EternalDragon
Counselor
I find it kind of strange how you have faith and belief in something not
proven as yet, but not faith or belief in God. Which is probably that
alien life you think exists out there. Seems kind of ironic.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Given how many planets exist and how much of the universe is unexplored, I think it is statistically more likely that there are planets with life on them other than our own than not. However, I seriously doubt we've had any alien visitors.
I find it kind of strange how you have faith and belief in something not
proven as yet, but not faith or belief in God. Which is probably that
alien life you think exists out there. Seems kind of ironic.
Not at all. She does not have 'faith' in extraterrestrial life or a religious 'belief' in it if you actually read the post.
She said that it is statistically likely (using science, logic and mathmatical probability) that there is some sort of life somewhere out there in the universe. Does she insist that there's life? No. Her position is in line with most scientists.
Contrast that with your religious belief in God which you base entirely on faith without any evidence, science or reasoning. See the difference?
It's odd how you like to use 'faith' as a pejorative.
Not at all. She does not have 'faith' in extraterrestrial life or a religious 'belief' in it if you actually read the post.
She said that it is statistically likely (using science, logic and mathmatical probability) that there is some sort of life somewhere out there in the universe. Does she insist that there's life? No. Her position is in line with most scientists.
Contrast that with your religious belief in God which you base entirely on faith without any evidence, science or reasoning. See the difference?
It's odd how you like to use 'faith' as a pejorative.
Yes, I realized that you were a neo-Darwinist a long time ago. However, I have yet to hear a compelling reason for accepting your point of view.Well, this evolutionist is of the opinion that all DNA based life has a common ancestral single celled origin; and the ability to use DNA as the unit of heredity actually evolved in earlier, simpler cellular life. This does not rule out multiple starts for life of differing nature that just never caught on for the long haul.
All right, let's start with a simple argument for the existence of God.Not at all. She does not have 'faith' in extraterrestrial life or a religious 'belief' in it if you actually read the post.
She said that it is statistically likely (using science, logic and mathmatical probability) that there is some sort of life somewhere out there in the universe. Does she insist that there's life? No. Her position is in line with most scientists.
Contrast that with your religious belief in God which you base entirely on faith without any evidence, science or reasoning. See the difference?
It's odd how you like to use 'faith' as a pejorative.
One thing that bothers me is people like you conflating atheism with acceptance of the theory of evolution.Im curious: it seems obvious that evolutionists will continue to grasp at straws to preserve an essentially atheistic paradigmeven straws with virtually no evidence. Why? Darwin himself may have given us a clue. He made at least one clear statement revealing his consternation with religious doctrine or dogma of the day. And those ideas were not about creation per se. Any ideas? I am curious as to whether todays evolutionists are put off by the same religious doctrine or dogma.
Let me pose a multiple-choice question: Which of the following ideas most bothers you (evolutionists)?
Probably true.1. The idea that a being exists in the universe with higher intelligence than any human?
Not very likely, but possible.2. The idea that this being was responsible for the origins of life on earth?
Again, not very likely, but possible.3. The idea that this being claims to be related to mankind in a more direct and personal way than mere naturalistic evolution would indicate?
I don't know of any such claim by such an individual. I know that people have made such claims on the behalf of such a being, however.4. The idea that this being claims to know how men and women can live to their fullest spiritual potential (attaining peace, love, joy, fulfilment, honor, etc.)?
This being is sure inconsistent with applying such intervention. Where was he during WWI and WWII? How about Cambodia? Its almost as if there wasn't any difference between a scenario where such a being intervens against evil people and another where there is no such being.... hmmm.. I wonder why...5. The idea that this being is concerned about men and women who hurt and kill other human beingsconcerned enough that He intervenes at limited times in history to warn, and sometimes to remove those who persist in evil.
See above.6. Bewilderment over why He doesnt intervene more directly and frequently to prevent bad things from happening to good people.
I doubt this, but I don't have a problem with it.7. The idea that eventually, all souls will be resurrected and required to give an account of how they used His gift of life, and how they treated their fellow humans?
A right relationship, according to who?.... you?8. The idea that hell has been spoken of in the Bible (via various metaphors, symbols and parables or stories) as the final destination of those who persist in rejecting a right relationship with God and their fellow men?
I don't see much of a difference although my side of the coin does
have more evidence, whether you accept it as evidence or not.
All right, let's start with a simple argument for the existence of God.
Postulate 1: There are an infinite number of possible universes.
Postulate 2: Although God must seem very unlikely, surely he must exist in one of those universes.
Conclusion: It is not surprising that God exists or that we live in the universe in which he does. The Weak Anthropic Principle fully supports this idea.
Im curious: it seems obvious that evolutionists will continue to grasp at straws to preserve an essentially atheistic paradigmeven straws with virtually no evidence. Why? Darwin himself may have given us a clue. He made at least one clear statement revealing his consternation with religious doctrine or dogma of the day. And those ideas were not about creation per se. Any ideas? I am curious as to whether todays evolutionists are put off by the same religious doctrine or dogma.
1. The idea that a being exists in the universe with higher intelligence than any human?
2. The idea that this being was responsible for the origins of life on earth?
3. The idea that this being claims to be related to mankind in a more direct and personal way than mere naturalistic evolution would indicate?
4. The idea that this being claims to know how men and women can live to their fullest spiritual potential (attaining peace, love, joy, fulfilment, honor, etc.)?
5. The idea that this being is concerned about men and women who hurt and kill other human beingsconcerned enough that He intervenes at limited times in history to warn, and sometimes to remove those who persist in evil.
6. Bewilderment over why He doesnt intervene more directly and frequently to prevent bad things from happening to good people.
7. The idea that eventually, all souls will be resurrected and required to give an account of how they used His gift of life, and how they treated their fellow humans?
8. The idea that hell has been spoken of in the Bible (via various metaphors, symbols and parables or stories) as the final destination of those who persist in rejecting a right relationship with God and their fellow men?
Split Rock: "A right relationship, according to who?.... you?"
Not at all. If I were designing the "rules", I might say that it is right and natural to lie to others when it benefits me, to be self-centered and pursue my own pleasure and pride above all else. History testifies to the fact that evolutionary indoctrination has frequently supplied the rationale for this kind of thinking and the devastating political/social consequences. The Devil's Delusion by Berlinski is a good read on this. Vox Day's book; The Irrational Atheist is also good (extremely deep). He also provides a contemporary analysis of why God doesn't use omnipotence and omniscience all the time.
florida2: "If, as you propose, God lets bad things happen to people (see the tsunami 10 years ago) it would be interesting to hear him give an account of how he uses his gift of onnipotence."
O.K., that's a natural place to begin. But follow it out by posing rational "what if..." questions. What if God continually intervened to bless believers and punish unbelievers. At a certain point, wouldn't you think Him inconsiderate of our freedom of choice, perhaps even manipulative of it? God as a micromanager is not what I read from the Bible.
The Father in the Prodigal Son parable did not chase his son into his chosen land of defiance. He tried to teach him how to live and how to avoid the natural consequences of bad choices. When men refuse to listen and essentially thumb their noses at God, He respects their freedom to choose. When the majority of the world's inhabitants are essentially thumbing their collective noses at God, isn't it silly to expect Him to intervene in ways that we might like or even dictate?
To understand the logic behind events of the past 2000 years, from God's perspective, you would need to ask first what He promised. He never promised us a rose garden. He never promised to nullify the natural consequences of men's defiance towards Him. Read Romans chapter 1-2. It says; "the wrath of God is revealed..." and it follows with none of the Greek Mythology-based stories of hell. Instead, it says that God "gives them up..." to their own desires and the natural consequences thereof.
In multiple verses the Bible indicates that God is withholding His desired intervention, until something important comes to fulfillment. I believe the key to this is the verse that predicts that this world will come to the place of total implosion... except that God will then step in to miraculously save a portion of humanity. The earth itself, however, is destined for a cosmic "clean-up" (II Peter chapter 3 and elsewhere). After this, God's plans are seen in Revelation chapter 21-22.
It still doesn't address the question of why an all-powerful and all-living God would allow terrible tragedies to happen.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?