The aims of Aliens - Only for believers

@GHOST phil,

GHOST wrote:

Yes, my theory is exposed to critical thinkers, but I think we can leave out the bit about Aliens actually existing, why have two threads discussing the exact same thing when the point of this thread is to give theories and examine those given, not to analyze the underlying factor that makes the theories possible, that's why I named it "Only for believers" so if you don't believe or want to argue the existance of Aliens, I will say this as nicely as possible: "Buzz off" (not directing that at anyone in particular). I really don't mind people who don't believe, having a go at this for what ever reason, but they may not go out of the bounds stated.

This is sad. This is a Philosophy Forum, not Conspiracy Central (go there if you want to discuss conspiracy theories without critical objections found here). I see lots of arguing for "aliens" in this thread, but they must not be the type of aliens that you are looking to discuss, so you want everyone to get F-bombed. You obviously do not want to discuss aliens, but rather your narrow conceptions of them. Honestly (as I have argued previously in this very thread), I believe that there are life form out there that exist some where other than earth; therefore, they are aliens. Their aims? Who knows? As far as I am concerned, no one here on earth even knows what these beings would look like much less what their goals and conspiracies would be.

Mod Edit - BAD WORD removed from quote!

@Theaetetus,

And honestly, why do they have to be sentient? They could be alien microbes that are airborne and so small that they are undetectable, that really screw around with the cerebellum Laughing

.

I've got this wacky idea that perhaps there's a correlation between experiencing alien phenomenon and eating unhealthy food like McDonalds.

Pulled a piece of info off the internet that illustrates my point.

"We have some evidence now that shows that if you mess around with the gut microbes, you mess around with brain chemistry in major ways"32. - http://biopolitika.ru/E.coliandbiopolitics.doc

But that wouldn't be interesting would it;), so it's automatically dismissed as not being plausible. I mean, what if the phenomenon people experience as alien abduction is not the noumenon, but the phenomenon was just the only was for the aliens to interact in our environment which is objective to us. Can't rule it out right, 'specially if you can't rule out your own theories, Ghost. Smile

@Holiday20310401,

Its actually interesting to see the amount of people that actually believe in aliens. I believe in them. They've discovered bacteria on mars so why can't there be life elsewhere. Now that whole theory where aliens put there own D.N.A to make us more intelligent is going a far. Although I've always wondered why we have mitochondria. If there is actually a reason why we have mitochondria you can pm me.

@MITech,

MITech, in biology you learn that mitochondria are essential for cellular respiration.

@Holiday20310401,

I understand that anyone can get involved and give their oppinion, I am merely asking that we don't argue whether or not they exist, use my other thread and stick to the topic at hand!

Theaetetus wrote:

You obviously do not want to discuss aliens, but rather your narrow conceptions of them.

No, I don't really want to discuss my theory, I want to hear what other people think, the ideas of others in direct line with the topic at hand, not their critisizism, which is off topic!

Zetherin wrote:

And just to clarify, even if I did decide to be a believer someday, your explanation has absolutely no logical backing whatsoever; it's as if you utterly made it up. You didn't even make an effort to support your claims in the least. You expect people to ignore this, believe your imaginative story, and then relay theories to support it? It's almost as if you created this thread in an effort to prove that aliens exist since you haven't even taken the trouble of attempting to prove your own theory. That seems almost insane to me, and it is most definitely not how this forum operates.

As, I said I'm not here to prove anything, my other thread is for that, I'm here to give and hear ideas. I don't need evidence of any sort, we are PHILOSIPHIZING! Is that insane now?

Theaetetus wrote:

Their aims? Who knows? As far as I am concerned, no one here on earth even knows what these beings would look like much less what their goals and conspiracies would be.

Now your getting some where!

@GHOST phil,

The problem Ghost, is that your theories have no backing. You need to show us your theory makes sense because the evidence suggests it, not because it makes sense in your head.

And I have written some stuff which has yet to get any reply or criticism, so that may be why everybody thinks you're not wanting to philosophize. Sorry for any misconceptions. Smile

@Holiday20310401,

Well how the hell do you expect me to prove that?? The whole basis of my theory revolves around deception and lies, hence me not even trying to prove it...and most of you don't seem to focused on any part of my theory other than the existance of Aliens!

@GHOST phil,

Any theory can be created that revolves around deception and lies. Especially one that cannot be proven empirically.

The reason why everyone is focused on the existence of aliens, is because that easily (by light years) the most coherent part of your theory. Not to mention, the most fundamental. Without any evidence though, the rest may as well be vacuous rhetoric.

@GHOST phil,

I'm a non-believer and I know you told the non-believers to "Narfle the Garthok!" But I still curious about a couple of things

1.) I was curious how advance the techonlogy is for these space aliens, I mean just imagine you're cruising along in the void of space and your destination is Earth whamo all of the sudden you're in the Kupier belt that would be like driving a Dodge Viper into a mine feild, I don't care how many horsepower you have under your hood, you're ride is going to be torn up. Even a minute spec of dust in space can do major damage.

2.) According to UFOlogist the space ships that visit Earth are becoming more advanced, won't it be more logical that they less advance. Take this anology for instance: transportation in America, first the natives walked everywhere say 2 to 3 mph, then horses were introduced into America, they can travel at 40 mph, then train and cars around 60 mph then jets at 5000 mph. Say if 5000 mph would be the equalent of the 99.99% C then the first generation of space-vehicles would travel .06 % the speed of light and couple of gerentions down the line the spaceships can travel near the speed of light so the later more advance space aliens would arrive to Earth first!

3.) One theory about traveling through vast distances in the universe is that it can be achieved by using black holes.

A)What happens if your space ship flies into the gamma burst coming from the black hole - won't that fry your motherboard?

B.) Black Holes either grow or vanish, so there can be no accurate road maps
I.) if the black hole is constantly sucking in mater that means the worm hole it created is growing too, that would be like missing your exit, you are going to overshoot your destination by a few hundred light years
II.) if is by itself it spewing out gamma radiation and is shrinking then the worm and it created would be shrinking too, that would be like getting off at the wrong eixt of a major highway and having to take the country road you'll, that would be a total waste too,
in either case you're a few hundred light years off and your course and your space ship will run out of fuel and your grand kids will arrive there before you will.

@GHOST phil,

This is not a "theory", by any definition. Nice fiction though, maybe someone could base a screenplay around it, "Men in Black 3"...

Shouldn't this be in the creative writing section? :perplexed:

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

This is not a "theory", by any definition. Nice fiction though, maybe someone could base a screenplay around it, "Men in Black 3"...

Shouldn't this be in the creative writing section? :perplexed:

At some point, sending threads to the creative writing is an insult to creative writing. GHOST's theory is definitely "creative writing," whatever that may mean...but the rest of the thread should not be banished to that realm.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

Any theory can be created that revolves around deception and lies. Especially one that cannot be proven empirically. A case in point is the theory of [Macro]Evolution, as many on this site would insist, since no one has observed it.

The reason why everyone is focused on the existence of aliens, is because that easily (by light years) the most coherent part of your theory. Not to mention, the most fundamental. Without any evidence though, the rest may as well be vacuous rhetoric.

It could be said that the very existence of comets (as they have been explained by "science") is just a theory. In fact, by your own reasoning, it could be said that comets do not exist. (That is, if none of them are currently viewable thru telescopes.) We have pictures of comets, you say? Well, we also have pictures of UFOs. You could even say that comets are alien ships, and there goes your comet theory.

The point is you don't need "empirical" evidence to have a viable theory. We don't need to wait until a comet comes into view to talk about them, nor "aliens" for that matter, because we don't really know if comets are one or the other anyway.

Ghost, you have a working theory here. What you need to do now is support your claims with data. Don't worry about what science might say, because science admits that it can be wrong. And don't worry about how reliable others may think your data is, because efforts to conceal data is useful information, when it comes to supporting hypotheses. If I were you I would stick with your opening theory, and just expand it out...give instances where similar things have occured, for example.

Have at it, kid!

@Pusyphus,

Thanks, Pusyphus. You see what I'm getting at, and I'm just interested in what other people think, and other people might like to hear what I think, as I have said, we are not he to debate things, this is purely out of interest and to help me along, give me some new ideas, just open some news doors....and if people can please wait a few days, I will be home, I will have a fast connection again, and I will be examining NASA footage, amungst other things, and I will be debating the existance of Aliens....do you skeptics have the patience?

@neapolitan,

neapolitan wrote:

I'm a non-believer and I know you told the non-believers to "Narfle the Garthok!"

hah, Coneheads! Whats funny about that is Dan Akroyd is a UFO enthusiast. He's spoken about them in documentaries and stuff. I believe he even had a sci-fi show that got canceled before it even aired.

@Theaetetus,

Theaetetus wrote:

At some point, sending threads to the creative writing is an insult to creative writing. GHOST's theory is definitely "creative writing," whatever that may mean...but the rest of the thread should not be banished to that realm.

Doesn't belong in the creative writing section, because nothing sent to the creative writing realm is supposed to be 'banished'.

Pusyphus wrote:

It could be said that the very existence of comets (as they have been explained by "science") is just a theory. In fact, by your own reasoning, it could be said that comets do not exist. (That is, if none of them are currently viewable thru telescopes.) We have pictures of comets, you say? Well, we also have pictures of UFOs. You could even say that comets are alien ships, and there goes your comet theory.

Except that everybody can see the comet for a few days before it's hits the Earth or skims by. And we have real, footage of comets, and we can study them live; unlike UFO's which mysteriously last long enough for a photo.

Pusyphus wrote:

The point is you don't need "empirical" evidence to have a viable theory.

Yes we do, thus the distinction between a theory and a hypothesis.

Pusyphus wrote:

We don't need to wait until a comet comes into view to talk about them, nor "aliens"

Sure.

Pusyphus wrote:

Ghost, you have a working theory here. What you need to do now is support your claims with data.

I agree with Pusyphus, we need some information to back up the hypothesis to make it a theory that can actually be refuted rationally.

Pusyphus wrote:

Don't worry about what science might say, because science admits that it can be wrong.

Science is mainly theory, so yeah it can be wrong.

@Pusyphus,

Thats the rub ..people have seen and have shown footage of unbelievable sightings..thats the word unbelievable, how can anyone believe that what they see is not of this world..its toooo big a step to acknowledge..Admit it you cant admit its possible ??

@GHOST phil,

Here Ghost, let me give you some hints. Suppose I have a theory to explain why human life originated on earth.

I could hypothesize that, prior to our existence, there was a human-like civilization that sought to make earth its home. Let's call them the Lord. I could also hypothesize that the Lord had technology to manipulate the environment, as well as engineer different species of life. I could also say that the Lord could only breathe methane. And finally, I could hypothesize that the Lord preferred the interior open space within the earth, because, among other things, it made travel and work much easier.

My conclusion would be that the Lord created humans and plants to become part of an autonomous, three-way, symbiotic relationship. The plants were designed to take carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, the humans were designed to take oxygen and produce methane, in simple terms. And, the Lord had been originally created to take methane and produce petroleum.

Now, I have a working theory, because there is evidence to support all of this. Do I need to prove how/why the Lord got here? No, because it is beyond the scope of my argument (theory). Do I need to know how life itself originated? Nope. We can already agree that life exists. How it happened is moot. Do I need to explain how we got here? No, my theory intends to explain why we are here. Of course, scrutinizing this theory may lead to reasoning for an explanation of how we got here. But, as you may agree, how is not nearly as important as why.

How I support my hypotheses is relevant, though.

So, I could say that the Lord looks similar to us because there is a book that has been published throughout the world that is said to be dictated by the Lord. This book clearly states that we look like the Lord...human-like.

I can support the claim that the Lord has the technology to manipulate the environment and genetically engineer new species, by observing the fact that humans already possess that ability. It isn't a stretch of the mind to assume that the engineer possesses at least as much technology as the engineered, at all times. Note that I do not need to explain how self-replicating lifeforms came about. All we need to know is that they indeed exist.

I could use the fact that we need a combustible molecule (Oxygen) to survive, as a way to support the idea that the Lord also needs a combustible molecule (Methane) to survive. It's simply an indication.

And finally, I could support the claim that the Lord lives in the interior of the hollow earth, by stating that the laws of physics dictate that spinning objects tend to be hollow (hurricanes, asteroid belts, etc). I don't need to explain why this is covered up by our govt/military/media complex, because that's a whole other discussion. It does follow that I would be relying on such a cover-up to support my theory, however. But, it's not very difficult to show that agencies like the government have covered things up in the past. (Take the JFK mess, for example.)

See what I'm getting at?

@Pusyphus,

Pusyphus wrote:

My conclusion would be that the Lord created humans and plants to become part of an autonomous, three-way, symbiotic relationship. The plants were designed to take carbon dioxide and produce oxygen, the humans were designed to take oxygen and produce methane, in simple terms. And, the Lord had been originally created to take methane and produce petroleum.

You said that the lord requires methane. So firstly, why does it need to create plant life when plant life is required for heterotrophs to even evolve. And why would we have plant life that has symbiotic relationships with fungi and microbes that allow chemical reactions that use methane, depleting it.

Pusyphus wrote:

Now, I have a working theory, because there is evidence to support all of this. Do I need to prove how/why the Lord got here? No, because it is beyond the scope of my argument (theory).

Well yes it actually does matter, because it has to correspond to what is possible.

Pusyphus wrote:

I can support the claim that the Lord has the technology to manipulate the environment and genetically engineer new species, by observing the fact that humans already possess that ability. It isn't a stretch of the mind to assume that the engineer possesses at least as much technology as the engineered, at all times. Note that I do not need to explain how self-replicating lifeforms came about. All we need to know is that they indeed exist.

Yes but we need to understand how they can exist to know their capabilities and capacity of their intents.

@Holiday20310401,

Holiday20310401 wrote:

You said that the lord requires methane. So firstly, why does it need to create plant life when plant life is required for heterotrophs to even evolve. And why would we have plant life that has symbiotic relationships with fungi and microbes that allow chemical reactions that use methane, depleting it.

I'm pretty sure he was just making up an example....

MY EVIDENCE -

1.Existance of Aliens: All the footage (inluding NASA footage) and wittnesses.
2.Genetic Manipulation: The lack of fossils filling in the links for the human species.
3.Their Studies: I'm just guessing, which is the best anyone can do here, but since they havn't invaded Earth and I cannot really see a reason they would, not that intelligent beings would condone such violence, I think they are merely studying us.
4.Underground Infastructure: Area 51 is a good example, it obviously goes undeground, plus there are numerous other secret, underground locations around the world. I think we can all acknowledge the fact that the Government does keep secrets, which just makes it all the more likely.

There, that's just about all the reasoning behind my theory....*criticism shields now engaged*

@GHOST phil,

WHAT NASA FOOTAGE? You keep mentioning it, but have yet to offer any of it.

By the way, just because there is a lack of fossils is meaningless. That just means that the condition to fossilize material was lacking, not that there was nothing there to potentially fossilize.

Philosophy Forum

The aims of Aliens - Only for believers

Quick Links

My Account

able2know