big ocular orbs are merely fiction...But do I believe there is intelligent life other than us in this universe....

I believe it 100%

That being said...I will leave you to rabble on....Shouting to the heavens that God or Aliens does not exist...

Well who knows,but if they all look like Tom Welling from "Smallville" they can land at my house!

I think god and aliens are romantic, same with drugs and carlos castenada and sports and poetry and knives with right and wrong uses.

all the undiscovered stuff in the ocean would be quite alien to us...

reading "Cosmos and Psyche," there's an overwhelming amount of info on such patterns and correlations like that, though it's historical. There's obviously a pattern if you'll look.
Terence McKenna's 'timewave zero'

Noir,

I'm going to assume that when you mentioned religion as being something that seperates us from the other denizens of the planet, you mean animals, and also you mean that we get morals from religions that they do not have.

This is an interesting point, but one I feel that doesn't hold up when you take it back before religion. Back in the day when we were evolved apes [unless you believe that the world is 6,000 years old!] we lived in small family groups, roaming around the world. Now, in order to survive in these groups there had to have been some order, some code or unspoken way of interacting that meant the groups could survive and even, thrive and go on existing. I believe, as do many others that this is the origin of morals and ethics. In these groups, the individuals who treated their fellow beings with kindness, perhaps by pruning the flies from their fur or looking after their young etc, thrived, because they were of use and they were more likely to be accepted and recieve the same kind of treatment in return. Over the course of many centuries you can then see how those who had good behaviours towards their group would do better in a purely survivalist sense, than those who did not behave well and how this kind of behaviour, being the most successful way of doing well, would become the norm, passed on by observation from parent to child and eventually becoming evolved into our genetic makeup by natural selection.

This I believe is where our modern ethics comes from, in a very basic way....."do unto others as you would have done unto you. "

Or course religion has taken credit for everything now that we humans are capable of morally, which, becuase their is a dogmatic disergard of evolution, is entirely undestandable. But it goes a long way to show that we do not get our morals from scripture or some other divine source.

So, I see no need for religion in that regard, and i also see no seperation by religion from the other denizens of our planet in the same way you do.

As for my disregard of the possibility of life outside earth. I never said i didn't think it was likely, I said, and I did use a smiley face for people like you who have no sense of humour and take everything seriously, that there are no Aliens!

Which is true, there are none that I or you know about or can prove. There might be life on othere planets, but at the moment, there are no Aliens, in the same way as there is no God, only a theory of both things.

"I'm going to assume that when you mentioned religion as being something that seperates us from the other denizens of the planet, you mean animals,"

Really, was it not obvious....We are not alone you know..

Now you general thesis on the birth of morality and ethics, which does not involve religion, is quite intresting...But I would counter it...

According to Durkheim religion formed a basis in beliving and practising something (be it God or idol) and this function serves to unite people into communities.

Collective worship...(That is something to do with religion in case you are wondering Kevin) draws attention to and celebrates shared values...

I believe that religion serves as a function to hold people together...As a group and function productively in society...

Although there are downsides to religion, which according to Marx is hiding social problems and conflict and explotation, and keeping people in order by hiding conflict and explotation...

But it does have an inherent sociological role, which is to provide answers to fundamental questions, preserving social order , integrating people into a community, maintaining value consensus. and making the world meaning...According to Durkheim and Weber respectively...

If you want to know how mordern ethics are formed Kevin, I suggest you read Kolhebergs' theory of morality. Oh, and in today's world we can see a rich tapestry of kindness and people following a strict code that is "Do onto others as you would have done unto you"

As for Aliens, from your last post I got an impression that you did not believe that other life forms existed...But seeing as you pointed out that you made a smiley face after that sentence...Well people like me having no sense of humor, would see that you were joking....

I am soo amazed that you would be joking after putting a smiley face...Well why don't I put on right now :)

I guess I am now filled with humor...

Actually I do, from this post thread...and the apparent fued that seems to make RickyH fight against Nicko...LMAO...

Noir,

I see you have moved from serious debating to just insulting and picking bones out of my posts, this is rather lame, as I usually find people do that when they have very little of worth to say themselves.

I didn't postulate about the origins of religion, I never mentioned it. What I did say and very carefully explain was my understanding of where the basics and beginnings of moral behaviour came from in my opinion. You said you thought it was interesting, but then didn't actually say anything about it, you only alluded to a theory by someone else, which is really weak debating and just plain lazy actually.

Speak for yourself man, or if you have to quote a theory, do so and then explain why you think it has relevance to the topic, otherwise you are just name dropping to sound good.

I didn't see anything else in your post that was interesting or solid enough to comment on..though there were some sentences I didn't understand because the structure was weird.

Does anyone else have anything interesting to say?

Kevin: When I state my opinion, I back it up...Or I evidence it, to make my opinion more factual...

So it isn't weak debating...My Good Sir, merely proving my point, using sociological theories...

As for insulting, did you not insult me first...And if you check my post...I was merely retorting...Nothing more...

And also like you said you spoke of your understanding of where the beginnings of moral behaviour came from...And I merely answered that religion was a factor in those beginnings...I also suggested you read Kolberg's theory of morality...So you would know of the psychological beginnings...

But again Kevin I think you are merely bored and are trying to find a way of insulting another person's views...To amuse yourself..But then you are a F-Scale Authorative personality...Aren't you?

I suggest you next time actually back up your opinion with actual evidence...And that in by no way is an insult..

Thank you...

Well that is your opinion...And I do not take it as an insult...When I present my own views, I back it up..

Simple as that...Did that bore you...?

Ok Noir, lets forget the insults and focus on the topic.

Are you suggesting, that when I spoke about the theoretical beginnings of morality starting with our ancestors when they were more apelike, that religion was a factor? Are you really trying to say that Apes, trying to be nice to each other so they wouldn't die had it's basis in religion?

I browsed the Kolher theorist, but he doesn't go back far enough to explain things, he is talking about modern humans and the psychology they display, which is not where I believe our modern morals come from, so to me he is not relevant enough.

"Are you suggesting, that when I spoke about the theoretical beginnings of morality starting with our ancestors when they were more apelike, that religion was a factor? Are you really trying to say that Apes, trying to be nice to each other so they wouldn't die had it's basis in religion?"

Actually you misunderstood what I said...I said that when man took his evolutionary step from the Apes, and formed working communities and societies...Religion was then a factor...In explaining fundamental questions and in maintaing social order and value consensus...

Frooghe: I believe I haven't come in here to broadcast my intellect to the entire world...Merely stating my opinion and evidencing it.

I am someone who can speak on the topic on hand, and even debate in any style I wish...I am not here to show my intellectual prowess...So forgive me, if you thought otherwise.

Interesting Noir. I do not agree however that there was a "step" from ape without society, to man with all the social trimmings, which is what you suggest.

Evolution doesn't work like that. The value consensus and working communities you mention were fully functional in primitive man, they started there, and not as a factor of religion, which came much later.

For a group of say 20 Apemen [I forget the exact term] to live as they did in relative harmony with each other, which we know they did because they would all be dead if they'd been solitary, there would have to have been a sense of community, of relationships, social structure and shared values which I'm sure were more instinctual and basic then, but certainly present and all without the hint of religion.

When religion finally came about, and this in itself was a slow process, it did not introduce morals or values to our race, it only explained the mysteries that our poorly educated ancestors could not fathom...such as the nature of the sun and stars etc.

Now we understand these things, mostly, the only mystery still left to Religion to explain is mysteries created by itself, such as the Holy Trinity..and the all prevailing mystery of Faith.

David, I think you are wrong in your reading of my post.

You say I am wrong, but then do not counter any of my points, you start talking about the roots of religion and sacrifice, which, really has nothing to do with what i was saying, which is that the origin of human morals and social order has nothing to do with Religion, because at the time it was developing it didn't exist, even in a basic form.

It is another reason why we do not need religion. If it is clear that we do not get our moral standards from religion, then what else, claimed by the divine over the recent centuries, is actually not religious in origin at all?

I understand why no one in here who believes in God wants to even discuss my idea. If I were a believer, I'd be scared of considering that God has nothing to do with being morally good. But it's a bit cowardly don't you think?

What? Have you listened to yourself mate? You are talking all kinds of things but saying nothing!

Tell me then, how groups of primitive humans/apes managed to live together in harmony enough to survive and envolve into more advanced beings, without some kind of moral code that predates civilization and religion.

Go on, I dare you.

Kevin you must have a different source of information than we do. My sources suggest that religion predates modern humans

http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/ritual.html

Think of all of the terms in modern psychology beginning with the term "psychology" taken from Greek and Roman mythologies and convince us there is an escape from all religion

The Myth of Atlantis dates back to accounts by Greek philosopher Plato. But it seems lost cities are being discovered

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1316022004

Micheal, I was never talking about Modern humans...I am talking about the initial behaviours, meant only to increase survival chances, which lead to religious ceremonies of the kind your link talks about.

It is clear that the early ceremonies of burying the dead, were the primitive beginnings of our modern religion, but, that is not an explanation for ethics and our instinctual moral actions is it, which is what I though we were talking about? No, for that you have to go even further back, which is what I have done, to the earlier times when everything was about survival, but which no doubt lead to the rituals you have made light of.

My point is that morals have nothing to do with religion in terms of their origin. We did not recieve nor were we born with some divine ascertion of goodness...those things are products of evolutionary learning and natural selection.

Would it be fair to say the domesticated animals are animals that have evolved a relationship with humans?

Http://sapphire.indstate.edu/~ramanank/ritual.html

^
This website hardly sheds any light on the fact that pre-modern humans followed any sort of religion.

Just because people bury their dead doesn't mean that they are religious...it could just be a sign of respect, or a means of disposing of a corpse with little reprecussion (such as the terrible smell of a burning corpse).

And as for the information about the cave bear worship, more recent studies (and some older ones, aswell) indicate that neanderthals did not, in fact, worship cave bears - the findings are demmed more likely to be coincidential and only seem that way.

But who knows....maybe they did worship something.

It's really hard to say.

David, when you say things like this;

"You are wrong because you do not see things as a process of becoming. Like the human being needed to create gods as much as the god needed to create them"

After I have written several posts about the gradual process that is natural selection and evolution, you make it clear to me that you are not reading my posts properly, so I'm not going to waste my time responding to you anymore.

Micheal, yes I would say modern domesticated animals have evolved, through human selective breeding of the most docile, the most subserviant to be the tame creatures we have today. Why do you ask me this question as a response to what I said?

If you look back at my most recent posts, you will see that I directly respond in name to someone and talk about what they have said at length, directly and without vague unsupported suggestions...and then when I ask a question or make a good point that I know has merit....the responses are usually not concerned with what I have said and seem to be totally unfocussed and difficult to fathom! It's a pattern I see all the time in debates with religious people and lawyers who know that if someone makes a worthy point that will be difficult to argue against, well just don't..talk about something partially related...put tht ball in your court and make them answer your questions.

Oh my Oh my...

Arguments seem to seep out of this place...Doesn't it...

Anyways back to the topic:

Kevin: You are basically saying if "naenthertals" where to form communities (which they did), would they form a religion?

My answer is no...Seeing as they all have to fulfil Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs...But I would say that the existance of norms and values, traditon and culture brings about the existance of religion...

Religion merely reinforces values, tradition and culture.

Nicko: Thanks for your post, Again I should say that if I appear condensending...I whole heartedly apologize...

I am at a loss as to how to proceed with this discussion, I really am.

I have been trying really hard to understand you guys, so much so that most of my recent posts have been entirely about the things other people have said, and not just my own ideas...I've devoted whole posts to what some of you have said....and yet still you accuse me of not making the effort to fathom your points.

I ask direct clearly written questions, and recieve answers which do not make sense to me, and when i ask for more clarification I am accused of a lack of spirituality and general understanding, despite asking for your thoughts to be explained in a simple way so I will understand.

I do not know what else I can do. It seems I can't even state my own ideas without them being drastically misread and poorly understood, if the responses are anything to go by.

Amazing what fear potential simple truths inspire in those whose beliefs cannot stand up to the light of them.

"Micheal, yes I would say modern domesticated animals have evolved, through human selective breeding of the most docile, the most subserviant to be the tame creatures we have today. Why do you ask me this question as a response to what I said?"

It was in response to the thought provoking statement

"My point is that morals have nothing to do with religion in terms of their origin. We did not recieve nor were we born with some divine ascertion of goodness...those things are products of evolutionary learning and natural selection."

An alien would be easier to define than a person. Many people today have a problem personifying intelligent design. There is also a problem with the evolution theory because the only thing between the gaps in fossil record is imagination

I believe that many domestic animals can understand many words

In some states a person can be imprisoned for animal abuse and animal rights are recognized

Evolutionist are not required to define the moment or era that humans were born from non humans

I view evolution or adaptation as an effect rather than a cause

My dogs do seem to have morals that can be taught

The law of reward and punishment is recognized by behavioral
scientist.

"we" can be subjective

Inspiration or imagination the fossil records seem to show that most cultures built altars
We can only imagine spirituality. The word god means "to sacrifice to" The spirit has been linked to breath and wind. It is thought that man noticed that living creatures breathe and dead ones do not. The manifestation of God has been perceived many ways through recorded history. There is no reason for me to assume that God is confined to space and time. God is unchanging and constant the way I perceive the physical laws of nature, which always was, and always will be

http://www.poems-and-quotes.com/life/poems.php?id=138407

"I am at a loss as to how to proceed with this discussion, I really am. I have been trying really hard to understand you guys, so much so that most of my recent posts have been entirely about the things other people have said, and not just my own ideas...I've devoted whole posts to what some of you have said"

Really...Well I for one am honored...But honestly speaking, you try and say that you cannot understand. Well is it because you cannot take into consideration another person's view?

You my dear Kevin, believe yourself and make others to so belive that you are the high pillar of intelligence...But I tell you, there are different kinds of intelligence, so you have to clue us in on what you want us to believe you are.

Anyways...It was fun debating and like all debates there is two sides of the story, and I accept them both...But it seems the whole point of a debate is not to argue or belittle the other person, but to actually listen, to what their opposing views are...Duh!

Lol...

I guess we do...

Noir, I knew you and I had more to say to each other, I wanted to address some things you said, as, more than Ddavid and co, you were making some sense to me but the focus of the debate at the time wasn't between us. We can try to understand each other now I hope.

Now. You have said several times that my failing in debating is that I think I am amazingly intelligent [and I assume you do not think I am], and that I do not consider or even give any credit to other people's views.

I wonder how then I am to disagree in a debate with someone without you thinking I am not considering someones point of view. Unlike many people in this debate, I actually copy peoples words into my posts and then talk about then, sometimes for the whole of my post. I may not agree with what they say, and I might even say the exact opposite, but if I am including their ideas but then offering my viewpoint onto them, isn't that taking what they have said into consideration? Even the very fact that I disagree with what they have said, and then include their points and ideas into my own arguements shows that I have considered what they have said enough to counter it.

I do not believe I have any special intelligence Noir. I am smart enough to get by, and I know I can write well when I want to, which may give the impression that I consider myself an intellectual, I do not. I'm a really simple guy truth be told, but my mind can wrap itself really well around complex issues and offer up multi angled responses, which I guess could read as overly complex to other people. I do not write this way to convery anything about myself, I write with a complexity the befits the needs of the topic and my understanding of it. I'm not interested in defining myself to you in a packaged response, you seem to be in possession of a rather solid opinion of who i am without my influence.

You say you get both sides of the story in debates, and you accept them, equally I assume. This is a good thing for sure, and perhaps something I need to work on, as you suggest. However, to accept something is not the same as admitting it's worth or truth, and when i discuss anything relating to life, such as religion or sexuality etc, I am looking for the most accurate and resounding truth I can find, whether that be something that comes out of me or another. That is my goal....not to be horrible to people or just argue for the sake of it...if that were the case I'd argue with everyone, and I do not do that.

There is nothing wrong with arguing, or passionately debating, there is nothing to be scared of. Yes when it gets heated sometimes It can get personal, and i get caught up in the moment like everyone else, but honesty mate, my desire in any debate is to try to arrive at a consensus of what the most accurate and truthful conclusion there could be for that topic.

And, if I do not feel the truth has been found, I might just harp on a bit until it is. I know I don't have all the answers, but I want to look for them as directly and honestly as I can.

Thank you...And I mean really for explaining your case..

It seemed to me, when we both were debating on different viewpoints, that you believed to be the single person who knew it all, and that no other person would be worthy of debating with you. I guess my interpretation was wrong. And I do apologize for that.

But to the many people that seem to jump on you. They would see you as nothing less than an arrogant man...

But from this, I guess they evaluation of you seems to be wrong. Anyways, I think this has gone way beyond a fun debate, to unintentioned bickering...