The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

There are planets which are thousands and millions of light years away. It is not currently possible to do anything except acknowledge that they exist

Yeah, what you say is reasonable.

It is also reasonable to say that there is not a scintilla of evidence as of now to demonstrate that any one of those planets contain life and in that context Earth is unique.
I think it is entirely reasonable to say this, don't you?

Morbert

hinault wrote: »

It is also reasonable to say that there is not a scintilla of evidence as of now to demonstrate that any one of those planets contain life and in that context Earth is unique.
I think it is entirely reasonable to say this, don't you?

But what is important for the purposes of this conversation is the plausibility of other planets containing life.

The Kepler space telescope, for example, is designed to search for planets with properties similar to Earth's properties. Specifically, it looks for planets that are similar in size to Earth, orbit appropriate stars, and orbit those stars at appropriate distances. What is surprising is the number of such planets in our stellar neighbourhood.

Kepler's results, combined with the sheer number of total planets in the observable universe, imply it is entirely plausible that other planets support life.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

The claim I made is that the Earth is unique.

The claim you made is that the earth is unique so therefore God.

The uniqueness, or not, of earth is irrelevant in you being able to prove a god.

Safehands

robinph wrote: »

The claim you made is that the earth is unique so therefore God.
The uniqueness, or not, of earth is irrelevant in you being able to prove a god.

The thought that God made the Earth and is looking down and minding us all is a lovely idea.
If that is the case, why would he not have filled every planet with conditions similar to ours, with people in his own image, ie: humans, us.
Come to think of it, if he inspired the writers of the OT, why would he not have done exactly the same for other planets? Did Jesus visit other planets, assuming he was the son of God, a God of the whole Universe?

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

Yeah, what you say is reasonable.

It is also reasonable to say that there is not a scintilla of evidence as of now to demonstrate that any one of those planets contain life and in that context Earth is unique.

Picking up on the "as of now", here's a hypothetical situation for you,

Imagine tomorrow the mars rover finds proof of life on mars, or even some sort of fossils (after all we know it had liquid water at some stage so it likely had mud etc).

What then for you? Europe is no longer unique to you and you then have to change your whole worldview that god see's europe as unique too.

Now you might be thinking, but Cabaal Mars is a harsh place nothing could live there. Indeed it is but so are acid pools and hydro-thermal vents on earth but yet stuff lives in these locations too.

For the most part our views on where life can exist were once rather limited but as science has explored more regions of our own planet we've learned that life can go on in places that any human would die in seconds or minutes. Life most certainly doesn't need the sun like we once believed.

Life on other planets is a very real possibility and even within our own solar system we have candidates for places that either did or do contain life such as Mars, Europa, Enceladus or Ganymede. Europa alone has 3x times more water then earth has for starters.

Now you might be about to come back with...but Cabaal imagine if they discovered god tomorrow. But lets play the odds here and the history of science and its findings especially in relation to our universe.

When it comes to space science has dis-proven beliefs far more then religion has provided science with answers.

Science has also been able to provide evidence to support its claims, via tests, observations etc. For example the mathematical prediction by Edmond Halley of when Halley's Comet would appear 76 years exactly after it last appeared and exactly where in the sky it would appear isn't guess work it was proven beyond doubt by calculations.

When it comes to finding life or proof that it once existed on another planet it is only a matter of time.

hinault

Morbert wrote: »

But what is important for the purposes of this conversation is the plausibility of other planets containing life.

The Kepler space telescope, for example, is designed to search for planets with properties similar to Earth's properties. Specifically, it looks for planets that are similar in size to Earth, orbit appropriate stars, and orbit those stars at appropriate distances. What is surprising is the number of such planets in our stellar neighbourhood.

Kepler's results, combined with the sheer number of total planets in the observable universe, imply it is entirely plausible that other planets support life.

Atheists/anti-atheists here require cast iron clad proof of the existence of God before they deign to decide whether or not to accept the existence of God.

For them, plausibility doesn't come anywhere near the standard of proof required to accept the existence of God.

So adopting their standard, I'd like to see cast iron clad proof for the existence of life in any other part of the Universe.

hinault

robinph wrote: »

The claim you made is that the earth is unique so therefore God.

The uniqueness, or not, of earth is irrelevant in you being able to prove a god.

For clarification, I said that Earth is unique and the precision of the entire Universe and the laws which govern the Universe, confirm for me the biblical teaching that God created Creation.

I'm suggestion that if people examine the evidence of creation on Earth and examine the precision and exactness of the Universe and the laws that govern the Universe that they too may come to the realisation that God created Creation.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

So adopting their standard, I'd like to see cast iron clad proof for the existence of life in any other part of the Universe.

That would be a reasonable question to ask on the Alien Abduction forum. Life outside of this planet is completely irrelevant to your claim of a god.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

So adopting their standard, I'd like to see cast iron clad proof for the existence of life in any other part of the Universe.

That would be a reasonable question to ask on the Alien Abduction forum. Life outside of this planet is completely irrelevant to your claim of a god.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

The claim you made is that the earth is unique so therefore God.

The uniqueness, or not, of earth is irrelevant in you being able to prove a god.

For clarification, I said that Earth is unique and the precision of the entire Universe and the laws which govern the Universe, confirm for me the biblical teaching that God created Creation.

I'm suggestion that if people examine the evidence of creation on Earth and examine the precision and exactness of the Universe and the laws that govern the Universe that they too may come to the realisation that God created Creation.

You are going to have to show you working and how you get from "uniqueness of the earth" to the answer of "god". For bonus points you can also show why earth not being unique results in there being no god as you are the only person proposing that theory as well.

hinault

robinph wrote: »

You are going to have to show you working and how you get from "uniqueness of the earth" to the answer of "god". For bonus points you can also show why earth not being unique results in there being no god as you are the only person proposing that theory as well.

Your attempts to patronise and to deliberately try to misrepresent what was posted earlier, is getting rather tedious at this point.

You get my drift.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

Your attempts to patronise and to deliberately try to misrepresent what was posted earlier, is getting rather tedious at this point.

You get my drift.

You could always attempt to answer a question. Anyone's question would be a start.

Timberrrrrrrr

robinph wrote: »

You could always attempt to answer a question. Anyone's question would be a start.

That would be a miracle all in itself :pac:

hinault

robinph wrote: »

You could always attempt to answer a question. Anyone's question would be a start.

Not when they deliberately misrepresent what was posted earlier - like you tried to do.

robinph

hinault wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

You could always attempt to answer a question. Anyone's question would be a start.

Not when they deliberately misrepresent what was posted earlier - like you tried to do.

You have not been misrepresented. You are failing to explain yourself.

Morbert

hinault wrote: »

Atheists/anti-atheists here require cast iron clad proof of the existence of God before they deign to decide whether or not to accept the existence of God.

For them, plausibility doesn't come anywhere near the standard of proof required to accept the existence of God.

So adopting their standard, I'd like to see cast iron clad proof for the existence of life in any other part of the Universe.

You don't have to accept that there is life on other planets. It's perfectly reasonable to be agnostic about the existence of life on other planets. What is compelling is the plausibility of life on other planets. This plausibility means, when you make a statement like "Earth is unique" or "life does not exist anywhere else", few people will find it convincing.

Also, to be clear, atheists don't believe God is plausible. If an atheist takes the position "God is entirely plausible but I don't believe He exists because there is no cast-iron proof", then they are an agnostic in denial. And an unreasonable agnostic at that. Atheists instead actively believe God is implausible (Well, unless they are shoe atheists, but that's neither here nor there).

looksee

I had to look up what a shoe atheist is, my brain fried at Urban Dictionary's explanation (it was the first one that came up, presumably there are better definitions) so I am not a lot wiser, but I get the drift.

Absolam

hinault wrote: »

We know that there is life on Earth. If there is life on the planets that you cite, then there is no disparity between two sets of data, as of now. In order to prove that there is no disparity, you need to first prove that there is life on any one of the planets that you cite ideally to the level of sophistication and diversity that we have here on Earth.

That would only prove there is no disparity between the sophistication and diversity of life on Earth and the planets with similar sophistication and diversity of life though. Right now, the disparity between the sets of data you want to consider is that, as I said, one is a list of things relating to a planet, the other is a list of planets. And from that, we know that when you tell us "In fact there is no life at all on those planets" you just don't know that's true. Why would you tell us something is true when you don't know if it is?

Panrich

looksee wrote: »

I had to look up what a shoe atheist is, my brain fried at Urban Dictionary's explanation (it was the first one that came up, presumably there are better definitions) so I am not a lot wiser, but I get the drift.

I don't. Insecure atheists. Shoes are atheists? I'm going to bed.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

..but I spent the vast majority of my life with the other viewpoint and understand the thinking behind it.

Do you?

I mean, faith isn't an empirical thing so what you thought/experienced isn't necessarily the same as another thinks / has experienced.

I fully acknowledge that people have faith, and I have no issue with this from a personal POV. I too had it but when I took the time to consider it I started asking questions and I have yet to be given a reasonable answer. Normally it ends up with "well I can't help if you don't want to believe" or something like that, when in fact I would love to believe, I would love to go back to the time that I didn't have all these questions, when I didn't feel out of step with my friends and family. In fact I did believe, but how flimsy must faith be if it can be skane by simply asking a few questions?

It would be very flimsy indeed.

I too have had many questions and have found the answers inadequate. What has weakened is my faith in the church (as a body of believers that is: I'm not and haven't been a member of a significant denominational form of Christianity).

That doesn't upset me too much because I understand there are pitfalls to church: such as groupthink / birds of a feather. A lot of people like fixed certainties too, so there will be a tendency to settle on certain beliefs and never question them, even if they are clearly ridiculous (YEC anybody).

But my faith in God is strong. Because of a definite, unmistakable encounter with him. I cannot in some future point unknow what I know. It is strong, because of the sense His explanations make when it comes to that most central of questions: who we are, why we are here, why we are the way we are and do the way we do. It is strong because the alternative explanation: a Frankensteinian assembly of sociology, psychology, politics, law, neurology, etc., etc., etc., form a clunky, clanking explanation in comparison. These are fine disciplines but an elegant "theory of everything" they do not combine to make. I'm a mechanical engineer: I detect and appreciate well oiled mechanisms and the bibical mechanism is simply too astonishingly elegant to ascribe its assembly to man. We don't do that kind of elegance.

I've asked questions, I've move on from church, I seek and sometime I find. And on it goes.

The part that I struggle with is the apparent rejection of the very same notions of evidence you used to satisfy yourself as to your belief but are not prepared to use in terms of other religions. It is the hypocrisy of choosing to accept one standard of evidence for everything in your life, except this. And why not use that very same type of evidence to review the other religions/gods that are offered?

If Allah turned up then I'd a) have as much of a look as I did at God b) have a question or two needing addressing

Bear in mind: I didn't go looking for and find God. God found me.

If you are being honest, then you will see that the reason you have opted for the version of God that you accept is that it is the one that you have been told about. Why not believe in Thor, or Zeus, or Santa, or aliens. Even without knowing the particulars of the evidence I would be pretty comfortable that I can give you examples of such evidence to back up all the other forms of religion.

The God I was told about was the Roman Catholic version of God. I'd pretty much left that God behind by the time I made my confirmation (I recall bunking confession the evening before because there was a match on TV I wanted to see)

The God that turned up I'd never been told about. I couldn't have even begun to imagine such a God

Bear in mind, it's not the testimony of the gospel or the like which grounds my faith. God turning up grounds my faith. The rest enhances and adds body to it.

Their God is the right god, therefore all others are wrong, yet I bet that believers across all other religions base their belief on the exact same criteria.

This point is understandable but weak. If you can make the same argument to people of all religions and "win" each time then there's something wrong with your argument. What's wrong with it is that it denies the possibility of there actually being one God and the rest sub-optimal* paths.

In other words, if God actually exists and the others don't then that's just the way it is. The fact I was born in a nominally (buy not actually) Christian country is incidental and not a basis for supposing God doesn't exist.


*I don't think it matters which religion a person follows - God is interested in the heart, not a persons religion.

hinault

Morbert wrote: »

Also, to be clear, atheists don't believe God is plausible. If an atheist takes the position "God is entirely plausible but I don't believe He exists because there is no cast-iron proof", then they are an agnostic in denial. And an unreasonable agnostic at that. Atheists instead actively believe God is implausible (Well, unless they are shoe atheists, but that's neither here nor there).

Fair enough.

Advbrd

antiskeptic wrote: »

definite, unmistakable encounter with him.

You may not want to divulge the details but I for one would be interested in hearing about your encounter.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

For clarification, I said that Earth is unique and the precision of the entire Universe and the laws which govern the Universe, confirm for me the biblical teaching that God created Creation.

I'm suggestion that if people examine the evidence of creation on Earth and examine the precision and exactness of the Universe and the laws that govern the Universe that they too may come to the realisation that God created Creation.

Hang on,
So your realisation is...because it seems complex therefor god?

Playing the odds (sheer number of planets, stars and galaxy's) result in coming to the conclusion that life on earth is very likely not unique. The odds of another planet harbouring some sort of life is high.

Now if earth were unique and if a god did exist then its wasted an awful lot of space considering the vastness of space...something most people have trouble comprehending.

Delirium

hinault wrote: »

For clarification, I said that Earth is unique and the precision of the entire Universe and the laws which govern the Universe, confirm for me the biblical teaching that God created Creation.

I'm suggestion that if people examine the evidence of creation on Earth and examine the precision and exactness of the Universe and the laws that govern the Universe that they too may come to the realisation that God created Creation.

As others have already said, you've yet to establish that Earth is unique. You're working from a dataset of one planet, Earth!

As to precision, you're working backwards. I.e. because life exisgts on Earth you presume that this means that God (or some other agent) made it so.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

Atheists/anti-atheists here require cast iron clad proof of the existence of God before they deign to decide whether or not to accept the existence of God.

For them, plausibility doesn't come anywhere near the standard of proof required to accept the existence of God.
So adopting their standard, I'd like to see cast iron clad proof for the existence of life in any other part of the Universe.

I think I see where you are coming from here. The trouble is that nobody here has ever said, definatively, that there is life on other planets. I say that statistically, it is probable that there is life somewhere out there, but I can't be sure, so I offer no proof.
With God, there is no statistical model we can use for his existence. The only form of evidence we have that suggests he exists, is in a book written thousands of years ago, by pre-historic unknown people with limited knowledge of science. A wonderful piece of literature it is too, but it is not plausable by todays standards. We must suspend belief in scientific facts to accept its authenticity. Millions of intellegent people believe it. However, their acceptance of it does not, in any way, authenticate the facts contained in it.

MrPudding

Advbrd wrote: »

You may not want to divulge the details but I for one would be interested in hearing about your encounter.

It has something to do with riding a motorcycle without a fuel gauge, but always being at a filling station when the fuel ran out...

MrP

hinault

Safehands wrote: »

I think I see where you are coming from here. The trouble is that nobody here has ever said, definatively, that there is life on other planets. I say that statistically, it is probable that there is life somewhere out there, but I can't be sure, so I offer no proof.
With God, there is no statistical model we can use for his existence. The only form of evidence we have that suggests he exists, is in a book written thousands of years ago, by pre-historic unknown people with limited knowledge of science. A wonderful piece of literature it is too, but it is not plausable by todays standards. We must suspend belief in scientific facts to accept its authenticity. Millions of intellegent people believe it. However, their acceptance of it does not, in any way, authenticate the facts contained in it.

I don't agree that the writers of the books in the Bible were limited in terms of wisdom or limited in anything else.

In my view, for example, the chronology of creation explained in Genesis indicates a writer who's words betray an understanding of science which pre-dates scientific explanations. That's just my view.

Safehands

hinault wrote: »

I don't agree that the writers of the books in the Bible were limited in terms of wisdom or limited in anything else.

In my view, for example, the chronology of creation explained in Genesis indicates a writer who's words betray an understanding of science which pre-dates scientific explanations. That's just my view.

You are 100% entitled to hold that view, no argument!

The chronology of creation explained in Genesis tells us that morning and evening, as well as day and night were created before the sun was created. Obviously the writers did not know that the sun is responsible for day and night, morning and evening. That is a good example of what I meant when I said they had a limited scientific knowledge.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

You are 100% entitled to hold that view, no argument!

The chronology of creation explained in Genesis tells us that morning and evening, as well as day and night were created before the sun was created. Obviously the writers did not know that the sun is responsible for day and night, morning and evening. That is a good example of what I meant when I said they had a limited scientific knowledge.

... or the current evolution consensus within (materialistic explanations only) science is wrong.

J C

Cabaal wrote: »

Hang on,
So your realisation is...because it seems complex therefor god?

Playing the odds (sheer number of planets, stars and galaxy's) result in coming to the conclusion that life on earth is very likely not unique. The odds of another planet harbouring some sort of life is high.

What odds are these that you are referring to?

Cabaal wrote: »

Now if earth were unique and if a god did exist then its wasted an awful lot of space considering the vastness of space...something most people have trouble comprehending.

The Heavens declare the glory and majesty of God ... and only something as appropriately vast as space 'fits this bill'.:)