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?

[marco]

For the X we are talking about in this case, then if any being is capable of doing X then that being is capable of doing X plus everything else. X requires suspending the laws of physics, and it seems unreasonable to suggest that a being which can ignore physic would have any limitations (i.e. that being is literally God). .

This is exactly the reasoning of the Aztecs when they saw Cortez and his weaponry that was beyond their technology. In simple terms you are saying that if a civilisation exists that has reached a level we might expect to reach in 10,000 years, this civiisation is full of gods. In othe words, you think that man in the remote future will not do anything that today's science would deem impossible. O dear.

[bjs]

If you want to say everything we know is wrong, Newton and Einstein were no closer to the truth than cavemen, and mathematics and logic themselves are useless and misleading endeavors, then ok. I dont see how we can meaningfully discuss anything at that point.

It would have been better had you addressed the scientific paper I referenced, and this appears to contradict your objections. Perhaps you have newer partial differential equations whose solutions demonstrate you are right. I don't profess to be an astrophysicist and so I prefer to note what an astrophysicist states. If you have viewed this paper and found flaws, present them to the appropriate source. I understand that some scientists amended the calculations slightly, but they failed to take into account final deceleration. So the paper has been thoroughly examined.

Newton was in fact wrong and Einstein was surprised to be contradicting him. Science accepts and then amends. Hundreds of top scientists opposed Einstein because he opposed the status quo, which seems perfectly correct. Going by the paper about future space travel your assertion that it will never be possible is wrong.

I am far from an expert on astrophysics. However, if I understood the paper you referenced (it is entirely possible that I did not), the author was suggesting that if we could achieve speeds close to light speed then that would affect the way we experience time. He did not address the fact that achieving such speeds is likely impossible.

However, if our current science is more or less correct " maybe we got a few things wrong, but the general gist of it is right " then we will never travel to another galaxy. We could have another 1 billion years of advancement; it simply cannot be done.

Well that kind of pediction suggests our level of knowledge is close to perfection. I don't think any scientists believe this. We have reached a stage where we can predict how things work; we can work out precisely the path of a rocket and we know why it travels as it does. Your suggestion suggests sterility for the remainder of time. A horrible thought. Anyway, the paper disagrees with you so my opinion hardly matters.

Our knowledge is no where near perfect, but I think that we do have the basics down. That includes the distance between galaxies and the limitations of speeds on objects with a mass above zero.

For the X we are talking about in this case, then if any being is capable of doing X then that being is capable of doing X plus everything else. X requires suspending the laws of physics, and it seems unreasonable to suggest that a being which can ignore physic would have any limitations (i.e. that being is literally God). .

This is exactly the reasoning of the Aztecs when they saw Cortez and his weaponry that was beyond their technology. In simple terms you are saying that if a civilisation exists that has reached a level we might expect to reach in 10,000 years, this civiisation is full of gods. In othe words, you think that man in the remote future will not do anything that today's science would deem impossible. O dear.

No, it is not. When the Aztec saw Cortez they saw something that they did not understand.

We do understand the distance between stars. We do understand the speed of light. We understand that traveling at the speed of light is possible only for something with zero mass.

Now you suggest that science may someday discover a way to do what we currently understand to be impossible. Of course in that sense anything is possible. However, it is highly improbable. It is far more probable that we have the basics right and we will continue build from there.

[William]

[Replying to post 33 by bjs]

I want to put this idea in context.

Andromeda, the closets galaxy to ours, is 2.5 million light years away.

For the fastest craft ever created by human beings (New Horizones) to travel to the nearest galaxy would take more than 2 quadrillion years.

Lets give this alien a huge advantage. Lets say that it has figured out has to travel one thousand times faster than we have, and is leaving from the closest galaxy (Andromeda).

Even if it is in a hurry (which you have said it need not be), then at top speed it would take this alien 2 trillion years to get here.

The universe is at most 14 billion years old.

There has not been enough time to do what you are suggesting.

Unfortunately you are forgetting that my argument did not say the ET come from the nearest Galaxy to our own. My argument say's they have to come from within the Milky Way.

Is there anything this alien cant do? It can travel unimaginable distance. It can raise any biological being it encounters from seed. It can blend in to any society. May I assume that it can also perform miracles recorded in the Bible? It can heal the sick. It can control the weather. It can raise the dead. Can it hear and respond to prayers? Heck, why not say that it can come back to save us all? Why draw the line there? Can it grant eternal life, even raising those who died long ago? Can it be an inter-dimensional being that created the universe?

In short, how do you differentiate this alien from the God of Abraham?

Well, to be fair, that is precisely what the thread topic is about.

You basically have nailed it without realizing.

It seems that your argument is somewhat wrought from frustration but let us review your questions above, one by one.

Q: Is there anything this alien cant do?

A: Perhaps, but in the context of the OP topic, it is only necessary for me to advance a theory which does not contradict known science. This is why I argued that it would not be necessary to zap around the Galaxy at light sped or warp drive or whatever.

Q: It can raise any biological being it encounters from seed.

A: It takes seed with it. But obviously it can utilize seed it encounters along the way as well.

Q: It can blend in to any society.

A: In the context of the biblical stories, if such is recorded as happening, then yes. If not, then it is not so relevant.

Q:May I assume that it can also perform miracles recorded in the Bible?

A: Of course! After all, that is what the OP is pointing to. But what look like 'miracles' to ancient humans would not be regarded as such by the ET performing them.

Q: It can heal the sick.

A: Humans can heal the sick. It is no biggy.

Q: It can control the weather.

A: To the extent required for such purpose, I don't see why not. Perhaps 'control' is not the word to use, but 'affect'.

Q: It can raise the dead.

A: Regenerate dead tissue and get the vitals going again? Perhaps. Or perhaps it can make it appear this way. Certainly we know enough about human science in today's world that is is not unrealistic to presume that a far older species than human beings would have a far superior understanding of science and how to use it effectively and efficiently. That is no great leap of logic.

Q: Can it hear and respond to prayers?

A: Is that what happened in the bible stories?

Q: Heck, why not say that it can come back to save us all?

A: I don't get the impression that this is necessarily the agenda, but as I think I have already pointed out in a reply to Tam, if they were to do this nowadays, most people would understand that they are ET.
My impression is that they expect us to 'save ourselves' since we do have the means to do so.

Q: Why draw the line there? Can it grant eternal life, even raising those who died long ago?

A: Well, we would have to wait and see about that, right? At present that is a religious belief system which has yet to be made manifest.

Q: Can it be an inter-dimensional being that created the universe?

A: No. ET are part of this universe. What ET can be are representatives of The Entity which was directly involved with creating the universe. We are all aspects of that Entity Consciousness. Indeed we can also potentially represent the Universal Entity.

ET should well be able to traverse from one universe to the other. Certainly humans can even do this. It is commonly known as 'Astral Projection' and I highly recommend anyone interested should take the time to study this subject.

In fact, Member Compassionist recently linked a video re this subject in the thread...God and the Brain - The Persinger God Helmet which I recommend those interested in to to watch and perhaps - in doing so - learn something.

[marco]

I am far from an expert on astrophysics. However, if I understood the paper you referenced (it is entirely possible that I did not), the author was suggesting that if we could achieve speeds close to light speed then that would affect the way we experience time. He did not address the fact that achieving such speeds is likely impossible.

He's gone into the details of travelling below light speed. His conclusion is clear:

"A more practical question is how much of the universe
that we observe today could we visit with future rocket
technology. The paths that the rocket can complete in a
nite proper time cannot reach all the way to the future
light cone of the Earth, but the rocket can go 99% of
the way in a reasonable proper time of about a century;
consequently, if future technology can bring us to the
stars, travelling to distant galaxies could soon follow."

Our knowledge is no where near perfect, but I think that we do have the basics down. That includes the distance between galaxies and the limitations of speeds on objects with a mass above zero.

Obviously we have basic facts correct, though fairly recently we could not explain the anomalous orbit of Mercury. Einstein did. If progress is to be made what we regard as axiomatic now will perhaps become flawed later. This happened with quantum theory. The old gives place to the new, but I agree, the estimated diameter of the Earth and the moons of Mars will stay the same.

When the Aztec saw Cortez they saw something that they did not understand.
We do understand the distance between stars. We do understand the speed of light. We understand that traveling at the speed of light is possible only for something with zero mass.

You are not comparing like with like. The Aztecs had facts as well. They knew what an ocean was and that boats could sail. They had no conception of guns. Similarly there will be things that we have no conception of now. Your argument about the imposssibility of travelling faster than light is based on the mathematics that would give a division by zero. But in calculating a vortex in a liquid we look for exactly that: a denominator that is zero. In a Lorenz transformation there is a possibility that we can move from absolute past to absolute future. The practicalities of this are beyond us. I would not be too dogmatic as to what can and cannot be done.

I understand there are technical difficulties in using DNA to resurrect dinosaurs: even less likely is the reincarnation of primitive men from old bones. But is it possible with future technology? Who can say?

I not in favour of an ET explanation of Jesus, but it is a possibility which, to me, is no more remote than suggesting a being of infinite power interfered with our civilisation. I think there is a much simpler explanation that ET or gods. Go well.

[FarWanderer]

I am going to repeat a few things from others posts, but here it is:

[Replying to William]

Let us assume that our understanding of physics is more or less close to correct

That might be the problem right there.

If you want to say everything we know is wrong, Newton and Einstein were no closer to the truth than cavemen, and mathematics and logic themselves are useless and misleading endeavors, then ok.

Everything we know is wrong to some degree.

I dont see how we can meaningfully discuss anything at that point.

Yes, I understand. Which is why all my other arguments have kept from leaning on the "science of the gaps". But I think it right to point out, at least, that I do not cede the unknown to God even if I only argue within the realm of the known.

Do we have some idea as to the lifespan of aliens? Or if spending generations to go from one place to another even bothers them? They are aliens. They are going to be very different from us. William also mentioned AI ships. And what about cryogenic sleep? Worm holes?

Andromeda, the closest galaxy to ours, is 2.5 million light years away.

Why are you assuming aliens would have to be from another galaxy? There are 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way alone.

2. If somehow an alien could arrive on earth, it would have evolved in a completely different way that humans did. It is highly improbably that this alien would look remotely human or have any knowledge of human language or interaction that would allow it to pass in human society. Unless we think of that alien as omnipotent (i.e. the alien is literally God), it is improbable that it would have any technology or technique to blend into human society.

How is it that a being capable of doing X is somehow less plausible than a being capable of doing X and everything else?

For the X we are talking about in this case, then if any being is capable of doing X then that being is capable of doing X plus everything else. X requires suspending the laws of physics, and it seems unreasonable to suggest that a being which can ignore physic would have any limitations (i.e. that being is literally God).

You are being inconsistent. X doesn't require suspending the laws of physics, as you yourself implied when you said that it is "improbable" that non-omnipotent aliens could have the capability to blend in with human society.

So which is it, does it take "breaking the laws of physics" for an alien to blend in to human society, or is it merely "improbable"?

3. It is highly improbably that this alien would travel all this distance, blend into human form and society, all to create a false religion. The entire exercise seems pointless. It would mean that this alien not only choose to interact with people while intentionally lying to them, but also specifically set up a new religion knowing that this religion was false. At this point we pass being improbable and the idea become outright ludicrous.

Weird, yes, but how are the actions of the Christian God any less inscrutable?

Here I can only say that we have a fundamentally different understanding of the Christian God.

Hopefully, you can say more than that, at least when challenged with more specific questions. I made another thread, since this tangent seems likely to derail.

viewtopic.php?p=908715#908715

[historia]

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.

Marco already made this point above (see post 8). But let me reiterate, for the sake of posterity:

The comparison I was making was not between God and aliens as hypotheses to explain the historical sources. But rather between the hypothesis that Jesus was an actual human being and the hypothesis he was a myth. I mentioned this third hypothesis -- that he was an alien -- as part of a reductio ad absurdum.

William's objection that this third hypothesis cannot be deemed "highly improbable" because it is plausible that alien's exist somewhere in the universe simply overlooks the obvious fact that we have to make various ad hoc suppositions about said aliens (which have been abundantly demonstrated above) to explain how Jesus could have been one. Each of these ad hoc suppositions, by definition, lower the probability of the hypothesis being true, thus demonstrating that this hypothesis is, after all, highly improbable.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 46 by historia]

Understood, thank you.

For the record, I do think it probable that a man named Jesus did exist, had followers, and was crucified. It's certainly a far more sensible conclusion than aliens.

But it's an entirely different matter when it comes to the reports of supposed miracles.

[peterk]

Hi. I'm a Christian and am happy to cointribute to this discussion. But I have some preliminary questions and comments.

The Hypothesis of ET

I'm not sure what this means.

I understand that ET means extra terrestrial. But what specific hypothesis is being discussed? for instance, are we simply debating whether or not ETs exist? Or are we talking about some way in which an ET is involved in the biblical narrative? And if so, what precise level of involvement is suggested? I think details of my answer might vary significantly depending on the focus of the question.

threatens the beliefs

Personally as a Christian I find this perspective unhelpful. Of course some Christians may reject a hypothesis because it is contrary to and thus threatens their current beliefs; but this is surely true of people in general, not just theists. Other Christians may equally reject a hypothesis because they have considered it to the best of their ability and have sincerely concluded that it is a false hypothesis. To turn the argument on its head, what if the real reason atheists reject Christianity is that it threatens their sense of personal autonomy? I'm sure that some are atheists for such psychological reasons, but in any dialogue with an atheist I would rather treat him with respect and assume that our mutual focus is on issues of truth and reason.

To put it another way, the fact that one person is an atheist for bad reasons does not mean that there are no good reasons for one to be an atheist. If I only respond to the bad reasons I am really offering a straw argument. If Christianity is true it must be able to address the strongest possible arguments against it. I would ask skeptics to treat Christians with the same respect.

For my part, I am quite comfortable discussing the issue further if someone would like to help clarify the issues as per my questions above.

defies the known laws of physics

My guess from the general discussion is that the issue here is about miracles. The claim is that miracles are not possible because they contradict the laws of physics. I actually disagree strongly with this, and again am happy to explore the issue further once I know what the real issues are.

I look forward to hearing from the author of the OP.

[William]

[Replying to post 48 by peterk]

Hi. I'm a Christian and am happy to cointribute to this discussion. But I have some preliminary questions and comments.

The Hypothesis of ET

I'm not sure what this means.

I understand that ET means extra terrestrial. But what specific hypothesis is being discussed? for instance, are we simply debating whether or not ETs exist? Or are we talking about some way in which an ET is involved in the biblical narrative? And if so, what precise level of involvement is suggested? I think details of my answer might vary significantly depending on the focus of the question.

Hi peterk

The answers to your question here is in the context of the thread posts, as well as the OP links to another thread which highlights The Hypothesis of ET in relation Abrahamic religious stories.

So yes, ET involvement which explains the stories as taken literally.

threatens the beliefs

Personally as a Christian I find this perspective unhelpful. Of course some Christians may reject a hypothesis because it is contrary to and thus threatens their current beliefs; but this is surely true of people in general, not just theists.

Be that as it may, the topic is focused upon the believers in Abrahamic religions, which are not all Christians anyway. It has also been acknowledged that this idea might also threaten certain atheistic world views.

Other Christians may equally reject a hypothesis because they have considered it to the best of their ability and have sincerely concluded that it is a false hypothesis.

This is also why threads are created. To invite different types of input. So far there have been no Christians who have explained why they believe it is a false hypothesis.

To turn the argument on its head, what if the real reason atheists reject Christianity is that it threatens their sense of personal autonomy?

You might want to start a thread re this and see what interesting answers come from that.

I'm sure that some are atheists for such psychological reasons, but in any dialogue with an atheist I would rather treat him with respect and assume that our mutual focus is on issues of truth and reason.

So what are you really trying to say? That the OP and subject generally lacks respect for Christians? Sorry I do not agree and I think if you want to pursue this angle it is best to start a thread about it rather than doing so in this thread.

defies the known laws of physics

My guess from the general discussion is that the issue here is about miracles. The claim is that miracles are not possible because they contradict the laws of physics. I actually disagree strongly with this, and again am happy to explore the issue further once I know what the real issues are.

I look forward to hearing from the author of the OP.

So-called miracles yes, but not just miracles. Visitations, specific stories (such as the Garden of Eden story) et al.

You can read more on what I have said about this subject in the links below;

ET and the notion of GODs...
Aliens may have existed in our solar system long before us

Lord on high? What is Adonai's agenda in relation to human beings?

Our Mothership Who Is In Heaven...Could extraterrestrial AI explain a literal interpretation of the Garden of Eden story?

Human beings as a means to an end

ET AI and the idea of interfering in human evolution discussed without the common Conspiracy Theory aspect.

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

Why would ET come? God knows.

I have already covered that. It is simply what consciousness would do as a matter of course. What else is there to do?

For example, we know that planetary systems - while existing for huge periods of time, eventually die out - consumed by their sols.

We understand that biological life forms are adequate for planet living but no so great for sailing around the Galaxy.

In a nut shell, this universe is harsh on all forms, but the meaty forms of the biological are especially vulnerable.
Machines are the answer and machines can make machines and machines are more resistant.

Even so, machines do not have to go around looking for biological life forms to exterminate. There simply is no threat and as well as that, they are very useful to not only learn from but also to help that creative process continue.