An Intelligent Debate on Ancient Alien Theory

[Hugor Hill]

4 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Would that not prove god exists? 

Oh hypothetical. Ok I guess...

Of course he or she could be a fake.

Maybe that 'god' is just a really powerful alien...........

[Aladeen]

8 minutes ago, Hugor Hill said:

Oh hypothetical. Ok I guess...

Of course he or she could be a fake.

Maybe that 'god' is just a really powerful alien...........

Yes but if God is omnipotent I don't think he/she would have much of a problem convincing every single person on the planet that they are actually God.

 

And yes completely hypothetical but no doubt that would prove it.

 

Edit:

And if an alien could do that, would there be much of a difference between them and God in semantics? since only God could intervene at that point anyway

[RUPERTKBD]

7 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Yes but if God is omnipotent I don't think he/she would have much of a problem convincing every single person on the planet that they are actually God.

 

And yes completely hypothetical but no doubt that would prove it.

 

Edit:

And if an alien could do that, would there be much of a difference between them and God in semantics? since only God could intervene at that point anyway

For sure.....He/She could just do something impossible, like Arab/Israeli peace.....

 

.....or the Canucks winning the Cup......

[Hugor Hill]

9 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Yes but if God is omnipotent I don't think he/she would have much of a problem convincing every single person on the planet that they are actually God.

 

And yes completely hypothetical but no doubt that would prove it.

 

Edit:

And if an alien could do that, would there be much of a difference between them and God in semantics? since only God could intervene at that point anyway

There is no evidence that god even exist, much less omnipotent.

[Aladeen]

3 minutes ago, RUPERTKBD said:

For sure.....He/She could just do something impossible, like Arab/Israeli peace.....

 

.....or the Canucks winning the Cup......

If there is a God, he's no Canuck fan that's for sure 

 

[Aladeen]

Just now, Hugor Hill said:

There is no evidence that god even exist, much less omnipotent.

I never said there was evidence of such existence and if a being is not Omnipotent it isn't God. 

 

In order for God to exist the Trinity of omni's need to be the qualities found in such a being:

 

Omniscient - All Knowing

Omnipresent - Permeates Everything and is Everywhere

Omnipotent - All Powerful

 

 

However to say God exists and loves us or that he is Good is completely wrong:

 

If God is omniscient then he knows of all the terrible things people goes through.

 

Since he would be everywhere he would also be experiencing the terrible things as well.

 

Since he would be all powerful he would have the ability to stop/prevent these terrible things from happening.

 

 

So if God Exists he doesn't care about us or is Evil and enjoys suffering or he has a balance fetish and with him allowing good he also has to allow evil.

 

Or 

 

He isn't consciously aware of the terrible things that are happening and therefore is not Omniscient and thus not God.

 

Or 

 

He doesn't have the ability to stop or prevent those terrible things from happening and therefore is not Omnipotent and thus not God.

 

So the conclusion is if God exists he don't give a F@#k about us (not to say I blame him, since we would be comparatively bacteria to him) or is Supremely Evil or finally completely neutral seeking balance all the time.

 

Out of all the scenarios of God's existence only the being of balance makes sense to me as a possibility. Or the other possibility would be that we are all a division of God's own consciousness in an attempt to understand himself and therefore every scenario must be played out in sort of a simulation in an attempt to figure out why he exists in the first place. 

[Master 112]

8 hours ago, smokes said:

I figure at least populating the moon

can the moon even retain an atmosphere? what is the benefit of living on a lifeless rock?

[Alflives]

52 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Um actually they can,

 

Proof of aliens when we find life anywhere other than earth = Proved

 

Proof of God when God comes here and tells us of his/it's existence = Proved

 

And like I already said the ability to calculated the probability of extraterrestrial life is possible already. I have a hunch you are just a troll but I will feed you this one last time:

 

Number of planets with life on it = 1

Number of Planets we know of = 10,000 approximately

Number of the Planets in the Universe = Insanely large number

 

1/10,000 = .0001 

x100 = .01% - probability of life on planets through our observation. 

x #of Planets in the Universe = 100% - much greater number is returned than this but we only need to get to 100%

 

Both scenarios rely on the faithful belief in an outcome that cannot be proven in science.  

Number of people on planet earth 8 billion

Number of people who believe in a God 4 billion

That's 50% 

Therefore God has a 50% chance of existence.

What's the difference?

[RUPERTKBD]

7 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Both scenarios rely on the faithful belief in an outcome that cannot be proven in science.  

Number of people on planet earth 8 billion

Number of people who believe in a God 4 billion

That's 50% 

Therefore God has a 50% chance of existence.

What's the difference?

Really Alf? You think that belief in something increases it's chances of being true?

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, RUPERTKBD said:

Really Alf? You think that belief in something increases it's chances of being true?

I'm using the "modern math" some others here are displaying to prove (mathematically) the existence of aliens.  No math can be used to prove the chances of something's existence that does not exist.  That's all faith based, and cannot be proven.

[Aladeen]

Just now, Alflives said:

Both scenarios rely on the faithful belief in an outcome that cannot be proven in science.  

Number of people on planet earth 8 billion

Number of people who believe in a God 4 billion

That's 50% 

Therefore God has a 50% chance of existence.

What's the difference?

Now I know you are just trolling:

 

The difference is there is zero observable events of the confirmation of God. 

 

The observable events of life in the Universe is 1... look around you = confirmation of life on a planet to exist.

 

As far as probability is concerned its an infinite difference. 

 

Steps to determine probability

 

Quote

1. Define your events and outcomes. Probability is the likelihood of one or more events happening divided by the number of possible outcomes. ...
2. Divide the number of events by the number of possible outcomes. This will give us the probability of a single event occurring.

So let's follow the law of probability:

 

First God.

 

Event = God Exists

Outcomes = Yes

 

Events we have observed = 0

Outcomes = 1

 

0/1 = 0% probability

 

Life on any given planet in the universe

 

Event = Life exists on a planet

Outcomes = Yes x P(# of planets we know exist) 

 

Events we have observed = 1

Outcomes = approximately 10,000

 

1/10,000 = .0001 or .01%

 

So every planet in the universe has a .01% chance of having life on it. 

 

 

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

Now I know you are just trolling:

 

The difference is there is zero observable events of the confirmation of God. 

 

The observable events of life in the Universe is 1... look around you = confirmation of life on a planet to exist.

 

As far as probability is concerned its an infinite difference. 

 

Steps to determine probability

 

So let's follow the law of probability:

 

First God.

 

Event = God Exists

Outcomes = Yes

 

Events we have observed = 0

Outcomes = 1

 

0/1 = 0% probability

 

Life on any given planet in the universe

 

Event = Life exists on a planet

Outcomes = Yes x P(# of planets we know exist) 

 

Events we have observed = 1

Outcomes = approximately 10,000

 

1/10,000 = .0001 or .01%

 

So every planet in the universe has a .01% chance of having life on it. 

 

 

First, because a poster disagrees with you (and your hypothesis/math) does not mean said poster is trolling.  If you are feeling antagonized by my posts, I apologize.  That is certainly not my intent.

[J-23]

There are billions of planets in the universe that have a chance of holding life on it. So many Earth like planets.

 

The only problem is these planets are light years away, and only getting further and further away. 

[Rush17]

35 minutes ago, Aladeen said:

I never said there was evidence of such existence and if a being is not Omnipotent it isn't God. 

 

In order for God to exist the Trinity of omni's need to be the qualities found in such a being:

 

Omniscient - All Knowing

Omnipresent - Permeates Everything and is Everywhere

Omnipotent - All Powerful

 

 

However to say God exists and loves us or that he is Good is completely wrong:

 

If God is omniscient then he knows of all the terrible things people goes through.

 

Since he would be everywhere he would also be experiencing the terrible things as well.

 

Since he would be all powerful he would have the ability to stop/prevent these terrible things from happening.

 

 

So if God Exists he doesn't care about us or is Evil and enjoys suffering or he has a balance fetish and with him allowing good he also has to allow evil.

 

Or 

 

He isn't consciously aware of the terrible things that are happening and therefore is not Omniscient and thus not God.

 

Or 

 

He doesn't have the ability to stop or prevent those terrible things from happening and therefore is not Omnipotent and thus not God.

 

So the conclusion is if God exists he don't give a F@#k about us (not to say I blame him, since we would be comparatively bacteria to him) or is Supremely Evil or finally completely neutral seeking balance all the time.

 

Out of all the scenarios of God's existence only the being of balance makes sense to me as a possibility. Or the other possibility would be that we are all a division of God's own consciousness in an attempt to understand himself and therefore every scenario must be played out in sort of a simulation in an attempt to figure out why he exists in the first place. 

Oh you went dark quick lol. I really hope you are not living life with those views. That would be a terrible way to live. You might enjoy some daoist/zen/hindu philosophy.

 

Their is a late philosopher by the name of Alan Watts. He does a terrific job translating some of their philosophies to a more understanding language. He is on YouTube, had audio books, and has written 42 or so books. 

 

I believe the book called taboo against knowing oneself might be a worthwhile read. 

 

Here is the link:

https://www.amazon.ca/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005

 

Alan Watts talks about those philosophies and their interpretations of God and reality. I personally relate much more to those beliefs.  

 

We are an apapture in which the universe looks back on itself. In Hinduism and Buddhism the realization you are god or part of it is key.

 

Here is an Alan Watts clip my friend. Feel free to listen if you wish.

I prefer to the eastern philosophy because to me it feels more right. I'd rather think the universe and our life is a game.  Western religions are so serious and strict.  Do as you wish tho. I suggest trying the video out tho when you have time.

 

 

 

[Aladeen]

23 minutes ago, Rush17 said:

Oh you went dark quick lol. I really hope you are not living life with those views. That would be a terrible way to live. You might enjoy some daoist/zen/hindu philosophy.

 

Their is a late philosopher by the name of Alan Watts. He does a terrific job translating some of their philosophies to a more understanding language. He is on YouTube, had audio books, and has written 42 or so books. 

 

I believe the book called taboo against knowing oneself might be a worthwhile read. 

 

Here is the link:

https://www.amazon.ca/Book-Taboo-Against-Knowing-Who/dp/0679723005

 

Alan Watts talks about those philosophies and their interpretations of God and reality. I personally relate much more to those beliefs.  

 

We are an apapture in which the universe looks back on itself. In Hinduism and Buddhism the realization you are god or part of it is key.

 

Here is an Alan Watts clip my friend. Feel free to listen if you wish.

I prefer to the eastern philosophy because to me it feels more right. I'd rather think the universe and our life is a game.  Western religions are so serious and strict.  Do as you wish tho. I suggest trying the video out tho when you have time.

 

 

 

Not at all, if you would like to know my own personal beliefs it's in the theory of Yin/Yang or the law of Equilibrium. The Creation of something results in the inverse of that being created as well, like a sine wave. Things only exist in relation to one another. A mountain is big only because an ant is small as an example. Or day is bright only because the night is dark. 

 

IMO Creation is a force which exists but is not conscious of itself. Therefore it has no feelings or emotions itself even though it created everything including feelings and emotions.

 

Creation permeates the complete fabric of space and time and is Omnipresent in all things... the Chinese philosophers refer to this as Qi.

 

I don't think this is dark or a bad way to think.

 

However as your example of Hindu religion, they worship Shiva the Destroyer... who destroys everything in the Universe periodically to start everything anew.... The thought is this is not done out of malice but necessity and would imply that if their religion is true their God doesn't care about us in a personal sense. Is that dark? IDK.

 

I am always open to new ideas and will definitely take a look into what you have posted, but I honestly am at an amazing place in regards to my spirituality and actually life in general. 

 

 

[J-23]

9 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

They should build floating cities on oceans before they build anything outside earth, in my opinion. It's infinitely easier and more fruitful.

Yes, but it's not the smarter idea...this planet is doomed. It's best we start exploring space and planets now, and start finding some that would be safe for us to live on. Although why not both? Let's build land over water, and explore the universe.

 

The human population on Mars is expected to be 50,000 in 2050.

[Hugor Hill]

5 minutes ago, J-23 said:

Yes, but it's not the smarter idea...this planet is doomed. It's best we start exploring space and planets now, and start finding some that would be safe for us to live on. Although why not both? Let's build land over water, and explore the universe.

 

The human population on Mars is expected to be 50,000 in 2050.

It is also easier to fix whatever's wrong with this planet than to start anything new on Mars.

With the amount of resources it will take to start a colony on Mars with 50k people, we can probably build multiple ocean cities right now.

Think of all the solar, wind and hydro energy and seafood an ocean city can harvest, plus convenient access to study deep sea marine life.

Is there something precious on Mars that we have to have?

 

 

 

[J-23]

1 hour ago, Hugor Hill said:

It is also easier to fix whatever's wrong with this planet than to start anything new on Mars.

With the amount of resources it will take to start a colony on Mars with 50k people, we can probably build multiple ocean cities right now.

Think of all the solar, wind and hydro energy and seafood an ocean city can harvest, plus convenient access to study deep sea marine life.

Is there something precious on Mars that we have to have?

 

 

 

You do understand we already &^@#ed up this planet, we can only slow down the process, not fix it. 

[Aladeen]

2 hours ago, J-23 said:

You do understand we already &^@#ed up this planet, we can only slow down the process, not fix it. 

I don’t agree to this, theoretically we could view mars as a super F$%ked up earth and if we could survive the problems it poses to life there is no doubt we can survive the problems here.  Not to mention this planet isn’t truly doomed... it’s just doomed in the sense of being able to support the rapidly growing number of humans. The earth itself will be fine. Humans and a lot of current life on the planet? Not so much.

 

That being said I wholeheartedly agree with you that the long term survival for humans as a species no doubt involves colonizing other planets and expanding out to the stars. Though this would be true even if we lived in a harmonious balance within our planetary ecosystem.

[smokes]

11 hours ago, 112 said:

can the moon even retain an atmosphere? what is the benefit of living on a lifeless rock?

Training to live on another lifeless rock.