Will we ever find life on other planets?

[GrandMoffTarkin]

Could life exist on other planets? That seems to be the question on the minds of millions today, especially governments sending probes and rockets to distant planets. If so called simple life forms were to be found on these planets, the theories of evolution and the spontaneous generation of life would be, in the eyes of most people, confirmed. But oh how big that little word “if” can be. at times.

Once again we come face to face with that old question: Which came first - the chicken or the egg? Is evolution the process by which you came to be? Are you really the end product of the amorous activity of love-sick amoebae? Did your “ancestors” somehow have their beginnings in a murky, primordial swamp seething with bubbling gasses of methane and ammonia? Was there an ageless process by which, through billions of aeons, molecules marvelously metamorphosed into man? That, simply put, is what evolution teaches.

I’m not saying that those who propose such theories are not intelligent people. They are. Evolution is the product of intelligent minds. Nevertheless, there is such a thing as intellectual foolishness too.

Evolution presupposes accidental creation, without overall design or purpose. Yet, to carry such reasoning into human-scale experiences, we all know that explosions in print shops do not produce encyclopedias. Dumping bricks from a truck, over and over, will not ever produce a modern split-level suburban home, complete with a three car garage and a double oven in the kitchen. Accidents simply cannot create symmetry, beauty and harmony.

The same principle can be applied to this beautiful planet which is so utterly different from the inhospitable surfaces of our galactic neighbours. The earth’s awesome, interwoven webs of plants, animal and human life forms - with myriads of interdependent living relationships between them - did not come about in a stumbling, willy-nilly, capricious manner. Logic alone should tell us that a creative, inventive mind far superior to the human mind is responsible for all this.

Getting back to the barren landscapes of distant planets: Will future experiments make it appear there might be certain processes or preconditions which might lead towards life? Sure they will and the “road to life” will definitely seem to be left open. However, there isn’t a thimbleful of concrete proof to be found anywhere - on any planet.

It’s funny, but man desperately seems to feel the need to discover that he is the result of chance and evolution, rather than of a special, unique creation in an orderly, systematic universe in which the earth is the focal point of attention.

Most today accept the evolutionary belief because it is crammed into unsuspecting little minds at the earliest age. Evolution is a “belief” or a “faith”, that we come from lower animal life, rather than the designed product from the highest life form of all - an eternal creating God.

Evolutionists try to explain the existence of life without a life-giver, the sustaining of the laws of nature and the universe without a sustainer. In short, they try to explain that there is no God who is worthy of their worship. They’re almost like the ancient pagans in one way, because with this approach, all that is left to worship is their own selves and their environment.

People as a whole don’t want God interfering in their daily lives. They don’t want God’s laws directing and regulating how they live, how they think, and what kind of person they should be. They don’t want God’s laws regulating their marriage and their relationships with other people in the business world. They don’t want God interferring in their private affairs, in their personal habits, or in their choices or appetites. They don’t want a consciousness of God, an awareness of their responsibility towards that God, or a realization of the possibility of punishment should they break God’s laws.

They would like to think they are in a universe where there is no great higher power who is going to call them to an accounting for those things done during their lifetime. Thus, it’s “natural” to believe in, or to want to believe in, evolution. Evolution has fertile soil in which to grow because of human nature which the Bible defines as enmity against God (Rom.8:7).

So, no matter how many chemical compounds or precursors of life are present and found on other planets, and no matter how much theorizing this leads to about how life might have existed there once, I’ll say it again with supreme confidence: “No life will be found.”

[Nietzsche]

The sheer vastness of the universe, as the sheer vast amount of time it's been around proves that, without any shadow of a doubt, due to the laws of numbers, there is much more life outside of us. Intelligent life as well. Will we ever see it, or each other? Odds are low, because of the aforementioned vastness. But it's out there.

[Project 2501]

If there is a such thing as "God" it is the end result of evolution, not the originator of it. Those who deride evolution as a "theory" misinterpret the scientific usage of the term. From a scientific standpoint, gravity is a theory, as is relativity. They are also facts, because there exists a myriad of experimental data backing them up. The same applies to evolution; if the Earth were young, as creationists claim, the idea of evolution on a scale necessary to produce humanity would be laughable, but every discipline of science, from geology to astrophysics, supports the idea of a universe billions of years in age. One also forgets that the life cycles of primordial cells occur on a far faster timescale than those of most modern plants and animals, thus making evolution from base self-replicating molecules not only possible, but probable given the time frame we have to work with. You also fail to recognize that amoebae reproduce asexually.

Evolution presupposes accidental creation, without overall design or purpose.

No legitimate scientific theory purports to say whether there exists an overall design or purpose, because this is not within the purview of science. Evolution can be reconciled with the idea of a creator God, if one wishes to accept that said God is either negligent, incompetent or sadistic. Evolution is a vicious process which results in the painful deaths of a great many creatures and by its nature favors the oppression of the weak.

The earth’s awesome, interwoven webs of plants, animal and human life forms - with myriads of interdependent living relationships between them - did not come about in a stumbling, willy-nilly, capricious manner. Logic alone should tell us that a creative, inventive mind far superior to the human mind is responsible for all this.

This is a logical non sequitur. You are correct that the current state of affairs did not come about by random chance, as evolution is not a purely random process; it is a process that relies on whether a given set of genes is a good fit for their environment. But simply because there is order in the universe does not mean that it did not spring from disorder; indeed, time, and thus causality, only began with the Big Bang. There is no way to tell whether a God was responsible for that or not, but there is no reason to assume that this is the case, and even supposing there is a God, there is no reason to believe that he/she/it feels the need to interfere with the universe.

It’s funny, but man desperately seems to feel the need to discover that he is the result of chance and evolution, rather than of a special, unique creation in an orderly, systematic universe in which the earth is the focal point of attention.

Based on your post, I would say the exact opposite; man has a need to feel special. Scientists are human, too; given the amount of crap that goes on in the world, don't you think they'd love to believe that some magical sky pixie would make it all right in the end? But the way of science requires those who study it to go where the facts lead them.

People as a whole don’t want God interfering in their daily lives. They don’t want God’s laws directing and regulating how they live, how they think, and what kind of person they should be. They don’t want God’s laws regulating their marriage and their relationships with other people in the business world. They don’t want God interferring in their private affairs, in their personal habits, or in their choices or appetites. They don’t want a consciousness of God, an awareness of their responsibility towards that God, or a realization of the possibility of punishment should they break God’s laws.

In many cases, especially in America, you're wrong; over 90% of the world subscribes to some form of religious belief. The people who reject the idea of a God for personal reasons, however, do it for mostly the same ones you describe. A God watching over humanity is the ultimate invasion of privacy, the perfect, unshakable surveillance society; there is no reason to want this kind of interference in one's personal life, as the idea of an omnipotent God obliterates the concept of free will. Further, a God that cannot be observed by the instruments of science is an apt vehicle for those who seek social control backed by threats of eternal damnation.

It must be noted that quantum mechanics has already demolished the idea of local determinism; it is not possible to simultaneously know with certainty the position and the velocity of an electron. An omnipotent God must be able to know all things, including this, but science has proven that it cannot be done. Therefore, God, if he/she/it exists, is not in fact omnipotent, because the laws of physics do not allow for it to be so. One might say that God is able to defy logic, but if this is the case, has one not already conceded that it is possible for order to spring from disorder?

So, no matter how many chemical compounds or precursors of life are present and found on other planets, and no matter how much theorizing this leads to about how life might have existed there once, I’ll say it again with supreme confidence: “No life will be found.”

Given the sheer size of the universe, it is actually quite probable that there exists sentient life on other planets; the conceit that man is "created in the image of God" is purely an artifact of that selfish and atavistic desire to pass on one's genes. Due to the various difficulties with FTL travel, it is also quite probable that we may never meet any other sentient life besides ourselves, but their existence is a near-certainty; far more certain, in fact, than the idea of an unobservable supreme intelligence controlling everything.

[Bobslob]

Originally Posted by gerudoman

Evolution presupposes accidental creation, without overall design or purpose. Yet, to carry such reasoning into human-scale experiences, we all know that explosions in print shops do not produce encyclopedias. Dumping bricks from a truck, over and over, will not ever produce a modern split-level suburban home, complete with a three car garage and a double oven in the kitchen. Accidents simply cannot create symmetry, beauty and harmony.

Modern scientific theories don't address the question. After having eliminated such things as "final causes," it would be silly to fault modern science for doing what is strictly outside of its purview. There is a place for philosophy and natural theology, which can put some weight on scientific theories, but strictly speaking the mechanism of natural selection and the evolutionary theory ought not to exclude a divine creator, although they don't necessitate one either.

The same principle can be applied to this beautiful planet which is so utterly different from the inhospitable surfaces of our galactic neighbours. The earth’s awesome, interwoven webs of plants, animal and human life forms - with myriads of interdependent living relationships between them - did not come about in a stumbling, willy-nilly, capricious manner. Logic alone should tell us that a creative, inventive mind far superior to the human mind is responsible for all this.

While I happen to believe, as you do, that all of creation is the result of a divine creator and artificer, I disagree that this argument holds much power. Design arguments based on the complexity of biological life have been seriously weakened since the discovery of the process of natural selection and its attendant theory, evolution.

Getting back to the barren landscapes of distant planets: Will future experiments make it appear there might be certain processes or preconditions which might lead towards life? Sure they will and the “road to life” will definitely seem to be left open. However, there isn’t a thimbleful of concrete proof to be found anywhere - on any planet.

It is unclear how the possibility of life could be an argument against theism-- but any fact can be an argument for anything in a person's hands. Some people try to argue that it is impossible that life could arise on its own, and in this way argue for a divine creator. On the other hand, authors of "fine-tuning" arguments do the exact opposite-- they argue that the existence of certain advantageous and necessary conditions of life are evidence of design. If you take a step back and look at this from the broad view, you will be able to see that this is not necessarily such a problematic issue to deal with.

It’s funny, but man desperately seems to feel the need to discover that he is the result of chance and evolution, rather than of a special, unique creation in an orderly, systematic universe in which the earth is the focal point of attention.

Unfortunately, many people find it difficult to accept such a proposition. But I think we ought to give people the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Most today accept the evolutionary belief because it is crammed into unsuspecting little minds at the earliest age. Evolution is a “belief” or a “faith”, that we come from lower animal life, rather than the designed product from the highest life form of all - an eternal creating God.

Evolution seems to be corroborated by fossil evidence, and is a good way to explain common genetic material as well as the absolute rock-bottom biological law-- natural selection. It seems to me to be reasonable to accept.

On the other hand, I hold that this does not exclude divine agency in the world.

Evolutionists try to explain the existence of life without a life-giver, the sustaining of the laws of nature and the universe without a sustainer. In short, they try to explain that there is no God who is worthy of their worship. They’re almost like the ancient pagans in one way, because with this approach, all that is left to worship is their own selves and their environment.

I had an interesting discussion with one of my roommates earlier on the question of the laws of nature. That might be a more interesting and fruitful path to take than the argument from design by means of biological complexity.

People as a whole don’t want God interfering in their daily lives. They don’t want God’s laws directing and regulating how they live, how they think, and what kind of person they should be. They don’t want God’s laws regulating their marriage and their relationships with other people in the business world. They don’t want God interferring in their private affairs, in their personal habits, or in their choices or appetites. They don’t want a consciousness of God, an awareness of their responsibility towards that God, or a realization of the possibility of punishment should they break God’s laws.

This is regardless of evolution. Many believing Christians-- myself included-- have balked at the idea of dedicating one's life wholly to God. Thankfully, the gentle divine pedagogy will lead one from the sterility of selfishness and double-mindedness to the fullness of life if one applies oneself in genuine seeking for His aid. The gospel message remains radical for anyone who has ears to hear-- the problem is hearing it without complacency!

So, no matter how many chemical compounds or precursors of life are present and found on other planets, and no matter how much theorizing this leads to about how life might have existed there once, I’ll say it again with supreme confidence: “No life will be found.”

There is no reason why there ought not to be life on other planets. If God is who we say He is then perhaps He has decided to create life in even more beautiful and varied ways than we can imagine.

[Cody]

From a biblical standpoint, something to think about is that it doesn't mention the nonexistence of aliens. It describes the origins of humanity, but there's nothing to say that the God who made the Earth would/could not have other planets created with life forms of their own. If he's omnipresent/omnipotent/omnietcetera enough to look after every little ant or whatever, it stand to reason that he could watch over other species or even other humans on other planets too.

[GrandMoffTarkin]

The Bible does not say if there is life on other planets. It simply says that God created the heavens and earth and put man on it. But this silence on the subject does not require that earth is the only place with life on it. But then again, this doesn't mean there is life out there, either.
Let me propose some reasons why I believe there is no life on other planets. Now, I should tell you that these reasons are simply exercises in biblical theology.
The Bible says there is one Trinitarian God. Jesus was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8), second person of the Trinity, and died for our sins (Romans 5; 1 Pet. 2:24). If, there were other beings on other planets that have sinned, then they would need a redeemer. God would have to die for them as well.(1)
Only God can forgive sins. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), is forever a man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:17, 21) and died for the sins of people here on earth (Rom. 5:8). Therefore, I conclude that the only members left in the Trinity to die for the sins of another race would be the Father and the Holy Spirit. But this doesn't seem credible since the focus of the Trinitarian effort in this world has been for the Father to elect a people (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33), the Son to redeem them (John 6:39; 17:9,24; Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24), and the Holy Spirit to fill, guide, and indwell them (Acts 4:29-31; John 16:13; Rom. 8:9-14). The focus of their effort has been this world and the redemption of mankind, not anywhere else.
Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer? I think this question can be answered by the Bible where it says that creation is groaning, waiting for its redemption at the return of Christ (Rom. 8:22). That would mean that all of creation was affected by the fall. When Adam sinned, the ground was cursed and death entered the world. If that is so, then any other beings out there that were made in God's image, would have fallen too since they would be part of creation.(2) I don't see how they could escape the effect of the fall. They would be sinners too and need a redeemer. Then they would fall under the first objection above.
Third, there are only two options available to explain our existence. Creation and evolution. I have studied the theory of evolution and do not believe it is a viable option to explain how we got here. I do not accept evolution for two reasons: The Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did not evolve. Second, the problems of spontaneous life formation are so immense that it is impossible. Also, missing links abound. The fossil record is spotty at best. DNA mutation theory is insufficient to account for life form development.

[Verrick]

How can we find something that doesn't exist? What proof is there of extraterrestrial life?

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by gerudoman

The Bible does not say if there is life on other planets. It simply says that God created the heavens and earth and put man on it. But this silence on the subject does not require that earth is the only place with life on it. But then again, this doesn't mean there is life out there, either.
Let me propose some reasons why I believe there is no life on other planets. Now, I should tell you that these reasons are simply exercises in biblical theology.
The Bible says there is one Trinitarian God. Jesus was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8), second person of the Trinity, and died for our sins (Romans 5; 1 Pet. 2:24). If, there were other beings on other planets that have sinned, then they would need a redeemer. God would have to die for them as well.(1)
Only God can forgive sins. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), is forever a man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:17, 21) and died for the sins of people here on earth (Rom. 5:8). Therefore, I conclude that the only members left in the Trinity to die for the sins of another race would be the Father and the Holy Spirit. But this doesn't seem credible since the focus of the Trinitarian effort in this world has been for the Father to elect a people (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33), the Son to redeem them (John 6:39; 17:9,24; Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24), and the Holy Spirit to fill, guide, and indwell them (Acts 4:29-31; John 16:13; Rom. 8:9-14). The focus of their effort has been this world and the redemption of mankind, not anywhere else.
Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer? I think this question can be answered by the Bible where it says that creation is groaning, waiting for its redemption at the return of Christ (Rom. 8:22). That would mean that all of creation was affected by the fall. When Adam sinned, the ground was cursed and death entered the world. If that is so, then any other beings out there that were made in God's image, would have fallen too since they would be part of creation.(2) I don't see how they could escape the effect of the fall. They would be sinners too and need a redeemer. Then they would fall under the first objection above.
Third, there are only two options available to explain our existence. Creation and evolution. I have studied the theory of evolution and do not believe it is a viable option to explain how we got here. I do not accept evolution for two reasons: The Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did not evolve. Second, the problems of spontaneous life formation are so immense that it is impossible. Also, missing links abound. The fossil record is spotty at best. DNA mutation theory is insufficient to account for life form development.

Evolution of gypsy Endogenous Retrovirus in the Drosophila obscura Species Group -- V et al. 17 (8): 1185 -- Molecular Biology and Evolution
The Chimp Genome Reveals A Retroviral Invasion In Primate Evolution
http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v29/n4/abs/ng775.html
http://genomebiology.com/content/pdf...eviews1017.pdf

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Rhalen

How can we find something that doesn't exist? What proof is there of extraterrestrial life?

Numbers. Think of the vastness of the universe. 13.5 Billion years old. There are, at a conservative estimate, ten million, billion planets. How can you tell me that, with that number & sheer amount of time, there isn't some sort of recognizable life on another planet?

[Bobslob]

Originally Posted by gerudoman

The Bible says there is one Trinitarian God. Jesus was God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8), second person of the Trinity, and died for our sins (Romans 5; 1 Pet. 2:24). If, there were other beings on other planets that have sinned, then they would need a redeemer. God would have to die for them as well.(1)

Granted, this is only if they have sinned. Perhaps they made good on the deal which our ancestors botched.

Only God can forgive sins. Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14; Col. 2:9), is forever a man (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 7:17, 21) and died for the sins of people here on earth (Rom. 5:8). Therefore, I conclude that the only members left in the Trinity to die for the sins of another race would be the Father and the Holy Spirit. But this doesn't seem credible since the focus of the Trinitarian effort in this world has been for the Father to elect a people (Luke 18:7; Rom. 8:33), the Son to redeem them (John 6:39; 17:9,24; Rom. 5:8; 1 Pet. 2:24), and the Holy Spirit to fill, guide, and indwell them (Acts 4:29-31; John 16:13; Rom. 8:9-14). The focus of their effort has been this world and the redemption of mankind, not anywhere else.

Since God's inner life is unknowable to us unless He reveals it to us, it is insufficient to say that "the focus of their effort has been this world" and not anywhere else. Unless God actually reveals to us that He is not doing anything else on other planets, then it will remain unknown to us.

The other problem is that your theory assumes the absolute necessity of suffering and death in order for redemption. God, not being constrained by any necessity outside of Himself, is not constrained by absolute necessity to effect the work of redemption in such a way either.

Second, if there were life on other planets, would it be possible that they never sinned and don't need a redeemer? I think this question can be answered by the Bible where it says that creation is groaning, waiting for its redemption at the return of Christ (Rom. 8:22). That would mean that all of creation was affected by the fall. When Adam sinned, the ground was cursed and death entered the world. If that is so, then any other beings out there that were made in God's image, would have fallen too since they would be part of creation.(2) I don't see how they could escape the effect of the fall. They would be sinners too and need a redeemer. Then they would fall under the first objection above.

It doesn't make sense to suppose that other rational creatures would fall because of another set of rational creatures had fallen. For instance, the fall of the angels did not cause the fall of man. Man's own sin caused the fall of man. It is central to Paul's theology that the human race is in a state of alienation from God due to an original sin-- because we all share in a common ancestor. It cannot be said that two wholly different races of intelligent beings, as in our theorized case, share in the same common ancestor.

Third, there are only two options available to explain our existence. Creation and evolution. I have studied the theory of evolution and do not believe it is a viable option to explain how we got here. I do not accept evolution for two reasons: The Bible says God created life on earth; that means it did not evolve. Second, the problems of spontaneous life formation are so immense that it is impossible. Also, missing links abound. The fossil record is spotty at best. DNA mutation theory is insufficient to account for life form development.

The options of creation and evolution aren't completely exclusive. Some people decide to hold to either/or, but one can equally transcend the divide and go for 'both/and.'

While the Bible does offer a creation account, it is very unclear what exactly the Bible intends to assert actually took place in creation. It seems that the Genesis creation texts-- both of them-- are crafted in such a way as to be targeted to the Jewish audience which would hear them. That is to say, it is a story with definite fundamental truths being asserted, in a narrative context which would be highly accessible to its original audience. The two creation texts clearly bear this out, for they structure the creation story around two different (but not exclusive) theologies. The first story witnesses especially to the orderedness of creation, and its goodness.

If you are interested, I highly recommend Joseph Ratzinger's treatment of Genesis, a book he wrote by the title of, "In the Beginning." You can read some excerpts from it here.

Your objection that, "God created life therefore it did not evolve" is perhaps misguided. It could turn out to be the case that God created life and decided to move it by natural processes, such as evolution. These are not necessarily exclusive categories.

Your second objection, that there are gaps, is true but trivial. There are enough fossils for particular species to make the theory of evolution rational to believe in at least those particular species. It is simply impossible that we will fill up all gaps, because the nature of a historical science like evolution will be limited by the fortuitous preservation and discovery of ancient fossils. But there is sufficient evidence to hold it for many instances, and it is rational to suppose that other 'missing links' (although these missing links are often exaggerated by people trying to debunk evolution) can likewise be explained. If we combine this with other salient facts of biology-- the common genetic material, relations between species, etc.-- then it seems unlikely that any other scientific explanation will be able to come near to the explanatory power of evolution.

-Rob

[Knightmare_63]

Originally Posted by ashliezeldagirl

Actually the real question is, "will life on other planets find us?"

And that's what it all comes down to, untill we gain better technology.

[Liquid Fire]

I'd say the answer is 100% yes but if it'll be in our lifetimes or those of our children who knows.

[Soren 177]

I say we won't find other beings on any other planet since I get my claims from the Bible. We were created uniquely and there's no other living beings in the universe.

[Razekial]

Because of the universe's immense size, and that it expands further even as I type this, I believe it is logical to say that we are not the only life in the universe. It's likely that microbial life is actually relatively common in the universe, and judging from the number of extrasolar planets in space I find it reasonable that intelligent life is also out there.

Will we ever meet such life? Most likely not for a long time. We would require FTL transportation and communication before true searching became an option.

[GDwarf]

The problem is, we can't say if extraterrestrial life is likely or not, because we don't know the probability of it appearing anywhere.


If the odds are 1 in 8, then you'd expect lots of life around every star.

If the odds are 1 in 400 trillion trillion then we could easily be the only life we'll ever meet.

[Bobslob]

Originally Posted by Soren 177

I say we won't find other beings on any other planet since I get my claims from the Bible. We were created uniquely and there's no other living beings in the universe.

This seems like a strange claim, for the Bible asserts the existence of other intelligent beings (e.g., angels).

At best we have an argument from the silence of scripture. But what can we really conclude from that?

-Rob

[Liquid Fire]

Originally Posted by Soren 177

I say we won't find other beings on any other planet since I get my claims from the Bible. We were created uniquely and there's no other living beings in the universe.

Oh please, the bible is man made the universe isn't, the bible can't dictate about something man didn't know about when they wrote it.

There a trillions of stars, and life WILL be on one of those planets but when we'd find them is a mystery because we're so far away and they might not use the same things we use, they could of discovered an entirely different way of life and communication to us, they could just be small bug like creatures, still its life and split second we find it hopefully everyone will just ditch the bible for being a book of dictating crap, moving away from the bible bashing thats a different thread entirely.

[Eternal Paradox]

If the God of the Bible does exist, and that he made life on other planets. There is no reason to believe that he would give the same set of rules to ET's as he would us. So Sin, or forgiveness through a Jesus like figure may not apply to ET's God may have created.

Saying there are no ET's because of the Bible is fallacious because the Bible is the account of Mans relationship with God. Not Gods relationship with ET.

[Nietzsche]

Originally Posted by Eternal Paradox

If the God of the Bible does exist, and that he made life on other planets. There is no reason to believe that he would give the same set of rules to ET's as he would us. So Sin, or forgiveness through a Jesus like figure may not apply to ET's God may have created.

Saying there are no ET's because of the Bible is fallacious because the Bible is the account of Mans relationship with God. Not Gods relationship with ET.

It would be quite interesting that, hundreds, perhaps thousands of years down the line, when we meet a fellow sentientbeing, to see if they share similar religious beliefs. If we don't, then I think both of our civilizations will come to realize that there is no god. If we do...the odds are far, far, far too great to ignore. Even I, who goes by rule of numbers, will admit to that.