Difference between revisions of "Talk:Extraterrestrial life"

Revision as of 11:56, April 18, 2007

The Bible and Extraterrestrial Life

I'm not sure this interpratation is valid. Surely this passage doesn't rule out the possibility of of an unsaved alien race? Nematocyte 11:27, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

It absolutely does. "Let us make man in Our own image and likeness." Not, "Let us make humankind and Vulcankind and Klingonkind and Ferengikind and every other kind."--TerryH^Talk 12:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

That doesn't mean there can't be life on other planets, though. It just means that the bible doesn't mention them in the story of creation. But the bible talks about the creation of the Earth, and doesn't really talk much about the creation of other planets or what's going on out there.--Epicurius 12:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that's what Nem. meant. He was asking, could their be Christians on other planets and if we find them will they look like us? Further, shouldn't we try to find them? Flippin 12:19, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

If that is what Nematocyte is saying, then the burden of proof falls upon him to find a Bible reference that says that Christians or saved persons do exist on other planets. Can either of you cite one single verse in the Bible that says, or implies, that Jesus died more than the one death that is documented? Can either of you find one single verse that says, or implies, that any of the Apostles took a trip to a world beyond the earth, inhabited by flesh-and-blood people?

And Nematocyte, I'll thank you to leave those verses where they were. Come up with verses that say that any kingdoms exist on worlds other than earth, and I'll publish them--noting duly whether you or any other commentator has interpreted them properly. But don't tell me that "other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't."--TerryH^Talk 13:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

You know, the bible also doesn't mention microwave ovens, but they exist. It is possible that the Christians on other planets have not been found, or those parts were left out of the bible. As far as the "other kingdoms must exist because God doesn't say they don't." I think he's right that GOD doesn't specifically say there are no Christians on other planets. Wouldn't the bible say "we're the only Christians in the universe if that were the case? Flippin 14:34, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

"Parts left out of the Bible" cannot exist. See Revelation 22:18-19 (NASB). And mere speculation about "parts left out of the Bible" do not and cannot constitute sufficient evidence of the things that you think that those "parts left out of the Bible" talk about. Or are you going to speculate, as did Dan Brown, about Leonardo da Vinci hiding a coded message about ET's?--TerryH^Talk 14:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

So if no parts were left out, and GOD doesn't say "ET doesn't exist" then there is room for Christians on other planets to just not be found yet? Flippin 14:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Another loaded question. I addressed only the "parts left out of the Bible" question. There's more on what God has to say:

1. God promised a specific King of an Everlasting Kingdom.
2. This King would be the product of a specific line: the House of David.
3. The Old Testament contains multiple prophecies anticipating this King's coming, His ministry, and His Passion.
4. This same King had to die in order to expiate the sin condition of an entity called "the world." The word used in that context is cosmos, which means all of nature.
5. Furthermore, He had to die once--and only once.
6. One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence.
7. THrough one man--Adam--came sin into the world. Through one other Man--Jesus--is sin taken away from the world.

Where is the room for extraterrestrial intelligence?--TerryH^Talk 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Further, what if Jesus was born and died on another planet after Earth and those Christians aren't written about because it happened after the Bible? Like the Mormons. The Mormons don't appear in the Bible, but they obviously exist and Jesus obviously may have visited them. Just a bit to chew on. Flippin 15:09, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Answered above. Jesus was born once, and died once. He was not and shall not be born and then die myriads of times.--TerryH^Talk 15:14, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

So how does that explain the Mormons? They believe they saw Jesus back then. I don't know alot about their view, but didn't they see the actual Jesus? So, even if he only died once, couldn't he also come back a couple times? And if so, and since he's all-powerful, couldn't he do all these things on another planet? I know that sounds far-fetched, but is there a reason in the bible why he couldn't? Flippin 15:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

What if God is an inclusive God and 'man' includes aliens? That way, Jesus dying could save the aliens too. Or maybe the aliens kept to the original covenant with God and didn't require Jesus's death to save them. Chrysogonus 15:45, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

One becomes a Christian by hearing the Gospel. Hearing implies someone speaking to you. Speech implies physical presence. - So only people who lived in Nazareth circa 30 AD can be Christians? Or is it possible to hear the Gospel from someone who wasn't Jesus, in which case I don't see why this rules out aliens? Chrysogonus 15:46, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Hydroplate theory

I'd like to know more about this.Chrysogonus 16:03, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Working on it.--TerryH^Talk 17:17, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

An extraterrestrial nation-state

The idea of an alien "nation-state" makes an unscientific assumption that they will organize like human beings do. What if they are a single organism with semi-independent drones, or a totally anarchy with every little green man for himself? --Lambchop 12:31, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Nothing like that figures in, for example, former President Carter's speculations. And I doubt that an anarchy could, or would even want to, achieve anything like what Francis Crick played around with back in 1973, let alone the kind of full-blown invasion force illustrated, say, in The War of the Worlds or the V series of television projects.--TerryH^Talk 13:05, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I think the point is, why is 'Nation-State' used over and over again in the article? That is simply one particular form of government, and assuming that any alien civilization would adopt it is making quite a leap. Such social organizations should probably be referred to as simply 'civilizations'. Brewer13210 13:13, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

A civilization can and often does consist of more than one nation-state. The term nation-state has specific political and, more to the point, military meaning. True enough, most civilizations in the ancient world were identifiable with the nation-states that ran them. But I suggest that the term "Western civilization" refers to many, many nation-states, and indeed to a history that saw many of its member nation-states rise and fall. I use the term to go all the way back to ancient Greece, then to ancient Rome, then to the various kingdoms of Europe and, of course, the United States of America.

In sum, "civilization" includes a full body of literary and artistic tradition, in addition to political tradition. Any civilization can have any number of nation-states regarded as part of it, so long as they all derive their governing models from a common source.

And before anyone asks: yes, I, for one, would like to see the logo changed to something better reflective of a common civilizing tradition than of one nation-state that happens to be the most powerful militarily of all nation-states that belong to "Western civilization." Those traditions are far older than the United States--indeed, they informed the founding of the United States--and I am not ashamed to own them.--TerryH^Talk 13:43, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Opening Sentence

I don't think the opening sentence is very encylopedic ... I'd suggest removing the "if they exist" segment. Whether they exist or not is an opinion and existing or not Extraterrestrial life is life originating away from earth. Jrssr5 14:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I disagree. By removing the dependent clause "if they exist," you mean me to imply that ET life does exist. No investigator or agency has ever shown ET life to exist. Unless and until anyone does so show, it's still an "if" and will remain an "if."--TerryH^Talk 14:42, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Why not remove that segment, then caveat it with another sentence saying "no definite proof of their existance" or something along those lines. That will make it read better and be more official. Jrssr5 15:15, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Because I could as easily have described the whole thing as a "fanciful concept." Or maybe an adjective like "impossible." I am being very generous by using a simple "if" statement, which in English stands for any condition, whether contrary to fact or very likely to be fact, instead of stating flat-out that ET life, in the sense of a civilizing species, is impossible.--TerryH^Talk 15:23, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

I have to disagree. The sentence currently reads "if such a thing existed", implying that it doesn't. Except for the biblical perspective section, the article should be neutral, as at this time, we can't prove that ET does or does not exist. Brewer13210 15:38, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Cite doesn't match passage

From the article "The only Kingdom that is not of this earth is the Kingdom of Heaven"" is cited with two passages:

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

and

14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

NOWHERE in these two passages does it say that the only Kingdom that is not of this Earth is Heaven.

Nematocyte 03:30, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Conversely, Jesus tells the disciples, John 10:16 "And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd." Now we could argue until the sheep come home, ahem, but the fact is the Bible is probably silent on the concept of extraterrestrial beings. If there are indeed other Worlds, perhaps those worlds' Adam and Eve survived the temptation in the Eden's of their homes and the need for Jesus to die (for their sin) simply did not arise. The Bible can be the answer to every substantive question, it just might be that this query does not rise to that standard. Rob Pommer_talk 13:27, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

The fold called "this fold" in the verse you quote above consists of the Jewish race only. "Other sheep not of this fold" are Gentiles (literally, "nationals," from the Latin gens a national clan).

If--and I repeat, if--any other world existed which had not fallen, then God would be telling those people to keep a billion miles away from here, so as not to risk polluting themselves by contact with us. That's what a "fallen world" is all about. But I maintain that the entire universe is fallen.

And this is the point of that section: the Bible has no warrant for, and therefore would be incompatible with, the existence of extraterrestrial races, nation-states, or civilizations. And liberals know it. Say what you will about whether Andrew chose the right title for his article. The fact remains that a belief in ET civilization, and contact therewith, is a religion in irreconcilable conflict with Christianity. And furthermore, the adherents of that religion know it fully well, as Andrew's sources clearly show.

Faced with that, I marvel--indeed, I find myself barely able to proceed without someone recommending that I be examined for diffuse toxic goiter--at the insatiable desire, on the part of some editors here, to suggest that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (and by "life" I mean intelligent and rational and self-aware life) are compatible. I have just proposed that my own faith is eminently falsifiable. I would have expected the other person to accept the implicit challenge and go out and try to bring me a--what do they call it? Ah, yes--a "close encounter of the second kind." But perhaps I ought not be surprised. After all, I have watched all too many of my fellow churchmen, in the context of evolution, believe the lie of the tailors of the emperor's new clothes--that those same clothes "are invisible to any who are stupid or unfit for their posts." I deny that I am stupid, I'll let my occasional clients speak to my fitness to serve them, and I say that the emperor has no clothes on--meaning that evolution is a fraud and that extraterrestrial civilization is a non-starter.

But back to the point: The section in question says only that the Bible and extraterrestrial life (larger than microbial) are mutually exclusive. I'll gladly defend my Bible on another page. But I will defer to very few people as to what my Bible says, and what it does not say. And those few do not include certain editors who know who they are.--TerryH^Talk 14:52, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Excellent job in not responding to the criticism presented at all. Nowhere in the Bible does it say or suggest that life (sentient or not) cannot exist elsewhere. Moreover, your argument clearly shows your lack of understanding about even the most basic astronomy. Our galaxy alone is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter, meaning that any ET life from the other side of the galaxy would have to travel almost 100,000 years at the speed of light (which is impossible) to reach us. And that's just in our galaxy. Have you heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image? It was a picture taken of an incredibly small patch of sky, and it revealed around 10,000 galaxies, each with billions of stars. Some of these galaxies are over 13 billion light years away. 13 billion! Given the fact that billions of galaxies exist, each with billions of stars, each with the possibility of planets, each with the possibility of life. Given these overwhelming odds of "intelligent, rational, and self-aware" life somewhere else in the universe, how can you insist that Earth is so "special" and that life elsewhere doesn't exist? Now then, please show me where the Bible says "life" elsewhere cannot exist! ColinR^talk 15:05, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

And you, ColinR, have done an excellent job in presenting an argument that, as I'm sure that Andrew could explain to you, is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. And worse yet, you contradict yourself! Why should I regard extraterrestrial visitation of earth as at all likely, given the distances you just got finished mentioning? But the larger point is this: the numbers, however large, of other stars or galaxies do not prove that life, much less self-aware life, exists on any of them, are not relevant to the question of whether ET civilization exists or not, and do not matter to the question at hand, which is: whether the Bible allows for the possibility.

Jesus died once. And once only. That's it. Final. And I don't have to show you where the Bible says that other races don't exist. You have to show me where the Bible admits that other races do exist, or even might exist.--TerryH^Talk 15:15, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've never claimed intelligent life has visited Earth, in fact I think that's a rather preposterous claim. While the numbers don't prove life exists elsewhere, the overwhelming odds suggest that believing life doesn't exist is rather unintelligent. And no, the burden of proof lies on you. You wrote the article, you made the false claims, now you have to back up what you said. So now, could you please a: show me how my argument is incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial, and b: verify your ridiculous claims that the Bible doesn't allow life elsewhere, otherwise I will remove that information from the article. The ball's in your court. ColinR^talk 15:20, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

TerryH, yes lovely purple prose. But maybe you could address the fact that references you have provided don't say what you say they say? Chrysogonus 15:36, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

I've added an caveat in the text to point this out as a compromise. Nematocyte 07:56, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

wow...

This has to be strangest article I have ever read on this topic. Three quarters of it is not too bad, heck, the science fiction part is even pretty good. But what should be a section honestly (and, I might add, interestingly) discussing the religious ramifications of ET life, is presented as a factual bias throughout most of the article. You know, God might easily have done what He did here elsewhere, and if He did, He certainly had no obligation to tell us about it. Human 18:09, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Compromise

Thanks to my discovery of Essays, I have found a solution for this article. The acrimony surrounding it is far less justifiable now.

I urge you to read my essay on the subject of compatibility of the Bible with ET life. That said, I urge everyone to take another look at the main article. You'll find it longer, with parenthetical thoughts tagged as footnotes, and with a few more pertinent citations.

I still say that the Bible and ET civilizations are mutually exclusive. I merely found another place on Conservapedia to say this.--TerryH^Talk 00:45, 18 April 2007 (EDT)