Are we Alone?

[Bo$$]

100% chance of aliens, questionable chance of intelligence or ever finding them

 

[St.Alia-Of-The-Knife]

100% chance of aliens, questionable chance of intelligence or ever finding them

definately true, since billions of stars are out there, but it would take a very long time, even at relativistic speeds, to reach them

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

back in the day i saw what could only have been aliens having a brew in a motorway service station after a rave, they seemed peacefull

 

[Jaffakeik]

I believe in outer space aliens or whatever they calls,but they are definetly not liek in the movies green and big eyes.Its just a producer imagination.

 

[Jack Doph]

Who says it's not us that are alien?

 

[Jaffakeik]

because we cant say to ourselves that we ar ealiens it would be inhuman

 

[Jack Doph]

because we cant say to ourselves that we ar ealiens it would be inhuman

Perhaps.
I was simply implying the logic of the statement "I think, therefore I am".
Can you guarantee or even prove that "we are"?
Our existence in what we know, is merely conjecture at best, to those that know us not

/philosophy

 

[Jaffakeik]

i dont care about philosophy because i think its peace of crap, like GOD is crap aswell I cant trust to things I dont see.
And i will say i havent seen aliens aswell but i think its more realistic than GOd itself.

 

[Jack Doph]

i dont care about philosophy because i think its peace of crap, like GOD is crap aswell I cant trust to things I dont see.
And i will say i havent seen aliens aswell but i think its more realistic than GOd itself.

So.. why are you partaking a poser of mere proposal, when such realities have not been either proven or disproven beyond any reasonable doubt?
I dare say you're philosophising out of sheer curiosity, though partaking of same nonetheless

One's opinions are of great value - whether correct or not. Any input relevant to the subject at hand, is input welcomed, as this broadens the horizon of thinking to one and all
You don't have to agree - but anything said, is source for further investigation. It's how us humans learn and advance

 

[Jaffakeik]

i wont make any argues with anyone because anyone got they own brains and can think what he wants .I am thinking like i will, and you like you will and thats fine for me.

 

[Jack Doph]

My point exactly

 

[Velvet Wafer]

In the time, of the existence of Earth, there were 22 intelligent Species, that visited this Planet. Star Trek was an underestimation how crazy its up there

God is not crap per se, he is just not an Entity, or Person.. or knows he exists himself... God is the smallest particle,much smaller than even quarks. Its THE material, which everything is constructed from. one particle with the most different forms you can imagine.

That what we often think, is God, is the manifestation of the Great Unity... the phenomal ethereal construct, of which each lifeform is a part, even if they wont recognize it. This Unity, can do...literally anything which is small enough (electrical signals work good, for example). a thought or wish, to be more exact, that a single person in this collective has, can manifest itself, into the real world, if the person concentrates enough. This can be anything from hate to love, to understanding.

Of course, you cant spawn physical things,like a car or so... but you can change quarks in the brains of other people, for example... which will make them do certain things according to what you wished. Tried it many times before, and its not a 100% chance to do that... but when youre good 75% are well within range. especially if the person is weakminded (or youre very strongminded).

 

[digibucc]

do you guys know what 100% means? if we are being honest with ourselves, and the
limits of our knowledge, you simply cannot say it is definite. it's just plain false.

i mean, i have no doubt there is life out there - no doubt. but 100% means that you know,
and that there is no chance of it being false - and none of us can say that truthfully. as much
as you believe, there is no proof, therefore 100% is inaccurate at best, and rather simply untrue.

as far as philosophy - which i enjoy greatly - i think therefore i am, and "are we alien" ...
i don't see those being one and the same. one is seeking proof of existence, the other
is using semantics to make a senseless statement seem heady.

philosophically speaking, the fact that we can question if we are, means we are. we can't
guarantee anything about our existence, except that we do exist, in one form or another.

as arciks alluded to, alien is a human, english language construct that describes life that is
foreign to us and our planet. even if we came from outer-space, that would not make us aliens.

@velvet, i have a hard time responding to you, as you make statements that sound factual but
cannot be proven. not to say they are by default untrue - but you like others simply sound
positive that you are correct, without anything other than your opinions to back it up.

not saying i don't have my opinions, but in my mind facts are more important.

we are the only... vs has to be ... life out there.

why does it always have to be one or the other? this is not something we have
a definite answer to, that is simply not possible at this point in time.

 

[theJesus]

I am 100% sure that all the employees at the Mexican restaurant down the road are aliens.

 

[wolf]

I believe that one would be naive to assume we are the only intelligent life in the universe, given the broad diversity of life on our planet alone, and the amount of possibilities we havent seen and probably cant even fathom yet...

With a universe so vast, and billions apon billions of solar systems, there has to be a shitload of life out there IMO.

 

[Lionheart]

The universe is a giant brain of consciousness derp!

 

[Jack Doph]

do you guys know what 100% means? if we are being honest with ourselves, and the
limits of our knowledge, you simply cannot say it is definite. it's just plain false.

as far as philosophy - which i enjoy greatly - i think therefore i am, and "are we alien" ...
i don't see those being one and the same. one is seeking proof of existence, the other
is using semantics to make a senseless statement seem heady.

philosophically speaking, the fact that we can question if we are, means we are. we can't
guarantee anything about our existence, except that we do exist, in one form or another.

as arciks alluded to, alien is a human, english language construct that describes life that is
foreign to us and our planet. even if we came from outer-space, that would not make us aliens.

Thus, you agree with my point, though you contradict your own statement by wanting to see proof.
Nothing can ever be proven, unless life, in and of itself, as a sentient being, can be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt.
There is no right and wrong here, as such - merely that we are who we are, because this is what we perceive ourselves to be.
This may be argued until the cows come home, but the point remains.
To prove life 'out there' (which surely must exist), we must first prove life exists here, outside our own perception of reality

 

[digibucc]

Thus, you agree with my point, though you contradict your own statement by wanting to see proof.
Nothing can ever be proven, unless life, in and of itself, as a sentient being, can be proven, beyond any reasonable doubt.
There are no right and wrong here, as such - merely that we are who we are, because this is what we perceive ourselves to be.
This may be argued until the cows come home, but the point remains.
To prove life 'out there' (which surely must exist), we must first prove life exists here, outside our own perception of reality

your point is not hard to see, and my statement was again, philosophical in nature.
philosophy is a useful tool, but it is not our best chance at understanding the world.

philosophy is a personal thing, or at most shared between a small group of like-minded
people. when you introduce it as you have, to a wide variety of people at different places
in life and thought, you are simply making a convoluted statement that means nothing.

i guess my point is, the philosophical and scientific worlds are separate, and if you give
philosophy the trust you give to science, you are bound to simply float away from reality,
as philosophy is not provable, as you said yourself. it may make you sound deep, but you
really aren't saying much of anything at this point.

 

[freaksavior]

Not reading the 4 pages. Sue me.

I am a believer in Creation and that there is one God who created us, but I also believe there is something else out there.
God created humans, animals, and everything on earth, why stop there?

 

[theJesus]

Not reading the 4 pages. Sue me.

I am a believer in Creation and that there is one God who created us, but I also believe there is something else out there.
God created humans, animals, and everything on earth, why stop there?

Because he/she/it was afraid their next creation might be even worse than us.

 

[Jack Doph]

your point is not hard to see, and my statement was again, philosophical in nature.
philosophy is a useful tool, but it is not our best chance at understanding the world.

philosophy is a personal thing, or at most shared between a small group of like-minded
people. when you introduce it as you have, to a wide variety of people at different places
in life and thought, you are simply making a convoluted statement that means nothing.

i guess my point is, the philosophical and scientific worlds are separate, and if you give
philosophy the trust you give to science, you are bound to simply float away from reality,
as philosophy is not provable, as you said yourself. it may make you sound deep, but you
really aren't saying much of anything at this point.

Perhaps then, you've missed the point after all.
It's not about me making any kind of deep statements.
You're referring to facts, such as they are, yet offer none of your own in defense.
I offer no facts at all - in fact, I question the reality as we know it and how perceived facts might actually apply here.
Point being: life 'out there' is sure to exist, but I cannot prove this beyond reasonable doubt.
Life here exists, but I cannot prove this beyond any reasonable doubt either. After all, my view of existence is unlikely to be identical to your view of the same. Who's to say either, or both, of us are correct?
How do you establish such a fact as being a true fact, when all you can rely on is another's opinion, which then dilutes the very view either, or both, of us might have?
People tend to view matters as being a fact, when it most resembles their own idea of being true. Anything beyond that, becomes questionable and arguable - even if it is true.

There can never be true facts - as you said yourself.
So.. the argument becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of redundancy.
Failure to investigate or argue the intrinsic value of matters in general, though, is the true tragedy and would most likely cause the loss of learning that has seen us humans advance so greatly compared to animal life.
So.. if life 'out there' exists, would they not also query the same matters, to whatever degree?
Or am I not making sense (hey, it's very late after all)?
XD

 

[pantherx12]

Point being: life 'out there' is sure to exist, but I cannot prove this beyond reasonable doubt.

Sure you can, look around.

Not sure if it's real? Doesn't matter, at the end of the day all that matters is your own perception of reality.

 

[BinaryMage]

Sure you can, look around.

Not sure if it's real? Doesn't matter, at the end of the day all that matters is your own perception of reality.

What reality? All you have is a perception of what you believe to be reality. Reality itself is only an idea; it can never exist.

 

[pantherx12]

What reality? All you have is a perception of what you believe to be reality. Reality itself is only an idea; it can never exist.

If your going to be like that, define existence in a world without reality.

Or hell, the definition of existence already has it really, it's objective.

Thus the classic quote " I think therefore I am"

It's as simple as that, I perceive that something is around me, that I am a human. It's my reality.

That's a good thing about real in the broad sense.




I started thinking about questions like this waaaay to early in my life.

 

[Jack Doph]

If your going to be like that, define existence in a world without reality.

Or hell, the definition of existence already has it really, it's objective.

Thus the classic quote " I think therefore I am"

It's as simple as that, I perceive that something is around me, that I am a human. It's my reality.

That's a good thing about real in the broad sense.




I started thinking about questions like this waaaay to early in my life.

I hear ya.
Hence the reason I tend to stay away from these sorts of semi- or quasi-philosophical meanderings, intriguing as the may be.