Why is the hypothesis of ET "highly improbable"?

[William]

From "The fabrication of Jesus." thread, this;

[Replying to post 41 by historia]

But, just because we can't be certain, doesn't mean that all hypothesis are equally probable. It's possible that Jesus was an alien who visited earth, but that hypothesis is highly improbable.

Recently I created a thread called "The Abrahamic religious beliefs taken literally" with the sub-heading "The explanation which involves science rather than magic" in the Members Only Chat forum.

The thread has attracted no interest from Christians on this site and derisive comments from one atheist, with the observation;

You're certainly not going to convince any religious people because they have no desire to start believing in aliens instead of a "God". Not only that but their first question to you would no doubt be "Who created the aliens?".

post 4 by Divine Insight, which in part answers why Christians are loath to broach the subject or get into any significant discussion regarding it.

However, to state that the hypothesis is 'highly improbable' does require explanation.

As far as I am concerned, this hypothesis is still very much on the table and as such, does indeed require serious consideration.

Questions for debate.

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?

[Inigo Montoya]

It is highly improbable due to our having zero evidence of aliens existing.

Would you prefer we assign high probabilities to things existing that we have zero evidence of?


You seem to think a great many things are "on the table" for the sole reason they haven't been disproved or are, in fact, currently unfalsifiable. That is no pathway, however, to increasing an idea's potential to be true, or real.

In other words, consideration of the things we don't know is one thing. Assigning probability to events involving entities we have no evidence for is very different.

[1213]

...

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?

What do you mean with ET?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by William]

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

Not from my point of view. I don't see how the probability calculation of a hypothesis can be affected simply because it runs counter to a religion.

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

There's a difference between a hypothetical alien with advanced technology...and a supernatural entity who is described as being above them.
There are some hypotheses for faster than light travel that are of course, beyond our current level of technology, but they could hypothetically work.
This is something completely different from saying that God simply 'wills' whatever he wants to happen.

I am not going to answer question 3.

[rikuoamero]

...

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?

What do you mean with ET?

Extra-terrestrial. Alien. A lifeform from beyond our own planet.

[FarWanderer]

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

Of course not. The "historical" arguments of the Abrahamic religions are made by a process of elimination of all naturalistic explananations. This means they have to dismiss ET explanations to prove their arguments in the first place. It would be fallacious to then turn around and argue against ET explanations with the conclusion they came to by dismissing ET explanations.

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

Defying the known laws of physics certainly makes a claim harder to believe. I don't like the word "probable" in this situation though, because the epistemic probability of any specific explanation outside of our realm of understanding is categorically undefinable.

Also, God defies the known laws of physics as well, so if a Theist were to argue against ET involvement on this basis it would be a special pleading. It is essentially what historia is doing, I think. He is implying that God is a more probable explanation than aliens, and I don't think he can support that claim.

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?

The issue at play here has a name. It is called "The problem of induction".

Basically, we have never experienced aliens before so we more or less operate under the assumption that the trend will continue. On this basis Historia described aliens as being "highly improbable".

Generally induction serves us well, but it's not always correct. The classic example is the black swan. Prior to the discovery of black swans in Australia, it was thought that since all observed swans were white, that all swans are white.

[1213]

...

1: Is the hypothesis of ET highly improbable because it threatens the beliefs of the Abrahamic Organised Religions?

2: Because it defies the known laws of physics?

3: Or perhaps other reasons I may have overlooked?

What do you mean with ET?

Extra-terrestrial. Alien. A lifeform from beyond our own planet.

Then it seems Jesus, God and angels can be seen as extraterrestrials, or perhaps extradimensional. Therefore, extraterrestrial is not threatening Biblical beliefs.

[marco]

However, to state that the hypothesis is 'highly improbable' does require explanation.

Well to be fair, what was being discussed was the question of a hstorical Christ. Introducing an extra terrestrial explanation moves a good distance from what we have in historical records, hence the improbability - in this context.

On the question of intelligent life somewhere, that does not carry any improbability. It seems a reasonable assumption that we are not the only planet supporting some sort of life. Since the Bible fails to mention this possibility and caters entirely for a God messing around with a plot of land somewhere in the Middle East one may assume that a strict reading of Genesis would discount the proposition that God planted multiple Adams.

[William]

Thanks to everyone who so far has given their answers to the OPQ.

As I am interested in discussing this subject in more detail, I will focus on those answers that allow for this to take place.

Firstly then, FarWanderer.

[Replying to post 6 by FarWanderer]

You answered the first Q with;

Of course not. The "historical" arguments of the Abrahamic religions are made by a process of elimination of all naturalistic explananations. This means they have to dismiss ET explanations to prove their arguments in the first place. It would be fallacious to then turn around and argue against ET explanations with the conclusion they came to by dismissing ET explanations.

This would appear fairly accurate on the surface of what is being observed. However, it seems clear that not all Abrahamic-based theists are loath to admit that the stories in their holy books regarding all things to do with God (such as angels, visions, holy calamities etc) could be explained by ET/EDimensional beings.

One thing that could be argued is that unlike the ancients, we in present times have a fuller appreciation for such a thing being possible because we know more about our universe than the ancients apparently did.

As well as this, I do not think it is entirely accurate for you to imply (as you seem to have done in the above quote), that ET/ED explanations are not to be regarded as 'naturalistic'. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant by this.

You answered the second Q with;

Defying the known laws of physics certainly makes a claim harder to believe. I don't like the word "probable" in this situation though, because the epistemic probability of any specific explanation outside of our realm of understanding is categorically undefinable.

I am not so sure that this argument holds water, because we know from our own experience that the more we delve into understanding the laws of physics through scientific process, the more we are able to appreciate that what was once highly improbable (as to be unbelievable) has eventuated in being actually made real.

There are many examples where ideas once consigned to science fiction, have become actual fact.

So we can take that understanding and apply it to the probability of their being far more ancient species in this Galaxy than our own, who have unlocked the secrets of physics to an extent that we - even in our present technological state, but certainly in our ancient state as a species, would view such as miraculous and god-like, as far as we understand such ideas.

Also, God defies the known laws of physics as well, so if a Theist were to argue against ET involvement on this basis it would be a special pleading.

I agree with this. One tends to cancel out the other as it were. This also implies specifically that the idea of GOD in question can indeed be understood to possibly be ET - indeed, before we move to the belief that he is as the Abrahamic religions claim, we first have to eliminate this possibility altogether.

In saying that, this would have to be the requirement for atheists as well. They simply cannot say that the idea of the Abrahamic GOD is completely fabricated from the human imagination without also first eliminating the possibility that what they are dealing with here is in fact, a remnant/artifact of ancient ET encounter of which the stories are based (loosely or otherwise) upon actual experience.

It is essentially what historia is doing, I think. He is implying that God is a more probable explanation than aliens, and I don't think he can support that claim.

I see too that so far only ONE Christian on this site has made any effort (as slight as it was) to answer the OPQs. (and another who 'liked' the post.) This in itself is significant. There are many Christians here who are obviously intelligent - but they seem loath to enter into any discussion on the matter. It would be great to see them drop their defenses and answer the Qs.

You answered the third Q with;

The issue at play here has a name. It is called "The problem of induction".

Basically, we have never experienced aliens before so we more or less operate under the assumption that the trend will continue. On this basis Historia described aliens as being "highly improbable".

Generally induction serves us well, but it's not always correct. The classic example is the black swan. Prior to the discovery of black swans in Australia, it was thought that since all observed swans were white, that all swans are white.

In this case experiencing something is here nor there, as far as I can tell.

Very few Christians have ever experienced winged beings identified as 'angels', but this does not prevent them from believing that angels exist.

What we do know though, is that if WE can exist in this Galaxy, the chances of other species, more ancient as well as more primitive, must also exist in this Galaxy. That is just good mathematics.

(Using the same principle, it is highly likely that somewhere in this universe horned horses will also exist.)

The idea being, that the Galaxy is so vast (let alone the rest of the universe) that to think we are the only planet which has life-forms on it, or that it is impossible that ET have not visited or even seeded life-forms on Earth is - in today's world rather a naive speculation. Far more naive than speculating that they have.

ET is not as 'highly improbably' as some would think and/or would like others to think.

[William]

[Replying to post 7 by 1213]

Then it seems Jesus, God and angels can be seen as extraterrestrials, or perhaps extradimensional. Therefore, extraterrestrial is not threatening Biblical beliefs.

This seems to me to be the case. However, in practice, there really does seem to be a threat as most Abrahamics appear loath to contemplate it let alone enter any reasonable and constructive discussion about it.

Even you have offered no more than an obscure one-liner statement on the subject. Are you willing to extend this into wider discussion on the matter?

For example, in today's world should an event such as described in the Bible regarding Jesus' return actually happen, most first-world humans would equate such as ET - an ET intervention, because most first-world humans understand that such an event would be self explanatory.

However, the one who had the initial vision of Revelation might have only been able to describe such a vision using the language and knowledge of his time, and as inadequate as this would have been, one works with what one has to work with.

However, (in line with today's knowledge) it can be said that such an event would not be received by atheists as 'GOD' returning to Earth, but as ET, and theists would see the same event as not Jesus (the son of their GOD) returning to earth, but a deceptive forerunner - perhaps pretending to be Jesus... point being that the threat I am specifically speaking about is the one which shows that the Abrahamic idea of GOD can be sourced as possible/probable ET/ED interaction with human beings, and one is thus hard-pressed to know the difference between supposed genuine and supposed counterfeit, but more to the point, are any ET/ED beings claiming to be the GOD(s) of humanity really entitled to make such claims, and if so, in the way that they allegedly interacted with human beings (as per the stories) are these all or even in part, justifiable?

For example, if we humans reached a stage in our evolution with technological advancement that we were able to play the role of GODs over a far younger species, would we be wise to use the same methods employed by the biblical GODs, and if so, why so and if not, why not?

(Feel free to contribute to this thread too, Tam)