Possible to Believe in Extraterrestrial Life and Not Acknowledge the POSSIBLE Existence of God?

Bear in mind that there isn't the SLIGHTEST shred of empirical evidence that ET's DO exist, nor is there that God DOESN'T.

Here's the question: Is it acceptable to throw out the rules of empirical evidence when your beliefs are supported by your doing so?

Edited for clarity.

:think:

and also made more sense before the OP changed the poll question.

We have knowledge of different galaxies, planets and solar systems that stretch over billions of light years. I find it difficult to believe that we are somehow the only beings in all of that tremendous expanse of universe exist.

However, the idea that there is some supernatural being that is pulling the strings and controlling it all seems difficult to believe.

My God set the whle thing in motion and gave me the freewill to skate through it all by myself if I choose.

you can believe extraterrestrial life exists based on the sheer size of the universe and knowing the basic conditions for life probably exist on x number of planets, that it'd be ridiculous to think that earth is the only place it started.

Again its also a bit irrational to completely discount the possibility of a God, even the most adamant atheists will say there is a chance. Most just don't think its likely or if there is it effects their life at all.

An agnostic is opened up to the possibility of a god. I tend to think that it's very unlikely that a god exists, but because I believe there's still a possibility, I consider myself to be an agnostic. Perhaps it's mostly because of Pascal's Wager, but it's a 'belief' none-the-less.

Sid

Your 'explanation' seem rather muddled to me.

Anyway, I consider the two questions to be entirely unrelated, so, yes, one could believe in one and not the other.

:shrug:

There's no evidence for either a god figure or for extraterrestrial life. As a result, the default position with both should be "I'll believe it when there's evidence."

Logically, it makes much more sense to suppose that life probably exists elsewhere than to believe in an omnipotent being- we know that life occurs in all sorts of odd and inhospitable places, space is vast and the earth isn't terribly special, so yeah, the chances of life elsewhere are probably quite good. On the other hand, we have no evidence for omnipotent beings who routinely violate the laws of physics, nor any logical reason to suspect such creatures exist.

While neither hypothesis is supported by evidence, one is supported by logic. So if we're going to default to a tentative belief in one and non-belief in the other, you've got it backward.

and that's the problem with god. It's pure fantasy.

Or could conceivably invent?

The same faulty logic should lead you to include all of them in your poll.

that each and every god ever believed in is some variation or different aspect of a single god or divine force, so that they are all the same, and all exist equally.

I'm an atheist and I can come up with that.

I would call it an assertion, not an argument. I can just as well assert that they're all separate.

:shrug: So is yours, obviously.

Really not up for a long night discussion wise, but I'll take a few questions if so inclined. Peace. :hi: :boring:

Either you believe in a universe that, due to some laws of physics or biology or some science we don't even recognize yet, generated life on Earth and likely had the same conditions and results somewhere else in the universe, or you just about have to believe in a God who created life on Earth to be completely unique. So, if there is no God, then life on other planets should exist. This doesn't mean they are flying spaceships halfway across the universe to crash into mountains in New Mexico, of course.

The reverse is not true. One can easily believe in a God who created the Earth and also created life on other planets.

For disclosure, I believe there is no god, and there is probably life somewhere else out there, but I hold a skeptic's acceptance that I could be wrong about anything.

We know that life exists in the universe. Earth is exhibit A.


It's a mathematical certainty, with billions of galaxies containing trillions of stars containing quadrillions of planets, that there is at least one other planet in the universe in which the conditions for the formation of life occur.


We HAVE no examples of a supreme being to use as proof.


But life in the universe DOES exist. The odds that it ONLY exists on this one planet among the trillions and trillions that are out are astronomical.


Now.... given the physics of the speed of light and how close the nearest stars are, it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY that any such life has made it to our planet or even "knows" about our existence.

"Bear in mind that there isn't the SLIGHTEST shred of empirical evidence that ET's DO exist,..."

you presume to know what exists everywhere on earth, including in government files and other archives around the world.

The fact is, nobody knows for sure exactly what and how much evidence exists. Any honest investigator would be the first to admit to having limited knowledge instead of making categorical blanket statements like this.

That was easy.

:hi:

Things that cannot be proven, like the existence of any gods or et's, must be accepted on faith alone.

The sooner people who believe in such things are willing to admit that the better. Additionally, it would help the dialogue if believers were to familiarize themselves with the rules of debate. Here's how it works, if you make a claim that something is (i.e. "there is a God") then the burden of proof falls to YOU.

I marvel at how many feel they have met their requirements in debate by simply making an assertion and expection the opposing view to disprove that assertion.

Julie

Are two entirely different things.

Sure you have to take a small leap of faith to go from "This is most likely based on the mathematics of the situation" to "I'm certain of it based on the mathematics of the situation." in the absence of hard evidence.

But given that there is ZERO mathematical evidence for a bearded invisible friend that hangs out on clouds and gives people new cadillacs... well they are two different things altogether.

"advanced" in THEIR "knowledge" of "everything" SCIENCE (how living matter and "inert" matter WORK)

maybe (and that's MAYBE) the cro-magnon men (seeking power using violence, hypocrisy, etc.) and their victims COULD "view" 'em as... God?

possible?

some(albeit weak)evidence of Martian life does exist, ranging from meteorite samples to anomalous gas readings sent from the latest probes.


All the more reason to renew America's scientific endeavors once the current idiot is out of the Whitehouse.

The sorts of things people can believe are relatively unconstrained. Whether their beliefs make logical sense is another story.

200 years ago Science thought it had all the answers to the universe.

200 years from now people will look back on us and laugh too.

We know there's intelligence in the life in the universe. It's not a stretch of logic to suppose there are other cases.

But that doesn't mean Santa and the Easter Bunny and God exist.

Earth is proof that life can evolve on a planet. We can study the process and history. We can examine other solar systems and observe that there are other planets and that similar conditions are likely to occur.

What equivalent is there for the existance of a universe creating god?

Negative empirical evidence, huh?

Never heard of it.

It now asks "Here's the question: Is it acceptable to throw out the rules of empirical evidence when your beliefs are supported by your doing so?"

Almost everyone has answered "Yes". Was that the question they answered? Or did they answer the question in the title?

We know about which factors are conducive to life, and given the size of the universe, it is probable that these conditions are replicated elsewhere.

Now believing that intelligent life exists out there and is currently visiting Earth requires one to throw out the rules of empirical evidence, at least IMHO.

Either way, I think everyone has to acknowledge the possible existence of God, to some extent or other. They can believe there is no God, but they can never rule out all possibilities, no one can.

As someone who fully understands how little we truly know about the universe, and how limited our knowledge will always remain, I have taken the humble stance that I cannot rule out things for which we have no knowledge, considering I know very little about the universe and will never be able to understand it fully. I personally believe in the existence of God, but what does that mean? It probably means something different for everyone. I don't think of God in such literal, earth-based forms, such as an old man with a beard or a flying spaghetti monster. For some, I think God is a representation of all we do not understand.

When one thinks about what came before the supposed big-bang, and then one thinks about what came before that... and so on and so on, it becomes clear that we cannot rule out what we do not know.

Of course, this is my own pondering, and I hope no one out there takes offense to it, it was not meant. :)

existance of something.

but im just a lonely deist, what do i know.

:kick: