If so, how do you think christians will react if there are indeed aliens and they are discovered without doubt. I personally do believe in aliens, i mean, think about it, Billions of galaxies, no one knows how many damn stars, and around each star are planets, you never know if one is placed in a position, like in earth, where it is not to hot, or not too cold, has oxygen water etc. and either way, that is the definition of life as WE know it. You never know if creatures can adapt and evolve in different circumstances, different gases not found within our galaxy. And in case your wondering why I'm so obsessed with all this, it's because I want to be an astronomer, and I just like science
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I personally think that there probably is life somewhere out there, But Most Christians will probably say there demons though.
It is possible, maybe some planets somewhere the conditions are right for life to evolve. It would be interesting to see different life forms from another planet. May be discovered someday, if we do not kill each other first.
It is highly possible that they exist.
Billions of galaxies, I really doubt that we are alone.
However, I don't imagine them as some ugly slimy creatures, I imagine them as creatures that have many similarities with humans.
There is a slim chance there may be life outside of earth within our own system... the Jovian moon Europa possibly may have at least single cell life indeed it's frozen surface.
Outside of that I do imagine life quite likely exists in the cosmos other than ourselves, but obviously we cannot say anything with certainty until there is credible evidence to support the claim.
There are more stars in our galaxy then there grains of sands on all the beaches of the world. If only one in a million of thoses stars had a solar system, and if only one in a million of those systems have a habitable planet, and if only one in a million of those planets had life and if only one in a million of those had intelligent life there would be literally thousands of civilisations in our galaxy alone. So lets just say the odds are favourable.
Depends on what you call life. Super hardy basic life forms are quite likely to be found on mars if we looked hard enough. A meteor could of at one point in the last billion years or so hit earth with enough force to eject super "hardy" life out of earth's gravitational pull, with some of it landing in mars or other planets/moons in our solar system.
But also, what others said. Even if it's one in a trillion chance that a particular star has planets around it that can support some sort of life, that is still an estimated 1 trillion planets that can support life. If only 1 in a million of those can support intelligent life, you still have 1 million planets that has intelligent life.
Will we ever physically meet them? No, if the speed limit of the universe is the speed of light. Maybe we could communicate if we reach the ability to fold space/time in a way that allows communication.
Also: if we find basic life forms on mars or other planets in our solar system, I doubt that is going to move the needle much on theist beliefs.
We are not alone in the galaxy we call home. There has to be intelligent life on millions of worlds. We have been blasting radio waves into space for decades, and tv also. Some of those lifeforms have got to have heard us, and come and investigated by now. Maybe one day an advance civilization will contact us. Most theist's would freak out it aliens came to our planet with another religion.
It would be interesting to communicate with extraterrestrials, and the more we advance in technology, the more realistic it sounds, however, we must first turn our attention to our planet, its oceans, the disappearance of bees, deforestation, global warming, and much more
The Drake equation is an attempt to estimate the number of planets with intelligent life.
The Search for Extraterrestial Intelligence at Berkeley runs the Setiathome project, which allows people to download and run a special screensaver on their PCs. The screensaver downloads chunks of data from radio telescopes and crunches them to find certain patterns that might indicate intelligent life on other planets. You can actually take part in the search for intelligent extraterrestrials.
The movie "Contact" starring Jodi Foster as an atheist astromer explores some aspects of the religious reaction to the discovery of extraterrestrial life.
My hypothesis is that God's chosen people are actually on a planet thousands of light years away. God just created us so his chosen people will have an extra-terrestrial civilization to contact once they become sufficiently advanced.
I don't know what Christians you're talking about but the Catholic church actually holds that extraterrestrial life is possible. In fact saying it's impossible would be putting a limit to God's creative freedom.
As for me, I dunno really. I'd like to know what extraterrestial life would be like. If they did exist, they'd have their own different set of animals which would've adapted differently than us here on earth. If they were intelligent life, I'd be curious to know what kind of laws they'd have. Would they also come up with ideas like democracy?
@Jon the Catholic: "Catholic church actually holds that extraterrestrial life is possible"
To have extraterrestrial life you need exoplanets. Giordano Bruno is thought to be the first person who theorized that the stars were other suns with their own planets. Do you know what the Catholic church did to him in 1600?
The church (under John Paul II I think) apologized for their treatment of Galileo, but as far as I know they've never apologized for burning this other genius alive.
Can you imagine how advanced our knowlege of astronomy and other sciences would be today without centuries of Catholic oppression?
I've looked into that actually. I've yet to find a scientist who was persecuted by the church for teaching scientific facts. There were, however, several scientific minds who did teach heresy. I believe Bruno was a Dominican friar who taught that there were three gods as opposed to Church teaching of one God. He wouldn't renounce this belief and refused to stop teaching it.
Even Galileo, as I understand, was questioned not on his heliocentric theory by itself but the fact that he was teaching it before we knew all the details about the heliocentric model and even dipped his fingers into theology by pointing out that the Bible teaches that the Earth didn't move - this is heretical as the Bible never claims to be a science textbook. Even Copernicus, who had proposed the heliocentric model earlier than Galileo, wasn't put on trial for heresy.
That is exactly what got him into trouble. Isn't it funny that a Cathoic who "looked into it" can't figure it out? Anyway, read it for yourself:
(1) The sun is the center of the world and completely devoid of local motion....
(2) The earth is not the center of the world, nor motionless, but it moves as a whole and also with diurnal motion.
Interesting that Galileo was actually wrong on half of his "opinions". We now know that the sun isn't in fact devoid of motion. I'm actually very passionate about science and a huge nerd in my college days. I had always just assumed the church was absolutely wrong on this matter until I heard the church's side of the story. I remember it being said that Galileo was quick to rush into conclusions without consistent proof. The question of tides was a raised and he gave an incomplete answer which didn't explain there being two high tides and two low tides in one day. In other words, Galileo hadn't worked out his model of the universe completely was proclaiming this as truth. Had Galileo kept his teachings in the realm of science, (well, first of all, it wouldn't have taken off as it was an incomplete theory at the time), what would the church have cared. It's when he proclaimed that what the church taught was wrong that put him in trouble. Again, had he done so within the confines of the church, like going, "Hey, pope. I think we got it wrong. Look at this," I doubt things would've gotten as out of control as they did.
The church has always been hesitant to accept new science and technology and with good reason. During the time, scientists had held to the geocentric model. It wasn't just the church that holding on to this idea. In fact, during this time, there were a lot of Jesuit astronomers exploring the Copernican heliocentric model to see if it was true. However, the church can be very hesitant to proclaim true things which can be considered new ideas. I'll give you that.
Galileo took the time to say "local" movement.
Perhaps he meant to local objects within this solar system, it does not move. It's gravity pull has everything moving around it, not moving for anything in it's solar system.
Even that isn't true. As the Sun pulls the Earth around it with its gravitational pull, the Earth as well pulls the Sun around it with its gravitational pull. The Earth causes the Sun to move ever so slightly that it's very small but it happens. Likewise, all the other planets have the same effect on the Sun. Also, with each other.
Yeah, but we are talking miniscule here. If the earth was a glass marble, the sun would be a giant fitness ball, but made of solid lead (in terms of mass,) or perhaps more like a 1.1 meter diameter wrecking ball.
Also at that scale the earth's "marble" would be over 300 feet away. Does it have an effect? Yes, but it is it safe to say everything revolves around the sun, and the sun is the fixed point? Yeah.
Kind of like a mosquito hitting the windshield of speeding, fully loaded, tractor trailer semi weighing 80,000 pounds going 80mph. Did the mosquito "effect the trucks speed?" Well, yeah, but would anyone ever factor it into a meaningful calculation of the trucks speed? No.
I think Galileo deserves points for making an accurate statement.
@Jon the Catholic: "The Earth causes the Sun to move ever so slightly"
This effect was first proposed theoretically in the early 1950s, but instruments capable of detecting it weren't developed until 30-40 years later. So it's a bit anachronistic to blame Galileo for not discovering this four centuries ago with his home-made telescope.
Right; technically bodies don't orbit each other, they orbit their center of mass. The center of mass of the Earth-Sun system is located inside the sun, about 0.05% of the sun's diameter from its center. This is why we can get away with saying the Earth orbits the Sun (even though that is technically wrong). The sun don't move enough to shake a stick at (in relation to the Earth).
I think this sentence from you is quite telling. Science isn't capable of proving anything, yet you fault Galileo for making conclusions without proof! Should any of us be surprised that you have set the bar so high as to eliminate all science?
I forgot where exactly I got the information but when asked about tides, Galileo simply said that it's caused by the earth's rotation which would've been an acceptable claim if there was only one high tide and low tide in a day. As there are two, his explanation was lacking. You could even say, it didn't pass peer review. An analogy I could think of would be if Gregor Mendel had declared that we evolved from apes based on his experiments with pea plants and fruit flies. He could speculate that but to declare it as truth would've been scandalous - even if he was right.
Eliminate all science? You misunderstand me. Science is beautiful. I'm not a biologist but I enjoy reading about evolution and genetics. Physics used to an addiction for me. I could spend hours reading and watching videos on the developments on string theory back in college and that wasn't even my major. Anyway, I'll stop here.
Look at what you told us?
Based on your love is science, you must know this isn't possible; but that didn't stop you from saying it to try to defend the church's actions. Sigh.
You misunderstand me again. Say someone proposes something to you quite different from what you thought (ex. Flat Earth). Knowing everything you know now, you'd ask the simple questions like, how does day and night cycle work? Seasons? Tides? etc. If they're able to explain everything while not contradicting themselves, you'd see that they might have a point and it may be a point for you to consider.
Galileo pushed for the heliocentric model even though he wasn't able to explain scientifically how tides would work. At the time, it was a theory. Not proven true. Not proven false. There was simply no way to test out his theory and he pushed for it anyway.
I'll leave you with this reading material. Hope it helps.
Right; we also know that Newtonian mechanics, general relativity, and even quantum mechanics is wrong. All science is wrong if you are willing to push to an extreme beyond what it was designed to describe. Why do we teach science we know is wrong? Because it is an incredibly useful approximation for making predictions. Treating the sun as stationary is incredibly useful approximation for predicting where the planets will be next week, next month, next year, next decade.
Jon the Catholic:
You make it sound ok that Bruno was burned alive. He was a 24-carat a-hole who was very difficult to get along with. He had a talent for annoying powerful people. Geniuses tend to have foibles. Isaac Newton was argumentative and vindictive and also engaged in alchemy. We should be grateful that he was born in England and not Italy. Geniuses are for nurturing and tolerating, not burning.
As for the number of gods, are you sure about that? There's the Holy Trinity, + Mary + Satan + Michael + Gabriel. That's seven at least.
I'd have to agree with you here on his punishment. I still don't fully understand the church's stance on capital punishment but I'll try my best.
Bruno was put on trial for preaching heresy like teaching that there were three separate gods. He was a Franciscan friar and thus part of the church's hierarchy. By directly preaching this, he was putting in grave danger the souls of those who heard him, who now held to this heretic teaching (I know it may sound foreign to you and honestly, same here). As I understand the story, Bruno was given numerous chances to denounce his teachings which he refused to do.
The Church, seeing a grave threat to society in Bruno decided to give him the capital punishment. As to the church's teaching on capital punishment and how she goes about this, you can search that by yourself. It's a very interesting read. In fact, I came across a priest's lecture on this very topic and the way he described it, it made sense. I still don't agree to it. But I can't doubt that it made sense.
@Jon the Catholic: "I still don't fully understand the church's stance on capital punishment"
That makes at least two us. The Catholic church was founded to carry on the work of a man who was tortured to death. His image is everywhere in your churches, and people are supposed to look at that and feel his pain and sacrifice.
Yet a few centuries after Jesus that very same church was inflicting the most awful tortures on people over matters of doctrine. I suppose the justification was to save the victims' souls from the torments of hell by tormenting their bodies in this life. But somehow I think it was more about power and sadism.
I must admit that there have been things done in the name of the church that aren't good. These things must be rebuked and not repeated ever again. Here's a link about the inquisition which I think you were referring to when you said torture. Here's the church's side of the story.
I must admit also that when I did look back on these issues, I was ready to be disappointed in my church. What happened afterwards shocked me. The Church was actually acting as best as it could given the circumstances.
Oh! and about the number of Gods, the RCC teaches that there is just one God in three persons. Mary is a saint. Satan is a fallen angel. Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael are angels. And no, we don't worship these beings, not even the angels or Mary... Just so you know.