danielius

Is there a 'virtually infinite' number of stars, or do you actually mean 'a very great many'?

Yes, we have evidence of life. The only really concrete evidence. And there is nothing to say that we might really be alone in the universe. As we are the only known life in the universe thus far, it is impossible to establish a probability for life elsewhere. To believe in alien life really is to have faith.

Well, why haven't any of these highly-advanced, technologically superior super aliens communicated in a clear way with us at any time, past or present?

It's very good of you to tell God what the necessary level of proof needs to be. I bet He wishes He'd listened to you. I guess that is where He went wrong.

And you cannot claim that God does not perform miracles nowadays (or that miracles do not nowadays occur). Specifically, you must state something along the lines of: I have seen no convincing evidence thus far for miracles. But that is different to saying that miracles do not occur.

There is no reason to suppose God, if He exists, would communicate with us. After all, we believe in a 'hidden' God, though one that can be known through reason and revelation.

What are the 'right' conditions? We don't know. Not for sure. There are a good several competing scientific theories for how life arose on earth. And how can we be sure that given the right conditions, something would happen. Nothing might still happen. Conditions do not guarantee life.

There is a great deal of theoretical and other evidence for God's existence. This whole dialogue is about discussion of some of that evidence.

There is evidence for alien life, though I did say that the evidence was not clear-cut nor unambiguous. It is also hotly disputed by many scientists. To be credible simply means to be believable. As at least some scientists do believe in alien life (that it is only a matter of time before its discovery etc.), it is thus credible.

A non sequitur. There is hard and fast evidence for the Holocaust, yet there are people who deny it ever happened.

Did you go to the hospital and interview the midwife who delivered you or asked for official copies of records? My point was that we all believe things on decent, but often far from overwhelming, evidence. The point stands.

Even if I wanted to, the hospital where I was born no longer exists - it was pulled down long ago.

No Christianity does not mean 'anything to anyone'. You just can't say that my world-view is my private one - I believe in every one of the statements within the Nicene Creed. They are the ones we are debating. I believe in logical absolutes, and absolute moral values. My world-view is big enough for the entire cosmos, it is not as narrow as one person.

Have I ever, ever used the term 'miraculous sky daddy'?

Danielius

emotional

This is what I believe about God:

God is the Creator of the universe. He is both immanent and transcendent. Between the Creator and the creation a great gulf is fixed, but He pervades all of the creation. He is the All-Wise, All-Holy Father. He is Love. He saves sinners, cleanses the sins of men. He is the Lord of Life and Death. He is the Light of Love that all who die meet. He is the Reviewer of Life. He is the Lord of Heaven and Hell. He is the All-Merciful. May His blessing shower us all.



God has no Son, but He is relationship in nature, and that is why He created the universe 15 billion years ago. He gave the creation the opportunity to create itself, hence the process of evolution of everything we see (stars, planets, forms of life). Why He decided to create 15 billion years ago and not sooner or later I don't know; it's a total mystery, but it's a given.



Even your own Bible says, "God is not a man" (Numbers 23:19). In the Greek Olympian pantheon gods get married and have children, because they are made in man's image; but the Creator is not like the Olympian gods, and He does not beget a Son.

Take it from me, from my experience here: each and every one attempts to prove the logic of something that deviates from the materialistic worldview, be it God or Biblical inspiration or the afterlife, will be met with refutation and ridicule. You'll never convince the atheists here is that yours is a reasonable worldview. I tried and failed, so I decided not to try any more, and I now present my worldview as one of faith alone.

If faith be based on evidence, how will faith fare when the evidence is refuted? But my faith is independent of evidence, so it can never be demolished.

Jinto

When you say "created equal" what do you mean? Usually when a theist uses the word "created" they mean "created by a supernatural entity." I don't believe humans have a supernatural origin, therefore I cannot agree with this statement. Now if you mean created pourely in the literal sense, then surely you must know that humans are not equal... even after fertilization, some humans will have a genetic code that will yeild greater intelligence, strength, speed, etc. than other humans. They are all human, yea, but they are not all equal. Thus, to say what you do is to say "humans have/are infused with a supernatural compnent, which is equal in all humans." I don't think that humans have a supernatural compnent, PERIOD. That cannot, therefore, be construed to mean that I think humans should be given unequal rights based on their DNA, but the fact remains that some people's DNA does confer on them advantages and disadvantages, and therefore to say "all humans are equal" is poppycock.

Since nonhumans are not subject to our legal systems and therefore cannot possibly be criminals, it is only logical to say that ALL criminals must be human. If one is not human, one cannot be a criminal. Or perhaps you know a chimpanzee in prison?

To say, as you do, "all humans are equal in their humanity," is to say that all humans are human. To which I say: DUH.

And you still have not shown how you can believe in the Christian God and still believe that all humans are created equal, when the bible clearly states that Eve was created to serve Adam. One does not get any kind of equality when you state that one human is created to serve another, or that anyone has a divine right to rule.

Wrong. You are confusing "observable universe" with "universe." The universe contains more than just these 1.4*(10^31) cubic light-years that we can observe. The volume inside the event horizon of black holes is also part of the universe. By the way, I noticed the part of the definition that states that the universe must be dependant. So, vaccum fluctuations are not a part of the universe then? Nice try in defining the universe to require an outside, but frankly, you've given me no reason to accept your definition, and three to reject it.

Good analogy, unless you're arguing that Jesus is a God, Jehovah is a God, and the Holy Ghost is a God. In which case you'd have three Gods, not one. And didn't you say that to have multiple Gods is illogical because they would nessecarily limit each other?

So, you are going to support your arugments now?

Ah, so all that "I and my Father are one" was just metaphor then. Thought so.

The present is one time. The past is a finite set of many times, and the future is a set of many times which may or may not be finite.

I'm sorry, but the theocracy of the Roman Catholic Chruch did indeed constitute a government based on the teachings of Jesus. By the way, it seems strange that you would pick loving your enemies and turning the other cheek as Jesus's exemplary teachings, considering that they are just repeats from Leviticus ( ), of all things (Lev. 19:10). Why not something new, like Mk. 7:27, or Lk. 19:27, or perhaps the paulian teachins of 2 Cor. 10:5? After all, those are just as important as the other teachings of Jesus.

Sorry.

No, where God went wrong is by instituting a system where salvation has anything to do with belief. Reaching an incorrect conclusion should not be punishable.

But thank you for the compliment.

Correct. The law is the law. The law is not justice, as a computer is not math.

I think we're talking about two different things. I'm talking about the difference between enforcing a 75 MPH speed limit on a car going 75.1 MPH and enforcing said limit on a car going 100 MPH. You're talking about two identical crimes being prosecuted differently. They are not the same concept. Imagine if I said "Hey, how come you're arresting me for raping and murdering a five year old girl. You didn't arrest that guy for littering." You would think I'm a nincompoop. That's what I'm talking about.

Ah. This is like the spoiled brat that says "Since I can't have my ice cream sundae with the kind of sprinkles I like, I'm not going to have any ice cream at all." In other words, ridiculous.

As the newly manufactured 747 rises into the air, tell me, what did it fall from?

Historian terminology is (usually) not intended to say that we are any "higher" or "lower" than we were before: remember, those same historians also speak of man as "descended" from monkeys. It's just sloppy writing. And in any case, isn't that an argument from authority?

Mt. 27:46 - And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

That's MORE than six hours. And in any case, the question of why they would take him down EARLY is still unanswered.

But you haven't adressed the point: if they really were worried about Jesus's ressurection (as the story goes), why would they turn him over to the disciples, and place him in a SEALED tomb, instead of, say, leaving him up on the bloody cross so that IF he started moving the soldiers could kill him again?

Matthew 28:13

Read the passage again: "And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses." You are justified in BREAKING DIVINE LAW if you believe in Jesus Christ. In other words, if you believe, then the law isn't the law.

And speaking of faith, just how real is yours? Are you willing to take the Mk. 16:18 challenge? Have you faithfully followed Christ's directives in Mk. 9:42, and drowned everyone who offended a young Christian? Have you cut off all the body parts that have ever tempted you to sin? Somehow, I doubt you've even attempted to follow Christ's teachings.

Your statement has been edited for increased accuracy. Have a nice day.

Yeah, and exactly how do you plan to support the statement that a God that wants people to worship Him, and will punish them for not doing so, isn't egotistical?

You apparently misread the analogy: the comparison was the decaying factory to the dacaying body. Nothing about the Earth in there.

No, you are suggesting that life may exist after death. You have given no mechanism that could show how this could possibly take place, and I have given a mechanism (decay of the body) to show it can't.

Birth is not a miracle, and the fact that it is referred to as such no more makes it a miracle than the "miracle" of television.

You mean, is there a place in the universe where life is common? Frankly, we could be living in one, and just not know it because we're the first species in our area to develop radio technology. Or not. We have no evidence either way. But what does the presumed rarity of life have to do with the afterlife?

(BTW, atheists do not nessecarily say that life is the exception rather than the rule. Opinions as to the rarity of life vary greatly among atheists. There are some who think that we may be on the only planet in several galaxies with life, and some that think that every other star system has a class-M planet in it. Again though, it's irrelevant ot the issue of the afterlife.)

Amaranth

Guys, drop the ET debate. It's a red herring with and nothing more. The point here is "Is christianity a rational world-veiw?" Let's stick to beating that down, and not letting the author side-track us (again, I should mention).

Now, for dear ole Daniel:

Theoretical evidence? Is that like evidence that I assume might exist? And where is this "other evidence" of gods existance? I've seen a lot of bad logic about first causes and tradition, but nothing about actual evidence for a god. Heck, you still haven't even defined this god.

Or I can define god for us. I would enjoy that.

Cipher Girl

Like Randi, I think that you need to provide evidence for your assertions. BTW, Danielius, I agree with emotional, to demand evidence for your beliefs is not to have faith. But then again, you don't have any certain knowledge that your beliefs are true. All I've seen in this thread are assertions. Simply because something can be imagined does not make it so. Hey, I claim that there is a Giant Purple Rhino orbiting the planet Uranus. I can assert things as well.

What "theory of His non-existance"? You've spent page after page of inconsistent and ever changing arguments for your position. I can sum mine up in one sentence that has not changed for many years. Until there is solid empirical evidence for the existence of god/gods, I will not assume that such an entity/entities exist.

This directly contradicts your earlier post where you stated "1. Everything that exists was brought into existence by something else " Why the shifting argument? What do you actually think?

Actually #3 is the logical choice, as it has the least amount of assumptions needed. The other two choices require unproved assertions, they are not logical choices. Occams Razor, remember. You finally realized that #1 leads to infinite regressions. And #2 you are merely asserting that "godditit" without anything to back it up.

WTF? Uncaused cause? That is like saying a square circle or the living dead. A logical impossibility. And even if something created the universe, why are you assuming that an "eternal uncreated God" did it? You cannot make the leap logically. Again, assertions don't make something true.

Danielius, repeat after me "Assertions don't make something true. Just because I want it to be true, does not make it so."

At what point in the evolutionary tree did man suddenly become the "image of another world"?

As for the rest of your post, all assertions without a shred of evidence beyond mere wishful thinking. I can speculate all day about all kinds of things. It does not make them true however.

danielius

To summarise the evidence for ET life in the universe:

1. There are other planets in the universe - it is likely that there could be billions throughout the entire universe, though only a very small number expressed as a percentage would have atmospheres/water

2. There are basic organic chemicals found in meteorites and water found other than on earth. This represents physical evidence for the possibility of alien life

3. There is mathematics and probabilities which are cited as evidence for the likelihood of ET life

The purpose of this dialogue was to see if there could be established that the Christian world-view is a reasonable one.

This would need cover both internal and external evidence. Brian (BumbleBee Tuna) has indicated that he is in agreement with me that Christianity is an internally consistent world-view. He even went so far as to say on that limited basis, Christianity could indeed be viewed as reasonable.

However, he and other posters here, have indicated the additional requirement of external evidence. No specific framework has been suggested for what would constitute adequate external evidence.

I am suggesting that if it can be shown that the Christian hypothesis has evidence at least as 'substantial' as that of the ET life hypothesis (believed in by at least some 'optimistic' and very rational scientists), I believe I will have provided adequate grounds for asserting that Christianity is a reasonable world-view.

I agree that this would be entirely distinct from suggesting that Christianity is 'proven', and the question of 'proveability' was never a purpose of this dialogue.

I believe that the three major forms of evidence for ET life cited above are equivalent to:

1. An appeal to numbers/'argument from quantity' - if there is the logical possibility of billions of planets in the universe, it is rational to presume that at least one (more) has life on it

2. Physical evidence - organic chemicals/water constitute precursors to organic life

3. Mathematical/probability - it is suggested that mathematically the chances of life existing in the universe aside from earth are very good

I would like to compare the evidence for the ET hypothesis with comparable evidence for the Christian hypothesis:

1. An appeal to numbers/'argument from quantity' - there are billions of theists (both Christian and non) on earth, it is rational to presume that at least one is right

2. Physical evidence - the so-called 'God spot' in the human brain represents a theoretical innate precursor to religious belief

3. Mathematical/probability - the atheist scientist Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the chances of life emerging by random in the universe as less than 1 in 1 followed by 30 zeroes

Notes:

The 'God spot' could cause God, or God could have caused the 'God spot'. Similarly, ET organic chemicals might simply be evidence for ET organic chemicals. That scientists might find the chemicals suggestive evidence for the actual existence of aliens might point as much to an alien-delusion as that the God spot might point to a god-delusion.

Both mathematical formulae can be critiqued, as they both deal with currently unique phenomena - conscious life and the universe. Thus, to speak of the 'probability' of either ET conscious life or of intelligent universes is problematic and vexed with difficulties.

Conclusions:

I give no comment as to the quality of evidence available for the ET life hypothesis. To some rational scientists, it is 'substantial', to others it is not. But the point is that there is evidence of some real kind for the hypothesis, and that accordingly it has attracted the belief of at least some rational scientists and thinkers.

Therefore, I conclude that the Christian hypothesis, possessing evidence roughly equivalent to that of the ET life hypothesis, is at least as rational a world-view as that allowing for ET life.

Danielius

Dr Rick

Me, too; but unfortunately, there isn't any.

Counting the number of believers is not at all analagous to counting the number of potential physical environments for a potential event; it might be if ET's are living in some Christian's head, but otherwise this is just a reformulated argumentum ad popularum

There is a "spot" in the human brain (actually, it's the whole cortex) that conjures up leprachauns, but that's not evidence of their physical existence.

Hoyle's estimate was likely wrong, based upon what we have since learned about cosmology and quantum physics.

More importantly, this isn't irrelevant. The probabilities of the universe speaks nothing to the probability of god existing. Even the occurence of the most unlikely of events doesn't tell us anything about the likelihood of a god existing.

For the reasons above, this isn't evidence.

Rick

Amaranth

And here you are, still trying to reconcile a belief that ET is likely to your stated belief that god is. A god you still haven't defined, I note. Again.

And I know I asked everyone else to drop the ET debate, as it has no bearing (and it still doesn't), but I just have to point out one thing from this argument - This logic...this almost gave me a stroke:

I can't say anything without breaking forum rules. This masterpeice stands all by itself.

Amaranth

Bumble Bee Tuna

slow down there buddy. I said nothing of the sort. Christianity is one of the most internally inconsistent beliefs around. The Bible is riddled with contradictions. Jesus' teachings are often contradictory. Christianity is NOT internally consistent. What I DID say is that that's what you're trying to say:

i.e., Christians have multiple beliefs about Heaven, and they are all consistent, therefore Heaven is a reasonable belief. The same thing applies to the IPU: atheists claim various things about the IPU, all consistent, so the IPU must be a reasonable belief. It's ridiculous! I was merely saying that your standard of 'reasonable' included ridiculous things, and I had no problems saying Xianity is reasonable by your standards because your standards are worthless.

You have presented three pieces of "evidence" now. Let's take a look.

#1 is a fallacy. Argument from numbers is a stupid, stupid piece of "evidence". People are theists out of faith. They don't believe because it has been proven. There is absolutely no reason to think one of them must be right. Think of it like this: Assume god does not exist. Now look at theists. Does God not existing make them any less likely to be theists? No, because they will still believe out of faith. Thus the number of theists believing in God is irrelevant to whether the claim is true.

#2: What is this "God spot"? Perhaps you could elaborate? Right now you haven't said anything of substance about it so it can't be rebutted until I know what you're saying.

#3: It is fallacious to try to assing a probability to life forming. To do so, you need information about the parameters, and you need to know what parameters lead to life forming. Scientists currently know neither of these things. Thus, a probability cannot be assigned.

You mischaracterized the evidence for ETs. #1 for ETs is NOT the argument from numbers. It is actually just part of #3, which is really the only evidence there is. The only reason people might believe ETs are probable is if they have calculated it to be so.

I will not get into ETs, however, because you have mischaracterized people who talk about ETs, and I am not one of them anyway. It doesn't matter, the whole ET vs God thing is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, despite what you may think. Allow me to explain.

You are arguing over whether god-belief is reasonable. The topic is whether Christianity is reasonable. The two are not synonymous. You are currently arguing over whether deism is as reasonable as believing ETs exist. You are supposed to be arguing over whether Christianity is reasonable.

Start talking about Christianity, please.

-B

Stephen T-B

Going back a long way, but danielius confused a statement I made about extra-terrestrial life with extra-terrestrial intelligent life.
I was thinking of very simple life-forms, not complex ones. Perhaps there are aliens out there. I think, however, that they are so distant that whether they exist or not is a matter of academic interest only.
The existence of microbes, however, could be very significant.
Fred Hoyle certainly thought so.