This Talk Of The Economy On A War...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Religion On Other Planets.
192 Answers
If there is intelligent life on other planets, they might well have religions. Do christians here think that god would have sent them a version of Jesus?
Answers
A quick check with google confirms there are at least 200 billion galaxies containing unimaginable billions of planets - our galaxy alone hosts at least 100 billion. Don’t you think it’s rather arrogant to claim that this insignifican
09:00 Sat 19th Sep 2020
Pixie - Two reasons.
First, if God were created, by who? Or what? Another creator?
If the cause of our universe, was itself caused, then that cause was caused, and that, and that, and that, infinite regression.
Does that make sense to you? Not to me.
Second, the bible gives an account, a revelation of creation.
Can we trust the bible?
Yes. It proves itself with accurate prophecies, not found in any other religious writings.
That is evidence I accept.
First, if God were created, by who? Or what? Another creator?
If the cause of our universe, was itself caused, then that cause was caused, and that, and that, and that, infinite regression.
Does that make sense to you? Not to me.
Second, the bible gives an account, a revelation of creation.
Can we trust the bible?
Yes. It proves itself with accurate prophecies, not found in any other religious writings.
That is evidence I accept.
Sorry Theland but you are a lost cause and your God is of no use to you or me. I would even go as far as saying that you are in effect worshiping a Devil. Are you able to give a reason for Covid 19 and all the other illnesses and diseases in the world, along with all the evil and violence, people born deformed, children dying at very young ages etc etc, yet you would have me and other folk believe that God is loving and kind. What a lot of twaddle you are preaching.
Hans.
Hans.
Theland, the first is what I'm asking you. One minute you are suggesting logic, science, observation... but the next, anything but.
You tell me... who created god? And how would the most apparently complex entity in the world just come into being, but the universe couldn't?
We can't trust the bible. If we could, it would be science, not faith.
You tell me... who created god? And how would the most apparently complex entity in the world just come into being, but the universe couldn't?
We can't trust the bible. If we could, it would be science, not faith.
The Simpsons made more accurate predictions...
https:/
https:/
I don't believe that anyone can ever know what caused the Universe. From a physical point of view it seems obvious to me that the Big Bang acts as some kind of barrier, disconnecting the Universe we can understand from whatever came "before" it; although it is possibly wrong to even assume that there was such a thing as "before": "what came before the Big Bang?" may be as meaningless a question as "what is North of the North Pole?"
But let's set all that aside. What "God" is, in TheLand's definition, is a first cause, a self-causing cause. Therefore, a thing that is capable of causing itself must exist. There is nothing in any of his posts to explain, or even come close to explaining, what property the Universe lacks that stops it from causing itself. It's not difficult to understand *why* he hasn't explained it, as it's the same reason he can't say why "God" has it, because he doesn't know what "it" is. This is not a criticism per se -- why should anyone be able to know what this is? -- but what it *does* mean is that the argument cannot possibly be persuasive.
All TheLand's argument really leads to is that there must exist something that is capable of creating itself. Why not the Universe? This has the benefit of being a simpler argument, because it posits the existence of one fewer entity in order to explain things. But, more than that, it has the benefit of being, potentially, a falsifiable argument. We will, I hope, never be able fully to understand all the mysteries of the Universe, but we can at least hope to be able to *try* and understand them, and to make progress because of that effort.
Understanding the possibility of life elsewhere would clearly be a part of that step. I can see why TheLand is, in essence, "scared" of the possibility, hence his dismissal of it, but that's unforgivably close-minded and incurious. Either there exists life beyond this planet or there does not, and either answer is equally amazing in its own way. It's disappointing that anyone wouldn't want to know, or has already made up their mind that there can be no such life.
But let's set all that aside. What "God" is, in TheLand's definition, is a first cause, a self-causing cause. Therefore, a thing that is capable of causing itself must exist. There is nothing in any of his posts to explain, or even come close to explaining, what property the Universe lacks that stops it from causing itself. It's not difficult to understand *why* he hasn't explained it, as it's the same reason he can't say why "God" has it, because he doesn't know what "it" is. This is not a criticism per se -- why should anyone be able to know what this is? -- but what it *does* mean is that the argument cannot possibly be persuasive.
All TheLand's argument really leads to is that there must exist something that is capable of creating itself. Why not the Universe? This has the benefit of being a simpler argument, because it posits the existence of one fewer entity in order to explain things. But, more than that, it has the benefit of being, potentially, a falsifiable argument. We will, I hope, never be able fully to understand all the mysteries of the Universe, but we can at least hope to be able to *try* and understand them, and to make progress because of that effort.
Understanding the possibility of life elsewhere would clearly be a part of that step. I can see why TheLand is, in essence, "scared" of the possibility, hence his dismissal of it, but that's unforgivably close-minded and incurious. Either there exists life beyond this planet or there does not, and either answer is equally amazing in its own way. It's disappointing that anyone wouldn't want to know, or has already made up their mind that there can be no such life.
To many believers there is no 'before' God.
Best summed up in the Gloria Patri.
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
which is literally translated
Glory [be] to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, and now, and always, and into the ages of ages. Amen.
There is absolutely no point in trying to explain it further and zero chance of ever proving such a belief to be true enough to convince someone who doesn't believe.
Best summed up in the Gloria Patri.
Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
which is literally translated
Glory [be] to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.
As it was in the beginning, and now, and always, and into the ages of ages. Amen.
There is absolutely no point in trying to explain it further and zero chance of ever proving such a belief to be true enough to convince someone who doesn't believe.
That is totally illogical, though. How is he "just is"? Where from?
I haven't investigated the Simpsons, lol. Just pointing out that if you make enough comments, at least some could be interpreted as accurate... at some point (and much less than 2000 years tbf).
Are you saying your religion is just a theory? I don't have any, as you know... nobody really knows, so any beliefs I had would make me religious. I'm not, because i don't know.
I haven't investigated the Simpsons, lol. Just pointing out that if you make enough comments, at least some could be interpreted as accurate... at some point (and much less than 2000 years tbf).
Are you saying your religion is just a theory? I don't have any, as you know... nobody really knows, so any beliefs I had would make me religious. I'm not, because i don't know.
Taking the discovery on Venus as an example, what's notable is that it doesn't particularly matter, in one sense, whether it shows that there is life there or not. Either answer shows that there's yet another thing we don't completely understand. I'm no biochemist, but as far as I understand phosphine has hitherto only been observed in association with life; however, the discovery could equally mean that there's a new aspect of "non-life" chemistry we've yet to appreciate. Either way it's still exciting.
I'd also like to add to Naomi's BA. 200 billion galaxies between them contain about a trillion trillion stars, and at least the same number of planets. So far, we know of about 4,000 of these trillions of trillions, and know in detail about eight of them (and I'm not sure that we can really claim to know all that much about the other seven, given the recent discovery mentioned above). That is far too small a sample to possibly say anything useful at all about the existence or non-existence of life beyond our planet.
I'd also like to add to Naomi's BA. 200 billion galaxies between them contain about a trillion trillion stars, and at least the same number of planets. So far, we know of about 4,000 of these trillions of trillions, and know in detail about eight of them (and I'm not sure that we can really claim to know all that much about the other seven, given the recent discovery mentioned above). That is far too small a sample to possibly say anything useful at all about the existence or non-existence of life beyond our planet.
Jim 360 - I think you misunderstand me.
Of course I am curious about scientific progress, but I don't like the arrogance of some scientists who dismiss design in the universe in spite of overwhelming evidence.
Short posts prevent me being more comprehensive, but I am not as closed minded as insinuated on here.
Of course I am curious about scientific progress, but I don't like the arrogance of some scientists who dismiss design in the universe in spite of overwhelming evidence.
Short posts prevent me being more comprehensive, but I am not as closed minded as insinuated on here.
It's close-minded, if I may say, to describe the evidence as "overwhelming". As far as you've presented it, the evidence you're talking about is wholly contained within a book that has the sole mission of justifying its existence. I don't regard that as overwhelming or persuasive, not necessarily because it's wrong but because it's manifestly not an unbiased source. There's no value in such sources, there's no hope of objectivity. And besides, whether or not you can justify using it as evidence, there is plenty it can never hope to say anything at all of use about.
As to the "design" in the Universe, this too is not really evidence, because it's very clearly a judgement call based on what you regard as "design". I assume, for example, that you've heard of Paley's watch? And yet all that argument proves is that God can't make watches.
As to the "design" in the Universe, this too is not really evidence, because it's very clearly a judgement call based on what you regard as "design". I assume, for example, that you've heard of Paley's watch? And yet all that argument proves is that God can't make watches.
Theland... The more you try to justify your beliefs, the more illogical you become. You obviously believe in Adam & Eve and and you keep talking about prophesies but never really point to any.furthermore you never give understandable answers to reasonable questions. I asked for proof that Jesus had claimed to be the son of God and I am still waiting for a sensible answer.
Hans.
Hans.
Still, let's take the design argument seriously for a second. What features can you point to that suggest design? And, in particular, what features can you point to that *only* suggest design? I can well imagine that there is plenty within the Universe that superficially defies a "natural" explanation, especially in areas that I never properly studied. The interdependency of certain species is, for example, difficult for me to comprehend: if two species need each other in order to exist, how can they have got to that position in the first place? But I've always supposed that my imagination is too limited to answer this question, rather than that my own inability to answer the question arises because there *is* no answer.
As far as I understand God has given us the power of free will which includes the ability to apply logic to any given situation. Unfortunately when we apply logic to the formation of the earth and the universe the bibles version falls down on provable facts. So it comes down to God has given us the power of logic that when applied proves he doesn't exists. Bit of a conundrum really which Theland claims he knows the answer but won't tell us.
Logic is a many-headed beast. I'm happy to accept that there is at least a self-consistency in "God"; an entity that exists beyond our Universe is presumably not subject to its rules. But then it can be subject to any set of rules at all, really, making any further discussion impossible.
For me, why I don't like God isn't because God is illogical but because God is unknowable. I just don't see the point in suggesting the existence of something unknowable.
For me, why I don't like God isn't because God is illogical but because God is unknowable. I just don't see the point in suggesting the existence of something unknowable.
Latest Posts
Day Trippers Will Have To Pay €5 To...
News2 mins ago
Who Inherits If Children Are Adopted ?
Law2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
Body & Soul2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
