• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

Could life exist on other planets?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Given the high probability of other life sustaining planets, I would say yes.

Please keep this discussion civil and no conspiracy theories
 
Last edited:

UBERhelp1

Well-Known Member
Yes. There is no reason why it shouldn't, statistically speaking. The true question is whether 1) this life is intelligent, and 2) where this life is. As the universe is "infinite" as far as our definition of the word, there is a good possibility that there are other life forms, but the odds that they are close to us (relatively speaking) are incredibly small.

(Also, if the universe is truly infinite then that means that there are infinite other life forms statistically. It's like rolling a die an infinite number of times, you will have an infinite number of times a certain value is rolled)
 

DeletedUser36572

In a Universe of infinite possibilities ... The absence of another planet where life could exist, would be more unlikely than the presence of one.

Edit:
Dang ... Uber beat me to it posting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
As someone who let's scripture be the final arbiter, there's no indication that life exists on other planets, but there are beings that primarily exist in other dimensions. When I say primarily, there are numerous examples documented in scripture (both OT and NT) where these beings have physically manifested within our four dimensional space.

In Hebrews 13:2, the author (thought to be the Apostle Paul) tells us, "Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares."

Surprisingly, this is consistent with current scientific belief that we live in a universe of at least 10 dimensions, although we can only perceive four. If you watch or read interviews with scientists from CERN, they say that one of the goals of their work at CERN is to open portals into these other dimensions. Those involved at the forefront of quantum computing say the reason quantum computing is so fast is that the calculations are actually being performed in these other dimensions where they are free from the constraints of time as we perceive it.

Although I have no interest in trying it myself, I am fascinated by the consistency of the reports from those who have taken DMT who say they've not only seen other beings while in the DMT induced state, but have been able to communicate with them. Interestingly, DMT is a naturally occurring chemical produced by the pineal gland, but in quantities too small to give us the same effect as when taken as a drug.

Many now believe that when eastern religions and new age believers talk about opening the 'third eye', they're referring to this phenomenon. Those who have done so report that this increases their spirituality and ability to hear from ascended masters, spiritual guides and the like, essentially, these same beings.

The pineal gland, about the size of a pea, is actually shaped like a tiny pine cone, the object from which it derives it's name. Throughout recorded history, the pine cone has symbolized man's enlightenment, the third eye, as well as the pineal gland itself. Many religions around the world still use the pine cone in their symbology, including Kabbalah, Catholicism, as well as those involved in the occult.

Biologists know that many of the chemicals we're exposed to on a daily basis, such as chlorine on our drinking water, compromise the functions of the pineal gland which could be an explanation of why we can no longer perceive these beings, and why small children (with less exposure to these chemicals) are often adamant that their 'imaginary' friends are in fact, real, despite the adults around them not being able to see or hear them.

Ancient art from the Sumerians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Incas, and Aztecs often depict winged creatures with bird or reptilian like features holding up pine cones. (Check out any episode of the first few seasons of Ancient Aliens.) Sumerian Cuneiform tablets record that the beings depicted are from other planets, whether that's true, or just the story these beings told the Sumerians is a subject that's has been hotly debated since we learned to read and translate Cuneiform.

The Akkadians, originating in ancient Mesopotamia, the oldest culture on record, and the first culture to use Cuneiform writing, named one of their first cities "Gate of the Gods", the name of this city is where we derive both the words Babel and Babylon. Babel, the Latin translation of the Hebrew word for this Akkadian city, Babylon, the Latin translation of the Greek work for this same Akkadian city.

The Book of Jasher (or The Book of the Upright, as jasher is not a person name, but a transliteration of the Hebrew word for upright), now considered an apocryphal text by Protestant churches and no longer included in Protestant bibles, but still considered canonical by the Catholic, Ethiopian, and Eastern Orthodox churches, still in their bibles, and still considered scripture in Judaism, states that the plan for the Tower of Babel was to reach into heaven to mount a military assault against it and to kill God. "And all these people and all the families divided themselves in three parts; the first said, "We will ascend into heaven and fight against him"; the second said, "We will ascend to heaven and place our own gods there and serve them"; and the third part said, "We will ascend to heaven and smite him with bows and spears." Jasher 9:26 Given that, it's no wonder why God confused their language so they could not complete their task.

Just this week a video surfaced on the inter-webs, that the Navy had to acknowledge was genuine, showing what they term to be UAPs (unexplained aerial phenomena) flying around in ways that no acknowledged terrestrial aircraft are capable of. For years, there have been similar reports, including the ability to suddenly appear and disappear into and out of existence. Given the weight of the evidence, it would seem that these are inter-dimensional craft, piloted by these same inter-dimensional beings.

Are alien (inter-dimensional) beings real? Most certainly, yes. Are they from another planet? Who knows? However, I do believe disclosure to the general public is just beginning and we'll be seeing and hearing much more about them in the years to come and will no longer be able to deny their existence. Are their intentions good or evil? Scripture speaks of angels and fallen angels, so I guess it depends on which one's we encounter.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

There certainly could be other planets conducive to, and possibly containing, living organisms. Whether those organisms ever reach the state we refer to as "intelligent life" is another question.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Due to the infinitely large size of the universe, it is equally likely that intelligent life has already formed in potentially even galaxies far beyond our reach and have achieved a greater form of intelligence than ourselves.

As a secondary topic, has anyone heard of the Fermi paradox or the Great Filter?
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
It could exist within the physical universe, but that doesn't mean it should. It's just like like wormholes; they can exist, since they are within the limits of physics, but we haven't seen on yet.
Plus, it would be terrible for humanity for other lifeforms to exist on other planets. This is due to something called "Great Barriers". The rule of Great Barriers is that all intelligent civilizations that could reach dominion over a planet have to go through a phase so difficult that the chances of surviving are almost zero. Maybe we have already completed our Mission Impossible, or maybe it is still up ahead. The more alien civilizations exist, the more likely it is that our Great Barrier is still up ahead, since many civilizations have made it as far as we have. Since there are no alien civilizations around us, it's more likely that we've already passed that phase. That is very good news for humanity.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
It could exist within the physical universe, but that doesn't mean it should. It's just like like wormholes; they can exist, since they are within the limits of physics, but we haven't seen on yet.
Plus, it would be terrible for humanity for other lifeforms to exist on other planets. This is due to something called "Great Barriers". The rule of Great Barriers is that all intelligent civilizations that could reach dominion over a planet have to go through a phase so difficult that the chances of surviving are almost zero. Maybe we have already completed our Mission Impossible, or maybe it is still up ahead. The more alien civilizations exist, the more likely it is that our Great Barrier is still up ahead, since many civilizations have made it as far as we have. Since there are no alien civilizations around us, it's more likely that we've already passed that phase. That is very good news for humanity.
A decently accurate summary albeit a bit confusing to me the way I had read it. Good job explaining it, but allow me to try. It's not necessarily a rule, rather it is a theory attempting to explain the Fermi paradox, which is the seeming contradiction between the lack of evidence for other life and the high probability of it occurring. The Great Filter claims that something must be wrong with the various scientific disciplines that claim advanced, intelligent life is probable. The guy that came up with it describes the evolutionary path to colonization of the galaxy in 9 steps:
  1. The right star system
  2. Reproductive molecules
  3. Single-cell life
  4. Complex-cell life
  5. Sexual reproduction
  6. Multi-cellular life
  7. Tool-using animals
  8. "Where we are now"
  9. Colonization
Assuming the list is complete, the theory says that one of these things must be improbable. If one or more of those things are in our past, then we have completed the "Mission Impossible". Thereby, it is nearly impossible for another form of life to reach our stage. However, if step 9 (what is up ahead) is the issue, then what would keep us from this would be things like a catastrophe or exhausting our planet's resources to the point where it is impossible, ultimately being that we will be our own downfall.

I don't know if that's much better, but I hope it is. It took me a while to really figure out this theory.

My problem with it is our own shortsightedness in regards to what creates life. We know what creates life on our planet for us, but in all applications of searching for life, we are looking for conditions where we know we could survive: water, right kind of atmosphere, the right amount heat, etc. Purely conjecture, but I think it's a load of bologna. Humans used to think the Earth was flat and that the sun revolved around it. We can very much be wrong with what it takes to sustain life.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
The reason the Fermi paradox fails is because life forms are subject to eradication in an instant from their own panet or surrounding solar system. Yes, the numbers bear out life on other planets and also intelligent life that has four limbs, walks erect, opposable digits, etc. The problem is time and distance. In the roughly 200K years of Homo Sapiens existance, species on other planets could easily have arisen, developed large societies and then been eradicated by natural forces. Other species may have developed technologies beyond ours but the distance between us in time and space is so vast as to make it impossible to contact us...When and if they do, their society, culture and species has long since died off...
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
If one or more of those things are in our past, then we have completed the "Mission Impossible". Thereby, it is nearly impossible for another form of life to reach our stage.
Correct. And that is why there are no alien civilizations around us.

I don't know if that's much better, but I hope it is. It took me a while to really figure out this theory.
Don't worry. It took me a while to understand it as well. You did a good job explaining it as well.

We can very much be wrong with what it takes to sustain life.
I've been doing a lot of thinking for a while now about this. My theory is that other lifeforms might differ in molecular biology than us earthly creatures. We might think that all lifeforms need water to survive and all that stuff. However, we say that because we are are carbon-based lifeforms. The fact that our cells use carbon for its biological processes means that it also requires water for those chemical reactions. However, another alien civilization could be based off of another atom, and use vastly different molecules for its metabolism and all that stuff.
This is merely speculation, and I could be completely wrong.
 

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
The problem with all of these theories is they depend on the theory of evolution to be true, something we as yet have no evidence of. Even Darwin doubted his own theory at the end of his life as no transitional species had ever been found, either alive or in the fossil record. That is still true today. Everything we see around us and in the fossil record are full and complete species.

@Stephen Longshanks, I'm disappointed by your response. You claim to be a believer in Christ, yet deny His first work, creation. Can't say I'm surprised, it's typical of cultural Christians with shopping cart theology. Accept what makes you like and leave the sticky bits behind. It grieves me you've been given a leadership and teaching position in your church. I pray those under your tutelage find their way out. But as Christ Himself said, "narrow is the gate," and "there are few who find it."
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
There certainly could be other planets conducive to, and possibly containing, living organisms. Whether those organisms ever reach the state we refer to as "intelligent life" is another question.

You know...I always had this idea in my head that human beings are considered the most intelligent things on earth and yet we didn't make ourselves or any form of life. Can it be argued that there is a greater "technology" or product of engineering than a life-form? Imagine the beings that made the blueprints for life- I guess this would be referring to DNA- and I get the feeling that the most intelligent form of life might be microscopic rather than macroscopic.
 

Super Catanian

Well-Known Member
You know...I always had this idea in my head that human beings are considered the most intelligent things on earth and yet we didn't make ourselves or any form of life. Can it be argued that there is a greater "technology" or product of engineering than a life-form?
God, the Creator of all things, who has no beginning and no end.

and I get the feeling that the most intelligent form of life might be microscopic rather than macroscopic.
I don't disagree with you. However, in the eyes of humanity, an intelligent form of life has to have a very considerate control of its entire planet its resources, as well as being able to make changes to its planet. Something that humans have done on Earth, since we have changed the landscape, introduced significant global warming, caused extinction of many species, and advanced our artificial technology to a level unlike anything else on Earth.
 

Freshmeboy

Well-Known Member
Darwin's 'Origin of Species' gives an accurate account of slow change in species over time...change in color, additions of hair or feathers, etc. Where he falls short, and Darwin admitted this, was the vast amount of change that occurred during the Cambrian explosion. At the time of his writing, Darwin expressed doubts about his work but felt the fossil record would eventually prove him correct. That has not been the case. It does not, however, diminish his theory completely. The fossil record shows subspeciation of flora and fauna that are seperated and isolated over time and the last event of human subspeciation was the case of the Native American Indians who were brought back into the family tree twice by Norsemen and Spaniards...
As for transitional species, they occur in the fossil record as well....they are subspeciated varieties that mutate through isolation and time only to bring their dominant mutated gene structure back to the fold. For Darwin's theory to have a chance at being complete, the rapid evolutionary theory is being slowly accepted. This theory claims that vast changes due to cataclysmic events constantly and dramatically change ecosystems isolating species so that they subspeciate..essentially doubling the rate of evolution....
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
@Stephen Longshanks, I'm disappointed by your response. You claim to be a believer in Christ, yet deny His first work, creation. Can't say I'm surprised, it's typical of cultural Christians with shopping cart theology. Accept what makes you like and leave the sticky bits behind. It grieves me you've been given a leadership and teaching position in your church. I pray those under your tutelage find their way out. But as Christ Himself said, "narrow is the gate," and "there are few who find it."
The problem with denying the possibility of evolution is that you deny God’s omnipotence and omnificence without realizing it. By saying it definitely happened that way beyond a shadow of a doubt and it could not possibly have happened the way you describe, you deny His power. The creation story is an allegory and was never meant to be fact. It’s a testament of God’s power, but no one knows how creation was actually done. Time has no bearing on His workings. Could the creation of all things have been done in 7 days? Yes. Could it have been 7 million years? Still yes, because we don’t know. Only He knows, because only He is omniscient. I see it that evolution to the intelligent scale could have easily been done by His power through His guidance.

The theory of evolution has been accepted by the Catholic faith for quite some time now. I don’t know about the other Christian denominations, but just because someone is Christian does not mean them believing evolution could have taken place makes them a bad Christian.

This is quickly going to become a science vs religion debate, which I did not intend. Much of the science involved in it has been accepted by many religious leaders, so this conversation could very well stay to just that. Idk if we should close this thread though, but I’ll leave that up to the mods if it gets out of hand.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
God, the Creator of all things, who has no beginning and no end.

It's not that I'm opposed to religion, but I oppose the religious only because they claim to know something they really know nothing about. If God exists, who can really say for certain what it is, what it's nature is, what its intentions are? Just because a book claims to be able to identify these things don't make them true. As others have pointed out, many such books exist and not only do they contradict one another, they contradict themselves.

All that is to say that mentioning God, simply because, is not a good answer. If you can't explain your answer, it's not a good one. (and this does not mean that just because you don't know the process behind something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but that in the case of God when the existence itself isn't even credible, and you don't know the process behind it, it just reveals you believe something merely to believe rather than having some sort of foundation for that belief. Saying that God is "beyond comprehension" destroys criticism, but it also makes the person who says that a hypocrite since they will believe they know or understand all these things about something that is "beyond comprehension")

I don't disagree with you. However, in the eyes of humanity, an intelligent form of life has to have a very considerate control of its entire planet its resources, as well as being able to make changes to its planet. Something that humans have done on Earth, since we have changed the landscape, introduced significant global warming, caused extinction of many species, and advanced our artificial technology to a level unlike anything else on Earth.

Definitions of intelligence are debatable... You seem to suggest that intelligence is measured by what an organism does rather than what it can do. Not only this, but are you aware of the achievements of the organisms you compare. We can readily identify the achievements of mankind, but can we as readily identify the achievements of the microscopic lifeforms that form the living world? And then there's the arbitrary rating of importance to these achievements. Is the debatable "control over the world" better than the creation of life. Even so, do you think you are even in control of yourself.

Here's a question. How much do you think human beings are affected by their emotions? And... Are you the one that controls your emotions? Do you decide what you love or hate? What is funny? What makes you bored? I'd argue that these are things we learn about ourselves, but we don't decide them. But they have enormous influence over the choices we make. And yet...exactly what is deciding how we feel? Then ask yourself the same thing about how you think. This is not to say that you have no control, but I think control of ourselves may be more negotiation than absolute.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
All that is to say that mentioning God, simply because, is not a good answer. If you can't explain your answer, it's not a good one. (and this does not mean that just because you don't know the process behind something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but that in the case of God when the existence itself isn't even credible, and you don't know the process behind it, it just reveals you believe something merely to believe rather than having some sort of foundation for that belief. Saying that God is "beyond comprehension" destroys criticism, but it also makes the person who says that a hypocrite since they will believe they know or understand all these things about something that is "beyond comprehension")
As a Christian person, I agree with you a bit here. I recognize that faith, by its own definition, is illogical: to firmly believe in something without a proof of foundation. I’m okay with that; however, others may not be. Saying “God did it” is a bit of a trump card, because there’s no way for you to prove me wrong (even with all the science, there’s almost always uncertainty), and my faith allows me to believe I am right regardless if you believe it.
 

mamboking053

Well-Known Member
As a Christian person, I agree with you a bit here. I recognize that faith, by its own definition, is illogical: to firmly believe in something without a proof of foundation. I’m okay with that; however, others may not be. Saying “God did it” is a bit of a trump card, because there’s no way for you to prove me wrong (even with all the science, there’s almost always uncertainty), and my faith allows me to believe I am right regardless if you believe it.

I used to wonder why politicians would get caught doing and saying pretty stupid things. Even though academic credentials isn't necessarily proof that a person deserves them, the kinds of things they get caught doing seem to fly in the face of common sense, let alone graduates of distinguished educational institutions. Then I realized that it's not they who are necessarily dumb, it's us. They know we are likely to believe or accept things that are untrue if they can frame it a certain way. Sometimes they fail and then we get a week-long event of the public heckling them for being stupid, but politicians have said and done things that are stupid and fly in the face of common sense all the time and they get rewarded for it often. A politician can tell you a lie and you'll cheer because you believe it to be true or want it to be true rather than know it to be true or accept that it is false. Even when that lie is exposed there is no considerable shift in ideology because by then the person has become significantly invested in the ideas they believe in. Either they will double down on their belief in the false thing or ignore/reject the challenging information to it. (and this doesn't even include the sad prospect of some ideological converts who are convinced to drop one false idea and adopt another false one they believe to be true, and believe they have been enlightened because of it)

In other words, debates are meaningless because it's not the truth people are looking for. In the end, it is feelings over facts. In many televised debates, it has been noted that the public was much more interested in the battle between personalities and the successful defense of their own ideologies rather than the emergence of some sort of truth, which is why debates of all kinds tend to be very shallow and point-driven.
 
Last edited:

RazorbackPirate

Well-Known Member
The problem with denying the possibility of evolution is that you deny God’s omnipotence and omnificence without realizing it. By saying it definitely happened that way beyond a shadow of a doubt and it could not possibly have happened the way you describe, you deny His power. The creation story is an allegory and was never meant to be fact. It’s a testament of God’s power, but no one knows how creation was actually done. Time has no bearing on His workings. Could the creation of all things have been done in 7 days? Yes. Could it have been 7 million years? Still yes, because we don’t know. Only He knows, because only He is omniscient. I see it that evolution to the intelligent scale could have easily been done by His power through His guidance.
The problem with your perspective is that it makes God a liar, which He is not. God did not and can not bear false witness about anything. John 1:1 "In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." How much of the Word can you deny before you deny God?

You said, "It could not possibly have happened the way you describe," then two sentences later say, "Could the creation of all things have been done in 7 days? Yes." Which is it? Get off the fence.
The theory of evolution has been accepted by the Catholic faith for quite some time now. I don’t know about the other Christian denominations, but just because someone is Christian does not mean them believing evolution could have taken place makes them a bad Christian.
As we've seen in a previous thread, acceptance has no bearing on the Truth. Accepting the lie, does not make it less of a lie, even if it's acceptance is by a church, or it's leaders. If God created man through evolution, He is more than capable of telling us so in His Word, yet he didn't. He told us exactly how He did it and exactly how long it took Him.
This is quickly going to become a science vs religion debate, which I did not intend. Much of the science involved in it has been accepted by many religious leaders, so this conversation could very well stay to just that. Idk if we should close this thread though, but I’ll leave that up to the mods if it gets out of hand.
There is no separation between science and scripture. The only time there's conflict between the two is when science attempts to deny God with theories like evolution. Darwin was an avowed atheist. His theory of evolution was his attempt to explain creation in the absence of a Creator. Evolution is nothing more than the infinite monkey theorem applied to creation.

Since you also deny the existence of a creator, you're also left no choice but to believe in theories like evolution. Without them, you can't explain the world you see around you. I understand though. I was there once too.

I also don't expect you to change your mind, or even consider the possibility that God exists. That would have far too many ramifications that you're clearly unwilling and unprepared and to deal with. I understand that too. It took me over 30 years to get there. I'm just glad I didn't get hit by a bus before I did.

Oh, and during all that time, I also considered myself a Christian and gave lip service to the idea that there could be a God. I, like you, was born into a Christian (Catholic for me) household and followed along as expected. However, in hindsight, I clearly was not. Hence my use of the term Cultural Christian.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top