*"Believe in Aliens Instead of God? "*

Post Reply New Topic

I also am unacquainted with Finnish grammar whether is is involved with Japanese, Korean, Arabic or Martian. I am a New Yorker living in Helsinki and my English grammar is very good indeed. If you cannot make head or tail of it then perhaps you had better question your own capabilities in the matter.

I think it has something to do with linguistics/set theory.

That is; the word "alien" is not the/a word which designates the set which contains all sets, whereas "god" is, and so means something different to me when I say to myself "I believe in god".

Something like that. I otherwise completely see your point about their unknowability.

I believe in God, but I also believe that alien life forms are inevitable in a universe this size. Hell, how do we know how vast the universe really is? As far as I'm concerned, the universe is infinite. Can we not have God and Aliens, or is that too much?

The problem with the God concept is that it is so variable. The standard image of a bearded old man is obviously silly but the supposition of a superior being that created the universe does not quiet all questions. It raises the obvious problem of where God originated and that unanswerable probe becomes so complicated that I am more comfortable in assuming that the universe is quite competent in producing its effects with no independent creator required. What I have thought about is that the simple forces that can be perceived and measured in the universe, by their various and intricate interactions, form a directive process not too different from the human processes of thinking and in that process have created all the marvels we perceive around us without demanding that this multiplex of forces is conscious itself.

That is why I think that what I posted on previous page is useful. It reduces the dilemma to laws of language and maths. There is no need to think about the image the word god conjures up.



I find it makes it very clear.

What makes aliens more plausible than God? Do we have anymore proof of aliens than we do of God? This is not at all clear to me.

at the bare minimum, aliens only require the same elements or the same organization that we see in ourselves and other living creatures. we don't even have proof of god to start off with...we have proof that it is possible for life to form.


it's proof vs no proof....and that changes the probability scales. god is much less likely than aliens.

Me neither. If someone appeared with wings or in some spooky way I would immediately assume it was an alien. But I have been reading science fiction for over 70 years so my mind runs that way.

So aliens are more plausible because we know nothing about them? Because we haven't seen them or communicated with them? Right.

No. Aliens are made of the same stuff as you and me with, perhaps a bit more on the ball technologically. Since they probably evolved on a different planet they most likely would look quite different than humans. That seems rationally quite acceptable to me. But a god or a spirit is totally different in concept all tied in with the superstitious folklore and other nonsenses which have no connection to my physical reality. I am very reluctant to accept that kind of being.

What makes you so sure that aliens are made up of then same stuff as humans? Do we know that for a fact? It could be something other than carbon or silicon. It could be something closer to "supernatural" for all we know. You presume a great deal, Sandman.

I presume only what science presents. All substance we have observed is composed of combinations of the 100 or so elements that we know. No exceptions. No "supernatural stuff" has ever presented itself to reliable and trained witnesses. Even the stars that exist millions of light years away present spectral patterns that conform to the substances we know. To assume otherwise without evidence may amuse you but it has, at this moment, very little likelihood.

I think you guys are confused of the term "God is dead". It refers to the fact that God is no longer needed in the equation of life, and we have to effectively killed him with our science; he is no longer logical. It comes from the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, who used it constantly.

I am aware of Nietzche (sp?) but I am not in awe of him or his writings. Like all the philosophers, he's just a man. No man can have all the answers, no matter the genuis.

and you wouldn't listen to the answers anyways, right?

An alien is empirically testable by both real-life observation and study, as they would be composed of molecular structures and are animated in a way that fulfills basic needs such as energy absorption, replenishment, reproduction and waste expulsion. I don't mention water explicitly, because I'm sure on dry worlds, life can live without water because it might be composed of naturally forming "nano-machines" via extreme chemical processes, working together like a hive to form a single being. In theory it would only needs certain frequencies of electromagnetic radiation to stimulate them to function, along with maintenance by absorbing chemicals, elements, etc on occasion to replenish the hive.

But to address another subject; the whole speed of light limit is a flaw of human thinking as in reality in my theory, the density of the Higgs Field is what determines the speed of light limit. Photons travel fastest in the Higgs Field because they are massless. However the minimal energy resistance by the Higgs Field of photons passing through it, results in a throttling down of speed to what is currently observed. In my theory if one were to utilize a great amount of electron-positron collisions to generate enough W and Z boson at one point of space (to absorb the Higgs Field), it will reduce the Higgs Field density to zero, rendering that spatial location void of anything temporarily (in a bubble or tube fashion), therefore having no resistance on anything passing through this location. This would result in faster-than-light travel within that location (almost like teleportation, or a portal effect), but quite unrefined. Of course utilizing an immense gravitational field can do the same thing, as having too many Gravitons being generated at once, would cause a void state (as the Higgs Field is always absorbed to generate Gravitons), but then you have complications with a singularity to deal with and to be frank, requires a force similar to a black hole. The principle in layman's term of this is to simply tear a hole in the fabric of space-time literally, and then from that point, all sorts of applications of spatial/dimensional travel, time distortions, spatial distortions, energy farming, etc could be achieved.

All speculation of course, and to advise any physicists here, I base all this on my own model version of physics I personally believe in. I'm not the type to always take someone else's word for it, and like to formulate my own understanding on things instead.

How this is relevant to the topic? Well for the tl;dr (too long; didn't read) people, I'm basically saying this to those using the 'speed of light' argument, don't think with such a closed mind regarding on how aliens would travel, as I'm sure faster-than-light travel is quite possible. Human science and technology is still in it's infancy regarding advanced physics in my opinion. Humans haven't even been beyond this solar system yet, to be able to rightfully make fixed conclusions on anything just yet.