Yes. The Lucy Ball Show has now traveled 50 light years, and there are about 1,400 stars within the volume. Perhaps some where among those 1,400 systems are a beings have a good laugh at our expense right now. I just hope they can withhold judgement long enough for the Carol Burnett Show to reach them.
Oh that's nothing, there are higher dimensional cultures for whom a favorite pastime is playing "Incarnate as an Earthling!"
But the history of evolution on earth is incomplete. We only see as far as we ourselves got. Your idea of the "top predator" is based on low intelligence creatures. But as we evolve and increase our intelligence, that can change. Even here on earth, as the most intelligent creature, humans are beginning to understand the concept of protecting the environment, and we are even starting to understand the value of leaving a particular environment alone to develop without our interference. I mean, we don't do it yet for the most part, but we are starting to develop the concept, intellectually. And we are starting to do it. National Parks and wilderness areas are an example of this. And we even have groups of people fighting for the "rights" to survival of small worms and insects and other seemingly insignificant species -at least from our perspective. So it is likely that as intelligence evolves or exists at a higher level, this very important idea does become more significant. It seems to me likely that a much higher intelligence than our own -regardless of whether it's a higher intelligence that evolved within the universe, one that exists beyond the universe, or even one that is intrinsically an element of the universe- will most likely find it important to leave us and our environment alone in order to allow us to either crash and burn or develop into something significant on our own terms. I think the higher the intelligence, the most likely it is that it will protect us and what we got here in this corner of the galaxy from outside interference, rather than seek to eat us or squash us. If this is indeed the case, then our biggest worry would be if we find an intelligence that is higher than our own in terms of technology, but not that much more evolved than our own in other ways in which intelligence might be measured.
Now that's an interesting hypothesis. A novel approach to the Fermi paradox. There are highly evolved species, but they stay as far away from us as they can in order to not accidentally squash us like ants...I like it The solar system as an intergalactic nature protection area
True enough, but that just made me think of this: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ieW__BbjHU"]Mr. Deity and the Virgin (Episode One, Season Three) - YouTube[/ame]
You should be enamored with him, his work on black holes has mostly turned out to be correct and his changed the way we think about the big bang singularity...twice! I voted no for afterlife because there is no evidence to support it, I trust the Scientific Method as a means to show the best understanding of these types of issues. Simply put - there is no evidence of life after death.
That depends on what's proposed. The idea of life after death being somehow analagous to life as it is before death probably deserves a "no" more than an "I don't know" at least in the way we use these expressions on a daily basis. Otherwise anything anyone says ever might as well get an "I'm not sure" response.
Yeah, my first response on seeing the question was "What do you mean by life after death?" But I'm not sure that even traditional views of life after death, whether that be ascending to heaven/descending to hell or traveling through bardo states on the way to reincarnation would really be analagous to life before death, except in the sense that there's some kernel of identity that survives the transition.
What I meant was any surviving consciesness. Whether you believe in the soul or resurrected body being in heaven, hell or just being an intelligent ghost trapped on earth.
Funny after all the poll responses, all the comments and views 25 people say definately no life after death and 25 say either yes or there is a possibilty of life after death.
Well, not sure and there's a possibility can technically be the same but are very different ways of framing a poll question.
What also is kind of interesting is that now at least 27 people who obviously don't believe in god come on a religous and spituality thread.
I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in this forum, in my experience most of the people who use it are atheist/agnostic.
No, I haven't spent much time on the forum and I probably would have to describe myself as an agnostic.I know some people are sure one way or the other but I just don't know.I do hope there is some kind life after death. I wonder if atheists hope the're wrong.
Well not really, even immortality would get old after a while, it would be cool at first, to see how we develop as a world and be there for historical events, but eventually this world would get too crowded with people being born and nobody dying. And who knows, if we are just energy then we will live for ever, like we did before we were born, we just won’t have a conscience of living.
You seem to be implying atheists are sure. Which at least matches with your statement that you don't spend much time on this forum... Are you an agnostic atheist or agnostic theist btw? Or agnostic apatheist is another possibility I guess.
Excuse my ignorance but you will have to explain the differences. I put more faith if any in EVP's (electronic voice phenomena) recorded by ghost hunters than any church doctrine.I certainly wouldn't say either way if there is a god or not.
Agnosticism = a position on whether it is possible to know something. Atheism/Theism go up and down the line of "whether a god exists or not". Agnosticism goes up and down a line expressing whether it is possible to know something or not. So an agnostic atheist is someone who says "whether or not the existence of god is knowable is something I can't answer, but as far as I can tell he doesn't exist/I don't put any belief into his existence". There are also positive atheists (as in making a claim), anti-theists and many other positions. Putting faith in EVPs is... well... at least you said "if any" so I'm hopeful you don't really believe that nonsense.
Wait, is it possible to be an agnostic theist? You can't believe that it's impossible to know whether God exists, but at the same time believe that God does exist. Or is it the difference between knowledge and belief?
Sure, it's possible to be an agnostic theist. You could say "I cannot possibly know whether or not god exists, but I believe he does nonetheless." Though most theists probably claim that you can know god through prayer, the holy spirit, the bible, complexity in nature, etc.