• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

See OP


  • Total voters
    67
Really? How so?

I'm no biblical scholar, but in terms of specifics it talks about the creation of the earth in a radically different way than it talks about the heavens. For example, the earth belongs to man but the heavans belong to god. And it describes the creation of the stars, planets, and moons “to divide the day from the night; and . . . for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and . . . for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”. The idea that he created the rest of the universe so we'd have something to look at at night and then he just happened to pop life on there too seems weird. He sent his one son down to earth, but there is no talk of him doing a tour of other planets, etc. It doesn't seem very compatible with a literal reading of the bible. Plus other planets are just different. They have different religions, different length days, different color skies, maybe no seas at all, etc. Much of the literal text of the bible would be completely unapplicable there. So is the idea that they would have their own god and bible that is different? That seems pretty problematic... Or they would have no god? He never bothered speaking to them? That doesn't sound right...

But, that doesn't really matter. People who read the bible ultra literally already have to do some pretty whacky mental gymnastics to get it to make any sense... ie- God created fossils to confuse us and test our faith... The literal bible read is already completely incompatible with science. Adding one more conflict to that list won't change anything.

Somebody who reads the bible in a more metaphorical way could definitely deal with finding life on other planets, although finding intelliegent life would certainly be something that would require some consideration of what that means in terms of our place in the universe, how to relate to those people, etc, but that's all good.
 
I'm no biblical scholar, but in terms of specifics it talks about the creation of the earth in a radically different way than it talks about the heavens. For example, the earth belongs to man but the heavans belong to god.
Ok... but that doesnt preclude other life on other planets, it just means that, taken literally, this life belongs to God.

The idea that he created the rest of the universe so we'd have something to look at at night and then he just happened to pop life on there too seems weird.
"Seems weird" isnt "proof".

He sent his one son down to earth, but there is no talk of him doing a tour of other planets, etc.
So? The writers of the New Testament were witnesses to the events described therein. You cannlt expect them to have written about occourances on other planets...

Plus other planets are just different. They have different religions, different length days, different color skies, maybe no seas at all, etc.
Not sure how that matters.

Much of the literal text of the bible would be completely unapplicable there. So is the idea that they would have their own god and bible that is different? That seems pretty problematic... Or they would have no god? He never bothered speaking to them?
Again, not sure how that matters.

But, that doesn't really matter. People who read the bible ultra literally already have to do some pretty whacky mental gymnastics to get it to make any sense... ie- God created fossils to confuse us and test our faith... The literal bible read is already completely incompatible with science.
Not at all. God coule very well have created the earth in a manner that makes evolution appear to be sound.

Heck -- if you fiddle with the length of a day, its entirely possible that God creatated everything -through- evolution.
 
Heck -- if you fiddle with the length of a day, its entirely possible that God creatated everything -through- evolution.

That is the metaphorical sort of reading of the bible that I say can survive finding life on other planets just fine.
 
One of the explanations I've read regarding the virgin birth part of the story is that in the particular sect Mary was reportedly a member of, a virgin was a woman who had not yet given birth, and not a woman who had not had sex.

Do you people waste any time thinking before putting words out?

If EVERY woman is a "virgin" until the first kid pops out, the there's absolutely NOTHING special about the origin of Jesus, and again, the whole basis of Christianity collapses.

It seems to me that many in the Christian community have moved away from practicing religion based on the "miracle" events, and have moved toward following some of the philosophy.

Of course they are, in an enlightened age no rational person can swallow the biblical nonsense. But since church is an essentail facet of life for the weak minded, the churches have to move away from literalism to compete for customers.

Never forget that religion is the oldest profession.
 
Sounds grand.
Who made the larger being?
What necessitates that something had to?
For that matter, if there is an answer, what necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?
 
Last edited:
Really? How so?

Because if an interpretation is inconsistent with itself, it's false.

If an interpretation is inconsistent with reality, it's false.

The Bible, as written, is both internally inconsistent and falsified by external reality.

Any honest reading of the thing will show this.
 
What necessitates that something had to?

Nothing.

What necessitates that some concsious entity had to create the Universe?

Nothing.

So what's the point of inventing god, when that theory only adds complexity without providing any useful or testable conclusions?

The only point is that humans have memories before they have language or the references needed to comprehend the events around them, and thus all humans have this memory of the warm loving giant that cared for them....but those giants always vanish once the baby grows up.

That's the wellsping of religion, infantile memories.

For that matter, if there is an answer, that necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?

Yes.

"Because" is not an answer.
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
What necessitates that something had to?
Nothing.
Then your question to that effect is meaingles.

Yes
"Because" is not an answer.
I'm sorry -- I realized I had a typo.
I meant to ask:
For that matter, if there is an answer, what necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?
 
Then your question to that effect is meaingles.

Wrong.

It means that there's no need to question "who" created the universe, since that presupposes that the origins of the universe are found in a deliberate act, which raises the question of the origions of the deliberative entity that did it.

There's absolutely no need to go that route, since that route is infinitely regressive and only religious nuts think there's an answer or hidden meaning to be found in imaginary creators.

The universe exhibits not one shred of evidence for any inteligently directed processes outside of what man himself has created. Inventing a god to explain what occurs is counter productive and inhibits learning.

For that matter, if there is an answer, what necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?

Because "because" isn't an answer.
 
Really? How so?

Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Animals came before man and man came before animals respectively. A literal interpretation is impossible.
 
This is a claim, not a demonstration.

I ain't gonna bother explaining that the presence of brook trout in mountain streams is refutation of Noah's Myth.

I expect you people to use those wrinkled things inside your skulls. If you're not willing to use them, just take it on faith that you can't take the bible on faith.
 
It means that there's no need to question "who" created the universe, since that presupposes that the origins of the universe are found in a deliberate act, which raises the question of the origions of the deliberative entity that did it.
Non sequitur. Theres no necessary relationship between those two concepts.

Because "because" isn't an answer.
Ok... but an answer that you do not understand IS an answer, even though you do not understand it.

For instance:
You ask: What created God?
Answer: Nothing. He has always been.

You may not understand how that can be, but that you do not understand how that can be in no way precludes it being that.
 
I ain't gonna bother explaining that the presence of brook trout in mountain streams is refutation of Noah's Myth.
So you're going to leave your claim unsupported, and therefore, meaningless.
Good by me.
 
Non sequitur. Theres no necessary relationship between those two concepts.


Ok... but an answer that you do not understand IS an answer, even though you do not understand it.

No.

An answer not understood is the equivalent of "because", and not an answer to anyone mentally older than four.


For instance:
You ask: What created God?
Answer: Nothing. He has always been.

See?

That's a "because" statement and means nothing. Not only that, it can't be proven, so again, it's merely some dickweed theologian thinking he's smart.

You may not understand how that can be, but that you do not understand how that can be in no way precludes it being that.

Got any substantiating evidence of this, or is it just meaningless words, and hence, not an answer?
 
An answer not understood is the equivalent of "because", and not an answer to anyone mentally older than four.
This is, of course, completely ridiculous.
The soundness of an answer is in no way dependent on the questioner's ability to understand that answer.
 
So you're going to leave your claim unsupported, and therefore, meaningless.
Good by me.

Are you denying that trout exist?

Cuz their existence in freshwater streams denies Noah.

Understand fish, they're not capable of lying.

The people that wrote the bible were perfectly capable of making untrue statements.
 
This is, of course, completely ridiculous.
The soundness of an answer is in no way dependent on the questioner's ability to understand that answer.

So what you're saying is that a five year old should be satisfied with a complete quantum-mechanical answer, complete with formulas answer to why the sun shines.

Well, in the real world, that's not an answer.

Answers are comprensible to the questioner, or he continues to ask questions.

Even when they're five years old.
 
You may suppprt your claim at your leisure.
Until then, it is meaningless.

Oh.

You don't think I've answered the question.

You, who are claiming that the answer is an answer whether or not the enquirer understands it, are bitching that the answers I'm providing you aren't actually answers because you're too ignorant to understand the answer.

Hmmmmmm.......:2wave:
 
So what you're saying is that a five year old should be satisfied with a complete quantum-mechanical answer, complete with formulas answer to why the sun shines.
No... I'm saying that the quantum mechanics answer is sound, regardless of if the 5 yerar old gets it or not.

The idea thay YOU have to understand an answer for the answer to be correct is laughable.
 
Back
Top Bottom