What's more likely, we were created or aliens exist?

[Kalis]

Common sense theory? I won't say which side im on....yet.

There is no common sense theory that posits a creator, it is specifically religious and religions generally have bugger all to do with common sense in their foundation myths.

[Kalis]

You mean god as creator is religious concept?

A creator is a religious concept, full stop. Sometimes sci-fi replaces the god(s) with aliens, but they are just reworkings of religious concepts.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

Why does a theory have to exist? I asked a simple question based in logic, why bring religion into it?

If no theory about an action exists outside of a religious context, then discussing that action will logically involve religion. You brought religion into it by bringing up a scenario that does not exist outside of religion. Its akin to wanting to discuss a virgin birth and then being surprised when people bring up Jesus.

[May90]

Perhaps aliens exist, and we were created by them?

Otherwise, it is impossible to say, since we neither know anything about our artificial creation, nor do we know in what conditions can life develop, so we have no idea whether aliens can and likely to exist.

[Fascinate]

If no theory about an action exists outside of a religious context, then discussing that action will logically involve religion. You brought religion into it by bringing up a scenario that does not exist outside of religion. Its akin to wanting to discuss a virgin birth and then being surprised when people bring up Jesus.

I don't see it that way at all. Imagine a society with no religious texts but the evidence pointed to a creator, is it guaranteed religion would pop up out of nothing? Or would people just go on with life accepting they had a creator.

[Deleted]

Jesus also came back from the dead.

Once again, we cannot do this 2000+ years later.

Once again, alien technology.

The facts are there guys, we just don't want to admit it. If we tried to understand and harness this technology we might be colonising Mars right now.

[Kalis]

I don't see it that way at all. Imagine a society with no religious texts but the evidence pointed to a creator, is it guaranteed religion would pop up out of nothing? Or would people just go on with life accepting they had a creator.

Except that society does not exist, so you are taking a religious concept and then transplanting it onto a hypothetical society, whilst trying to claim that the concept is not religious.

The society we live in does not point to a creator, we have to make that claim independently of evidence and the ones who make that claim are relgions and sci-fi using rewritten religious concepts, ergo a creator is a religious concept to us.

[shadowmouse]

@Fascinate Don't be disingenuous.

I suppose there is a chance that you are a non-native speaker and don't realize the connotations of the word you used, but you've placed creation in contrast to the one other option that doesn't involve a supernatural agency. Since the question asks which is more likely -- creation or aliens -- you've ruled out aliens creating us. A Matrix like answer is a non-answer because it doesn't explain how that Matrix came to be. Leprechauns created us? Much the same problem. Why are there leprechauns, and if a leprechaun has sufficient power to create a world full of life, haven't you just made up another word for a god?

What your question specifically avoids is the possibility that life arose as many scientists speculate that it did, on its own and neither through the agency of gods, godly leprechauns, or aliens.

[Fascinate]

Except that society does not exist, so you are taking a religious concept and then transplanting it onto a hypothetical society, whilst trying to claim that the concept is not religious.

The society we live in does not point to a creator, we have to make that claim independently of evidence and the ones who make that claim are relgions and sci-fi using rewritten religious concepts, ergo a creator is a religious concept to us.

Not sure what you are getting at here tbh. To you its impossible for society to exist without religion?

[Enthusiastic Steward]

I don't see it that way at all. Imagine a society with no religious texts but the evidence pointed to a creator, is it guaranteed religion would pop up out of nothing? Or would people just go on with life accepting they had a creator.

Now you're creating a hypothetical scenario about a fictitious world to discuss whether or not religion needs to exist. That's nice. The discussion you initially started regarding being created or whether or not aliens exist (the idea that it has to be one or the other by itself fits right in with common religious ideology, "created in God's own image" and whatnot) is taking place in this world, where the idea of a creator DOES have inherent religious overtones. I simply don't believe that you chose to ask if people thought humanity was simply created without anticipating any religious discussion.

[Kalis]

Not sure what you are getting at here tbh. To you its impossible for society to exist without religion?

I never said that, or anything like it.

You are taking what is a religious concept (a creator) and claiming it is not religious by invoking some imaginary society where religion does not exist, but where evidence points to a creator. That does not stop a creator being a religious concept, it just means you are trying to take religion out of a fundamentally religious concept.

[Deleted]

I still think it's very possible this planet was visited by some type of intelligence an extremely long time ago and it contributed to the way life currently is in minor or major aspects.

Though I'd never refer to or present this as fact.

do you believe it is essential to our development to have reached what it has ? if so, did this visiting race ever get visited to allow them to advance so far ? and if so...etc...

Shaka, When the Walls Fell.

[Fascinate]

A creator is not a religious concept by itself, you are wrong in thinking so. Baffling, tbh.

[Wildtree]

now THIS is bait.

Not necessarily meant as one.
We've to entertain the fact that some followers of God are indeed no strangers to science.
Which somehow destroys the "ultimate" argument against religion.
Fact however, the Jesuit order is pretty engaged in science, and we owe them how we count time, particularly days.
Our calendar is based on the Julian calendar. But that was not correct, hence it was changed and tuned correctly.
That was done (by the order of a pope) by the Jesuits. And we still use it ever since, it's called the Gregorian calendar.
See, science (Astrophysics) combined with religion.

Anyway, while we cannot fully debunk the deity idea, it's not looking good for it either.
As we scientifically progress, the outlook for proof of existence thereof looks ever more unlikely.

I find the OP answer a bit confusing.
We were created no matter what. That has never ever been questioned.
Whether we were created naturally through an evolutionary process, or artificially shaped by a deity is the thousands of years old question.
My bet lies with the evolution.

- - - Updated - - -

A creator is not a religious concept by itself, you are wrong in thinking so. Baffling, tbh.

No...
A creator is always faith based, period.
Since there's no proof, and never was any proof, any human ever in history was only able to believe in a creator one way or another.

[Kalis]

A creator is not a religious concept by itself, you are wrong in thinking so. Baffling, tbh.

Then name one theory which posits a creator that is not either religious or based on religious concepts. And use real world examples, not hypothetical societies.

[Dhrizzle]

Occam's razor applies here, what are your thoughts?

Why does Occam's razor have to do with this?

Anyway it's much more likely that aliens exist, even if the chance of life emerging is incredibly small the size of the universe makes it a near certainty.

[Fascinate]

Then name one theory which posits a creator that is not either religious or based on religious concepts. And use real world examples, not hypothetical societies.

Why am i not allowed to do so? What if a world existed that had clear physical evidence that it was created, are you 100% sure religions would spring up from this? Remember, there is no life advice here simply the knowledge that they were created.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

A creator is not a religious concept by itself, you are wrong in thinking so. Baffling, tbh.

"A creator does not have to be a religious concept by itself" is what you are trying to get at. And that's true. It doesn't have to be. But, in the world in which you are attempting to have this discussion, it is. I asked you to provide an actual, real-world example of a concept of a creator which is not based in religion. As much as you don't want to admit it, the two are linked in contemporary discourse.

Do they HAVE to be? No. But it would have to mean that aliens exist, because you'd have to leave this planet to find an example.

Why am i not allowed to do so? What if a world existed that had clear physical evidence that it was created, are you 100% sure religions would spring up from this? Remember, there is no life advice here simply the knowledge that they were created.

Because its an entirely different discussion.

"Can the concept of a creator exist outside of religious context" is not the same as your original question. Of course it can, in your fictional society. But you're not asking your fictional society. You're asking humans on earth, where no such example exists.

[Granyala]

Judging by the scope of the Universe (google Hubble XDF and be crushed) I'd say that life on other planets out there is pretty much a given (though strictly mathematically speaking still an unknown).
Due to the vast distances though, even if he had FTL travel, we would never be able to make contact within our infinitesimal lifespans.

As for whether we have been created or not: That is an unknown too. Micro-evolution within a given species has been proven, macro evolution that crosses species boundaries is a THEORY which we most likely will never be able to prove or disprove as ,once again, our pitifully short lifespans prevent us from observing stuff over the time frames needed for theoretical macro evolution.

To sum it up: both are mathematically spoken unknowns so we cannot gauge which one would be more likely. We simply do not have enough data to do so.
It remains in the region of faith for now.

[Dhrizzle]

Then name one theory which posits a creator that is not either religious or based on religious concepts. And use real world examples, not hypothetical societies.

Ancient Astronaut and Simulated Universe theories are the most obvious ones.