View Poll Results: See OP

Voters
100. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    22 22.00%
  • No, because...

    64 64.00%
  • Other

    14 14.00%
Page 69 of 87 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... LastLast
Results 681 to 690 of 870

Thread: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

  1. #681
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    Okay, let's get back to omnipotence then.

    Given the definitions that we've worked on so far, God is able to do anything He wishes, except the illogical and impossible, only because they do not exist.

    The problem however is that we do not know what is possible and what is impossible. That means the term Omnipotence is quite meaningless. Even if we say God is omnipotent, we still do not know what that entails.

    And the ultimate answer is still: we cannot know.
    Here's the problem with that, the definition of Omnipotent is such that God would be able to do anything. The meaning of omnipotence is not questionable and is fully knowable.

    What is unknown is if God really is omnipotent. We don't even know for sure that God exists. But if God exists and God is omnipotent, then nothing is impossible for God.

    We know that if those two conditions are met, then there is no such thing as "an act that is impossible for God".

    What we do not know, cannot know, is the veracity of those two premises. thus, we can never claim that we have produced a sound logical argument about this topic. We can very much state we have produced a valid one, though.

    In order to produce a sound logical argument, our logic must be valid and our premises must be true. Validity refers to the structure of an argument, soundness refers to the "trueness" of an argument.

    Illogical refers to flawed reasoning. Flawed reasoning is actually a flawed structure. Fallacies refer to illogical arguments.

    We can create a logical argument that is valid, but unsound.

    In order to claim that a premise is true, it must be universally true.

    "Some dogs have tails" is a true premise because it is universally true because of the fact is that "no dogs have tails" is false. Some dogs have tails is universally true even if in reality all dogs had tails because "some" is encompassed by "all". For "Some dogs have tails" to be false, "No dogs have tails" would have to be true.

    Conversely, in reality not all dogs have tails for various reasons. Because that is true, "all dogs have tails is false."

    If all we never encountered in our lives was dogs with tails, but we knew that other dogs existed that we never encountered, we might say "All dogs have tails". If that was in reality, where we know that not all dogs have tails, it is clearly a false premise. Even though the perspective of the creator of said premise is based on his knowledge, the premise is indeed false regardless of that creator's perspective.

    Conversely, if said premise were created by a person in a hypothetical reality where all dogs did have tails, but the argument was presented by a person who only had a limited experience of all the dogs in that reality, the argument is still flawed. Such a person cannot make the statement "All dogs have tails" with honesty. Regardless of the trueness of the premise, the argument is invalid because the creator of said premise did not limit the premise to "All dogs I have encountered have tails"

    It's the fallacy of converse accident.

  2. #682
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    The Bible directly states that "He drove them out in His Fury".


    Hilarious!

  3. #683
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    If a premise does not define it's parameters, it can't be considered to be a true premise.
    once again, this is a rule of logic. Not necessarilly a rule of reality.
    You have yet to show how logic must necessarilly be 100% infallible in representing reality.

    Logic is a selfcontained system of rules. It is not contingent upon reality.

    Please prove/validate why logic is true. If you use logic to do so then isn't that assuming that which you are trying to prove; a fallacy within logic.
    It's the rules of logic that dictate it's use. If what I said isn't true, then logic doesn't exist as a field of study.
    ??? How so?
    Your claim is logic must represent reality without flaw because of an argument to ignorance? Logic must represent reality because you can't imagine a reason it isn't?

    Once again, trace the roots of these and explain why you are absolutely sure of their truth/validity.
    If it isn't true, then logic doesn't exist as a field of study.
    I don't follow. Couldn't the conformity of logic to reality simply be coincidental? Or perhaps its only partially correct like Newtons laws before relativity?
    Why do you assume its all or nothing?

    Furthermore, how are you certain that "logic couldn't exist as a field of study"?

    If we don't have knowledge of something, then we cannot make a statement about it and consider it true.
    If we make a statement about all of reality, we are making a statement about something we don't have knowledge of, and therefore we cannot consider it true.
    then why are you claiming logic is consistant with all of reality? Both the reality we have knowledge of and the assumed reality we have yet to perceive or obtain knowledge of?

    Our conclusions are correct if and only if they are actually correct. We can say that we think a conclusion is correct but if it is not actually correct, we are wrong.
    We cannot know if we are actually correct. We can only claim that we are correct via logic. There is no omniscient being to tell us if we got the actual correct answer. We simply recognize that our tools indicate it is correct, not that it is actually correct. Therefore our conclusion is contingent upon the accuracy of our tools. These tools appear to be accurate but they could be fooling us because we don't have anything but our possibily faulty tools to evaluate our tools with.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  4. #684
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by presluc View Post
    My point is quite simple all things are possible including the Big Bang Theory or the existance of God.

    It only depends on one's beleifs nothing more.
    Wrong. Because we have evidence and reason to believe the things we do.

    For example, do you think its reasonable to believe that I am actually a talking robot frog living. On planet Venus who just somehow is connected to the internet? You said "all things are possible". So why don't you believe that?

    Because you have reason and EVIDENCE to believe otherwise. You may not be absolutly certain but you are pretty damn certain I don't live on Venus.

    Evolution and the big bang have lots of solid, verfiable, reproducible EVIDENCE and reason.

    God only has testimonial claims. I wouldn't dare call testimony evidence. And if you would then you must admit its the least reliable, most untrustworthy form of evidence


    As I have said before when mankind knows for sure that everything that is possible has been done and only impossible things remain.

    Then we might as well put evolution on hold there would be nothing left for us to evolve to.this is as good as it gets.

    I don't know about you but I can't accept that.
    Apply the whole reason + evidence thing and you now understand why.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  5. #685
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    01-21-11 @ 01:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    471

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Does life on other planets disprove the Koran?

    Does life on other planets disprove the Rigveda?

    Does life on other planets disprove the Book of Mormon?

    Etc.
    Last edited by Sov; 11-25-09 at 08:06 PM.
    Pan-Humanist Movement
    “The only real nation is humanity” ~ Paul Farmer

  6. #686
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    once again, this is a rule of logic. Not necessarilly a rule of reality.
    You have yet to show how logic must necessarilly be 100% infallible in representing reality.
    Because if the premises aren't true, the logic is flawed.

    Logic is a selfcontained system of rules. It is not contingent upon reality.
    Yes it is. That's one of it's rules. Trueness is an integral factor. Trueness is defined by reality, not a person.

    ??? How so?
    Your claim is logic must represent reality without flaw because of an argument to ignorance? Logic must represent reality because you can't imagine a reason it isn't?
    Nice strawman. I never said "because I cant imagine a reason it isn't" You simply don't understand what I'm saying.

    Since trueness is defined as a NECESSITY OF LOGIC, and TRUENESS IS DEFINED BY REALITY.

    Lgioc doesn't define the trueness of a premise, reality does. If the premise is false, it doens't matter what you or I think about it. We can think it's true, but we'd be wrong.

    The inclusion of perception as being involed in trueness is actually an argumentum ad populum.

    simply because we all perceive something to be true doesn't make it true. If it is never true, the logic can't be sound with an untrue premise.

    Truth of the premises is an ABSOLUTE NECESSITY FOR SOUND LOGIC. Even if everyone in existence perceives the truth incorrectly, it doesn't matter, the premise is false. the quantity of that perception doesn't make the logic suddenly sound.

    I don't follow. Couldn't the conformity of logic to reality simply be coincidental? Or perhaps its only partially correct like Newtons laws before relativity?
    Why do you assume its all or nothing?
    No it can't. It simply doesn't work like that. You can try and argue that it does, but you'd be wrong. I'm not making the rules up. they exist. Logic must have true premises in order to be sound. No argumentum ad populum will make a premise that is false in reality true in logic.

    Furthermore, how are you certain that "logic couldn't exist as a field of study"?
    Because if trueness in reality wasn't a requirement for sound logic, there would be nothing of value to study. It would have died as soon as someone said "I believe this is true, so you're wrong." and that was considered logical.

    If perception of truth was more important than actual truth, the idiot who makes an argument based on a premise he "believes to be true" becasue of nothing more than his belief is making just as logical of an argument as the person who knows the premise made by the idiot to be false.

    If, as you posit, reality did not dictate the value of logic, and that perceptions of trueness were actually consideration, the idiot would be presenting a fully logical argument.

    But thankfully, since the trueness of the statement is defined by reality, not some idiot who has no knowledge of reality, the idiot is not presenting a logical argument

    Instead of demanding form me the evidence of that which is stated in the definition of logical soundness and at least 7 separate fallacies, why don;t you show that truth in realty is not necessary for a logical argument to be sound and/or valid.




    then why are you claiming logic is consistant with all of reality? Both the reality we have knowledge of and the assumed reality we have yet to perceive or obtain knowledge of?
    Because I actually know the definitions of logic?

    I can't help you if you don't know what you are talking about.

    We had this same debate last week and you admitted you haven't ever had any formal training in logic. So how the hell can you argue with someone who has had formal training and claim they are wrong about something to do with the formal structures?






    We cannot know if we are actually correct. We can only claim that we are correct via logic. There is no omniscient being to tell us if we got the actual correct answer. We simply recognize that our tools indicate it is correct, not that it is actually correct. Therefore our conclusion is contingent upon the accuracy of our tools. These tools appear to be accurate but they could be fooling us because we don't have anything but our possibily faulty tools to evaluate our tools with.
    We can know if our premises are not correct.

    If the conclusion is not correct, it is because a premise is false or the logic is invalid. Every time.

    Thus, if a conclusion is incorrect, it MUST be because the logic is either not sound or invalid or both.

    Validity means "the truth of the premises entails teh truth of the conclusion" Entails in this context means: to impose, involve, or imply as a necessary accompaniment or result

    It is not a possible outcome or result. If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. If the conclusion is false, a premise must be false or the logic must be invalid.

  7. #687
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,994

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by EpicDude86 View Post
    Ok. I'm with you on this.
    That is wise...

    The Apostles wrote their gospels 300-400 years after Jesus?
    The New Testament, that is. The Old was written over a time span of a thousand years or more, some think.

    ok, now we're in the old testament...
    Yeah, my bad.

    The Bible was not written before it was verbally passed on. Regardless of whether there is a God or not, and whether it is really his book or not, the fact that it was spoken then recorded by man leaves LOTS of room for error. While some parts of the Bible have been proven historically accurate (empires, cities, historical events) it's completely based in one's faith what they take from the Bible. I mean, the Bible is the best and worst argument for itself.
    Agreed, and the fact that it was written by man and was based on oral accounts passed down leads me to believe that it is not accurate regarding most of the miracle aspects, since stories get blown out of proprtion quite easily.

    Once again, if it is all they know, then it IS the entire world to them. While Hindsight shows us they may have been wrong if this were even the case, they knew nothing beyond their borders or what information may have come to them from traders or scouts, etc.
    I understand, I am simply saying that there are too many contradictions regarding what is written regarding the entire world and all of the animals from across the world AND that people claim it is true and that it si the word of God. If it is the word of God, then it cannot be wrong, since it appears to be easily attacked by logic and doubt cast onto it and perhaps even shown to be misleading if not wrong, then how can it be the word of God? Saying man might have written it incorrectly is a cop out for these people, especially if they are going to take other aspects of the Bible and claim that what an writer of the Bible hundreds of years after Jesus could actually write word for word quotations about what he said. Even days later would not be believable...
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  8. #688
    Sage
    Bodhisattva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    New Zealand
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:25 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    63,994

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Wrong. Because we have evidence and reason to believe the things we do.

    For example, do you think its reasonable to believe that I am actually a talking robot frog living. On planet Venus who just somehow is connected to the internet? You said "all things are possible". So why don't you believe that?
    But you could be a talking robot frog living on the planet Venus that is connected to the interent. The percentages are against that being true, but it is possible. How could you say that it isn't? Maybe you as a talking robot frog that can live on a planet that would kill humans and have adapted technologies that are millions of years ahead of us and since you are a robot you can somehow use some space/time E=MC2 + 3.14 - the color blue equation and technology to hack the internet via invisible laser streams eminating from a worm hole or something. Trust me, if we can think of it, it is possible.

    They are finding thousands of new species a year at the bottom of the oceans and in caves where we once thought that life would be impossible and they estimate that there might be as much life in the deep oceans and at depths we used to think too deep as there is in the tropical rain forest according to the report I saw last week.

    Because you have reason and EVIDENCE to believe otherwise. You may not be absolutly certain but you are pretty damn certain I don't live on Venus.

    Evolution and the big bang have lots of solid, verfiable, reproducible EVIDENCE and reason.
    I certainaly have no evidence that you are not a talking robot frog on Venus, even the admistrators couldn't prove that you could not set up a remote IP address etc and become a member. Again, chances of this being true are so remote that it is almost ridiculous, but it is possible.

    God only has testimonial claims. I wouldn't dare call testimony evidence. And if you would then you must admit its the least reliable, most untrustworthy form of evidence
    There are people that claim to talk to and feel the presence of God just as surely as they talk to or see their family and friends. Perhaps you are tuned into a different frequency or some lobe of your brain is not able to sense what many know to be true. Is that not possible? Do we know everything about the brain or about emotions and feelings? We sure as hell do not know everything.

    Apply the whole reason + evidence thing and you now understand why.
    Reason + evidence is a good start, but it certainly does not tell us why.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have pooped in public, even in public neighborhoods.
    Quote Originally Posted by OldFatGuy View Post
    Usually a gag for wise mouthed insulting little girls. Then some good nylon rope so I can tie them up, toss them in the trunk of my car and forget about them.

  9. #689
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Sov View Post
    Does life on other planets disprove the Koran?

    Does life on other planets disprove the Rigveda?

    Does life on other planets disprove the Book of Mormon?

    Etc.
    Life on other planets would actually give evidence supporting the Rigveda.

  10. #690
    Sage
    presluc's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:04 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,932

    Cool Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightdemon View Post
    Oh, I see. When you said the Big Bang wasn't possible, you meant it wasn't possible without help.

    I don't want to sound mean, but I find myself having a hard time trying to understand your posts because you keep going off on tangents instead of just clarifying your points.

    We could have avoided the whole matter and energy thing, if you just came out and said what you really meant...
    Well I don't want to sound mean either but my friend you are standing in a forest looking for trees.

    My point is simple individual thought.

    I might beleive in something you may not I can not prove it but it still is what I beleive it does not make it an iron clad law.
    You may beleive in something I do not you may not have proof but it is still your beleif although you do not have proof that does not make it an iron clad law.

    In short what you beleive and what I beleive may be completely differant ,but both remain "POSSIBILITIES".
    Tiki bar regular.
    My code, never take anything for granted always expect the unexpexted.
    Never take anything you don't need ,never want anything you can't have

Page 69 of 87 FirstFirst ... 1959676869707179 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •