UFO Conjecture(s)

Thursday, November 07, 2013

Atheists and UFOs

Atheists can’t offer the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis as the causa principia of UFOs, and here’s why…

Aside from our long-expressed view here that the Earth is an inconsequential planet in a wayward Solar System on the fringe of the Milky Way (our galaxy), a planet that doesn’t call attention to itself, amongst the other wonders of the known Universe, and therefore hardly a beacon for alien cultures advanced enough to know that.

But the primary reason that atheists can’t proffer the Extraterrestrial Hypothesis for UFOs derives from the fact [sic] that evolution is unique to this planet, this Earth.

There are no other planets, anywhere in the Universe, -- or so infinitesimally few – with the environmental factors like Earth’s, that evolution, as it took place here, could not have happened there.

Human beings, as Darwin’s evolutionary string provides, would not appear anywhere outside of Earth. It’s a virtual impossibility.

However, one can posit that a Divine Presence or Intelligent, Sentient Force or Entity, may have seeded the Universe with beings selected by the Imaginative Mind of that Omniscient Being, or God, if you will.

But atheists find such a view to be anathema.

(I haven’t brought up the difficulty of alien peoples visiting Earth in the droves that UFO reports seem to indicate. The economies for such travels would be staggering, let alone the sheer numbers of such travelers, mincing their way to the Earth, rather than visiting more luxurious venues or elementally fecund locales. Earth has no minerals or elements unique to it.)

This leaves us with the Multiverse scenario, bringing it with it like caveats for interstellar travel, or the Time-Travel option, which is an acceptable hypothetical explanation not foreign to current thinking of theoretical physicists.

But those UFO explanations are thin and not fleshed out by most in the UFO community.

The ETH is the simpleton view that UFO mavens can hunker down with, and not strain a neurological muscle.

But it’s based upon premises that make intellectuals cringe.



  • I think the best response to the subject matter of this post was coined by Robert Anton Wilson who said that if anyone tells you they know what’s going on, they are full of crap.
    Beyond this the stereotype of the skeptic as being firmly lodged in science is not necessarily so as well as the fact that there are no eternal truths in science as yesterday's theory is tomorrow’s revisionism. As far as God is concerned, the best we can do is find similarities by comparison as some skeptics \ scientists have lately found pantheism as an acceptable alternative placeholder term when posed toward the incommensurable. If information =energy= self organisation, do we call this intelligence? Long ago and far away Einstein proved to science’s satisfaction that there are no solid objects, which of course harkens back to Neo-Platonic philosophy, that nothing that seems obvious to the senses can be entirely trusted in the aggregate sum in that context. So when someone tells me they are an atheist, I ask them what God they don’t think is possible out of the Heinz 57 varieties of that term’s Rorschach blot. I don’t think there is a conclusive argument to anything in terms of a testable proof outside of self verification thats compared to whatever definition we are stuc k in. I think the universe is likely a mirror to compare relationships to determine for both as to what they may be, and simply put, I think its more art than science that for both is seeking a purpose that answers the question of the impetus of becoming in a process that defies logic itself.
    Notice I said likely rather than “is”.
    The issue of God, of extraterrestrials, of parallel universes, unfortunately everything we know is borrowed from elsewhere in our little goldfish bowl, and appearing out of nowhere, on a ball of rock in infinite space, to appear only to vanish again..well, its no wonder its all made up as we go along as an improvisation of self comforting panaceas, from that new high definition television to extraterrestrials to skepticism to fundamentalism. You have to know a great deal to know comparatively very little, that is to say..to be self skeptical and to self verify everything as best we can where the markers are. Personally, I think that sort of opportunity is an enormous gift, otherwise we would all be bored fixated in amber for all eternity.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 07, 2013  

  • continued..
    Simply put it has taken me over one half of a century to figure out that what I don't know..I do not know..Does that make me a stoic? More importantly what I do know is contingent upon what I don't know. LOL..and most times I can't find my glasses or where I put the can opener.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Thursday, November 07, 2013  

  • I'd probably describe myself as an atheist/agnostic of sorts and while I'm not wholly convinced by the E.T hypothesis as the most probable explanation for UFOs I certainly haven't any difficulties imagining there are numerous,scores,countless forms of life out there in other parts of the cosmos.Sentient,intelligent beings aswell.

    True,the only instance we know of of life life flourishing,of evolution occuring is here on earth but it seems to that were only starting to discover planets even if we've yet to discover any that truly seem habitable.The potential planets that are out there means it's a fair bet there's others very like earth.There's bound to be planets with a very different history and uttery alien conditions yet life has managed to grab a hold.

    And there again what do you mean by an atheist ??

    For myself,to answer Bruce's question to atheists.I don't see any great need (beyond the human attempt to a comprehend the reality he finds himself in) for a creatorj,conjuruor,supreme being 'main man' type to have set it all in motion.

    And particularly I don't see a point of the abrahamic variety,if he's the supreme then we're up the incredibly fast flowing white water creek in a papier-mache corocle with out a paddle or lifebelt :)

    I'm a sceptic,I always have been even long before it became such a dirty word with overtones of government stooge or an agent against free thought but it's a healthy approach to take and I look at things with an initially neautral eye accepting that while a fantastic.gmagical,explanation is always a possibility the simpleist,more mundane and rational one is more likely.All without an invocation or cry of faith to the one true diety - Occum.lol.

    By Blogger ~~theBADpenny~~, at Thursday, November 07, 2013  

  • "There are no other planets, anywhere in the Universe, -- or so infinitesimally few – with the environmental factors like Earth’s, that evolution, as it took place here, could not have happened there."

    Nonsense. That statement cannot be proved true, it can only be BELIEVED true. Simple rules of probability, however, would seem to say the exact opposite.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, November 10, 2013  

  • You would do well to read The Grand Design by Hawking/Mlodinow before throwing around he word nonsense, P.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, November 10, 2013  

  • I love how you presume that I haven't. Reading a book doesn't make that book true.

    Less than 100 years ago, the prevailing wisdom in Science was that our galaxy was all there was. Now, we know much differently. I don't care if the chance is 1 in a billion, that would still be quite a few Earth-like planets.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, November 10, 2013  

  • “[In the Universe it may be that] Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare. Some would say it has yet to occur on Earth.”
    ― Stephen Hawking

    Primitive life is still life, and would still be subject to the rules of evolution and selection.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, November 10, 2013  

  • Parakletos...

    Don't continue to be a simpleton.

    You're better than that, or so I thought.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, November 10, 2013  

  • You used Hawking to support a claim that Hawking wouldn't even support. And you call me the simpleton?

    You can view properties as bundles, and you can make all sorts of claims that your religious indoctrination probably doesn't want to accept. For example, that you will return -- somewhere in the Universe. It just depends on how finicky you are with those properties.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Sunday, November 10, 2013  

  • Read the book, Parakletos....and quit using the internet for your education.

    It's killing your intelligence.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Sunday, November 10, 2013  

  • I am a fan of Hawking, as well as Krauss and other astrotheorists. They are not a special breed of natural philosophers who are guaranteed correct. Science doesn't have such icons of faith.

    I have read the book. It was pompous and arrogant for you to suggest otherwise. If there is a particular passage from the book that you think bolsters your point, that is up to you to provide here. Not me.

    You seem to have it in your head that science is united in its conclusions on these things, and the truth is far from it. And all we must do to learn is read from the hands of the latest scientific-minded gurus.

    Your quip about the internet is just more nonsense designed to mislead and misdirect -- as YOU are wont to do. The internet, as any tool, can be used effectively or ineffectively.

    If we were to compare library sizes, I am quite confident that I have you beat with my PDF collection. That doesn't make my opinions more valid or invalid. It's irrelevant. It's just a way for men to brag.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, November 11, 2013  

  • PDFs? Oh my...

    Quantum and M-Theory are bogus and I'm planning an item here to make my point(s).

    You really need to join a book club as the internet has warped your mind.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, November 11, 2013  

  • Hawking has reversed on other matters, including information retrieval from black holes. As he approaches the great abyss, it's not surprising that he keeps such possibilities open. It's still just a guess.

    I 'got into it' with an atheist who absolutely didn't like my idea of bundles of properties coming back. He said that it required 'too much faith'. It doesn't require any faith at all. I know that if I shake that snow-globe enough times, I will eventually have an exactly identical scene. It turns out, as an atheist, he believes in his OWN miraculous birth -- one which nature, for some odd reason, could never replicate.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, November 11, 2013  

  • It doesn't surprise me that you would mock PDFs...for the reasons I already mentioned. If the aim is to learn from the INFORMATION, the PDF is every bit as informative as a hard-copy book. Don't be such a Luddite.

    By Blogger Parakletos, at Monday, November 11, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home