Aliens

[MarkFL]

It's a hideous cliche but one might also say that science tells us how God does stuff

I think it was Galileo who said, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, but not how the heavens go."

 

[Josiah]

we have no compelling verifiable evidence for anything supernatural...

We have NO evidence AT ALL ("compelling" or otherwise) for life on other planets. None, nada, zip. Yet some believe such anyway. Okay.... But any such who are atheists have contradicted themselves; to deny the supernatural because THEY FEEL there is no "compelling" evidence for such is a contradiction of their belief system as they reveal when insisting that there IS reason to believe there is life elsewhere even though there is NOTHING (compelling or verifiable or otherwise) for that belief. They simply reveal their contradiction, that they simply CHOOSE to believe some entirely, wholly, completely unverified positions WHILE AT THE SAME TIME rejecting others who (according to their own feelings) have done exactly what they have. Pot calling kettle black. In a very stunning way.


That's my opinion...


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Brighten04]

If there are other worlds where other intelligent beings dwell, our Father created them. I am not conflicted in my heart at all. I know our Father, Lord Jesus, and Holy Angels reside in the Heavenly Jerusalem according to scripture.

 

[tango]

I think it was Galileo who said, "The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, but not how the heavens go."

That works. Some say the Bible tells us what God did and science tells us how he did it.

 

[TurtleHare]

We have NO evidence AT ALL ("compelling" or otherwise) for lifeguarantee there will be much scoffing. planets. None, nada, zip. Yet some believe such anyway. Okay.... But any such who are atheists have contradicted themselves; to deny the supernatural because THEY FEEL there is no "compelling" evidence for such is a contradiction of their belief system as they reveal when insisting that there IS reason to believe there is life elsewhere even though there is NOTHING (compelling or verifiable or otherwise) for that belief. They simply reveal their contradiction, that they simply CHOOSE to believe some entirely, wholly, completely unverified positions WHILE AT THE SAME TIME rejecting others who (according to their own feelings) have done exactly what they have. Pot calling kettle black. In a very stunning way.


That's my opinion...


Pax


- Josiah

This I find to be a fair comparison and since Christianity is brought in to this i guarantee there will be much scoffing.

 

[MarkFL]

This I find to be a fair comparison and since Christianity is brought in to this i guarantee there will be much scoffing.

Here's why it is not a good or fair comparison:

Atheists reject the claims of theists because there is no evidence to support their claims...we don't just feel that there is no evidence, there in fact is no compelling evidence.

Regarding the belief that it is possible that life exists somewhere besides Earth has as evidence that life arose here. If life arose here, then it does not take faith to believe it is possible that there are other places in the universe where conditions are such that life could arise there as well.

 

[tango]

Here's why it is not a good or fair comparison:

Atheists reject the claims of theists because there is no evidence to support their claims...we don't just feel that there is no evidence, there in fact is no compelling evidence.

In fairness when it comes to the origins of the universe and the origins of living things within the universe (regardless of whether or not our planet is the only one with living things on it), the statement "God did it" is just as much a statement of faith as "Science will figure out how it happened". The scientific explanation of things seems to go back so far only to hand the problem to the next question. The theory of evolution can go at least some way to explaining why one living thing adapts into a different living thing over time but in order to explain where the first living thing came from it has to pass the buck to the topic of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis may come up with an explanation for how something not-living became something living all by itself but can't explain where the source not-living thing came from so has to pass the buck again. And eventually we end up with the theory of the Big Bang but even then can only speculate as to what caused it or, to borrow another phrase, who lit the fuse.

Regarding the belief that it is possible that life exists somewhere besides Earth has as evidence that life arose here. If life arose here, then it does not take faith to believe it is possible that there are other places in the universe where conditions are such that life could arise there as well.

That is perfectly reasonable. We know that life exists here on Earth (assuming, of course, we're not stuck in the Matrix ) and therefore it takes a lot less faith to believe that life may exist on other planets. If we are here through a cosmic fluke then another cosmic fluke may have put life elsewhere; if we are here because God said "let there be living things on planet Earth" then it's possible God also said "let there be living things on another planet a long long long long way away from Earth". Who knows, maybe on that other planet the copy of Adam and Eve never ate the forbidden fruit and live in paradise

 

[MarkFL]

In fairness when it comes to the origins of the universe and the origins of living things within the universe (regardless of whether or not our planet is the only one with living things on it), the statement "God did it" is just as much a statement of faith as "Science will figure out how it happened".

Except we have no evidence for god or gods, or anything supernatural, yet we have a rich history of science figuring things out. So, the belief that science will eventually explain the remaining details regarding how life arises through purely natural means is not faith but rather a reasonable expectation.

 

[tango]

Except we have no evidence for god or gods, or anything supernatural, yet we have a rich history of science figuring things out. So, the belief that science will eventually explain the remaining details regarding how life arises through purely natural means is not faith but rather a reasonable expectation.

We have evidence that something extremely unusual happened at the beginning of the universe. If we accept the scientific view that the universe is however-many-billions of years old and it would appear that this mysterious Big Bang happened once and only once in all that time, something very odd happened.

Maybe science will one day disprove the existence of deities, maybe science will one day prove the existence of one or more deities.

What is quite curious is the conflict between two different lines of reasoning. I look across my study and I see a laptop, a carriage clock, a monitor, an engineering lathe, an empty beer bottle, and a few other assorted bits and pieces. Each one of those came into being because someone or something made it. (I say something made it because I imagine things like the beer bottle were made by machines). We see these things and figure they all have a creator. If anyone asked where the beer bottle came from the answer "it just appeared there by itself" would be considered absurd. But the idea that the entire universe just appeared there by itself isn't considered absurd. If nothing else that seems a little odd to me.

 

[MarkFL]

...What is quite curious is the conflict between two different lines of reasoning. I look across my study and I see a laptop, a carriage clock, a monitor, an engineering lathe, an empty beer bottle, and a few other assorted bits and pieces. Each one of those came into being because someone or something made it. (I say something made it because I imagine things like the beer bottle were made by machines). We see these things and figure they all have a creator. If anyone asked where the beer bottle came from the answer "it just appeared there by itself" would be considered absurd. But the idea that the entire universe just appeared there by itself isn't considered absurd. If nothing else that seems a little odd to me.

We have evidence for things like computers, clocks and other such manufactured items being designed and produced by people. You are citing a version of the "Watchmaker Analogy." Here's an article regarding the thoughts of evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins on this analogy:

In The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins argues that the watch analogy conflates the difference between the complexity that arises from living organisms that are able to reproduce themselves (and as such may change to become more complex over time) and the complexity of inanimate objects, unable to pass on any reproductive changes (such as the multitude of parts manufactured in a watch). The comparison breaks down because of this important distinction.

In a BBC Horizon episode, also entitled The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins described Paley's argument as being "as mistaken as it is elegant". In both contexts he saw Paley as having made an incorrect proposal as to a certain problem's solution, but did not disrespect him for this. In his essay The big bang, Steven Pinker discussed Dawkins' coverage of Paley's argument, adding: "Biologists today do not disagree with Paley's laying out of the problem. They disagree only with his solution."

In his book, The God Delusion, Dawkins argues that life was the result of complex biological processes. Dawkins makes the argument that the comparison to the lucky construction of a watch is fallacious because proponents of evolution do not consider evolution "lucky"; rather than luck, the evolution of human life is the result of billions of years of natural selection. He therefore concludes that evolution is a fair contestant to replace God in the role of watchmaker.

In addition, he argues that the watchmaker's creation of the watch implies that the watchmaker must be more complex than the watch. Design is top-down, someone or something more complex designs something less complex. To follow this line upwards, demands that the watch was designed by a (necessarily more complex) watchmaker, the watchmaker must have been created by a more complex being than himself. So the question becomes: Who designed the designer? Dawkins argues that (a) this line continues ad infinitum, and (b) it does not explain anything. Evolution, on the other hand, takes a bottom-up approach; it explains how more complexity can arise gradually by building on or combining lesser complexity.

In response to these claims, Nathan Schneider writes that "Paley died decades before The Origin of Species was published, and ever since his views have been so repeatedly set in opposition to Darwin's that Richard Dawkins titled one of his books on evolution The Blind Watchmaker. A closer look at Paley's own thinking reveals, however, a God who works through the laws of nature, not beyond them like the modern ID theorists' designer. Paley had no objection to species changing over time. It's only in today's highly polarized culture-war climate that we don't bother to notice that one of the forefathers of intelligent design theory might have been perfectly comfortable with evolution."

As far as the Big Bang Theory goes, science can take us all the way back until a point in time, an extremely tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, where we need to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics in order to go all the way back to the beginning of spacetime. So, scientist are in a position at present to say we do not fully understand how the big bang started or what may have preceded it. It is an area of ignorance for us, but the invocation of a magical being does not further our progress at all...it has no explanatory power and in fact unnecessarily complicates the question.

 

[visionary]

Why is it so hard to imagine that out in space are multitudes of God‘s creations which habit other galaxies, other solar systems? We sit and watch science fiction regarding space battles in far away planetary places and we can not see that it could well be true. No so much the wars any more. For God said the war was over in Heaven. There will come a time when we will get to see all of heaven and all that God created in the entire universe and

Eph 3:15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

So with that for variety, I think we will have plenty to admire and praise God for. God said

Revelation 5:3 And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.

Since we know that He wasn‘t talking about Yeshua who was able to open the book, there is indication that there are other ?men in heaven. They are also called every creature, which gives you the understanding that they are not all looking as we do.

Revelation 5:13 And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

It almost sounds like the entire universe that God has created has been populated with many multitudes of creatures, men of heaven, as he says from one end of heaven to the other. The entire universe has been well informed of our creation and the controversy with regard to the acusations of Satan. God asked His other creations if they have every seen the like, where God would lay down His life for His creations.

Deuteronomy 4:32 Had they even heard such a thing? For ask now of the days that are past, which were before thee, since the day that God created man upon the earth, and ask from the one side of heaven unto the other, whether there has been any such thing as this great thing is, or has been heard like it?

and what could God possibly be gathering from one end of heaven to the other?

Matthew 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Most people are told that they are angels. I present to you that there are more than just angels in heaven. I also submit that there are other inhabited planets that did not sin as earth people have.

We know the story of in Job‘s day when the throngs gather before the throne.

Job 1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

By all these verses, it is to see that we are not alone in the universe, and that God has created beings that are in his universe and not just on this planet. When all things are new, we will be able to go visit these places that they live and meet with these beings that God has created.

I also think that we are the only planet that sinned. As Yeshua tells the story

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Well, we know there is no one other than Yeshua that had needed no repentance on this earth so that rules out this planet that Yeshua was talking about. On the other planets that are inhabited, they may have never sinned and are just persons and needed no repentance, thereby be the ones that are fulfilling God‘s words.

It wasn‘t that they were not being accused of lots of things by Satan. They were just righteously following God‘s Law and never deviated from it. Satan was boldly thrown out of heaven and those that needed no repentance were no longer being pestered, accused before God any more. And they that live in heaven rejoiced

Rev 12:10 for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night Therefore, rejoice, you heavens, and you that dwell in them, Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! For the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has but a short time.

The war in heaven is won by God and Satan lost. The issue was over, and the devil and His angels are thrown out. We know that when Job was alive, that Satan was still allowed in heaven‘s courts. Was it the death of Yeshua on the cross that resolved it in Heaven to have nothing more to do with Satan? No place was found in heaven for Satan. This earth is Satan‘s last strong hold. We are the final battle ground in this war. God will win this war here also. Is it resolved in your own heart, and do you want Satan cast out of you forever too?

Hebrews 2:3 How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;

So yes, there are aliens, beings populating other planets in some far away galaxies, who have never sinned. But the space ships full of aliens that seek to probe and prod us, like specimens does not fit. Therefore I am of the same opinion expressed by others that these "aliens" are demons. Their purpose is not for us. They seem to be waiting and "watching". Maybe that is why they are called "Watchers".


587 Hebrews 2:3

 

[Josiah]

Atheists reject the claims of theists because there is no evidence to support their claims...we don't just feel that there is no evidence, there in fact is no compelling evidence.

Yet there is NO evidence (compelling, verifiable or not) for believing in life beyond our planet - BUT..... see the atheist who embrace that faith!

If life arose here, then it does not take faith to believe it is possible that there are other places in the universe where conditions are such that life could arise there as well.

Yet there is NOTHING - absolutely nothing whatsoever - compelling or verifiable - NOTHING that indicates there is life beyond the Earth. NOTHING. NADA. ZIP. But, an atheist suggests such a belief.... Pot calling kettle black, my friend????

If it does not "take faith" to believe something that has NO evidence WHATSOEVER - none, nada, zip - NOTHING compelling or verificable or even existing AT ALL - then hasn't the whole argument for atheism (and agnosticism) been repudiated? Pot calling kettle black, my friend?

IF one is going to say "compelling, verifiable EVIDENCE" is mandated, okay.... but then one can't embrace life on other planets. Or a whole lot of other things.


That's my perspective....


- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

First, here's what an actual scientist has to say about the possibility of life elsewhere:

Stephen Hawking - Life In The Universe

Yet there is NO evidence (compelling, verifiable or not) for believing in life beyond our planet - BUT..... see the atheist who embrace that faith!

Again and again, I am not making a claim that there IS life elsewhere, I am simply acknowledging that it is reasonable to believe it is a real possibility. I don't get why this distinction is so elusive to you.

 

[tango]

We have evidence for things like computers, clocks and other such manufactured items being designed and produced by people. You are citing a version of the "Watchmaker Analogy." Here's an article regarding the thoughts of evolutionary biologist Dr. Richard Dawkins on this analogy:

Sure, but it is curious to think that where we see a computer or a watch or a ceiling fan we say it was made by a person and yet when we see something as inordinately complex as the human brain we say it merely evolved from primordial soup.

I realise the difference between a self-replicating organism improving itself over time and an inanimate object improving itself. My body can repair itself if anything happens to it but if I back my car over my carriage clock it will take a fair amount of skilled work to make it run again. But if anything I would say that makes the case for a designer of a self-replicating, self-healing and self-improving organism stronger rather than weaker.

A species adapting to its surroundings over many generations can be observed in many situations and can be demonstrated in a laboratory. Years ago I worked with a couple of guys who were doing just that, basically making the environment for bacteria progressively more hostile in order to selectively breed things that had unusual preferences. It worked too, much better than expected. But fundamentally the species was still the same.

Questions I've never come across an answer for as yet include things like, how did the first living thing (that came to life all by itself) know how to self-replicate? How did it know to feed, or how to feed, or what to feed on? Or did it just die and a lifeless universe continue for however long it was before something else came to life and had another go? When we look at mechanisms like blood clotting, how did that develop? Too many platelets and blood clots causing death, too few platelets and blood doesn't clot resulting in bleeding to death. How did a life form get the balance just right? Live and learn doesn't work if learning tends to involve death.

As far as the Big Bang Theory goes, science can take us all the way back until a point in time, an extremely tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, where we need to unify general relativity with quantum mechanics in order to go all the way back to the beginning of spacetime. So, scientist are in a position at present to say we do not fully understand how the big bang started or what may have preceded it. It is an area of ignorance for us, but the invocation of a magical being does not further our progress at all...it has no explanatory power and in fact unnecessarily complicates the question.

If they can go back that tiny fraction of a second that would be interesting to see. Until then I can't help thinking of the guy who tried to jump across a chasm and made it all the way except the last half inch.

I realise that "God did it" doesn't answer a scientific question of how it all happened but even if science can demonstrate that under those perfect conditions (that maybe can be shown to happen every 100bn years) a Big Bang event will occur it still doesn't answer the question of why such an event would occur every 100bn years. In a lot of ways the concept of God (with or without the capital G) transcends scientific observation in that if God does exist outside of the way we comprehend space-time then all science can do is monitor the things that God does and periodically look at what we might call a miracle event only to scratch its head and say it doesn't know how or why it happened. And since most miracles don't occur under laboratory conditions with control groups and hypotheses to test and repeatable measurable results and all the other fun sciencey stuff it's not the sort of thing science can sensibly investigate anyway.

 

[MarkFL]

Sure, but it is curious to think that where we see a computer or a watch or a ceiling fan we say it was made by a person and yet when we see something as inordinately complex as the human brain we say it merely evolved from primordial soup.

How is that curious, I have to wonder. We have all kinds of evidence for people making things, and we have all kinds of evidence for evolution.

I realise the difference between a self-replicating organism improving itself over time and an inanimate object improving itself. My body can repair itself if anything happens to it but if I back my car over my carriage clock it will take a fair amount of skilled work to make it run again. But if anything I would say that makes the case for a designer of a self-replicating, self-healing and self-improving organism stronger rather than weaker.

I look at this same thing and see the case for natural selection being made stronger. Creatures that are capable of repairing damage at the cellular level have a definite advantage over those that are not.

A species adapting to its surroundings over many generations can be observed in many situations and can be demonstrated in a laboratory. Years ago I worked with a couple of guys who were doing just that, basically making the environment for bacteria progressively more hostile in order to selectively breed things that had unusual preferences. It worked too, much better than expected. But fundamentally the species was still the same.

Yes, but carry on the experiment for millions of years, and those tiny changes add up until we have something that is not the same species as the progenitor.

Questions I've never come across an answer for as yet include things like, how did the first living thing (that came to life all by itself) know how to self-replicate? How did it know to feed, or how to feed, or what to feed on? Or did it just die and a lifeless universe continue for however long it was before something else came to life and had another go? When we look at mechanisms like blood clotting, how did that develop? Too many platelets and blood clots causing death, too few platelets and blood doesn't clot resulting in bleeding to death. How did a life form get the balance just right? Live and learn doesn't work if learning tends to involve death.

These are good questions, and likely fit the model for natural selection beautifully. The first simple life presumably arose from complex molecules that were already self-replicating. I would wager that when the truth about all the details is known, it will be far more fascinating than any creation mythology invented by primitive peoples.

If they can go back that tiny fraction of a second that would be interesting to see. Until then I can't help thinking of the guy who tried to jump across a chasm and made it all the way except the last half inch.

Well, it's not like that last unknown part results in a catastrophic loss in the power what of we do know to explain a wide range of things. The two theories work exceedingly well, general relativity on the large scale cosmology and the standard model for partial physics on the quantum scale. But, as we know, since the two theories are incompatible they are both ultimately incomplete.

I realise that "God did it" doesn't answer a scientific question of how it all happened but even if science can demonstrate that under those perfect conditions (that maybe can be shown to happen every 100bn years) a Big Bang event will occur it still doesn't answer the question of why such an event would occur every 100bn years. In a lot of ways the concept of God (with or without the capital G) transcends scientific observation in that if God does exist outside of the way we comprehend space-time then all science can do is monitor the things that God does and periodically look at what we might call a miracle event only to scratch its head and say it doesn't know how or why it happened. And since most miracles don't occur under laboratory conditions with control groups and hypotheses to test and repeatable measurable results and all the other fun sciencey stuff it's not the sort of thing science can sensibly investigate anyway.

We simply need to examine the evidence, and use the scientific method to make progress...and leave the unfalsifiable claims in our churches where they belong.

 

[TurtleHare]

Unfalsifiable claims?

 

[NewCreation435]

When we talk aliens I believe that they are demons

when exactly do you talk to aliens?

 

[Josiah]

Again and again, I am not making a claim that there IS life elsewhere, I am simply acknowledging that it is reasonable to believe it is a real possibility. I don't get why this distinction is so elusive to you.

So.... it's "reasonable" to believe something for which there is NO evidence..... zero, nada, nothing. Okay. But it's "unreasonable" to believe in a Creator? A supernatural? God?

:thinking: :dunno:



- Josiah

 

[Lamb]

So.... it's "reasonable" to believe something for which there is NO evidence..... zero, nada, nothing. Okay. But it's "unreasonable" to believe in a Creator? A supernatural? God?

:thinking: :dunno:



- Josiah

There was a meme I saw on facebook about other holy leaders calling for loving our neighbor and the guy on the other side loving such words yet when Jesus spoke it was EW RELIGION! That's how it is for Christianity, the big ew for most people it seems even though if they only knew what it was really about....

 

[psalms 91]

when exactly do you talk to aliens?

Did you really get that from what I wrote?