NASA Promises 'Definitive Evidence' of Alien Life by 2025

[Germanium]

Like Enrico Fermi, what a dimwit amirite?

 

[92miata]

I certainly hope we find intelligent life on some planet because there certainly is no intelligent life on this planet.

 

[atp1916]

I certainly hope we find intelligent life on some planet because there certainly is no intelligent life on this planet.

I'm telling the Chief Scientist Of NASA.. RIGHT NOW!

 

[Ramses]

Like Enrico Fermi, what a dimwit amirite?

Ahh Fermi. Where are they? It's a great question to ponder.

Hunters Of The Dawn. Gotta be.

 

[Kevon]

Intelligent life has been here LONG before we ever were and has been coming and going ever since.

Want some fun reading material? Search: OOPARTS

 

[Sovern]

It's the other way around. Life adapts to the universe, the chains of events that create the most basic elements of life would simply change if our universe were different, or not happen at all. If there is a programmer, with the rate of super novae and planetary collisions, it's a complete and utter psychopath with a uniquely evil plan for the universe. Life is a product of destruction and the universe is an incredibly violent place.

You would have to be some sort of arrogant, overgrown child to think the universe was created just for us.

The universe is only that way if you view it as being that way. I see the universe and my life as a very peaceful thing, and live in as much of a relaxed setting with as much of an optimistic view as possible.

You create your own heaven and hell's, here, in this life.

Also, the creators of the game WoW created a world of chaos, did they not?

You choose to live the life you want to live. Your consciousness creates everything including this reality. Without it, the universe does not exist.

Programs are also riddled with errors as is our human DNA, even the Earth wobbles upon rotation (bad build?), and the universe wouldn't function without chaos. On top of that the fact that our star will one day start dying and completely consume our planet no matter what we do, thus killing us off naturally, kind of says a lot about the reality we live in. Either we leave this planet one day or we go the way of the other 99% of the life that ever lived on this planet, extinct!

I guess the 'programmer' is either very mean and cruel or it just doesn't give two shits, either way. If there even is one, which we don't know, because all religions are dog shit. Or maybe it died starting off the big bang and this is the final simulation before there is nothing but nothingness no more.

Then again, maybe I'm god, and sometimes I like to play tricks on humans. Stupid little fucking creatures.

The theory of simulation has almost nothing to do with religion and has been around for thousands of years. There does not need to be a creator God if consciousness creates everything (which it does).

What "scientific evidence" are you speaking of exactly? I know a "theory" has been proposed, but I know of zero "evidence" to support it..Would you mind explaining a bit?

Google search "universe is a simulation" and look at the scientific studies done so far and look into the book "My Big TOE" written by a NASA physicist.

Quantum physicists for years now have been talking about how everything is an illusion and that our mind is the creator of the world that we live in.

So the vast galaxy's lightyears away that we can not *see* yet or the extraterrestrial life that has not been *discovered* yet actually does not exist until our minds create it by seeing it. It's not being rendered otherwise.

 

[atp1916]

The notion that ToE -> String Theory is an interesting one, but it ain't gonna help the fact that science as a whole cannot ever say 100% what is, but rather with a very high accuracy what we think it is.

I say this because: how is it possible that we can create a basis/framework (the ToE) if we haven't even detected if the space of knowledge (the universe) that the ToE is supposed to span is in a mode of self-perpetuation or not. In other words, we have to know that the universe is indeed finite, and thus spannable. This implies that we find the "end" of whatever there is to know about the universe, are able to fashion the ToE in a provably independent manner.

Good luck with that.

 

[DyNamiC.]

The universe is only that way if you view it as being that way. I see the universe and my life as a very peaceful thing, and live in as much of a relaxed setting with as much of an optimistic view as possible.

You create your own heaven and hell's, here, in this life.

Also, the creators of the game WoW created a world of chaos, did they not?

You choose to live the life you want to live. Your consciousness creates everything including this reality. Without it, the universe does not exist.



The theory of simulation has almost nothing to do with religion and has been around for thousands of years. There does not need to be a creator God if consciousness creates everything (which it does).



Google search "universe is a simulation" and look at the scientific studies done so far and look into the book "My Big TOE" written by a NASA physicist.

Quantum physicists for years now have been talking about how everything is an illusion and that our mind is the creator of the world that we live in.

So the vast galaxy's lightyears away that we can not *see* yet or the extraterrestrial life that has not been *discovered* yet actually does not exist until our minds create it by seeing it. It's not being rendered otherwise.

Sculelos, is that you?

 

[Xrave]

I agree with the article that we will find microbes...or some very primitive bacteria-like life form in the "nearish" future. They have found many new places for life to exist in our solar system and NASA is already planning missions to check them.

However in the article:

"I think we're one generation away in our solar system, whether it's on an icy moon or on Mars, and one generation [away] on a planet around a nearby star," Grunsfeld said at the same discussion.

I agree with the one generation timeframe for finding microbes or some past proof of life on a planet or moon in our solar system, but I'm not so sure I agree with the second statement about finding definitive proof around a nearby star. The only way to offer definitive proof is to observe the actual organism. NASA can do that in our solar system, but unless there is some new technology NASA is hiding, we aren't going to be going to a nearby star anytime soon.

 

[B00nie]

but but

we are God's special children

There will be excuses just as there will be God(s). Logical reasoning has never been the strong point of believers lol.

 

[B00nie]

You choose to live the life you want to live. Your consciousness creates everything including this reality. Without it, the universe does not exist.

Uh if the life is only my imagination and I choose what it is, how come I'm not being continuously blown by hot naked women while sitting on a beer fountain?

 

[atp1916]

Uh if the life is only my imagination and I choose what it is, how come I'm not being continuously blown by hot naked women while sitting on a beer fountain?

There can only be one Al Bundy, my friend.

 

[Lith1um]

Let's hope the aliens exist to serve man, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6dXsjKcA9I

 

[Lith1um]

Uh huh.

Perhaps other life forms are already here (or have toured the place), looking(ed) around at how we treat our fellow mankind, want nothing to do with us, and took off in a hurry.

Scientists can be so arrogant/trite at times.

They are already here, have been for quite some time. They dwell in the ocean depths, out of sight, away from the reach of man. They travel under the cover of thunder storms, and when you see lightning it's really a tractor beam raising a cow or one of your neighbors up to their vessel.

 

[magnetik]

Never A Straight Answer, NASA? IMO, if we find definitive proof.. it won't be coming from NASA.

 

[Twisted Kidney]

The universe is only that way if you view it as being that way. I see the universe and my life as a very peaceful thing, and live in as much of a relaxed setting with as much of an optimistic view as possible. /snip

I'm referring to the actual -real- physical processes of the universe. Stars and their planets pop like zits Galaxies collide and merge, get swallowed up, or are ripped apart. In this universe creation and destruction are the same process. You and I are tiny, tiny things in something beyond massive.

Also, not to burst the bubble of your own god-hood, but a tree that falls with no one around makes a sound. People do great and terrible things for and to one another without you. They're born, they make love, the make war, the procreate, they recreate, they grow old and they die all without your all seeing eye. The universe exists without you, a rock on a moon a million light years from here is no less a rock for your absence. Your consciousness creates nothing but the awesome opportunity to observe and to attempt to understand. When we die the universe will go on without us, all that will be left of us is some basic elements and the legacy of the things we did for (or to) the people we knew as we changed our few feet of the universe while we lived. Perception does not change reality, my great-aunt thought she was in her teens as she died of old age.

Simulation theory relies on the idea that mathematics outside of our universe are constant, that's something that doesn't appear to be true. When the rules change the maths change, thus the maths that indicate the universe is a simulation as they attempt to impose the illusion of control over our universe are only doing so because those maths were born in our universe.

 

[kbrickley]

The tricky part with the Drake equation is the last three terms:

fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space

All but the most jaded or rigid religious type would claim there is no life anywhere else in the entire Universe ... as Contact noted, "Seems like an awful waste of space", as well as being in direct contradiction to the data we are starting to accumulate on the mechanisms for the creation of the building blocks of life

Given that timeline being discussed, the only way we would likely have definitive proof is if we find life on one of the other bodies in our own solar system (it is unlikely to be intelligent life) but there is a decent chance over the next couple of decades that we will find either the aftermath of primitive life or actual primitive life on one of Jupiter's or the other outer planet moons ...

intelligent life is impossible to predict without knowing how the other factors play out ... we have had the technology to be detectable for a very short period of time, and at least once during that time (during the Cuban Missile Crisis) we came very close to ending our ability to be detected for a very long time ... we are also in a very isolated part of our own Galaxy and even if life is fairly common, that doesn't mean they are within hundreds or even thousands of light years of our location

In short, will we find proof of life (probably) ... will we find proof of intelligent life (unlikely)

 

[kbrickley]

All but the most jaded or rigid religious type would claim there is no life anywhere else in the entire Universe ... as Contact noted, "Seems like an awful waste of space", as well as being in direct contradiction to the data we are starting to accumulate on the mechanisms for the creation of the building blocks of life

Apparently I need more coffee ... I should have said, "None but the most jaded or rigid religious type would claim there is no life anywhere else" ... j’adoube

 

[dgz]

2025? Why can't they show it to us now?

 

[Jagger100]

Whoring for cash with a public/media that is more interested in entertainment and ideas over exploration and facts.

 

[Jagger100]

2025? Why can't they show it to us now?

2025 + $3 billion cash. If you don't agree to the cash you're a dull person and part of cancer man's shadow government conspiracy.

 

[Sovern]

I'm referring to the actual -real- physical processes of the universe. Stars and their planets pop like zits Galaxies collide and merge, get swallowed up, or are ripped apart. In this universe creation and destruction are the same process. You and I are tiny, tiny things in something beyond massive.

Also, not to burst the bubble of your own god-hood, but a tree that falls with no one around makes a sound. People do great and terrible things for and to one another without you. They're born, they make love, the make war, the procreate, they recreate, they grow old and they die all without your all seeing eye. The universe exists without you, a rock on a moon a million light years from here is no less a rock for your absence. Your consciousness creates nothing but the awesome opportunity to observe and to attempt to understand. When we die the universe will go on without us, all that will be left of us is some basic elements and the legacy of the things we did for (or to) the people we knew as we changed our few feet of the universe while we lived. Perception does not change reality, my great-aunt thought she was in her teens as she died of old age.

Simulation theory relies on the idea that mathematics outside of our universe are constant, that's something that doesn't appear to be true. When the rules change the maths change, thus the maths that indicate the universe is a simulation as they attempt to impose the illusion of control over our universe are only doing so because those maths were born in our universe.

First off, I never heard of simulation theory relying only on what math is like outside of our reality. How would we even know that math exists outside of our reality? Also, I don't see how the "rules" changing means that we can''t live in a simulation. You can do anything you want in a programming language including coming up with new forms of math and new "rules".

Also, we don't even know if other universes exist so we don't know if the rules change or not outside of our universe.

Those things that you mentioned such as galaxy's are created by your mind. They an not exist outside of your mind so to say that they make us seem small is false in a sense as our minds are the ones that are creating all of these *things*.

Also the terms creation and destruction are false labels or rather terms that we as humans apply to things. Nothing can be created not destroyed. Everything just is and changes conditions.

A tree that falls with no one around does not make a sound. A sound implies that there is someone with a mind that is capable of creating the sound in the mind in the vicinity of the tree falling. Mind creates sound, a deaf person will not hear the tree falling if she/he is there and thus the tree for that person makes no sound.

Also I don't accept the notions of birth and death. They are false labels created by us humans to describe something but they are shallow.

The only thing that is real is transformation. The atoms were never *borned*, we are essentially immortal if you see reality on the deepest level. The atoms that we are composed of never *die*. They can only change condition.

You create the universe, you have it twisted around that the universe exists outside of us. Without the 5 senses there is no universe. The universe is created/rendered by our minds in the same way that a computer runs a program or game. We are the processors.

If a tree falls in a game such as DayZ 15 miles away from where your character is no sound is rendered. It's the same way in this reality.

Lastly, you misunderstood what I was talking about when I brought up perception or rather I did not explain what I mean't thoroughly enough. I'm talking more about how deeply you can *see* reality for what it really is and not get all mixed up emotionally or attached to your physical condition.

Dwelling in the past and keeping up on worldly news, getting yourself involved with it emotionally like most do, and upset about global warming among other things is creating your own hell.

Someone that doesn't get stuck in worldly news or the past and does not perceive most things as a problem because they see things on a deeper level will be better off and suffer less.

 

[kbrickley]

First off, I never heard of simulation theory relying only on what math is like outside of our reality. How would we even know that math exists outside of our reality? Also, I don't see how the "rules" changing means that we can''t live in a simulation. You can do anything you want in a programming language including coming up with new forms of math and new "rules".

Also, we don't even know if other universes exist so we don't know if the rules change or not outside of our universe.

Those things that you mentioned such as galaxy's are created by your mind. They an not exist outside of your mind so to say that they make us seem small is false in a sense as our minds are the ones that are creating all of these *things*.

Also the terms creation and destruction are false labels or rather terms that we as humans apply to things. Nothing can be created not destroyed. Everything just is and changes conditions.

A tree that falls with no one around does not make a sound. A sound implies that there is someone with a mind that is capable of creating the sound in the mind in the vicinity of the tree falling. Mind creates sound, a deaf person will not hear the tree falling if she/he is there and thus the tree for that person makes no sound.

Also I don't accept the notions of birth and death. They are false labels created by us humans to describe something but they are shallow.

The only thing that is real is transformation. The atoms were never *borned*, we are essentially immortal if you see reality on the deepest level. The atoms that we are composed of never *die*. They can only change condition.

You create the universe, you have it twisted around that the universe exists outside of us. Without the 5 senses there is no universe. The universe is created/rendered by our minds in the same way that a computer runs a program or game. We are the processors.

If a tree falls in a game such as DayZ 15 miles away from where your character is no sound is rendered. It's the same way in this reality.

Lastly, you misunderstood what I was talking about when I brought up perception or rather I did not explain what I mean't thoroughly enough. I'm talking more about how deeply you can *see* reality for what it really is and not get all mixed up emotionally or attached to your physical condition.

Dwelling in the past and keeping up on worldly news, getting yourself involved with it emotionally like most do, and upset about global warming among other things is creating your own hell.

Someone that doesn't get stuck in worldly news or the past and does not perceive most things as a problem because they see things on a deeper level will be better off and suffer less.

Quantum physics can come up with some very colorful scenarios but that doesn't make them all true ... all the physical processes we observe could be simulations of actual processes or they could be actual processes but given that to date the laws and behavior of the universe align with our physical models the burden of proof is on the simulation crowd to prove they aren't real ... Quantum physics also results in lots of thought experiments (like Schrodinger's Cat) but that doesn't mean that in reality a cat could exist in a state neither living or dead or that the end state could be in question until the observation locks it down

The more exotic the theory and the more assumptions that are built into it, the higher the burden of proof becomes for those proponents of the theory ... I would say that the burden of proof currently favors those who think we live in the Desert of the Real and not those that think we reside in the Matrix

 

[atp1916]

First off, I never heard of simulation theory relying only on what math is like outside of our reality. How would we even know that math exists outside of our reality? Also, I don't see how the "rules" changing means that we can''t live in a simulation. You can do anything you want in a programming language including coming up with new forms of math and new "rules".

Also, we don't even know if other universes exist so we don't know if the rules change or not outside of our universe.

Those things that you mentioned such as galaxy's are created by your mind. They an not exist outside of your mind so to say that they make us seem small is false in a sense as our minds are the ones that are creating all of these *things*.

Also the terms creation and destruction are false labels or rather terms that we as humans apply to things. Nothing can be created not destroyed. Everything just is and changes conditions.

A tree that falls with no one around does not make a sound. A sound implies that there is someone with a mind that is capable of creating the sound in the mind in the vicinity of the tree falling. Mind creates sound, a deaf person will not hear the tree falling if she/he is there and thus the tree for that person makes no sound.

Also I don't accept the notions of birth and death. They are false labels created by us humans to describe something but they are shallow.

The only thing that is real is transformation. The atoms were never *borned*, we are essentially immortal if you see reality on the deepest level. The atoms that we are composed of never *die*. They can only change condition.

You create the universe, you have it twisted around that the universe exists outside of us. Without the 5 senses there is no universe. The universe is created/rendered by our minds in the same way that a computer runs a program or game. We are the processors.

If a tree falls in a game such as DayZ 15 miles away from where your character is no sound is rendered. It's the same way in this reality.

Lastly, you misunderstood what I was talking about when I brought up perception or rather I did not explain what I mean't thoroughly enough. I'm talking more about how deeply you can *see* reality for what it really is and not get all mixed up emotionally or attached to your physical condition.

Dwelling in the past and keeping up on worldly news, getting yourself involved with it emotionally like most do, and upset about global warming among other things is creating your own hell.

Someone that doesn't get stuck in worldly news or the past and does not perceive most things as a problem because they see things on a deeper level will be better off and suffer less.

Are you a closet Buddhist or something?

 

[Sovern]

Quantum physics can come up with some very colorful scenarios but that doesn't make them all true ... all the physical processes we observe could be simulations of actual processes or they could be actual processes but given that to date the laws and behavior of the universe align with our physical models the burden of proof is on the simulation crowd to prove they aren't real ... Quantum physics also results in lots of thought experiments (like Schrodinger's Cat) but that doesn't mean that in reality a cat could exist in a state neither living or dead or that the end state could be in question until the observation locks it down

The more exotic the theory and the more assumptions that are built into it, the higher the burden of proof becomes for those proponents of the theory ... I would say that the burden of proof currently favors those who think we live in the Desert of the Real and not those that think we reside in the Matrix

The laws and behavior of the universe according to how our minds create them through the 5 senses

The burden of proof is another man made concept so who's to say that the burden of proof is even proper in a situation like this? I personally feel as though the burden of proof is on those that believe that we are not in a simulation as that means reality is much more complex and would require a much bigger explanation in terms of theory.

That means that we would need explanations of how things seem to be set up the way they are and why the universe is set up in a way to create intelligent life that are extremely complicated such as us humans.

The way I see things in reality is that it all seems programmed to me, any other explanation seems illogical and goes back to the Big Bang Theory in which "everything came from nothing", the most illogical of all theories in my opinion.

 

[kbrickley]

The laws and behavior of the universe according to how our minds create them through the 5 senses

The burden of proof is another man made concept so who's to say that the burden of proof is even proper in a situation like this? I personally feel as though the burden of proof is on those that believe that we are not in a simulation as that means reality is much more complex and would require a much bigger explanation in terms of theory.

That means that we would need explanations of how things seem to be set up the way they are and why the universe is set up in a way to create intelligent life that are extremely complicated such as us humans.

The way I see things in reality is that it all seems programmed to me, any other explanation seems illogical and goes back to the Big Bang Theory in which "everything came from nothing", the most illogical of all theories in my opinion.

We'll just have to agree to disagree ... although we do have a word for people who have unusual interpretations of reality (schizophrenia ) ... also, the modern theories of the big bang wouldn't phrase it as something from nothing as much as everything at the same time (one idea I have heard proposed to explain that is using the multi-verse theory where two universes snagged on each other and our universe was formed by the collision) ... if one is going to invalidate the data from our five senses then you don't leave much wiggle room for negotiation so I will leave you as Brahma dreaming our universe as he sleeps on a cosmic lotus blossom

 

[Sovern]

We'll just have to agree to disagree ... although we do have a word for people who have unusual interpretations of reality (schizophrenia ) ... also, the modern theories of the big bang wouldn't phrase it as something from nothing as much as everything at the same time (one idea I have heard proposed to explain that is using the multi-verse theory where two universes snagged on each other and our universe was formed by the collision) ... if one is going to invalidate the data from our five senses then you don't leave much wiggle room for negotiation so I will leave you as Brahma dreaming our universe as he sleeps on a cosmic lotus blossom

No need to try to insult me.

My interpretation is far from unusual. Look into the book My Big ToE written by a NASA physicist and the philosophy of Buddhism specifically Zen.

If one has an open mind they might be able to go to a place beyond the 5 senses in the here and the now.

You should also look into near death experiences, astral projection, and so on and the evidence that is out there for past lives/reincarnation.

Buddhism has been talking about these things for thousands of years way before science proved them to be true. (I'm talking about the scientific theory's that we know now as being true a long with extraterrestrial life.).

Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean they have to be close minded.

What I find humorous is that you call me schizo because I believe that there's a good chance that we live in a simulation yet you go on talking about theory's of multiple universes when we can't even put a man on mars yet nor solve all of the problems with this crazy world that we live in. We have no idea of whats out there, all of it is slightly better than a guess.

Also the big bang does state that everything came from nothing.

Postulating on what happened "when everything came from nothing" is more schizo sounding to me especially since we will never know exactly what happened in the beginning (if there ever was even such thing as a beginning.) and it will always be just a guess given the label of a theory.

To me it makes more sense The Big Bang is when the simulation booted up so to speak and humans had to come up with some theory to explain for it hence the theory that everything came from nothing.

What do you view reality as? Everything that just *happens* randomly with no order that came from an explosion that created something out of nothing? Cells that bond to certain cells and create intelligent life over a period of time with all of these physical laws that we are still learning about just coming about from an explosion from "nothing" that we still can't explain?

To me that sounds way more far fetched than believing that it;s possible that we live in a simulation and our consciousness renders everything/creates it.

 

[kbrickley]

No need to try to insult me.

My interpretation is far from unusual. Look into the book My Big ToE written by a NASA physicist and the philosophy of Buddhism specifically Zen.

If one has an open mind they might be able to go to a place beyond the 5 senses in the here and the now.

You should also look into near death experiences, astral projection, and so on and the evidence that is out there for past lives/reincarnation.

Buddhism has been talking about these things for thousands of years way before science proved them to be true. (I'm talking about the scientific theory's that we know now as being true a long with extraterrestrial life.).

Just because one is an atheist doesn't mean they have to be close minded.

What I find humorous is that you call me schizo because I believe that there's a good chance that we live in a simulation yet you go on talking about theory's of multiple universes when we can't even put a man on mars yet nor solve all of the problems with this crazy world that we live in. We have no idea of whats out there, all of it is slightly better than a guess.

Also the big bang does state that everything came from nothing.

Postulating on what happened "when everything came from nothing" is more schizo sounding to me especially since we will never know exactly what happened in the beginning (if there ever was even such thing as a beginning.) and it will always be just a guess given the label of a theory.

To me it makes more sense The Big Bang is when the simulation booted up so to speak and humans had to come up with some theory to explain for it hence the theory that everything came from nothing.

What do you view reality as? Everything that just *happens* randomly with no order that came from an explosion that created something out of nothing? Cells that bond to certain cells and create intelligent life over a period of time with all of these physical laws that we are still learning about just coming about from an explosion from "nothing" that we still can't explain?

To me that sounds way more far fetched than believing that it;s possible that we live in a simulation and our consciousness renders everything/creates it.

I wasn't trying to insult you that why used the tongue emoticon to indicate a level of sarcasm ... next time I will include smilies as well ... my wife is Buddhist so I understand Buddhism very well (well enough to know that they don't really care what others believe, especially about the origins or the nature of the Universe ... also, since Hinduism predates Buddhism by more than 1000 years the Brahman reference to the dreamer on the Lutus is perfectly reasonable (if the value of the theory is based on its age) but there is no need to debate religion as that is far too off topic for this discussion

As I noted, we will agree to disagree, the supporting facts of The Big Bang are impossible to debate with someone who doesn't believe we can accurately interpret the radioactive residue of the universe so there is little point debating that ... suffice it to say I disagree with the simulation model (nor am I an Atheist either) ... I also believe that there is almost certainly alien life somewhere but I am uncertain if it is within any reasonable distance to our own planet where we will discover it before we develop the means to travel beyond our own solar system physically ... Namaste

 

[Sovern]

I wasn't trying to insult you that why used the tongue emoticon to indicate a level of sarcasm ... next time I will include smilies as well ... my wife is Buddhist so I understand Buddhism very well (well enough to know that they don't really care what others believe, especially about the origins or the nature of the Universe ... also, since Hinduism predates Buddhism by more than 1000 years the Brahman reference to the dreamer on the Lutus is perfectly reasonable (if the value of the theory is based on its age) but there is no need to debate religion as that is far too off topic for this discussion

As I noted, we will agree to disagree, the supporting facts of The Big Bang are impossible to debate with someone who doesn't believe we can accurately interpret the radioactive residue of the universe so there is little point debating that ... suffice it to say I disagree with the simulation model (nor am I an Atheist either) ... I also believe that there is almost certainly alien life somewhere but I am uncertain if it is within any reasonable distance to our own planet where we will discover it before we develop the means to travel beyond our own solar system physically ... Namaste

All the best to you as well but Buddhism is not a religion, more of a philosophy.

I don't have a problem with the big bang just a problem with the fact that it tries to say that something came out of nothing.

 

[cbutters]

Sovern... you mention that atoms can't be created or destroyed, but isn't that ignoring the fact that atoms indeed can be smashed / destroyed?

Also, if minds are generating the reality around us. Does that mean that the universe and everything in it including the people around you are the abstractions of your own mind? Am I just an abstraction generated from your mind? If not, how is conflict resolution maintained if my way of generating the universe in my mind is different than the way my mind generates the universe?

Curious to your response to these thoughts I had while reading your post, since you do seem to think much differently than others.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Also, if minds are generating the reality around us. Does that mean that the universe and everything in it including the people around you are the abstractions of your own mind? Am I just an abstraction generated from your mind? If not, how is conflict resolution maintained if my way of generating the universe in my mind is different than the way my mind generates the universe?

Curious to your response to these thoughts I had while reading your post, since you do seem to think much differently than others.

I've pondered the same thing myself. Mind creates our own reality. We could just be a tiny little jellyfish style goo anywhere, and our mind is creating this 'reality' that we know. Could be similar to The Matrix, too. Just something feeding us this reality.

Usually when I drink too much shitty beer, though. It's fun to think about, but it's not the real reality. I like thinking of 'possible' but far from 'probable' things. From religion to reality to whatever else, but it's still fictional. Just 'what-if' stuff from the fantasy land. Yes, I can BS that stuff big time, but that's all it is. BS.

 

[bob616]

There are already 87 types of aliens living here...according to a neighbor of my mom's, a true believer so don't try to dissuade him or his wife and their three children also true believers.

I apologize for the problems we are facing in this world. I will try to think more positively and hence fix all our problems and make this universe a utopia...see any difference yet?

Maybe the problem is California has been mostly taken over by the aliens so quite possibly I'm one of them without realizing it and hence not being human my brain is not controlling the universe, oh well.

 

[Red Falcon]

but but

we are God's special children

Who's to say he hasn't created infinitely more planets with other creatures and their own set of rules, laws, physics, etc.
Just imagine a hell-dimension where good is evil and evil is good!

 

[Trepidati0n]

Who's to say he hasn't created infinitely more planets with other creatures and their own set of rules, laws, physics, etc.
Just imagine a hell-dimension where good is evil and evil is good!

Or where bacon tastes like Tofu!

 

[kbrickley]

Or where bacon tastes like Tofu!

Get thee behind me Satan

 

[Red Falcon]

Or where bacon tastes like Tofu!

"Hell" is only a word.
Reality is very different!

 

[blade52x]

There are way too many conditions that need to be met for life to even survive and reproduce, let alone inadvertently arise by pure chance.
Spontaneous generation is a faith that materialists must adhere to.

It only needs to happen once. If you think about it, we have the technology to spread life throughout our solar system. Whether or not it can survive is another story. But if a meteor was the catalyst to life for early Earth, we could maybe just as easily send rovers filled with miniature ecosystems all over the solar system and "see what happens". Heck, we may have already contaminated Mars. And this contamination could blow up and thrive, and end up terraforming Mars over millions of years.

 

[ob1]

wait, isn't the proper response something like:

the universe wastes nothing, we are all just collections of star dust trying to observe other collections of star dust...

something like that, alien or not.

 

[Kueller]

Every time I see this thread title on the news page I read it as:

NSA Promises 'Definitive Evidence' of Alien Life by 2025

I can't help but thinking "Yep, they would be the ones with the signals intercept experience and computer power to find the interstellar chatter we've been missing."

 

[DyNamiC.]

All the best to you as well but Buddhism is not a religion, more of a philosophy.

I don't have a problem with the big bang just a problem with the fact that it tries to say that something came out of nothing.

"Buddhism is a religion to about 300 million people around the world."