The Instigator
daley
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
Christosapologia
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Aliens (Etraterrestrials) Exist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
daley
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/31/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,905 times Debate No: 17714
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

daley

Pro

Aliens do indeed exist; evidence:

(1) The many reported cases of abduction. The reports are too many and without any apparent motive. "One of the earliest studies of abductions found 1,700 claimants, while contested surveys argued that 5–6 percent of the general population might have been abducted.[4]" (http://www.google.com......)

Lies are told for benefit, but rarely if ever do people gain much benefit from such stories. Rather, they are laughed at and even persecuted. Nor are these people crazy: "Mainstream scientists reject claims that the phenomenon literally occurs as reported. However, there is little doubt that many apparently stable persons who report alien abductions believe their experiences were real.[8] As reported in the Harvard University Gazette in 1992, Dr. John Edward Mack investigated over 800 claimed abductees, and "spent countless therapeutic hours with these individuals only to find that what struck him was the 'ordinariness' of the population, including a restaurant owner, several secretaries, a prison guard, college students, a university administrator, and several homemakers ... 'The majority of abductees do not appear to be deluded, confabulating, lying, self-dramatizing, or suffering from a clear mental illness,' he maintained."[9] "While psychopathology is indicated in some isolated alien abduction cases," Stanley Krippner et al. confirmed, "assessment by both clinical examination and standardized tests has shown that, as a group, abduction experients are not different from the general population in term of psychopathology prevalence."[10] Other experts who have argued that abductees' mental health is no better or worse than average include psychologists John Wilson and Rima Laibow, and psychotherapist David Gotlib.[11]" (http://www.google.com......)

(2) UFO sightings. Very reputable sources including government officials and millirary commanders have seen alien ships up close and personal. Fife Symington, former USSR govenor saw one; Colonel Charles Halt, USAF and four other millitary witnesses also saw one up close. Other witnesses have even touch the ship itself. (Translation disabled)CNN Larry King Live - UFOs: Are They for Real? . Part 1 ...)
()
The descriptions given are not of some vague light in the distance; they desribe seeing a ship. Nick Pope, former US Millitary defense reveals that radiation reading show there is real tangible evidence to support that a craft was indeed present when these 5 witnesses claimed to have seen the ufo. () There is also visual footage of ufo's which the government confiscated. More reliable testimony. (CNN LKL Missile Misfire - 1 of 4 Flying saucer: ) () () () () You will notice in these links that so-called more "rational" explanations have been refuted. A ufo appears next to a missle testing site and shuts down 10 of the missle launchers, and some guy wants to say the malfunction was due to a power outage. This argument has been rebutted. They had double back-up on power; and even if one or two missles went down, 10 could not be a coincidence. And it couldn't be a coincidence that this happened to occur on the exact moment of a ufo appearing. These things at times come too close and are seen by to many to be mere hallucinations, or mistaking something normal for an alien ship.

These thing travel at speed that would be deadly to any human pilot, and are tracked on radar, showing that they are real objects and not just hallucinations. The Belgian UFO Air wave is a good example. "F-16s attempted nine separate interceptions of the targets. On three occasions they managed to obtain a radar lock for a few seconds but each time the targets changed position and speed so rapidly that the lock was broken. During the first radar lock, the target accelerated from 240 km/h to over 1,770 km/h while changing altitude from 2,700 m to 1,500 m, then up to 3,350 m before descending to almost ground level – the first descent of more than 900 m taking less than two seconds. Similar manoeuvres were observed during both subsequent radar locks. On no occasion were the F-16 pilots able to make visual contact with the targets and at no point, despite the speeds involved, was there any indication of a sonic boom. Moreover, narrator Robert Stack added in an episode of Unsolved Mysteries, the sudden changes in acceleration and deceleration would have been fatal to one or more human pilots."
(http://wzus1.search-results.com......) This was witnesses by 13, 500 people. Oh yes, aliens exist. If we are the only beings in the universe, it seems like an aweful waste of space
Christosapologia

Con

Aliens who live on other planets do not exist. The SETI program has been searching for many years and have never found any sign of communications in outer space. Just because people have sighted things does not prove they exist, they can be explained with hallucinations or other natural explanations.

For the opponent to win this debate he needs to provide tangible evidence of such beings that we can actually observe and are from credible sources, conspiracy websites will not count.

Since it appears both sides are Christians, I contend that there may be some physical apparitions of demons in another dimensions not known to ours however but there are not aliens in outer space with a civilization and spacecraft flying around the universe.

No other life has been found in outer space and if my opponent is a bible believing Christian, then he would take heed to scripture as it says all living Hebrew word denotes with a soul/conciousness came from Eve
Debate Round No. 1
daley

Pro

"The SETI program has been searching for many years and have never found any sign of communications in outer space."

They would need first to have the correct technology to pick up such signals. As they don't know what type of technology aliens use to transmit signals through space, this argument of yours doesn't work; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence except for where you'd expect to find lots of evidence. But really, unless we know what type of technology aliens use, how do we know what sort of signals to scan for? SETI's instruments are designed to pick up only certain types of signals. How do you know there are not other types of transmissions of which we do not yet know? How do you know that aliens would need to even send such transmissions at all? For example, how do you know they do not have telepathic abilities? That's a form of communication we could not scan for. How do you know they do not have teleportation devices that eliminates the need for long-distance transmissions? They might be able to make all necessary communications with their home-world or space-station in person. They might have a far grander understanding of the space-time continum than we do, and ability to manipulate the laws of physics on a grander level. So we can't prove that if aliens existed we'd even expect to find a bunch of transmissions between them in space. What's more, aliens would know that we are listening, and from their studies of human technology, they could probably sent signals that would be impossible for our present technology to pick up; or, signals to similar to unorganized background noise or static that we'd dismiss it; they alone being able to decode it. There are enless possibilities really, so I don't find your argument compelling evidnece against their existence. Who can say what teachnologies a race more advance than our could have? Just look at how much man has accomplished with science in just the last 100 years...

Interesting too that you bring up issues of the "soul/spirit" in your rebuttal. Who is to say that the aliens too don't have souls and spirits? They might communicate via astral projection of their spirits through the astral realm. Science SETI has no way to scanning for that form of communication either.

"Just because people have sighted things does not prove they exist, they can be explained with hallucinations or other natural explanations."

In the first link I attached, Lt. Col. Charles Halt of the US Air Force witnesses a UFO landing in 1980. There were 5 witnesses to the event. The object was tracked on radar that night, so they were not just hallucinating; something was indeed there. Nick Pope, who at the time was working for the UK Ministry of Defense, testifies that the British Defense did find radiation traces as tangile proof that the object did indeed land where witnesses say that they found it. Radar and instruments for detecting radiation do not pick up "hallucinations," and futhermore, a team of millitary personnel found this thing, described it as being a triangular black object, and one of them touched it. They took pictures, etc. So, either these people are lying, or the ship was real. Don't insult my intelligence with this nonsense about they not knowing what they saw. And if they are lying, why would they lie? Why would these men who already have their nice careers embarrass themselves in this way? Why would people all over the world claim to be abducted by aliens if it weren't true? These folks geninely believe the experiences to be real, and medical studies have not proven that all these people are suffering from some kind of illness. Your average, level-headed person doesn't wake up one morning and decide "oh, I think I'll be abducted by aliens today." This is a terrifying experience for most who experience it, and many take years to come to terms with what has happened. Some suffer from post-traumatic stress because of it. Many think they are losin their minds; they don't even want it to be true. Some would prefer they were indeed delusional, for at least then it could be treated! I'm not talkin about people making wild claims just to grab attention; I can sure think of a lot more rational, less embarrassing ways to get noticed. Science has yet to discover a single mental disorder that could be even partially responsible for abdution claims. Either all these people are mad, or they are lying. Tell me, do you think Col. Halt was lying? If so, why?

If it were just a few, unintelligent, unrealiable witnesses making the hundreds of UFO visitation claims, we could all laugh it off. But quite often the claims come from more reliable witnesses than perhaps you or I. In the links I gave the testimony of govenors, police, millitary personnel, pilots, and scientists are given. But there are also lawyers, teachers, doctors, judges, presidents, etc, from all over the world, forming a lare among of credible witnesses. Now I do know that there are times people make mistakes, but there are just way too many genuine cases that have been investigated by the government that cannot be explained by any natural means. The Belgian Air Force, for example, counted out all natural phenomena, including human aircrafts, when discussing the Belgian UFO Air Wave.

Funny how you should say they could be "natural phenomena," well, I challenge you to tell me what "natural phenomena" it was in the Belgian UFO Air Wave, what it was that Sgt Jim Penniston of the USAF examined on the ground with a millitary crew in 1980, and what it was that was caught "on film" disabling a missle, and which also shut down ten nuclear missles at a test launch in Vandenberg Air Force Base. Interesting, in the last two cases where there was much more evidence gathered, the CIA confescated the evidence and declared everything classified. Now, you tell me, why should a "natural phenomenon" or "hallucination" be CLASSIFIED? I was not aware it was the US government's policy to "classify" hallucinations and natural phenomenon! Hmmm...

"For the opponent to win this debate he needs to provide tangible evidence of such beings that we can actually observe and are from credible sources, conspiracy websites will not count."

So US millitary officers, British Air Force personnel, Belgian Air Force, and so on, are not "credible sources"? Please define what is a credible sources. I bet they were credible sources until they broke the status quo and started talking about UFO's. Until Con defines what is a credible source I'll leave that for now. But surely he's not going to tell me these guys were not in good mental health at the time and so on, so I'll have to wait and see why he doen't consider them credible.

"there may be some physical apparitions of demons in another dimensions not known to ours however but there are not aliens in outer space with a civilization and spacecraft flying around the universe."

What a contradiction. He denies aliens exists because science hasn't found them, yet he claims it could be demons which science also has not found. What desperate straws to pull at to win a debate! Demons can't be tracked on radar; and what do demons need a ship for? Is he really saying our current technology can detect demons? Did demons leave radiaton traces? Aliens fit that bill; demons don't.

"No other life has been found in outer space"

Because its so big and we've only recently took to the stars.

"scripture as it says all living Hebrew word denotes with a soul/conciousness came from Eve"

Animals didn't come from Eve, yet they have spirit [Heb ruach] (Ecc 3:21), and animals are souls [nehesh]. (Gen 1:20) Also, the Bible isn't a complete record of everything God made "by name." It doesn't mention the dinosaurs, yet they existed. It leaves out plate tektoniks. If it's silent on such earthly matters, why not alien matters? Much more on this later. I look forward to Con's rebuttal.
Christosapologia

Con

>>They would need first to have the correct technology to pick up such signals.<<

So you accept there is no known technology, so how would you know they exist?

>>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence<<

It is when it comes to making a claim something exists, the burden of proof is on you to show something exists not me to prove something does not exist. It's like me saying prove to me I didn't fly to the moon by flapping my wings or that an invisible teapot isn't flying around the universe. You hold it by blind faith that something exists based on no evidence and you are welcome to believe that but in a rational discussion we don't base things on blind faith (something believed without evidence)

>> How do you know there are not other types of transmissions<<

Again how do you know there are? The burden of proof is on you to show that there are and if your statement is true that we don't have the technology then there is no possible way for you to propose there is.

>>how do you know they do not have telepathic abilities?<<

How do you know they do? You should really consider your argument here as it seems you are requiring me the burden of proof on the non existence of something, namely aliens. The rest of your assertions on this type of reasoning I will skip otherwise I will be repeating myself.

>> Lt. Col. Charles Halt of the US Air Force witnesses a UFO landing in 1980<<

Would you like me to post many credible documents regarding soldiers in combat suffering from delusions and combat mental diseases? I think this is a good point that you cant take a small group of people, especially those that have faced combat and claim they are in their right mind. Also there is ample work of doctors about delusions, for instance every single "sighting" is never the same, this is what is commonly known in the medical field as a hallucination.

>>They took pictures<<

I am going to provide some pictures from people who claim to have seen aliens in my second to last rebuttal, I want you to tell me what they are, or if you think they are aliens. I will post things by some of the people you have mentioned.

>>And if they are lying, why would they lie?<<

I am not saying they are lying but delusional or hallucinating. However I can think of several reasons why one would and could lie. A washed up airforce pilot or military personal trying to make some money or get some fame.

>>Your average, level-headed person doesn't wake up one morning and decide "oh, I think I'll be abducted by aliens today."<<

As I said I believe in the spiritual realm and demons, could it be possible these types of incidents if they are true are simply demonic manifestations, considering in the days of Jesus Christ there were many people demon possessed yet in the western world we see none of that, other than this type of thing. All I need from you here is that it is possible if it were really true?

>>when discussing the Belgian UFO Air Wave.<<

You said just before we don't have the technology to read these types of signals, you cant have it both ways.

>>t was in the Belgian UFO Air Wave, what it was that Sgt Jim Penniston of the USAF examined on the ground with a millitary crew in 1980, and what it was that was caught "on film" disabling a missle, and which also shut down ten nuclear missles at a test launch in Vandenberg Air Force Base.<<

I will await credible sources, funny you never footnote anything.

>>So US millitary officers, British Air Force personnel, Belgian Air Force, and so on, are not "credible sources"?<<

Do you believe the bible when it says that all men are liars? I am after credible evidence and a good point made on the video was only one ever such person was put on the lie detector machine and I google his name he was not what we are discussing as credible.

>> Is he really saying our current technology can detect demons? Did demons leave radiaton traces? Aliens fit that bill; demons don't.<<

I am saying that science cant prove demons, no you are right. However I hold it by faith based on what the bible says about demons and the spiritual world.

>>Animals didn't come from Eve, yet they have spirit [Heb ruach] (Ecc 3:21)<<

I take it you don't know Hebrew. The word "life" in its context is in relation to beings. We know it cant mean animals as it specifically ALL LIFE and as you pointed out, animals didn't come from Eve. I suggest a quick course in Hebrew as you fail to grasp the argument.

I will tackle it theologically in another direction and wait fro you to respond to whether you have an understanding of Hebrew and Hermeneutics.

Are you saying that Jesus died on everyone of these different planets and can be born again. Or are you saying that He didn't and all other life forms are going to hell? Jesus said unless yea be born again you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The only other place to go is Hell, there is no alternative, so where if they exist do these aliens go are they eternal, philosophically impossible as only one being can be eternal otherwise you would have infinite plus infinite etc etc.

Do you believe the bible when it says that everything in the heavens was made for Christ by Christ? Do you believe Apostle Paul when he says ALL have sinned? Do you believe the bible that ALL who have sinned deserved eternal hell? Do you have a God that sentences people to hell with no just propitiation? (If you do you have different God to the bible) Finally some theology mixed with philosophy, do you believe that the bible is absolute truth? That it would be right in ALL places at ALL times?

I am keen on the readers to include the theological part of the argument as we are both bible believing Christians and will try and make the theological argument as simple as possible for unbelievers.

I think when it comes to evidence the opponent has provided no tangible evidence that can be tested and observed, nor any scientific or credible sites. Blog's and YouTube videos don't count in the scholarly world. When one comes to the scholarly world and debates regardless whether atheist or theist, evidence must be provided from recognised sources such as peer reviewed journals or scientific papers, this is the job of the scholar of knowledge.

So I await these peer reviewed and tested articles for my opponents next rebuttal
Debate Round No. 2
daley

Pro

"So you accept there is no known technology, so how would you know they exist?"

My point was that "we" have no known technology which can detect their transmissions, assuming they do use transmissions at all.

Belgian UFO Air Wave: 150 witnesses including police. (see link) All natural phenomenon dismissed as impossible. (see Youtube links) Sceptics refuted
Con's is assuming aliens have to transmit the same kind of messages we could pick up with our technology, then using the fact that this "assumption" hasn't been realized as proof that they don't exist.

"You hold it by blind faith that something exists based on no evidence"

Con tried to dismiss my evidence as "natural phenomenon" but could not back it up by telling us what the natural phenomenon is. I have repeatedly shown in the links provided where natural explanations from weather phenomena to helicopters have been squarely refuted. Even the Belgian Air Force Commander says that no human could have been piloting because of the speeds these things were travelling at. What is more, Con blatently says "no evidence," as if eyewitness testimony of trained military professionals isn't evidence! As if radar signals and radiation transmission isn't evidence. As if video record isn't evidence. So I guess Con thinks it was a "lack of evidence" that the CIA confiscated and made CLASSIFIED?

He asks me how I know there are other types of transmissions; I never said they were. I was merely saying that if his assumption that the aliens had to use "transmissions" at all was true, the possibility existed that we simply didn't have the technology to pick it up. Was the first radio ever made able to pick up "every sort" or signal? No! Base on past experience with the development of human technology, it is reasonable to suppose we may yet invent devices that transmit other types of signals. This isn't far fetched at all; so another civilization more advanced than ours could do the same.

"Would you like me to post many credible documents regarding soldiers in combat suffering from delusions and combat mental diseases?"

So the Col and his entire team were suffering from delusions? Well then, I find it awesome that the British Intelligence was able to track that delusion on radar to the landing site. What was the radar picking up? Certainly no delusion. Did that delusion create radiation readings? I doubt that! And if these 5 men were hallucinatin, how comes they all saw the same thing at the same time? Does post-tramatic stress from war cause "co-ordinated" delusions? They took pictures of this thing for crying out loud! If it was a hallucination brought on by illness which they were photographing and examining, why did the CIA confiscate those photoes? Why did they make it classified? Strange that a hallucination was caught on camera! That's Con's big answer? Strange that a figment of the imagination is considered "classified" by the CIA! What evidence does Con give to show these men were indeed suffering from mental illness? None! He assumes they are just because they saw something he doesn't believe in. He ignores completely the fact I showed in the link in my opening post that medical studies show that even the abductees are no less sane than other people. "abduction experients are not different from the general population in term of psychopathology prevalence." http://wzus1.search-results.com... You can't dismiss the testimony of a witness in court by saying "you're crazy," you have to prove it, or show some good reason why he'd be lying, motive, Con has done neither! Nor has he refuted the tangible evidence.

"I am not saying they are lying," says Con, then goes on still to sneek in the very opposite: "A washed up airforce pilot or military personal trying to make some money or get some fame."

Based on the evidence and the claims, do you believe they were lying, yes or no? Either they were lying, or they were crazy, which is it? As for the reasons you give, these guys are laughed at and ridiculed; they certainly aren't famous! So you think they did this to make money? Did they? The answer to that will be telling; but they already had money and successful careers, why ruin it all with such a tall tale? I'll leave it up to the readers to decide if they think these guys were lying or not!

Con's double standard will be shown in that he can't produce any better evidence for demons than I have for aliens. Again, based on the Biblical view of demons, I can't say these spirit beings could be tracked on radar, give off radiation signals, and fly around in metal ships. Since demons are not originally from this planet, we can in a way consider them a form of alien (being in spirit form, a higher form of energy), why then, cannot there also be other types of aliens?

"I will await credible sources, funny you never footnote anything."

In one of my links (CNN LKL Missile Misfire - 1 of 4 Flying saucer http://wzus1.search-results.com...) you have the actual footage of the UFO firing at a missle and disabling it. It dawned on Jacobs that this "thing" was
intricately circling the warhead while both were traveling at 18,000 mph! That is phenomenal
maneuverability -- even by today's standards of aviation. Sworn to secrecy by the CIA, years later, Lt. Jacobs felt guilty over keeping this astounding event from the public. He disclosed it in an article published in the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) Journal. And the witnesses did give written testimony. http://www.google.com...

"I am after credible evidence and a good point made on the video was only one ever such person was put on the lie detector machine"

At last Con tells us what is "credible" evidence. Here are well documented cases where abductees and witnesses passed lie-detector tests: (i.e) "Ultimately, Walton was given the Minnesota Multi Phase Personality Inventory (MMPI), Rorschach (commonly called Inkblot) Polygraph and Psychological Stress Evaluator tests, all of which established that he had told the truth as he knew it. All of these tests were conducted and interpreted by experts." ( Travis Walton Abduction Case) http://www.google.com... Even a group of police officers were cited and passed lie-detection tests; is that "credible" evidence Con?

I will respond fully to Con's theological arguments in the next round. He tries to show alien existence conflicts with Bible teachings, but even if he were to refute "Christianity" he has not refuted my case that aliens exist, nor has he proved God doesn't exist. It would only mean my theology was wrong; so this is a red herring. I'll show the two compatible next round. Later
Christosapologia

Con

>>My point was that "we" have no known technology which can detect their transmissions, assuming they do use transmissions at all.<<

You missed my point completely I was saying how can you know there are any transmissions if there are no known method of picking them up. Its pure speculation based on no evidence, you required me to prove they didn't exist and if any one reads this please go back and see who my opponent was requiring proof from on several aspects of the "lives" of Aliens.

>>Belgian UFO Air Wave: 150 witnesses including police. (see link) All natural phenomenon dismissed as impossible. (see Youtube links) <<

First of all, please don't get your education from YouTube and I await the scholarly articles and PEER REVIEWED journals.

Lets take a step back and have a look at the incident called the "Belgium UFO Air Wave" Wikipedia has a very illuminating article on the subject. The photos which were taken and we have today and the picture relations to the first video if we look at them, they were found to be frauds. Taken by an admitted fraudster and this is not the end of the blatant misconceptions of my opponent of the incident in Belgium [1]

>>Con's is assuming aliens have to transmit the same kind of messages we could pick up with our technology, then using the fact that this "assumption" hasn't been realized as proof that they don't exist.<<

The only assumption is on the part of my opponent that assumes aliens exist, by talking about various attributes and ideas of these aliens as a reason why they exist, then he puts the burden of proof on me to prove, for example, "how do you know they do not have telepathic abilities?"

>>Was the first radio ever made able to pick up "every sort" or signal?<<

Again my opponent is assuming there are other radio signals other than man made. Every man made signal was able to be picked up by a man made radio at the time. Otherwise how would one know it even existed?

>>So the Col and his entire team were suffering from delusions?<<

Now coming to the lights and the sightings of some sights. First I would like to add that some people said they saw 3 lights others said for. I also await the evidence that the Col saw anything other than radar blimps on a radar screen. Furthermore my opponent is essentially arguing that technology never fails or gives false readings, especially old 1990 technology. What did the people see on the ground such as the Police etc, they saw lights and now every crazed UFO hunter says those lights were Aliens. Please lights are lights, to put it in my opponents words "do you think they will leave evidence around?"

>>They took pictures of this thing for crying out loud!<<

Please proved these pictures the only ones I have are the ones taken by an admitted fraudster. Please dont respond "well they are confiscated" because then they are void from any scholarly discussion if you are using them to support your argument.

>>Why did they make it classified?<<

Notice my opponent makes wild accusations without the slightest bit of evidence, I want to see these credible sources that say these photos were confiscated?

>>You can't dismiss the testimony of a witness in court by saying "you're crazy," you have to prove it, or show some good reason why he'd be lying, motive<<

Being a lawyer I can show discrepancies between the witnesses and that is just what we find. No two accounts of abductions are the same. Furthermore I never denied they hadn't experienced anything and my opponent never answered the question if it were possible they were demonic encounters, which the bible does talk about.

>>Based on the evidence and the claims, do you believe they were lying, yes or no?<<

Mere rhetoric, how about I ask my opponent does he believe every single American Administration has lied, millions upon millions lying and conspiring to hide something. My opponent cant perceive that a few can lie and make up stories for various reasons but prefers to believe millions upon millions around the world, governments made of citizens just like you and me are lying.

>>Con's double standard will be shown in that he can't produce any better evidence for demons than I have for aliens. <<

That's my point I am saying I hold it by faith with no evidence other than the Word of God says. I am not claiming to know what they want and what signals they are using, whether they are telepathic, how they view humanity and running around telling everyone about demons.

>>Con's double standard<<

I think the blatant double standard is that my opponent takes the testimony of a few, over millions upon millions.

>>Even a group of police officers were cited and passed lie-detection tests; is that "credible" evidence Con?<<

I was hoping at this stage my opposition was going to post a link to a peer reviewed journal or an official website, instead he posts website stating these so called "facts" that police passed lie detector tests? How can we even check half of this is true. The fact is we cant we have to take his word and the "blog" it is.

>>but even if he were to refute "Christianity" he has not refuted my case that aliens exist<<

Considering that I never used the argument to prove Aliens did not exist I simply used it as an argument that in Pros view the bible is a lie and that he does not hold to biblical authority as that authority would be seriously undermined as false as my opponent is suggesting.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
daley

Pro

First, let me rectify a little error. In my very first argument, the link I meant to paste showing that alien abductees show no signs of madness was http://en.wikipedia.org... All can check this source and see the medical studies that clearly demonstrate those claiming to be abductees are not suffering from mental illness anymore so than the average population. The link showing the altitudes and speeds of UFOs in the Belgian UFO Air Wave is here. http://en.wikipedia.org...

"Do you believe the bible when it says that everything in the heavens was made for Christ by Christ?"

Yes.

"Do you believe Apostle Paul when he says ALL have sinned? Do you believe the bible that ALL who have sinned deserved eternal hell?"

Yes, and the word "all" is obviously confined to the sphere of men on earth and not of beings in heaven, for God himself cannot sin, and many of the angels in heaven are not sinners. If the word "all" has exceptions for them, it can have exceptions to for the aliens; but personally, I have no need to conjure up sinless aliens. The text wasn't discussing aliens in particular. But as far as I am concerned, God is just. The same way God will not hold it against someone who had no opportunity to know Jesus, he promises he will always judge mercifully. So if the aliens knew about Jesus then some will go to heaven or hell on that basis, and the ones who didn't have chance to know will receive God's mercy. But if none of them knew, then they all may receive mercy. I don't even have a problem with them not having the Bible. Humans didn't have a Bible since the creation of man till sometime after the Exodus. And even then, the Old Testament was not accessible to the rest of the world that was indeed inhabited such as Mexico, Australia, Peru, China, etc. So if God has a way of judging them regardless of their lack of knowledge about the Bible, why should he have a problem judging aliens? I don't see this as problematic.

"Do you have a God that sentences people to hell with no just propitiation? (If you do you have different God to the bible) Finally some theology mixed with philosophy, do you believe that the bible is absolute truth? That it would be right in ALL places at ALL times?"

God doesn't judge people for what they don't know. The entire law of Moses was not given to the Gentiles and there was no Bible before the law of Moses was given. (Ps 147:19-20; Eph 2:11-12) But he did give man a conscience. (Rom 2:12-16) He could give aliens a conscience to. Some might chose to do what their conscience says is right and not kidnap human beings, other might do what is wrong and abduct them. God will judge them by what they know, not by what they don't know. I don't see a problem.

"evidence must be provided from recognised sources such as peer reviewed journals or scientific papers,"

This attitude is the very reason why the scientific community doesn't accept the many proofs of God's existence; so do you think that just because these atheists who control the peer-review process don't allow evidence for God to get a fair judgment that that somehow proves there is no God? They are working on the assumption of naturalism. I don't have to get my feelings in a peer-reviewed journal to prove that my love for someone exists. They might never detect love with their instruments, but does that mean it doesn't exist? Con seems only to accept certain types of evidence for aliens, yet, on the word of a few person who were never around to take lie-detector tests to show that they ever did hear God's voice, he believes in God. Wow.

Now, please read the post and see that Con was the one who "assumed" the aliens "had" transmissions to begin with, then required SETI to pick them up. Con seems to only accept pictures in wikiperia but not camera film downloaded on Youtube. Little does he mention the fact that Youtube was showing "Larry King Live," as well as "News Broadcast from the Belgian Air Force," so were the radar images shown by the Belgian Air Force fake? Was the footage on Larry King Live fake? And I didn't mention any "fake" photoes in my debate, I only used reliable evidence, but Con wants to ignore the "genuine" evidence and point at fakes as proof that aliens don't exists. It's like a child pointing at a small typhoon as proof that tornadoes don't exist, while ignoring a CNN news broadcast on Youtube about a twister viewed by thousands.

He makes points I've already answered then goes back to demons. I've repeated over and over that demons are spirit beings. They don't match the description of what these people saw. A demon can't be tracked on radar, that alone rules them out. Does Con really believe demons fly metal ships? Why is he so adamant that demons exist wihout showing any proof, then expects me to show him peer-reveiwed articles on aliens? Con, how many peer-reveiwed papers have you seen on demons? Further, I never said anything about millions of citizens like you and me lying! I don't respect that Con put those words in my mouth; not a good way to win a debate. Please read and see if I said such a thing. He doesn't realize that it doesn't take many government officials to cover up something like this; it's not like the aliens left their ship for 2 years in the public square. And just like the men Larry interviewed, many more are sworn to secrecy.

Even if Con could prove I'm not holding to the Bible, (which I am, just not his erroneous interpretation), how does that disprove the existence of aliens? It doesn't! Now, Con claims that he "believes by faith" that God exists. He claims to be a Christian. Does he know that faith is "the EVIDENCE of things not seen"? (Heb 11:1) So Biblical faith isn't gullability, nor believing without proof, but is based on evidence. A true believer doesn't only "believe" God exists; he "knows" God exists. Jesus said that we would "KNOW" God. (John 17:3) This in itself entails evidence; otherwise, Con's christianity is mere wishful thinking and gullability, and he's no different from people who believe in santa clause or the tooth fairy!

There is great evidence in Science and nature that God exists. The Bible says the heavens declare the glory of God, and he is perceived in his creation. (Rom 1:20; Ps 19:1) This means that things such as the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the conplex specified information in DNA, and the irreducible complexity of some living organisms are evidence of the designer's handiwork. Even looking at the complex design of snowflake, or the beauty in a rainbow tells me there is Creator. But Science today being ruled by naturalism doesn't accept this evidence. So, the same thing happens with aliens, in that they reject the evidence, and expect more evidence than what they should. The atheists ask, where is God? Why can't I detect him with scientific instruments? Why don't I have photoes in peer-reveiwed journals of what he looks like? This is the kind of attitude Con takes with aliens, and hence he has no choice but to argue that he only accepts God on "faith," as if his faith is devoid of evidence. If so, I'm sorry for Con. For it sounds like he only belives but isn't SURE there is a God, and I fear this weak kind of faith won't stand up to tribulation; sooner or later that kind of faith breaks! So I hope Con now sees what it's like when you take a debate about aliens and turn it into an attack on the credibility of one's faith. He was the one who challenged that my fiath isn't in accord with Scripture; but it seems that his isn't as he tried to separate faith from evidence, leaving him with gullibility! Why then, doesn't he believe in Zeus? I'll leave that one for him to answer...
Christosapologia

Con

I am still awaiting those peer reviewed journals, obviously there is none otherwise my opponent would have provided some credible scientific peer reviewed journals. My opponent wants to believe what he wants and interpret the supposed video "evidence" it was shown that these types of photos have been proven frauds over and over again. The opponant still refuses that the supposed photos he presented as evidence were frauds even after the person who took tham self confessed they were a fraudulent.

I think a question to ask is, how is his blind faith in aliens refuted? Is his claims un-refutable?

As for object flying fast, well 45 years ago the USA made a plane that goes 3000 miles per hour, is it possible we could have advanced our technology in 45 years?

As for the Belgian UFO Air Wave incident, there are many explanations why something may appear on a radar then break lock. Notice none of the pilots saw anything, however they can lock onto certain types of lights and if they were to fly past these lights whilst stationary then it would appear they broke lock. Also another wild assumption is that technology in the early 1990's was completely fault free. We know this is false, just look at your cars always having malfunctions and often a lot of people have the same type of malfunctions. What would you say if I posited the notion that aliens were running around and tampering with all the Ford Pick-ups because they all had the same malfunction and there was a gremlin in all of them because they use a lot of gas??

My opponent wants you do believe a small minority that they have seen aliens over the notion of millions upon millions are creating a great big cover-up. I still await the credible sources that alien sighter's and adductee's have actually had lie detector tests. The fact he can find a "blog" that states this is irrelevant, he could have posted that blog himself. This sort of "scholarship" has not grounds for being in a rational discussion and would get an immediate fail in higher education universities.

Overall we have seen videos from the 80's of radar blimps on a screen the Col himself said he never saw anything and neither did the pilots. We are completely relying on technology from a by-gone era that had regular malfunctions and problems in certain types of weather conditions.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, my opponent has not shown this evidence. I asked for one peer reviewed journal on this subject from ANY University or Professor and I am still waiting. My opponent states "well the same can be said about God". That is not true there are literally hundreds of peer reviewed journals in history and philosophy that support the existence of God, historical Jesus and also the Resurrection of Christ. They may not be public universities, though some are. However I am asking for any university from my opponent, he is yet to accept that sort of challenge and thus fails his notion that aliens do in fact exist.

My question goes out to my opponent, what would it take for him to stop believing in his imaginary friends from the outskirts of the universe. My opponent bears the burden of proof in this debate to show that extraterrestrials do in fact exist. He has made wild assertions of knowing their language, signals, technology and philosophy yet provides no evidence whatsoever. If I state I know George Bush personally, his phone number, his personal ideas and all his technology in his home and rely on that notion for a debate, I better come up with some real evidence that we can all see and test, otherwise I am a mere fraudster or a deceiver.
Debate Round No. 4
daley

Pro

I never did put forward any photoes as evidence, so this is a strawman claim Con is using when he says the pictures were proven forgeries. When I gave a link to Wikipedia I argued only on the basis of what was shown to be fact in the Wikipedia article, not the forged photo. Con keeps latching onto the forged photo as if I ever used it as evidence. It reminds me of the agnostic who rejects the 66 pages of the Bible just because there are some apocryphal works proven to be forgeries. Those reading this debate can see that so I need not go any further on that point.

"As for object flying fast, well 45 years ago the USA made a plane that goes 3000 miles per hour, is it possible we could have advanced our technology in 45 years?"

Does Con deny that travelling 9000 miles in 2 seconds would kill a human being? That's the kind of speed we're talking about here.

"Notice none of the pilots saw anything,"

The whole reason they sent out pilots was because they got VISUAL CONFIRMATION ON THE GROUND OF WHAT THEY WERE PICKING UP ON RADAR!

"however they can lock onto certain types of lights and if they were to fly past these lights whilst stationary then it would appear they broke lock."

Con wants us to believe that these military professionals were simply mistaken, and not one, but 2 F-16 pilots couldn't tell the difference between flying past an object and the object speeding away to break lock; he also wants us to believe that the Cheif of the Belgian Air Staff who was observing on the radar at ground leve was also duped! We see him in the base with his air staff showing them the recording of the radar they picked up; which shows both planes and the UFOs, so from such a neutral vantage point (not inside the plane) they could all look and see if it was that the planes flew past the objects and the pilots were mistaken. That's not what they saw. Watch the footage yourself! The UFO darts away from plane and changes altitude tremendously in a shot space of time. Was the radar on the ground not working too?

"Also another wild assumption is that technology in the early 1990's was completely fault free."

Fine Con, so you're telling me that each radar on each of the 2 F-16s malfunctioned, so did the one on the ground, and at the same time people were having a mass hallucination which corroborated the faulty radar readings? I'll simply leave it up to the readers to decide if all that was a coincidence. As for his car inllustration, I really wonder if he believes its very likely that 3 cars would malfuntion at the same time on the same road at random, which witnesses were hallucinating about flying cars. Some coincidence.

"My opponent wants you do believe a small minority that they have seen aliens over the notion of millions upon millions are creating a great big cover-up."

I never said millions are involved in a cover up, he's putting words in my mouth.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,"

Then God should appear over New York City and and hold a press conference to prove his existence. Please define "extraordinary."

"I asked for one peer reviewed journal on this subject from ANY University or Professor and I am still waiting."

So if Con can't show me a peer-reviewed artilce showing the Devil's existence that means he doesn't exist? That means that there is not sufficient evidence for beief in the Devil? How then could he call himself a Christian? I asked him in the comments section of another one of his debates if he "knows" God exists, or if he only "believes." He told me that he knows for sure; so how can he know this without peer-reviewed proof? How can he know the demons exist without peer-reviewed proof? He doesn't believe the voice of God speaks to men now, yet he is sure it spoke to men back then! The very Bible he believes in has never been peer-reviewed; so how does he know the Bible is true and scientifically accurate? Can he show me a peer-review of the Bible? Nevertheless, despite his double-standard strawman, I'll refer him to a peer-reviewed article showing that crop circles are caused by "UFOs," albeit the scientists now don't even want to call the "balls of light" by that name in the journal. Sounds like a conspiracy, does it not? These same balls of light we UFO's before, but as soon as they appear in a peer-reviewed journal they aren't called by that name even once, even though they are still by definition "unidentified flying objects." I'll have Con know that since this is peer-reviewed, by his standards, he has to admit the witnesses really did see what they say. And the effects of the UFO's on the soil and crop defy all known natural phenomenon. In fact, "hoaxters" are explicitly ruled out by the evidence. But I'll bet that even now with a peer-reviewed article Con will find another excuse not to believe. So let me ask him; if its not nature and its not humans, who or what is it? The peer-reviewed journal says that only an "intelligence" could accomplish the kind of complexity and geometry in the time span given for forming these crop circle patterns. Sounds like aliens to me. (W C Levengood, N P Talbott, ‘Dispersion of energies in worldwide crop formations', Physiologa Plantarum 105: 615-624 (1999); E H Haselhoff, ‘Comment to Physiologia Plantarum 105: 615-624", Physiol. Plant. 111: 123-125 (2001). http://www.google.com...)

Con doesn't trust UFO sites; yet, the same peer-reviewed arcle is cited on this UFO cite: (http://www.google.com...) Does tht somhow make it any less peer-reviewed? It just goes to show how Con would reject good evidence just because it is associated with something he doesn't beleive in; but the hypocrisy comes in the fact that the same peer-reviewed journals also hold to Darwinian Evolution, Abiogenesis, and a host of other things Con rejects. If they are peer-reviewed, why doesn't he believe them? It seems he's very picky about what he considered good evidence even from peer-review periodicals. Hmmmm.

"That is not true there are literally HUNDREDS of peer reviewed journals in history and philosophy that support the existence of God,"

Name one single peer-reveiwed journal that proved God existed, and tell us why the guy who wrote it didn't win the Nobel Prize for discovering God?

"My question goes out to my opponent, what would it take for him to stop believing in his imaginary friends from the outskirts of the universe."

Same thing it would take for Abraham to not believe God spoke to him. If God hadn't spoken to him, and if I hadn't seen aliens. Also, I never said they were my friends. Nor did I argue on the basis of personal experience. The fact is, it is hypocritical to say aliens must be peer-reviewed to be true, then reject peer-reviewed articles on evolution as false. It's also hypocritical to believe in demons (which he mentions frequently in this debate) which are not peer-reviewed, then say I can't believe in aliens because they aren't. Con is inconsitent! Con also makes false claims about my claiming to know certain things about the aliens which I never did; only I presented possible reasons for what he considers lack of evidence for aliens, just as he presented possible reasons why radars malfunction.

Let me ask Con this; what would convince you that aliens exist? If the Govenment said they captured a ship full of them, would you not say the Devil decieved them? They are all hallucinating or tricked by the Devil? If they appeared in peer-reviewed journals would you not reject them as you do evolution, which by the way, is indeed peer-reviewed? hmm
Christosapologia

Con

Please watch this video as it refutes everything that my opponent is trying to make us believe:

>>Does Con deny that travelling 9000 miles in 2 seconds would kill a human being? That's the kind of speed we're talking about here.<<

It seems my opponent is stuck in the late 1980's, we have been using unmanned drones for a long time and we will continue to use them.

>>The whole reason they sent out pilots was because they got VISUAL CONFIRMATION ON THE GROUND OF WHAT THEY WERE PICKING UP ON RADAR!<<

If you read the articles again you will find no pilot or Col actually saw anything all they saw were blimps on their radars, again I ask how often did technology back then malfunction. See video for further details.

>>Con wants us to believe that these military professionals were simply mistaken, and not one, but 2 F-16 pilots couldn't tell the difference between flying past an object and the object speeding away to break lock<<

Who said it was an object, I said some sort of light. The craft that was supposedly thought of, is an old military experiment from the late 90's nothing special, See video...

>>The UFO darts away from plane and changes altitude tremendously in a shot space of time. Was the radar on the ground not working too?<<

Again no one saw this, it was purely speculated from the radar equipment, watch the video and read the dubious reports themselves on Wikipedia and also watch the video which refute almost everything my opponent has been trying to argue as evidence.

>> Fine Con, so you're telling me that each radar on each of the 2 F-16s malfunctioned, so did the one on the ground<<

In the early 90's it is well known and documented that certain types of radar often played up in certain types of weather conditions. This is not new, but my opponent refuses to accept the facts and wants to believe his imaginary friends exist from the outer core worlds...

>>I never said millions are involved in a cover up, he's putting words in my mouth.<<

That's is exactly what it would have to be if you believe in a government, world wide cover up over the last 50 years, literally millions covering up these wild and fancy ideas for no reason at all.

>>Then God should appear over New York City and and hold a press conference to prove his existence. Please define "extraordinary."<<

This is your second kind of adhominum, its like we are discussing the many killings of early Islam and the Muslim says "what about the Christians" this in no way refutes, the many killings of early Islam.

>> He told me that he knows for sure; so how can he know this without peer-reviewed proof?<<

As I said before there are many peer reviewed journals in History and Philosophy on the existence of God, Jesus Christ and the Resurrection. Of course majority are private universities and may be biased, however there are some public ones also. This is my point there is nothing for aliens, zip, zero, nada.

>>So let me ask him; if its not nature and its not humans, who or what is it?<<

The many black ops military testing planes, please watch the video.

>> Name one single peer-reveiwed journal that proved God existed, and tell us why the guy who wrote it didn't win the Nobel Prize for discovering God?<<

I would like to add I never said proof, I said evidence, big difference in the scholarly worlds. Philosophical peer reviewed journals rarely make to the public eye, one is the Kalam cosmological argument by William Lane Craig at Talbot University. How about Licona's peer reviewed journals on the Resurrection, these are all historical peer reviwed journals, there is also the works by the Jesus Seminar on the historical Jesus and the Gospels etc etc The list could go on and on...

>> Same thing it would take for Abraham to not believe God spoke to him.<<

So you position is essentially irrefutable to yourself and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise

>>It's also hypocritical to believe in demons<<

As I said 1000 times I believe in them by faith, you are claiming they exist based on critical evidence yet fail to provide anything that says otherwise harping on about non existence evidence.

>>Let me ask Con this; what would convince you that aliens exist?<<

If we could test one in the lab.

>>reject them as you do evolution<<

Who said I reject evolution, I think the facts for evolution that we can test and demonstrate are irrefutable.

So now to my closing statement, you will find the video posted sums it all up nicely. However my opponent claimed that Aliens most definitely existed, he not only claimed that but also claimed he knew how they thought, acted, communicated and had for breakfast. He never once provided any evidence for these crazy assertions whilst saying there is no evidence because of Government cover-up etc etc.

In the video I have posted, documents have been made discoverable by federal regulations in the USA that they admit to spreading the hype of Aliens to cover up their top secret military projects. So indeed they have covered up and they even admit it, but not what my opponent wants, in fact it goes against the whole alien cover-up theory and wipes out half of his so called "evidence" in one foul swoop.

Not only does the real government cover-up destroy the bulk of the claims of missing or stolen "evidence" it also shows the credibility of those who are claiming evidence has been taken off them by governments. What a hoax, these alien theorists make millions off gullible people like my opponent, I bet he has bought thousands of dollars worth of books and fed the hysteria.

If the government has been covering up their military secrets by claiming and propagating aliens, then those such as the Col is part of the government, why cant he just be part of the whole ploy?

Every bit of evidence that my opponent has produced to support his theories of aliens has been clearly refuted as a hoax or just dont hold water under closer scrutiny. I am still awaiting the real solid proof that aliens do in fact exist and the burden of proof lies on my opponent to prove which I believe he has not done so.

Watch the video for a further refutation...

VOTE CON
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Christosapologia 6 years ago
Christosapologia
Ok mate the debate is over. The only difference with your cover-up and mine is that mine is documented evidence from the government.
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
WOOOOOOW I can't believe it! After criticisim my Youtube links, Con came up with Jessy Ventura! http://en.wikipedia.org... Hmmmmmmm He says I'm claiming that millions of people are trying to cover up aiens in the government, but he believes the same millions are trying to cover up something else. Hmmmmmm I guess government cover up aren't that rediculous after all? He also believes the governments over all the professional military personnel in my Youtube links, but he believes Jessy Ventura over the government in his Youtube link. Hmmmmmm He says my sources were refuted by the authorities, but fails to mention his Jessy Ventura was refuted by the authorities Hmmmmmm He says it was secret government technology the people saw; I guess then he drops his claim that these witnesses were hallucinating? So they did have good site after all? Hmmmmmm I hope the readers can see through the wool he tries to pull over their eyes.
Posted by Illegalcombatant 6 years ago
Illegalcombatant
">>That's exactly how aliens view us<<

How do you know this?"

Cause Daley is one of them.
Posted by Christosapologia 6 years ago
Christosapologia
>>That's exactly how aliens view us<<

How do you know this?
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
I don't see you marrying a mice, sheep, dog, or ape, why? That's exactly how aliens view us, as an inferior species. We wouldn't understand them enough, so they wouldn't desire to marry us.
Posted by Christosapologia 6 years ago
Christosapologia
>>Were you to visit a primitive race on another planet would you do it?<<

Make myself a god and marry the most beautiful of their kind i could find

>>do you really expect them to leave behind their ship and bodies for us<<

So you know the philosophy and mind of these aliens?
Posted by daley 6 years ago
daley
You wouldn't believe me if I told you. You'd ask me to give you exactly the kind of evidence I wouldn't be able to give if even if indeed they do exist; like do you really expect them to leave behind their ship and bodies for us to keep and study? Were you to visit a primitive race on another planet would you do it?
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Daley, how did you get so convinced that 'Aliens (extraterrestrials) exist'?
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
Are you saying that there ARE aliens out there (as in you know for sure), or you THINK there might be aliens out there ( as in you know you could be wrong)? ...because by your resolution, it sounds like you're saying you know for sure that aliens exist, in which case I would gladly accept this debate.
Posted by kohai 6 years ago
kohai
Interesting debate topic. I'll be following this. I agree with pro
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
daleyChristosapologiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented more sources (reliability in this debate is irrelevant). Con's refutations were few, far between, and weak.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 6 years ago
larztheloser
daleyChristosapologiaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:34 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro claimed the best explanation for some observations is aliens. Con's counter was late but believed demons and malfunctions were better. Both sides had strong rebuttal, and in the end neither side convinced me as both were clearly speculating. Pro therefore did not meet their burden of proof. Neg win. Pro had many more sources, but stop making me watch endless youtubes! S&G narrowly went to pro too.