Anyone Not Belive In Aliens

[Surya Deva]

I believe aliens exist. I accept it as a mundane thing. It does not surprise me, or excite me that they exist. They will have varying physiology, some will be humanoid, some maybe exotic life forms, such as reptillian.

I believe aliens can travel through space. I accept this as another mundane thing, if we can travel through space, why not them? In 1 million years we could travel around the entire galaxy at less than light speed. Theoretically faster than light speed(FTL) is a theoretical possibility given certain technological prerequisites. I think it is highly arrogant and presumptious of humans to think that more advanced aliens would not have better technology than them.

I believe aliens have made contact with Earth ages ago and still visit. The evidence of encounters is too overwhelming to ignore.

It would be cool if they reveal themselves, but frankly I am not very bothered if they do or if they don't - life goes on.

 

[Willamena]

Well, I think that there would be some more advanced, some less, and some about the same. I don't think we've been visited, though.

Out of curiosity, what conclusion might you draw if when we encounter them they are at almost precisely the same stage of advancement as us?

 

[Halcyon]

Out of curiosity, what conclusion might you draw if when we encounter them they are at almost precisely the same stage of advancement as us?

Well, obviously the only answer is "God did it".

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Not accepting life exists outside our planet almost seems arrogant. In such a vast Universe, alien life seems more than likely, it seems certain to me.

 

[rojse]

Not accepting life exists outside our planet almost seems arrogant. In such a vast Universe, alien life seems more than likely, it seems certain to me.

Surely "certainty" should be reserved until you get what you deem incontestible evidence of aliens?

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Surely "certainty" should be reserved until you get what you deem incontestible evidence of aliens?

I do not think so. I am certain SOMETHING living exists within our universe.

 

[Surya Deva]

Rojse,

It is sometimes OK to make an inference. We might not know that something exists, but we can infer its existence. I can infer example from snow outside that it must have been snowing. I don't need to be there whilst it was snowing to know that. Likewise, given the vastness of the universe, I can infer that there must be life elsewhere in the universe. I already know life happens, so I have no reason to believe it wouldn't happen elsewhere.

 

[Elessar]

I don't know. Honestly, I think it's more probable than improbable, but it wouldn't shock me if we were the only sapient species, nor would it shock me if there were many sapient species. There is absolutely no way to know one way or the other until we see them.

If other sapients do exist, I tend to think that they would not be supersmart or something like that - just regular, maybe more technologically advanced. I think a thing that did that pretty well was the game Mass Effect - aliens aren't inherently evil or inherently good. They are biologically different, they look different, but, really, they aren't just stereotypes. Unlike, say, Star Wars, where all Hutts are criminals, all Mon Calamari are brilliant engineers, etc., Mass Effect has different species, but the individual members of each species are not that different from humans in many ways - sure, there are certain cultural mores that are different, and certain strengths and weaknesses based on conditions on their homeworlds, but there are few archetypes - the villain is Saren Arterius, a turian, who hates humanity, but one of the early pro-human advocates is Nihlus Kryik, another turian. There are good humans, and bad humans. Good asaris, and bad asaris.

And that's how, if aliens exist, I think it is. Everyone is just, when you get down to it, regular people, brought up in a different environment.

 

[rojse]

Rojse,

It is sometimes OK to make an inference. We might not know that something exists, but we can infer its existence. I can infer example from snow outside that it must have been snowing. I don't need to be there whilst it was snowing to know that. Likewise, given the vastness of the universe, I can infer that there must be life elsewhere in the universe. I already know life happens, so I have no reason to believe it wouldn't happen elsewhere.

I certainly agree with you. Now show me what evidence would make you infer that aliens exist.

 

[rojse]

I do not think so. I am certain SOMETHING living exists within our universe.

It's not the best of comparisons, but how is this different to the theist that insists that God exists without evidence?

 

[Surya Deva]

Rojse,

The evidence for why aliens exist:

Life itself. It's happened here, it can happen elsewhere. It did not take long before life began on Earth, within 500 million years bacteria life had already formed. As far as I know we have detected ET bacteria life. The kind of conditions that lead to life on our planet, are abundant throughout the universe according to our current knowledge. The SETI equation predicts up to 1 million possibilities of intelligent life existing in our galaxy alone.

Aliens visiting us:

The only viable hypothesis to explain the UFO phenomenon is aliens. While most can be explained as misidentifications or plain hoaxes, there are some that are just unexplainable without applying the ET hypothesis. They have been detected on radar, seen by eye witnesses, chased by pilots. The descriptions of them are centuries old and they converge on the same thing, so it is not as commonly mistaken, a modern phenomenon.

 

[cardero]

Some other theories that aren't really being considered is that these entities were always here or were here before us and that these entities do not necessarily have to come from other planets or outer space.

 

[S-word]

[quote=angellous_evangellous;1312822]Aliens may exist, but there certainly isn't any evidence that any "aliens" have visited us.[/quote]

What about the 200 observers or 'Watchers' as some call them, who were from another period of human beings prior to this universal body, which is but the resurrection of the old period of universal activity, wherein a new species that evolved from mankind , had been driven from the face of the earth which was the cradle of their origin.

As recorded in the book of Genesis 6: 1, these Sons of God were said to have come down in the days of Enoch's father 'Jared' and the name 'Jared' means 'Descending.' they are also recorded in Jude as the heavenly beings who abandoned their own place of habitation.

I believe that only the very naive would accept that in this eternal and boundless Cosmos, earth is the only planet upon which life forms exist, and yet there has to be one species in this Cosmos who was the first to be able to comprehend the mind that is they, and I believe that Mankind was the first born of the creation, which does not necessaraly mean, this age of man on this particular planet.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The evidence for why aliens exist:

Life itself. ...

Aliens visiting us:

The only viable hypothesis to explain the UFO phenomenon is aliens.

It is really rather sad to see this type of muddled thinking so easily embraced and promoted.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Aliens may exist, but there certainly isn't any evidence that any "aliens" have visited us.

What about the 200 observers or 'Watchers' as some call them, ...

Good grief ... :no:

 

[Don Penguinoini]

It's not the best of comparisons, but how is this different to the theist that insists that God exists without evidence?

I do not know whether God exists, i live by faith. Alien belief is nothing to do with faith, they havefound a planet not that long ago Gliese 581c that is much like earth. They found water on Mars too. In such a VAST universe, the probability life does exist beats the probability it does not.

 

[rojse]

I do not know whether God exists, i live by faith. Alien belief is nothing to do with faith, they havefound a planet not that long ago Gliese 581c that is much like earth. They found water on Mars too. In such a VAST universe, the probability life does exist beats the probability it does not.

Saying that it is probable is one thing, but when you say that from this aliens are certain to exist, this is a different thing altogether.

 

[rojse]

Rojse,

The evidence for why aliens exist:

Life itself. It's happened here, it can happen elsewhere. It did not take long before life began on Earth, within 500 million years bacteria life had already formed. As far as I know we have detected ET bacteria life. The kind of conditions that lead to life on our planet, are abundant throughout the universe according to our current knowledge. The SETI equation predicts up to 1 million possibilities of intelligent life existing in our galaxy alone.

Firstly, you are talking about the Drake Equation. Although this is a starting point, it makes quite a few assumptions that we cannot be sure are correct, such as the lenght of time that an alien civilisation would exist, for example.

And although I know that life has occured at least once, there is no proof that it should, or would, occur elsewhere. We can talk about probabilities all we like, but probabilities and debatable logical arguments that make many implicit assumptions are not proof to me.

Aliens visiting us:

The only viable hypothesis to explain the UFO phenomenon is aliens. While most can be explained as misidentifications or plain hoaxes, there are some that are just unexplainable without applying the ET hypothesis. They have been detected on radar, seen by eye witnesses, chased by pilots. The descriptions of them are centuries old and they converge on the same thing, so it is not as commonly mistaken, a modern phenomenon.

Just because we do not know the answer for something, does not mean we should simply accept the first half-baked hypothesis suggested to us. Certainly, I might not be able to explain what the images on the radar are, but it does not mean that aliens must exist, just as if I cannot explain a theist's observed phenomena, God must exist.

And I do not accept testimonies of alien encounters, just as I do not accept testimonies of people's encounters with God. I want physical evidence that cannot be dismissed as a hoax, or as a phenomena that may or not be explainable through aliens.

And that ties in well with the question of what evidence is, so here are some examples of what I think it should be:
- an alien to converse with,
- an alien to examine posthumously.
- a spacecraft.
- an artefact that could not have been created on earth, like the monolith out of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

 

[Surya Deva]

And although I know that life has occured at least once, there is no proof that it should, or would, occur elsewhere. We can talk about probabilities all we like, but probabilities and debatable logical arguments that make many implicit assumptions are not proof to me.

This is fine Rojse I find nothing wrong with skepticism. We all have different standards of proof and everyone of has a skeptical streak to some extent. I guess the only time skepticism becomes a problem is when it prevents us from doing research. If you followed pure skepticism - the Humian kind - you would have to reject science as well. The other problem is if you don't accept pure skepticism, but believe other things, it contradicts ones position in skepticism.

Would your skepticism discount fields like Ufology, Parapsychology? If it does this it when becomes a problem. Surely, there is something known as 'UFO' and it is something worth researching. After all at the heart skepticism is the quest for inquiry as well.

I cannot be skeptical of life occuring elsewhere. We have no reason to believe that gravity occurs elsewhere, but we make that generalization don't we? Similarly, I know life is definitely a phenonmenon which occurs in the universe, and so I have no reason to believe it cannot occur elsewhere in knowledge that the conditions that can give life are abundant in the universe and life took off rapidly on Earth in those conditions. Besides, we already have had signs of ET life, bacteria.

Just because we do not know the answer for something, does not mean we should simply accept the first half-baked hypothesis suggested to us. Certainly, I might not be able to explain what the images on the radar are, but it does not mean that aliens must exist, just as if I cannot explain a theist's observed phenomena, God must exist.

Is it really half-backed though? An image appearing on a radar travelling at hypersonic speeds and faster, doing sudden moves, which would produce g-forces that would crush a human craft, certainly suggests that these are air crafts not belong to any known human technology. The doubt lessens to insignificance for me when you have convergences of various sources of evidence corroborating UFOs

1. Radars detecting them
2. Group eye witness accounts
3. Aircrafts intercepting them

That kind of evidence is overwhelming supporting that UFO's are real things. They can only be explained with the ET hypothesis.

I want physical evidence that cannot be dismissed as a hoax, or as a phenomena that may or not be explainable through aliens.

And that ties in well with the question of what evidence is, so here are some examples of what I think it should be:
- an alien to converse with,
- an alien to examine posthumously.
- a spacecraft.
- an artefact that could not have been created on earth, like the monolith out of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Yes, but as I said earlier, inference is also a valid means of evidence. We cannot have empirical evidence for everything. I can think of at least one reason why ET's if they existed would not reveal themselves. They have laws of non-disclosure to non space-faring civilisations. I can imagine in a universe teeming with ET life, that there would be a kind of space politics which prevents ET's from interfering with developing civilisation.

 

[rojse]

This is fine Rojse I find nothing wrong with skepticism. We all have different standards of proof and everyone of has a skeptical streak to some extent. I guess the only time skepticism becomes a problem is when it prevents us from doing research. If you followed pure skepticism - the Humian kind - you would have to reject science as well. The other problem is if you don't accept pure skepticism, but believe other things, it contradicts ones position in skepticism.

Yes, but I believe that there must be a certain amount of evidence before we accept something, and I don't believe that Ufology is at that level for myself yet.

Would your skepticism discount fields like Ufology, Parapsychology?

Not if they produced concrete results that could be demonstrated at will.

I am actually leaning towards belief in parapsychology, because I have seen a few reputable organisations that have done research in the area, and claimed to get statistically significant results.

If it does this it when becomes a problem. Surely, there is something known as 'UFO' and it is something worth researching. After all at the heart skepticism is the quest for inquiry as well.

Certainly there is something that needs to be examined there, I do not disagree. But the fact that many people simply accept this as proof that aliens must exist is something that I do disagree with. There might well be other conclusions that do not involve the existence of aliens.

I cannot be skeptical of life occuring elsewhere. We have no reason to believe that gravity occurs elsewhere, but we make that generalization don't we?

True, but we have observed the effects of gravity elsewhere. Certainly, there are some small anomalies, but nothing that would tell us that gravity is not a relevant theory.

Similarly, I know life is definitely a phenonmenon which occurs in the universe, and so I have no reason to believe it cannot occur elsewhere in knowledge that the conditions that can give life are abundant in the universe and life took off rapidly on Earth in those conditions. Besides, we already have had signs of ET life, bacteria.

Where?

Is it really half-backed though? An image appearing on a radar travelling at hypersonic speeds and faster, doing sudden moves, which would produce g-forces that would crush a human craft, certainly suggests that these are air crafts not belong to any known human technology. The doubt lessens to insignificance for me when you have convergences of various sources of evidence corroborating UFOs

1. Radars detecting them
2. Group eye witness accounts
3. Aircrafts intercepting them

That kind of evidence is overwhelming supporting that UFO's are real things.

It does warrant investigation, certainly.

They can only be explained with the ET hypothesis.

No. What is to say that UFO's are not part of a US military experiment, for example?

Yes, but as I said earlier, inference is also a valid means of evidence. We cannot have empirical evidence for everything. I can think of at least one reason why ET's if they existed would not reveal themselves. They have laws of non-disclosure to non space-faring civilisations. I can imagine in a universe teeming with ET life, that there would be a kind of space politics which prevents ET's from interfering with developing civilisation.

I have heard of that conclusion, but if they were powerful enough to make it here, why would they be so inept at concealing themselves?