Would the Church baptize aliens if they come to Earth?

[DrTaffy]

So, you believe in the possibility without any evidence.

I have posted the proof (not merely evidence) that intelligent life is possible several times, in this thread, in reponse to you.

Where is your ‘evidence’ that it is even possible for a sentient being to exist without a physical substrate, or a space-time continuum?

Oh, how droll I find it playing the atheist to the atheists!

You are doing a good job of imitating the immature atheist trolls, that is true, but do you think that you are putting Catholicism in a good light by doing so?

 

[DrTaffy]

Be careful, Dr. Taffy.

Ah yes, threats, always first resort for polite and sensible people who have solid evidence and sound arguments to back up their points!

Did you know that it is against forum rules to doubt the sincerity of anyone’s beliefs here?

Of course, but I have only doubted the sincerity of your claims not to understand my point, not your religious convictions. In short I suspect that you are winding me up. I don’t see that there is anything offensive in that assertion (almost the opposite) but my apologies if you felt hurt. On the other hand, there is something ironic about complaining about hurt feelings while you are trolling!

You, on the other hand, have quite explicitly challenged my atheism. Of course, as a Catholic and a ‘Forum Elder’ you may well feel able to get away with behaviour that would get an outsider such as myself banned instantly, and may even be correct, but it would hardly be polite or adult to gloat about it, would it?

It would be a shame for you to be banned, for it is good for you to be here and in discourse with knowledgeable Catholics.

Yes, I live in hope that you knowledgeable Catholics might learn something.

 

[PRmerger]

I have posted the proof (not merely evidence) that intelligent life is possible several times, in this thread, in reponse to you.

Ah, very good, then.

So you do not require empirical studies, but more of a philosophical argument for the existence of intelligent alien life.

I am all about philosophical arguments for the existence of other beings.

Since you are not immune to these type of arguments, and even seem to embrace them (as it applies to ETs), I would hope that you would consider the philosophical arguments for God’s existence…

and, here’s the kicker, Dr. Taffy,

apply the same level of intellectual scrutiny to that as you do to considering that these guys exist.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[DrTaffy]

As such, I could say that God falls into category 2

So where is your proof that God, a sentient immaterial entity that exists ‘outside of time and space’, is even possible?

and intelligent alien life falls into category 3 or 4.

How do your counter my proof that intelligent life is possible? Are you taking the Monty Python view that we do not have intelligent life here on Earth?

 

[DrTaffy]

So you do not require empirical studies, but more of a philosophical argument for the existence of intelligent alien life.

Empirical evidence is not the only valid argument, no, although we do have empirical results that contribute to the Drake equation.

But apply your own standards - where are your scientific empirical studies proving that God exists, since you are criticising me for merely being willing to consider the possibility of alien life in the absence of empirical proofs.

Since you are not immune to these type of arguments, and even seem to embrace them (as it applies to ETs), I would hope that you would consider the philosophical arguments for God’s existence…

I have done so. Explicitly. Here on this forum. Even, if I recall correctly with you.

 

[PRmerger]

In short I suspect that you are winding me up.

It is quite clear that you are getting your knickers in a twist over the incoherence of your position.

I was simply giving you a friendly reminder not to allow* anyone,* knowledgeable Catholic or Forum Elder, to get you so riled up so you forget the rules established here on the CAFs.

 

[PRmerger]

How do your counter my proof that intelligent life is possible?

Er…by saying that intelligent life is possible.

As I said, it’s **possible **that there is intelligent alien life. God could create as many universes with as many lives as He desires.

I am simply saying: I don’t believe they exist until I have evidence for their existence

That it is possible to have intelligent alien life is quite different in quantity and quality than stating that it is likely that there is intelligent alien life

Of the former, I say: sure.
Of the latter, I say: show me the proof. Show me the evidence. Show me where. Show me how. Show me why.

I’m pretty sure that I’ve said it 2 or 3 more times already just in the past few days, but I don’t wish to look up any more posts of mine to demonstrate that. The above should be sufficient, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

So where is your proof that God, a sentient immaterial entity that exists ‘outside of time and space’, is even possible?

Perhaps you forgot you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with Catholics.

Were you operating under the misapprehension that it is our paradigm that we demand proof for God’s existence?

I can assure you that our paradigm is: * Fides quaerens intellectum.*

Not: Give me proof and then I will believe, which is your paradigm.

Oh, wait. It’s not really your paradigm, though, is it?

Because you entertain the fact that this guy is out there somewhere:

http://media.weirdworm.com/img/misc/alien-abduction-partially-explained/alien03.jpg

…without a single bone (if they have bones? Maybe they disapparate ala Harry Potter when they die??), or spaceship relic, or demonstrable piece of evidence for their existence.

But if you would like some philosophical proofs, here are twenty of them:

peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[mikekle]

Mike, the first link I clicked on said this: “We couldn’t find that page”
vimeo.com/11481878

Regarding the second link citing Dr. Edgar Mitchell, I found this, where he refutes the claim that he says that NASA covered up contact with aliens:

LB: The interviews are quoted as saying that you say sources at NASA who had contact with aliens…

EM: That is totally false.

With regards to Mitchell, SOMEONE is lying, and we can only guess about that, and no way to tell what is true, besides his statement, what of ALL the others…??

if there was nothing to this, why would all these people be making statements about it LOL

Alot of people think little elves and fairies exist too, some claim to have proof, they have people that claim to know where these things live…and yet, I dont know of any statements about these beings from credible people, like there is concerning ETs. the same can be said about werewolves, vampires, etc, many people out there seriously believe in these, yet no statements from credible people…??

If there are truly no ETs and UFOs people see are just mis identifications, then why would so many credible people be talking about them? LOL

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

It is not flawed, necessarily. It is simply conjecture. And the “likelihood” part is where you make a huge leap.

As I said, it’s **possible **that there is intelligent alien life. God could create as many universes with as many lives as He desires.

I am simply saying: I don’t believe they exist until I have evidence for their existence.

(Also, you noted “practical observation” has led you to know that there is intelligent alien life. What is this “practical observation”?)

Good Morning PR Merger: The practical observation I was referring to is the world around us. It is an endless series of repeating patterns. As a spiritual person, my intuition tells me that that God is the source of all patterns in creation and that God is in fact present in, expressed in and manifest in all of nature. That said, God seems to have an appetition for novelty and diversity, and these are the means by which God creates experience, which is to the best of my ability to reason, the sole purpose of existence. Even love of course is an experience. However, even in the endless array of diversity in form and subsequently found on this planet and throughout the cosmos, the same initial form can be seen, and I think that initial form reveals the temporal aspect of God. Jesus Himself said that “I am the vine and you are the branches,” which might be a very direct reference to the relationship between God and the world around us, of which we are also a part of. We are all part of each other, every person, every animal, every planet, solar system and star. And He who expresses Himself through us is evident in all of us, and the patterns remain the same wherever we look. I do not expect them to be different elsewhere in the galaxy or universe. The base elements are the same, and these act in similar ways under similar conditions that include such things as temperature and the presence of other elements with which they interact.

And while the outcomes are unique in appearance, the source from which and process by which they come about are always the same, and if we look carefully, this can be observed directly, as in these photographs:

io9.com/incredible-photographs-of-fractals-found-in-the-natural-480626285

To me, this brings new meaning to the idea that God is the vine and we are the branches, as can be seen in this brief and beautiful clip:

youtube.com/watch?v=RZL0SLf04yM

If you prefer a more mathematical representation, I think it can be found in this very short but interesting film:

youtube.com/watch?v=0jGaio87u3A

It only takes a few minutes to look at these, however, I think they are worth viewing, as they speak to us in a very familiar, yet revealing way.

Thanks,
Gary

 

[PRmerger]

Good Morning PR Merger: The practical observation I was referring to is the world around us. It is an endless series of repeating patterns. As a spiritual person, my intuition tells me that that God is the source of all patterns in creation and that God is in fact present in, expressed in and manifest in all of nature. That said, God seems to have an appetition for novelty and diversity, and these are the means by which God creates experience, which is to the best of my ability to reason, the sole purpose of existence. Even love of course is an experience. However, even in the endless array of diversity in form and subsequently found on this planet and throughout the cosmos, the same initial form can be seen, and I think that initial form reveals the temporal aspect of God. Jesus Himself said that “I am the vine and you are the branches,” which might be a very direct reference to the relationship between God and the world around us, of which we are also a part of. We are all part of each other, every person, every animal, every planet, solar system and star. And He who expresses Himself through us is evident in all of us, and the patterns remain the same wherever we look. I do not expect them to be different elsewhere in the galaxy or universe. The base elements are the same, and these act in similar ways under similar conditions that include such things as temperature and the presence of other elements with which they interact

All of the above–I give a

Again, however, that God could have, does not equate to: therefore, God did.

I want some evidence! Just one hair left from an alien visitor. One relic of their poetry. One shred of metal from their spaceship (oh, wait–I get that metal would melt when it hit our atmosphere, so whatever material they use to travel with–perhaps if they left us some of that I could relieve my skepticism.)

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

All of the above–I give a

Again, however, that God could have, does not equate to: therefore, God did.

I want some evidence! Just one hair left from an alien visitor. One relic of their poetry. One shred of metal from their spaceship (oh, wait–I get that metal would melt when it hit our atmosphere, so whatever material they use to travel with–perhaps if they left us some of that I could relieve my skepticism.)

Thanks PR Merger: I don’t think it will be possible for us to determine for certain what life exists elsewhere until our technology permits us to. In the meantime, I am very cautious about the idea that the flying objects we see being aliens from other planets. I have explained my reasoning behind that before, in that very advanced civilizations would be more likely to be psychonauts rather than astronauts, and they would thereby know of us through extensions of consciousness that would allow them to do so. We are clearly moving in that direction here on earth as well. On a much more mechanistic and primitive level, we are beginning to extend our consciousness through mediums such as the internet, but while this is an essential requisite in our development as mental beings, it is still a very rudimentary beginning. But we can also see it in commonplace things that we take for granted on the internet, such as web cams that allow me to see a beach in Asia from a forest in North America, and in the very recent past, this have been seen as a technological wonder. After we have been at this for 50 more years or so, I think we will be very able to determine the existence of things far away, and it is for this reason that I think that more advanced civilizations would have no need to come here in order to know what is here. Through technology and further exploration of our own inbuilt conscious abilities, we will have a much larger view of things in a relatively short order.

I sometimes wonder if these unidentified objects are some sort of epiphenomenon of our own consciousness, or glimpses of other outcomes in the sea of particles we exist in that contains infinite potentials. Perhaps these are other iterations of ourselves that are the product of some bifurcation in our ancient past, or perhaps glimpses of things yet to come in our own history made possible by crosstalk in our reception of sentient experience. If the brain acts as a motherboard of sorts between sentient experience and the particular storyline of consciousness we are individually and collectively tuned into, it would simply be a matter of our seeing permutations of reality that simply don’t match the channel, story and episode we are currently engaging our attention to.

Perhaps the reason we see alien travelers in unidentified flying objects is that we have made space exploration the domain of aerospace engineers, and people in that profession are trained to think in terms of building machines that go places. It is because of this perhaps that the exploration of outer space has become the domain of flying machines in our collective psyche, and therefore this might be what we see when we encounter things that appear to be flying machines. Again, exploration of outer space may in fact be more a matter of the exploration of inner space. We just need to adjust our perspective.

 

[tonyrey]

Is the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust due to the best interpretation of the world? Is the blood-stained history of the human race due to the best interpretation of the world?

Nope, both are largely due to irrational behaviour such as nationalism and (yes) religion. Rational fields such as science and technology can enable such harmful irrational goals, but they also enable such beneficial goals such as curing cancer and providing clean water or vaccines.

While it is trivial to understand how a mindless imperfect process such as natural selection would lead to humans who would indulge in war, it is much harder to explain how creation by a perfect, omnipotent, benevolent being would do so.Your faith in the mindless imperfect process called natural selection is not only unverifiable it is also self-destructive because it implies you are as mindless and irrational as the human predators you condemn! It also contradicts your assertion that there is “extensive empirical evidence that our reason is valid”…

The leap of faith that we live in a Godless world …

Now now, that sort of transparent rhetorical trick only serves to besmirch the image of Catholics. Ad hominem.

Nobody

starts with the assumption that absolutely everything imaginable exists and that the skeptic has to prove that something does not exist, or make a ‘leap of faith’, before he can adopt a worldview without it.

Rather we all start by believing only that for which we have evidence, and a leap of faith is required to believe in something without such evidence.
That is precisely what you are doing by assuming everything consists of nothing but atomic particles. You seem unaware that faith in the material reality is based entirely on inference from our perceptions. Our knowledge of the world is due entirely to our interpretation of sense data. Our only direct knowledge is of our mental activity which is our primary datum and sole certainty.

When has such behaviour been caused explicitly by lack of a belief in God? After all theists have perpetrated plenty of similar atrocities, and horrors such as female genital mutilation, corrective rape, human or even child sacrifice and so on are often explicitly linked to religious beliefs.

The distortion of religious beliefs does not negate the value of their teaching about compassion, brotherhood and the sanctity of life.

Abortion and euthanasia have nothing to do with nationalism or religion. They are promoted by human predators who recognise no higher moral authority than themselves and put their own convenience before the life of an unborn child or person they regard as abnormal or senile.

More to the point, what does any of this have to do with the topic of this thread?

You were the one who brought up the subject:

Those cavemen who just made a leap of faith that there were no predators around fared less well than those who used reason to help them avoid predators.

To which I responded:

The leap of faith that we live in a Godless world has led to human predators responsible for abortion, genocide and euthanasia on an unprecedented scale. The book Irrational Man sums it up in a nutshell. The notion that survival value is the cause of the development of reasoning is patently absurd. Amoeba have outlived many far more intelligent species and the power of reason is likely to produce a nuclear holocaust and the extinction of all life on this planet…

To which you have given no reply because you know it is an irrefutable fact.

 

[DrTaffy]

It is quite clear that you are getting your knickers in a twist over the incoherence of your position.

Sorry, but I am not getting my knickers in a twist, I am just skeptical about your motives. Of course, that little gloat about how much you think you have riled me did nothing to dispel that suspicion!

I was simply giving you a friendly reminder not to allow* anyone,* knowledgeable Catholic or Forum Elder, to get you so riled up so you forget the rules established here on the CAFs.

But I have not forgotten the rules. You are the one who challenged the sincerity of my religious position, not vice versa.

As such, I could say that God falls into category 2 and intelligent alien life falls into category 3 or 4.

Then

DrTaffy;11543865:

How do your counter my proof that intelligent life is possible

?

Er…by saying that intelligent life is possible.

Then

DrTaffy;11543865:

So where is your proof

that God, a sentient immaterial entity that exists ‘outside of time and space’, is even possible?

Perhaps you forgot you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with Catholics.

(yeah, that seems likely!)

So you accept that it is proven that alien life is possible, yet would class alien life as ‘not proven to be possible’.

And you accept that you cannot prove that God is possible, yet would class God as ‘proven to be possible’.

Is this display of logic supposed to bowl me over in a good way?

Apply your demand for proof with equity. That would be the consistent and logical approach.

Right back at you!

 

[DrTaffy]

Your faith in the mindless imperfect process called natural selection is not only unverifiable

Natural selection is both verifiable and verified.

it is also self-destructive because it implies you are as mindless and irrational as the human predators you condemn!

No it doesn’t - that is just your misapprehension of natural selection.

It also contradicts your assertion that there is “extensive empirical evidence that our reason is valid”…

Intriguing assertion. Could you elaborate? Possibly on a more appropriate thread, in which case I would appreciate a PM to tell me where - I don’t read anything like all the threads here.

Ad hominem.

No, ad hominem is an attack on the person making the argument, not an attack on the argument.

That is precisely what you are doing by assuming everything consists of nothing but atomic particles.

I don’t make that assumption, and even if I did that would not count as believing in something without evidence.

You seem unaware that faith in the material reality is based entirely on inference from our perceptions.

And yet I am not, I am very familiar with that very basic philosophical tenet. You are making unjustified assumptions about me. A lot of them.

The distortion of religious beliefs does not negate the value of their teaching about compassion, brotherhood and the sanctity of life.

What do female genital mutilation, corrective rape, or child sacrifice teach us about ‘compassion, brotherhood and the sanctity of life’? And how would that answer my query about evidence that lack of belief in God caused harmful behaviour?

To which you have given no reply because you know it is an irrefutable fact.

Um - you just responded to my reply.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Natural selection is both verifiable and verified.

Dear Doctor Taffy: I would offer the idea that we have observed a process and ascribed a quality to it that we see as natural selection among greedy cells and more complex living beings competing to survive. It doesn’t take, in my opinion, much a of stretch of the imagination to see it as quite the opposite, or specifically, a process of cooperation and mutual accommodation, which is also verifiable through observation. It was once thought that trees and other plants in forests competed with one another for sunlight. It appear more likely to me that organisms work together rather than compete:

youtube.com/watch?v=-8SORM4dYG8

In the short term, an animal eating another animal may seem like a win for one and a loss for the other, but what I am suggesting is that over long spans of time, these interactions start to look like something else, for instance a cooperative process. Further still, every permutation of hominid that came before you and I live on in us, as we will live on in what comes after us. Perhaps we are building something together rather than competing. I am suggesting that what we are building is experience, and ever more complex and novel expressions of it. Of course, such a purpose isn’t possible if we think of the world as being made of greedy thoughtless cells, however, ascribing greed to a cell Is problematic because this would give cells an attribute of consciousness, and we have yet to discover where the consciousness in a cell might reside. Whatever we do, we are implying consciousness, and consciousness as you know is the “hard question.”

Thanks,
Gary

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, but I am not getting my knickers in a twist, I am just skeptical about your motives. Of course, that little gloat about how much you think you have riled me did nothing to dispel that suspicion!

That I am delighting in this discussion is irrelevant to whether my arguments are trenchant and incontrovertible.

But 'tis true that I am enjoying this exchange immensely.

I find it bemusing, amusing, and peculiarly dissonant to have an atheist be open to the idea of an intelligent alien, given the utter and complete…

lack of evidence for this.

This reasoning “There is intelligent life here on earth, therefore it’s entirely possible (and likely, even!!) that there is intelligent alien life” is as cacophonous to me as this reasoning: “There is intelligent life here on earth, therefore, it’s entirely possible that the squirrels are listening in on our conversations while they pretend to gather acorns! After all, we already know that the universe can create beings that are intelligent, who listen in on others’ conversations while pretending to go about their business!”

 

[PRmerger]

So you accept that it is proven that alien life is possible, yet would class alien life as ‘not proven to be possible’.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the subjunctive mood in the English language, Dr. Taffy?

The subjunctive is an* irrealis mood* (one that does not advert directly to what is necessarily real).

Thus, when one uses the auxiliary verb “could”, it is an indication that the writer is making a referent to the subjunctive. For example: if I write, “I could say that aliens have sent me messages in my cereal”, the astute reader would understand that I am, essentially offering a possibility, not that which is necessarily true.

As such, please re-read my post in which I utilized the word “could”.

That’s a clue that I was using the subjunctive tense.

In other words, it’s a hypothetical syllogism.

See here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_syllogism

 

[tonyrey]

Natural selection is both verifiable and verified.

Please produce** verifiable** evidence that natural selection has produced minds with the power of reasoning.

it is also self-destructive because it implies you are as mindless and irrational as the human predators you condemn!

No it doesn’t - that is just your misapprehension of natural selection.

Please produce v****erifiable evidence that natural selection has produced minds with the power of reasoning.

It also contradicts your assertion that there is “extensive empirical evidence that our reason is valid”…

Intriguing assertion. Could you elaborate? Possibly on a more appropriate thread, in which case I would appreciate a PM to tell me where - I don’t read anything like all the threads here.

Please produce **verifiable **evidence that a mindless imperfect process has produced minds with the power of reasoning.

No, ad hominem is an attack on the person making the argument, not an attack on the argument.

“Now now, that sort of transparent rhetorical trick” is clearly an attack on the person and does not even explain why it is not a leap of faith to believe in a Godless world. Please produce **verifiable **evidence supporting that hypothesis?

That is precisely what you are doing by assuming everything consists of nothing but atomic particles.

I don’t make that assumption, and even if I did that would not count as believing in something without evidence.

Then what does everything consist of? Please produce verifiable evidence that everything consists of nothing but atomic particles.

You seem unaware that faith in the material reality is based entirely on inference from our perceptions.

And yet I am not, I am very familiar with that very basic philosophical tenet. You are making unjustified assumptions about me. A lot of them.

If material reality is based entirely on inference from our perceptions how do you know natural selection has produced minds with the power of reasoning?

The** distortion **

of religious beliefs does not negate the value of their teaching about compassion, brotherhood and the sanctity of life.What do female genital mutilation, corrective rape, or child sacrifice teach us about ‘compassion, brotherhood and the sanctity of life’?

The distortion of religious beliefs does not negate the value of their teaching about compassion, brotherhood and the sanctity of life.

And how would that answer my query about evidence that lack of belief in God caused harmful behaviour?

Abortion and euthanasia have nothing to do with nationalism or religion. They are promoted by human predators who** recognise no higher moral authority than themselves** and put their own convenience before the life of an unborn child or person they regard as abnormal or senile.

Um - you just responded to my reply.

You have still have not produced** verifiable **evidence that survival value is the cause of the development of reasoning, that amoeba have not outlived many far more intelligent species and the power of reason is not likely to produce a nuclear holocaust and the extinction of all life on this planet…

 

[tonyrey]

Dear Doctor Taffy: I would offer the idea that we have observed a process and ascribed a quality to it that we see as natural selection among greedy cells and more complex living beings competing to survive. It doesn’t take, in my opinion, much a of stretch of the imagination to see it as quite the opposite, or specifically, a process of cooperation and mutual accommodation, which is also verifiable through observation. It was once thought that trees and other plants in forests competed with one another for sunlight. It appear more likely to me that organisms work together rather than compete:

youtube.com/watch?v=-8SORM4dYG8

In the short term, an animal eating another animal may seem like a win for one and a loss for the other, but what I am suggesting is that over long spans of time, these interactions start to look like something else, for instance a cooperative process. Further still, every permutation of hominid that came before you and I live on in us, as we will live on in what comes after us. Perhaps we are building something together rather than competing. I am suggesting that what we are building is experience, and ever more complex and novel expressions of it. Of course, such a purpose isn’t possible if we think of the world as being made of greedy thoughtless cells, however, ascribing greed to a cell Is problematic because this would give cells an attribute of consciousness, and we have yet to discover where the consciousness in a cell might reside. Whatever we do, we are implying consciousness, and consciousness as you know is the “hard question.”

Thanks,
Gary

Another superb post, Gary.

Without co-operation the struggle for survival would have ended in extinction!