What do Aliens believe in?

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut


STILL LIVING...aka people from modern times.. with enough info to know better..

None of the smartest people on the planet for the last 50 years have bought Christianity AT ALL.

Your counting the people people from 100 years ago.. long before we had the technology or archeology to debunk it..

I’m sure before we had enough information to debunk it just about everyone believed..

But that is science. Once something has been debunked, you stop buying it....

93 nobel laureates since 1967 (50 years) have professed to being Christian.

There are six categories for prizes awarded each year and although there are sometimes multiple recipients and sometimes prizes are not awarded, in general, there have been about 300 prizes awarded since 1967.

This means that approximately 31% of nobel laureates in the last 50 years have been Christian (reduced numbers, but not insignificant).
Many of the smartest people on the planet in the last 50 years have/have had religious beliefs and statistics reveal that that they are proportional to the levels of belief in the societies of the countries from which they come.

The fact that you think that science has 'debunked' religious belief shows that you have little knowledge of either.

Science tells us nothing about the supernatural. By definition it can't. It is an investigation purely of the natural based in thesis and observation.

Mathematics (specifically Godel's Incompleteness) shows that science, as a formal axiomatic system, cannot even describe itself with consistency and also that there must neccesarily exist a supernatural which will forever be beyond science's capability to describe.

Similarly, the required falsifiability of any scientific theorem means that science cannot give us any sort of absolute knowledge. There always has to be another option or otherwise theories are untestable. If we cannot test a a theory, we cannot determine if it is ultimately true.

Science, then, is revealed to be a process of acquiring knowledge, it is not a body of knowledge. Science stops before any absolute conclusions can be drawn. As Aristotle said: “The more you know, the more you know you don't know.”

originally posted by: burgerbuddy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: vlawde
If they are advanced enough to travel throughout the galaxy (or dimensions), I'd suspect they have grown far beyond the need for a mythical being to explain everything

Why?

Do you have a line of reasoning or any objective evidence to support your statement?

If they are that smart, they can make their own universes anyway they want.

Do gods travel in spaceships?

Do gods travel? I suspect not. They are omnipresent.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: chr0naut
This means that the truth is that the majority of Nobel Prize winners have a religious belief of some sort.

Quite so. Many very intelligent people use science as a way to seek out the fingerprints of God.

God authored far more than a set of books.

a reply to: chr0naut

I said science has debunked the specific religions, and will likely debunk the concept of a “hands on god”, as soon as we figure out the genesis of life.. which I don’t doubt we do one day.

We might even figure out the process that created the universe, debunking the concept of a god as well.

Science tells us nothing about the supernatural, because there isn’t one speck of evidence the supernatural exists...

Literally every single human being in history has spent some time searching for some proof of the supernatural or religion with absolutely NOTHING to show for it..

Not one spell, prayer or artifact that breaks the laws of physics..


Not one...

I don’t know what your talking about with the math you mentioned, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of mathematicians and scientists would find that laughable...


Because if there were mathematical proof of god or the supernatural. Then 85% would Believe, rather than 15%...


I looked it up and it is LAUGHABLE....


“There are many more criticisms, most focusing on the philosophically interesting question of whether these axioms must be rejected to avoid odd conclusions. The broader criticism is that even if the axioms cannot be shown to be false, that does not mean that they are true.”

Suprise , suprise.. it is a ridiculous theory. That none of the other mathematicians and scientists would ever agree applied to religion....

Really?!?! Your best proof of a god is some guy who says if you can’t disprove it. It must be true?!?!



You can’t disprove Odin or the flying spegetti monster..... that doesnt make them real...



I’m getting that 85% number from Neil degrass Tyson who makes the point that the 15% number isn’t a good thing...these are the smartest people on the planet. It should be 100% who are atheist/agnostic.

a reply to: SolAquarius

What if they deliver an ultimatum of convert or feel our wrath?

What amazes me is their drone technology.
I recently reverse engineered a cow bell drone with a 10,000 hour count down timer.
Timer was down to the last few minutes on the device so I tried taking it out with a couple charges of C4, to my dismay they had thought of that.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Well there have been studies, the problem is as chr0naut perfectly states you can not quantify the unquantifiable and that does not mean that the unquantifiable does not exist merely that we are either too limited to be able to quantify it or that it is too distant or weak in a mechanical sense for us to take reading's but in the old Boolean logic sense it is or it is not.

You are, you believe there must be a cause for that effect to exist yes?.

You seek to understand the cause but dismiss out of hand all religion's, fair enough we may disagree but there is some merit to that because religion as a scientific model may be and probably is a flawed one but it is still a model and all that science will ultimately do is refine the model to the limit's of it's capability which as we have just argued is actually perhaps limited by the measurement's we can take and codify into usable empirical data.

Some excert's from this article from the independent newspaper in the UK.

www.independent.co.uk... tml

Quote from article

A team spent 40 years analysing heart attack patient's (revived) account's, found that 40 percent had some awareness after clinical death, there data showed that up to three minutes after the Brain has shut down from lack of blood flow these patient's experienced event's some in real detail.



Also from a personal account.

When My Nan died both my mother and sister saw a silver line rise from her body, from her forehead and seem to pass out of the room through the ceiling

I shall not go into my own personal experiences because I did personally suffer head trauma so you can regard those as not as reliable as you may want but believe me I have had some.

The point is that you are searching for an answer were there is non, science can not explain it because of this simple fact - every answer askes multiple more questions, every theory get's progressively more convoluted and even Einstein ended up wiping his grand unified theory from the white board because it ultimately did not work but like a bunch of medieval alchemists searching for the fabled philosophers stone (no not harry potherb and his fellow hippy's version but the holy grail of alchemy and now science) many theoretician's believe in a grand unified theory of everything - but for a system to fully comprehend another system it necessarily has to be more complex than the system it is comprehending so how can they ever achieve it? it is therefore an unreachable goal which is not to say that it's pursuit is not without merit because it certainly does have merit but it is like a kitten with a piece string tied (loosely) to it's tail chasing it's other end (which maybe has a cat nip satchel) around a tree, the temptation to reach it will always be there but like old King Sisyphus they will never get out of that hole.

Next we could get into the sea of chaos, the presumed true super space - not the membrane filled super space but the one beyond even it's laws within which it must too exist, there is absolutely no reason for something to exist when it should have self annihilated and yet here we are in our respective reality's bashing polymer buttons on primitive keyboards (unless you are using one of those fancy-shmancy light projection keyboards and injuring your finger tips tapping a mahogany grained desk top) so we exist, how, why, who?, what? DECIDED that the state of chaos should take this path.

Once again back to the old Boolean, it is or it is not, 1 or 0 and the only answer viable is 1.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

I said science has debunked the specific religions,

This is the science that cannot even so much as acknowledge the existence of the supernatural?

How could it debunk things that it cannot penetrate?

Please provide specific instances, as it appears to me that the paradigm of 'science debunking religion' suffers from the contradiction that science is not able to tell us anything at all about the supernatural.

and will likely debunk the concept of a “hands on god”, as soon as we figure out the genesis of life.. which I don’t doubt we do one day.

I doubt that finding a process of the genesis of life will say anything at all about the validity of religion.

As an aside, the whole description of the creation in the Bible exists as approximately 826 words at the opening chapter of a document of more than 718,000 words (that is 0.115% of the content of the Bible). It is a very small part of religious philosophy.

The Bible also refers to the genesis of life within a philosophical framework as explanation of moral and ethical models. The Bible isn't a textbook of physical science and was never intended to be so.

As an example, I have many science textbooks. None of them describe the take-apart procedure for modern laptops, nor cover the topic of IP subnetting, the use of Iambic Pentameter by William Shakespeare, multithreaded program design, the strategic operational stages of WWII or 'cloud' security. Surely these topics are technical in nature. So should I declare the science textbooks debunked due to their omissions in fact? Of course not.

The same for 'debunking' the Bible on scientific grounds. It is a primary misunderstanding of the content of the Bible, to suggest that it is 'debunked' because it describes things in a way that doesn't match a particular 'scientific' literalism. The Bible is attempting to describe concepts that go well beyond the natural, using human language that is significantly based in the natural.

We might even figure out the process that created the universe, debunking the concept of a god as well.

The creation of the universe is only a tiny part of religion. The discovery of a process of ultimate creation does not debunk God any more than the discovery of the process of changing a tyre. God could have used that method to create the universe. Definitely the implicate order of the universe suggests that God uses the rational methodologies discoverable by science.

Science tells us nothing about the supernatural, because there isn’t one speck of evidence the supernatural exists...

There has been significant evidence of the supernatural. I would go as far as positing that nearly every human being that has ever lived has had supernatural experiences either directly or by association. The 84.34% religious beliefs in human populations would attest to that. List of religious populations From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There have also been studies of the strong correlation of population numbers of those who have congenital brain defects, and those who are 'hard' atheists. The presumption has been drawn that those who cannot concieve of the numinous, in fact have a congenital deficiency.
Atheism as a Mental Deviance - Discover Magazine
Atheism and mental health - NCBI
The New Psychology of Atheism - Psychology Today

Science simply rejects what cannot have a natural explanation because if something defies scientific investigation, it cannot be proven scientifically. If it can be proven scientifically, it is therefore defined as entirely 'natural'.

But let's take a specific instance: several religions have long maintained that matter can be created from nothing. Science long resisted this as superstitious nonsense. However, with the advent of the Casimir experiment, it was proven that virtual particles can provide pressure, a measurable force, against matter. This led to an understanding of quantum vacuum fluctuation (i.e: the temporary change in the amount of energy in a point in space), as explained in Werner Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This allows the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs of virtual particles and, in particular circumstances, the prevention of annihalation of these virtual particle pairs leaves un-annihalated actual particles (as may occur at the swartzchild radius of a gravitational singularity - Hawking Radiation). Matter from nothing, a core tenent of religion, proved by science and now suggested by some in science, is the primary reason for the existence of the entire universe and is foundational to everything in science.

Literally every single human being in history has spent some time searching for some proof of the supernatural or religion with absolutely NOTHING to show for it..

Not one spell, prayer or artifact that breaks the laws of physics..

Not one...

So science then is true because it breaks the laws of physics?

... and there are many objective evidences of things inexplicable to science. Religion calls them miracles. Science says they are unexplained, or "I don't know" and throws out the objective evidence because it can post no theory as to how such things could occur.

The Roman Catholic Church investigates deeply into purported miracles and has collected significant objective evidence. They have whole departments specifically tasked with such investigation and have a very rigourous program of authenticating councils to ensure that a miracle is 'true'.

I don’t know what your talking about with the math you mentioned, but I would bet dollars to donuts that the vast majority of mathematicians and scientists would find that laughable...

Because if there were mathematical proof of god or the supernatural. Then 85% would Believe, rather than 15%...

I looked it up and it is LAUGHABLE....

“There are many more criticisms, most focusing on the philosophically interesting question of whether these axioms must be rejected to avoid odd conclusions. The broader criticism is that even if the axioms cannot be shown to be false, that does not mean that they are true.”

Kurt Gödel, who is the originator of the 'Incompleteness Theorems' won the Albert Einstein Award (in 1951), the National Medal of Science (in 1974), the Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society [ForMemRS] (in 1968) and was a Fellow of the British Academy. He is considered one of the mathematical greats of the 20th Century.

Suprise , suprise.. it is a ridiculous theory. That none of the other mathematicians and scientists would ever agree applied to religion....

Really?!?! Your best proof of a god is some guy who says if you can’t disprove it. It must be true?!?!

He didn't say that at all, you seem to have totally misunderstood it. Please re-read and actually consider what it says for yourself: Gödel's incompleteness theorems From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Go on, I'm sure you can!

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: chr0naut

I’m getting that 85% number from Neil degrass Tyson who makes the point that the 15% number isn’t a good thing...these are the smartest people on the planet. It should be 100% who are atheist/agnostic.

Is Neil Degrasse Tyson himself one of the smartest people on the planet?

Also, he ins't an atheist. Here's a quote from his Wikipedia page:

"I'm constantly claimed by atheists. I find this intriguing. In fact, on my Wiki page – I didn't create the Wiki page, others did, and I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to assemble it – and it said "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." I said, "Well that's not really true." I said, "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an agnostic." I went back a week later it had been rewritten and it said "Neil deGrasse Tyson is an atheist." – again within a week – and I said, "What's up with that?" so I said "Alright, I have to word it a little differently." So I said, okay "Neil deGrasse Tyson, widely claimed by atheists, is actually an agnostic."



Also, to really drive the message home that there are proofs of the supernatural, and specifically of God, here is an entirely rigourous and mathematically accepted (but lesser known) proof from Kurt Gödel:

Gödel's ontological proof From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

originally posted by: chr0naut
Is Neil Degrasse Tyson himself one of the smartest people on the planet?

That is definitely up for debate. He's a pretty good pop science mouthpiece, like Carl Sagan before him. Smart? Somebody smarter than myself would have to decide that.

They believe, especially after watching us, that they should have another beer, and sit back and watch the show laughing it up!

Or perhaps they believe they should use our planet for research projects they aren't allowed to do on their own planet because their own people learned to stand up for their rights and ban most dangerous and outrageous experiments.

Which could make us their lab rats to be used for a variety of reasons including Climate Change research.

If there were another species of material humanoid creatures (there isn't but that's the only image of aliens that matter worshippers are willing to accept), they would call God an It, or a force, rather than a person.

And no one would be confused about theism or give money to con artists ever again.

a reply to: DpatC


At least one ET alien race that occasionally visits our planet...possibly portray themselves as 'Gaods', because they're indistinguishable to us (at least to me) from magic --- And they possibly rely on major forms of communication to earthlings, by using laser holographic images of religious themes, based on the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths; since those themes could be easily interpreted as a communication link between them and us. One example: Prophet Jonah/Jonah And The Whale - Except Jonah might have been taken aboard an alien starship, instead of being swallowed by a whale.



www.islamreligion.com...

That they hate mankind with a vengeance.

a reply to: DpatC

Probs wondering the same as us.. is there anybody
out there are, we alone in the Universe!

Math or some giant Heathen God.

well. they IMO evolved with a single sun, no moon.

they have a monolistic thought process. they understand there is a source, a creative energy.

They maneuver their lives in this fashion, 'there's the source, i have to do this, this is happening now' it's all very monolithic. We live on a planet of duality thanks to the sun/moon. We have a binary concept of us vs all. We see double.

When we think of god, we think about entertwinement. We see multiple flourensics, when they see god, they just see 'source'.

What is God? This is what a voice told me. "Solution"

That's all god is

I wish some of you could feel the energy of the Gray space rat. It wasn't that different than us. Here is how it is "beams down to earth" "Ooohh I feel all cool in this atmosphere, kind of edgy."
"I have arrived."

"Hmm *looking around* what should I do .."

"There! He is overly-looking for things.." (offensive, not very nurturing, feels insultive)
I guess there was nothing to look into that deeply. Not like a different time.

*sees face* "OOohh very beautiful yes pull this way"

*Turn away* (silence)

This is me describing his energy feelings, it was pretty much similar to ours. It's just that human energy is large and expansive, while this was different. I feel bad because the only way to ever understand them is to actually feel their energy vibes, which is easier as a vegetarian. As soon as I looked up I stopped feeling it, and just my brain took over and I thought it was like a rat-demon.

Anyway, I wrote this tied into this post because, based off anything, it doesn't seem like a belief in God was overly important, as it was more tied into being alive in the moment. What to do in the situation, feeling active.

I think that's a reflection of this existence itself. This existence merely just experiencing itself, not thinking. Just like us, we experience, we actually feel all of reality, we actually have a higher self that knows god.
We feel all of existence, and what we feel is the reality.

Edit: For that last line I mean that, our perception of reality that we feel, is the truth. For example you might have a sense of things being really amazing, well that's just you feeling existence. It's an actual feeling that you are feeling through infinitely deep energy combustion.
What we feel, IS, the reality, that feeling we feel about it, is no illusion, it's a deep metaphysical feeling.
(But i hate science words like metaphysical, because science is so definitive when everything is infinitely grand)

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


Once every human has their understanding of the universe, religion dies.

We can only hope

a reply to: LABTECH767
I second this, when one looks at the bible as primitive man interpreting seemingly magical feats and advanced technology it makes more sense and throughout time the passages themselves would of been shoehorned to fit the current narrative of the time.

originally posted by: TheOnlyBilko

originally posted by: JoshuaCox


Once every human has their understanding of the universe, religion dies.

We can only hope

Thats strange as I would have thought that an understanding of creation would actually lead to deeper religious thought and insight