UFO's and Aliens. Do they exist? Do you think there's even a chance that there is other intelligent life in our galaxy or universe or do you think we Humans are the only intelligent life in all of creation? These are questions that we as a species, man-kind, have asked since as far as our recorded history goes back. Even Ancient man, with no knowledge of modern science or modern understanding of what "Space" was, would look to the night sky at the twinkling stars and wonder...."Are we truly alone?".
Honestly, I've always thought aliens existed. Whether or not they've actually visited this planet at any point in it's history I don't know and I don't think anyone can truly say one way or the other and have definitive proof. Of course there is probably just as much "proof" that aliens don't exist as there is that they do, but, at least we are now discovering for a Fact that there is or was "some form" of life in the universe outside of the planet Earth. We know from microscopic fossils in martian rocks that at one point millions of years ago there was at the very least Single Celled life on Mars. We found this out back in the late 90's. Didn't hear about it? That's not surprising since I only found out about it because of a 10 second mention on ABC's "World News Tonight" back in 96-97. Today how-ever you can research this for your-self as many papers and articles have been published on the subject. A quick Google Search will lead you to many results such as these:
Meteorite Yields Evidence of Primitive Life on Early Mars Source: www.solarviews.com Article from 1997
Fossil Life in Martian Rock Found in Antarctica ? Source: http://spider.seds.org/spider/Mars/Marsrock/marsrocks.html Article from 1996
Proof of Life in Three Martian Rocks May Come This Year Source: www.popsci.com Article from 2010
This is enough in my eyes to call it "Definitive Proof", they're just waiting on the specific results so they can say it's a fact without a shadow of a doubt, and I respect them for waiting and taking it slow and doing the science the right way. A claim such as this can't be rushed no matter how apparent the results of any "proof" might be.
While I do believe in intelligent life outside of this planet, I'm still a skeptic. I mostly believe in what I can see with my own eyes. What I can feel with my own two hands. I think it's important for anyone doing any Serious research into the matter to be a skeptic and to try to dis-prove or debunk as many fakes as possible. With our advances in computers and video editing and special effects it's easier than ever for the nut-jobs and conspiracy wackos out there to make convincing "proof" on their own and it's people like those that bring a bad ilk to any Serious research into the matter. Sadly there are a lot of fakers and crazy people out there working in both directions of the debate. There are people who make fake videos of UFO's and try to pass them off as real and there are various groups and religious zealots who try to prove that Everything is fake and say that None Of It is real and anyone who believes there is intelligent non-human life in the universe is a moron or a liar.
Worse yet there are many people out there who are terrified of the idea that aliens may exist. Some people are so closed minded that no matter what scientific advances we may make or what we may learn about the universe and life its-self, they will Never believe that alien life exists even if aliens were to land on the White-House lawn and announce to the world that they are real and that they are here. Even if that did happen (which of course it hasn't) there would be a certain percentage of the world's population that would say it was faked, even if the proof was pointing a particle cannon at their head.
I'm about to tell a story I've never told publicly before. I've never told it honestly because I'm a little afraid of what it may make people think in regards to my sanity. If you choose to believe it, that's great. If you choose not to believe it, that's great too. One thing I do know for sure, I know what I saw...
Note: Before I get into the story, keep in mind that I was a kid. I was 13 or 14 years old. I had never done any drugs, didn't smoke cigs, didn't drink, and I wasn't a wild kid with a crazy imagination. I never had an "imaginary friend" at any point and even when I did grow up and start "partying" I've never had a hallucination nor have I ever saw something that I wasn't completely sure was right in front of me (magic tricks aside).
It was the summer of the year that my family moved from Deland in Volusia County out to Lake Mack in Lake County, Florida. I had to go to summer school that year to make up a failing English grade in 7th grade English (long story but basically I got screwed out of the grade I should have received). Because there weren't that many kids in my area going to summer school that year all of us in the neighborhood had to meet down at the corner store which was the only bus-stop for summer school that year. School started at 7 A.M. and was all the way in Leesburg (almost an hour from my house). We kids had to be at the bus-stop at 5:30 A.M. because it was a very long ride all the way to Leesburg from where we were in Lake Mack and there were other students to stop and pick up along the way. I was walking to the bus-stop down a long winding road. It was a normal paved road and there were houses and trailers all over the place. Even though the road was deserted because it was so early in the morning it was still a populated and crowded neighborhood. As I was rounding the bends I noticed all the tall pine trees were swaying back and forth pretty hard like there was about to be a storm, but oddly enough I couldn't feel any wind. I'm not going to say there wasn't any wind, there very well could have been and the currents were too high off the ground for me to feel the wind, but, I didn't actually feel any wind.
I was looking up at the tops of the pine trees when a very Large Triangle came out over the trees. At first I thought it was a helicopter and maybe I was seeing the lights on the ends of the rotors but then two things hit me. First, I couldn't hear Any noise. None what-so-ever. Second, if the lights I saw were on the ends of the rotors they would have been spinning very fast and not been stationary. They were also way too far apart to be rotor blades. The object was at least 3 times as high up as the trees, maybe 4 times as high, and it...was....Massive. I'm talking like the size of a Boeing 747, Massive. I quickly realized there was no way in hell that it was a helicopter. There were no flashing lights on it. They were on steadily. There were four lights in total. One larger light in the center and three more slightly smaller lights, one at each tip of the Triangle. I had seen plenty of helicopters up close, even military ones as I've lived close to Deland Airport for most of my time in Deland and seen plenty of air shows and air planes and helicopters first hand. I've seen both the Apache and the smaller Cobra Attack Chopper that it shares it's design with. It's also of note that out in Lake Mack in Lake County we were technically on the out-skirts of the Ocala National Forrest. The army had a bombing range on the far edge of the forrest and at least 3 or 4 times a year you could hear the bombs being dropped and all you had to do was go outside when the planes or helicopters were flying over-head to see what vehicles were doing the bombing. Lake Mack was right underneath their flight path for a long time even though the bombing range its-self was a good 60 or 70 miles away.
Anyway, when I realized just what it was I was looking at....well, I'm not ashamed to admit I got scared and started running for the bus-stop. I didn't look back and I didn't slow down. When I finally got to the point where I could see the store and see the other kids through the darkness standing under the street light at the store I stopped running. I didn't want the other kids thinking I was too scared to walk to the bus-stop in the dark, which I wasn't. I've never been afraid of the dark, not even as a small child. At that point when I stopped running I took the time to look behind me. Not surprisingly I didn't see anything. Nothing. No ship, no Triangle, no wind, and the trees were as still as could be since there was no wind.
I'm not gonna say I know for sure that it was aliens. I don't and to surmise that with no further evidence would be kinda stupid in my eyes. What I do know is that I have no idea what it was and it WASN'T a conventional aircraft. I honestly don't know what It was, but I do know I have Never seen Anything like It nor have I since. That one experience has led me to believe in intelligent life outside of this planet. I can't say it Was aliens. I can say I Think it was, because I have no other explanation for it.
So.....what do YOU believe? Do YOU think we're alone in the universe? Or do YOU think there is far more out there then we could ever dream is possible?
...Life has just begun!
At a guess you came from somewhere unholy...
You wait 'til I tells me muvver, Fuzzy.... and she's over there, too.
Nope, she was ne'er a church goer or relguss,... but unholy?
Ye can run, but tha UK be a small place... I'd be gettin' some extra padding in tha seat o' me britches if'n I wos you.
Not for that guy. He needs a time machine.
Not so. It exists because of the conversion of mass to energy and vice versa. They are equivalent by Einstein's equation.
Yes, conversion between mass and energy occurs, and yes the exchange is equivalent. This does not preclude an instantiation of a created universe with these properties.
It is the innate property of the negative curvature of space-time that the universe expands to a point and simultaneously it is contracting and when that reaches a certain point of density of plasma (which was once matter) it 'Big Bang"'s and expans/contracts again. Energy and matter are not independent (as is time).
So, there must have been an entity that is not of matter, and that created matter and set it in motion, giving it the innate properties that it now has.
Not so by the prior reasoning.then you'd run into the unresolved spiral of who created the creator of the creator, and so on.
No, I do not. There is neither beginning nor end, rather a continuum. Similarly mass and energy.Not one person has given any indication of how anything can actually/physically/realistically/provably/observably occur without being caused. In fact, if you read what I have written above, then you will see that in fact, it can. You are taking a slit second of infinity and reasoning from it.The fallacy in that is that time is not infinitely divisible into snap shots (the fallacy of the hare and tortoise race).To conclude, there is neither beginning nor end. The phenomenon is a perpetual motion machine: expansion/contraction simultaneously and matter/energy conversion and vice versa, simultaneously. Since matter and energy cannot be created 'magically' there are laws governing their interchangeability. These are also with neither beginning nor end.
Firstly, the expanding and contracting universe theory is just that, a theory, albeit with some merit at this point, but not without its problems also. Though even if you are to subscribe to a big bang and big crunch hypothesis, and if you say that this is an ongoing cycle, it doesn't refute causality, as between each cycle, there is a connected series of events, each one caused into effect and eventually leading to the next revolution, and so it still doesn't explain away the need for a prime cause. As long as you cannot refute causality, any theory you posit must include a beginning in order to be a possible explanation for existence.
This is because going from bang to crunch to bang is not the same as going back in time. Meaning, the crunch now didn't cause the bang before it, in the same way that the bang now didn't cause the crunch before it. In other words, it's a cycle, and not a circle. If you wanted to model this cycle, you could could imagine something that looked like a spring coil, with each revolution being a motion from bang to crunch or crunch to bang, with the universe cycling through its states in an unforeseeable number of repetitions. This cycle or coil, while possibly and likely endless, must have begun at some point. I say point and not point in time, as time would have begun at the beginning of the first cycle, when the stuff of the universe came into being. Before that, time as we know it would have had no meaning.
In short, time does not have to be infinitely divisible for creation to be true, as time was non-existent without matter, and a continuum does not escape causation by being a persistent cycle in equilibrium, because there is no sufficient explanation for the resolution of event chains without a creator.
To make this clearer, a created Bang & Crunch universe would be explained as such:
Event<-Cause<-Cause<-Cause<-Cause<-Prime Cause
or
Bang<-Crunch<-Bang<-Crunch<-Bang<-Prime Cause
------------------------------------------>^Going back in time-> Time starts here.
What you are suggesting would look like this:
Event<-Cause<-Cause<-Cause<-Cause<-?....
Bang<-Crunch<-Bang<-Crunch<-Bang<-?....
---------------------------------------------------> Going back in time->
Time is dependant on the motion of matter/energy. As long as the universe exists, in any form, there is motion of particles. And as long as there is motion of particles, there is time. So time passes through bang and crunch alike, and does not stop at any revolution.
Any event is dependant on an all events that came before it in its chain, but not on any that come after. Therefore, no event can be caused by an event that post-dated it. If at some point a bang occurred, then there was cause for it, and the same goes for a crunch. No event can be actioned that depends on a cause, if no cause was actioned. If it didn't start, it didn't happen.
I believe in aliens because there are now 530 (make that 531) replies to this thread which is obviously an old alien trick for measuring human intelligence. (or lack thereof)
Istari...you did NOT answer the question, instead you posted a link.
This situation reminds me of something similar that happened a few years back.....
Again, suggest another valid option and you have foiled my dastardly scheme.
But again, you have nothing.
Not that you'll actually address the points therein and demonstrate where and how you perceive an error, and God forbid you explain a more correct view in any coherent detail, but here is a re-hash of my answer that I posted above in response to the Doc.
The fundamental particles of which matter is composed, are always in motion. This motion must have begun at some point. If it did not begin, then it does not exist. This is why matter cannot always have existed, as the very nature of it necessitates that it must have a beginning. Matter cannot create itself, as what is not, cannot. If we leave it at that, existence is disproved, and this observably is not so. So, there must have been an entity that is not of matter, and that created matter and set it in motion, giving it the innate properties that it now has. This entity cannot be of matter, as in that case the creator would also had to have had a beginning, and then you'd run into the unresolved spiral of who created the creator of the creator, and so on.
To sum it up in short, there is nothing that is, that was not begun.
My guess at your answer:
Istari: The fundamental particles of which matter is composed, are always in motion.
Jafo: Says who?
Istari: This motion must have begun at some point.
Jafo: This is YOUR assumption.
Istari: If it did not begin, then it does not exist.
Jafo: Naive Conjecture. Man created God. Observation counts for some brand of animal faeces, everything happens for no reason, every action has an arbitrarily random percentage chance of having a disproportianate reaction, I eat pickled cheese when I have infections, though not to cure them, and I don't take antibiotics because they cannot be causal to the killing of these infections, as causality doesn't exist. Nothing can make sense or else I've wasted my life believing in nothing. Science is about reading tarot cards and everything we conclude must always be wrong because it's all chaos.
Lots of intermediate dots ....... and then some more ........ and then remove some of the structure and organisation, and there you have it. Oh, and about a few thousand of these .
Cheers from your friendly neighbourhood troll.
A true pity that man's brain is wired to invent religion. No need for anything beyond "Do not do unto others what you would not have done to you."
Istari, you understand what "Theory" means in science. Unfortunately religion is not as honest.
In your limited form of logic.
You haven't understood (or cannot accept, more likely) that expansion contraction has no necessary initial event and no necessary "cause" or "causer". You simply can't grasp that religion is an unnecessary explanation for the universe, and that intellectually we've outgrown it although emotionally need it.
The big problem with people is that they cannot comprehend alien lifeforms that are totally different from humans.
It begins with scientists ruling out planets that don't have the exact same conditions Earth has when searching for alien lifeforms.
Still, last year a lifeform was found on earth that exists in temps above 100°C. All of the sudden scientist say:"Hmm, maybe we should not just look for Earth like planets when searchin for lifeforms." Something I've been saying for decades...
So basically the question whether alien lifeforms exist or not must be broken down into TWO questions.
1) Are there alien lifeforms out there of ANY kind? Simply a lifeform outside Earth?
2) Are there alien lifeforms that are close enough in appearance and existing in conditions similar to ours so that we could somehow be able to communicate with them out there?
As for how the universe came into existence (WITHOUT anyone or anything that creeted it): Superstring theory explains it sufficiently. Read Graham Greene's "The elegant Universe"...
On another note I found another nice read once that takes a metaphysically approach on the universe and how it might have come into existence.
"Science and the Akashic Field" from Erwin Laszlo.
For the record, I have a great interest in religion, and as a result, I do not need to be told about the amount of nonsense to be found there. There are also some great pearls of wisdom though, such as the one you mentioned above.
As for logic, I didn't define it, nor did I refine it, and so there is no form of it that can be attributed to me. Like any person with any tool, I can misuse it in human error, and while that could possibly be the case here, it remains to be seen. On the deductive side, it typically boils down to necessities given a set of data. Regarding events and dependencies, I cannot cut my hair now by using scissors on it tomorrow. The cause must preceed the consequence. The consequence does not occur without a cause. If something happens, it was caused to happen. There is no observation in history that has confirmed otherwise. Until there is, it doesn't make sense to assert otherwise.
If you say that expansion/contraction does not need an initial cause, you are saying that our universe is modelled on that structure. Yet there is nothing of observable evidence that would denote such a universal status quo, and nothing of the observable universal laws that would stand given that pretext. Everything is to the contrary. On what basis do we deny the insurmountable and constant bombarding stream of evidence that all points to the truth of causality? There is no justification for it.
At any rate, I believe this discussion has gone about as far as it can. Thanks for having it out with me intelligently, whatever the outcome, and for actually picking apart my statements in your replies.
All this creation of the universe stuff has made my brain hurt...
Bout time.
Only a foolish scientist would discount any possibility, even some of the fundamentals of creationism, as we are still making new discoveries every day. So not every possibility to the explanation of our existence has been exhausted. Really I think we haven't even scratched the surface of whats out there to discover.
Popular theory is, matter can not be created or destroyed it can only be altered, even "creating" energy at the atomic level matter is only being mutated.
That being said, from a scientific aspect, one could rule out creationism or can they? Lets open our minds a minute.
Who is to say that motion was not always there? If all molecules are moving constantly it would be sound to conclude that eventually as they collide and occasionally stick together they would create even larger amounts of movement. These larger conglomerations of molecules then would have bumped yet again with other large groups and started yet again larger scales of movement. Eventually building up to the Big bang theory as these different types of molecule bundles meet with sometimes explosive results.
It could even be theorized that planets have formed before, met with disaster and the molecules were scattered all over the universe, only to once again adhere themselves together.
Could science be actually proving the thought of never truly dieing as our energy transforms or is transferred at death? Where or what to at this point would be purely speculative.. Thus offering the possibly an after life of some kind, most likely beyond our current comprehension.
If these thing's are held to be "true" one could also speculate that God could exist as a energy form we can not currently see or measure and exist in all things. To this end one could also state that It would be proven that God did not need to be created as he was always here, as matter can not be created or destroyed.
The Borg could have been on to something with the whole bit about being part of being a collective.
Seems to me that Creationism and Evolution could be one in the same.
Only humans feels the need to see an end to all existence, It makes his mortality seem less lonely if all things "must" come to an end.
I submit No one knows for sure as all theories are just that, an Educated Guess/speculation.
That's what I say except for one thing. If God is in all things then give the being a proper name. Gaia or Mother Nature. Same thing. A rose by any other name.
I don't think so, brother... http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/philosop/creation.htm
As for who brought G-d/religion into it, Istari...you did with the 'first causer' thing.
[quote who="Uvah" reply="539" id="2870843"]That's what I say except for one thing. If God is in all things then give the being a proper name. Gaia or Mother Nature. Same thing. A rose by any other name.[/quote]
Pantheism. It's quite an old belief. I once heard an anecdote about a pantheist who was having some trouble. Apparently, he had become quite constipated, as he was refusing to void his bowels over an extended period of time, and he was suffering very badly. All of his family, neighbours and companions could not get him to simply do his business, and so they called on a doctor who was known to be among the wise.
When the doctor asked the man why he refused to defecate, the man replied "You must know I am a devout pantheist. How can I defecate on the grass or the ground if God is in everything? It would mean I would be defecating on God!!!" The doctor paused for a moment and then gave out a calming smile, and he said to the man "If God is in everything, then he would also be in your stool. So what is the problem with placing God on God?". The man recognised his error, and with relief, proceeded to rid himself of shit.
I don't subscribe to ID.
But it is fun looking at the correlations between religion and science.
I was merely referring to a necessary creator. God is a convenient word, as it is widely known and understood. Religion refers to a system of belief and a way of life. I was not suggesting that some ruleset be adhered to as a result of my conclusions. I do admit though, that if I had just stuck to the word 'creator' it would have been clearer.
Prime Mover argument. [St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica]. Motion requires a mover. Any mover must also require a mover. This sequence would extend through an infinite number of movers (infinite regression), and therefore is absurd. So therefore there must be a "first mover, moved by no other", that is, a G-d.
First Cause Argument. [Thomas Aquinas] All effects in the universe have causes. The universe itself must have had a cause. But this again is an infinite regression to infinity, which is absurd. Therefore one must assume a "first cause", that is, a G-d.
These arguments familiar to you, Istari?
All of them are fallacious.
The arguments assume that logic can tell us about an entity that may not be limited by logic, if it exists.
The arguments assume that laws and principles we know to operate "within" the universe also apply broadly even "outside" of the universe (whatever that might mean), to entities imagined to exist independently from the universe. The arguments assume that we can deduce something about an entity postulated to be greater than the universe and greater than any human being, using the limited resources of our imperfect and finite minds and our limited experiences. All of the arguments claim to establish the existence of a supernatural being or entity, then equate it to the traditional "G-d" entity, without independently defining that entity or proving it to be the same thing as "G-d".
The arguments assume that we can deduce something about an entity postulated to be greater than the universe and greater than any human being, using the limited resources of our imperfect and finite minds and our limited experiences.
"I was merely referring to a necessary creator. God is a convenient word, as it is widely known and understood. Religion refers to a system of belief and a way of life. I was not suggesting that some ruleset be adhered to as a result of my conclusions. I do admit though, that if I had just stuck to the word 'creator' it would have been clearer"
No it wouldn't, as it is still YOUR presumption that there MUST be a creator, no matter what name he/it has.
There IS no scientific basis for a necessity for there to always having-to-be a 'thing' that made everything else...simply because if THAT 'thing' was therefore arguably ALWAYS THERE then the reasoning applies EQUALLY that what this 'thing' is supposed to have 'created' could ITSELF HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE - and thus needed no 'creating'.
Bloody brilliant logic actually.
None of this is about whether or not there 'is' a God, it's about your [Istari's] stupid pre-occupation with cause and effect.
It is self-defeating... if you actually take the time to look.
What this interaction is...is a 'social experiment' in ...wait for it.....cause-and-effect. Others might call it TROLLING ...but the intent is to evince a response to an event. It is certainly NOT a logical, progressive discussion. THEY actually require answers to questions posed.
It appears to have long departed the topic of UFOs.
How about a return to the topic at hand. The OP reads "UFO's, what do you believe?" Not Physics 101 or whether or not a supreme being exists. Lets leave one to the scientists and the other to the theologians. Food for thought. Gliese 581b. Earth-like with an atmosphere albeit nearly four times larger. A book called Valentine's Castle talks of a world much larger than Earth where the Castle sits atop a mountain whose peak is five miles high. The planet's name is Majipoor. This name could be used as a designation for so-called super Earths. If Gliese 581b has an atmosphere that can support life then there may very well be 'life' there. If there is then all this talk of whether or not we're alone becomes moot dontcha think.
Oh how I love a shit fight!!! Carry on.... disagree to your hearts content.
Haven't had this much entertainment since renting 'The Meaning of Life on VHS'.
You would Oh MasterBlaster.
Actually it's quite the opposite. The arguments say that there must have been some "being" that created the universe, and that it is a necessary requirement for existence that this being is "moved by no other", on the basis that if the creator needed creating, you would end up with the absurdity of infinite regression.
So, we do not deduce the properties of the prime mover, only that a prime mover is necessary based on the properties of our universe.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
