• 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
We don't know that, which is why I say it can be a possibility.

When you said it was outside of reality, you said it doesn't exist. These are just the definitions of the words. Reality is all of the things that are real. What is real is what exists in actuality. If you are saying the thing exists, it must exist in reality.

To say it exist outside of reality is the exact same thing as saying it doesn't exist. It works like a double negative.
 
When you said it was outside of reality, you said it doesn't exist. These are just the definitions of the words. Reality is all of the things that are real. What is real is what exists in actuality. If you are saying the thing exists, it must exist in reality.

To say it exist outside of reality is the exact same thing as saying it doesn't exist. It works like a double negative.


No, I only said it was outside the reality of what we understand as reality, pertaining to our universe. If something exists in a different universe, it is outside of our reality, yet it still exists.

What we understand as reality is only a construct that applies to this universe. We do not know that it can be applied to other universe. Therefore, we do not know that what is possible in this universe can be impossible in another. Conversely, we do not know if what is impossible in this universe can be possible in another. The bottom line is that we do not know, and we cannot know.

If you can understand the concept of multiple dimensions or multiple universes, then you must understand the concept of multiple realities. It would not be logical for you to assume that the properties of logic in THIS reality to apply to an unknown reality where different properties of logic may reside.

Again, only if you accept the above.
 
Last edited:
No, I only said it was outside the reality of what we understand as reality, pertaining to our universe. If something exists in a different universe, it is outside of our reality, yet it still exists.

What we understand as reality is only a construct that applies to this universe. We do not know that it can be applied to other universe. Therefore, we do not know that what is possible in this universe can be impossible in another. Conversely, we do not know if what is impossible in this universe can be possible in another. The bottom line is that we do not know, and we cannot know.

If you can understand the concept of multiple dimensions or multiple universes, then you must understand the concept of multiple realities. It would not be logical for you to assume that the properties of logic in THIS reality to apply to an unknown reality where different properties of logic may reside.

Again, only if you accept the above.

And that requires ignoring th ereal definition of reality and inserting one that does nto exist. What you are defining reality to be is irrelevent to waht reality really is. REality is everything that is real. It is not confined to this universe IF there exists more things thatn this universe.

how can you absolutely know it doesn't exist?

You can only believe it does or doesn't exist. Its actual existence is not contingent upon belief in its existence.

It can't exist if it is not a part of reality.
 
The rules of logic are bound by what we perceive reality is. Our perception may be wrong.

I was wandering when somebody would bring that up if nobody had before I got to the last page I was going to.

Two points I would like to bring up about what the human race preceive as logica;.

1 The human race as a whole is in fact illogical.

2 How we preceive logic today may change what we see as logocal in a matter of years.

That's my opinion anyway and I shouldn't have to give examples for either point.
 
And that requires ignoring th ereal definition of reality and inserting one that does nto exist. What you are defining reality to be is irrelevent to waht reality really is. REality is everything that is real. It is not confined to this universe IF there exists more things thatn this universe.

The way we define reality is based on our understanding in this universe. You're not able to define reality in any other universe because of our ignorance of such.

I simply gave the notion that there may be multiple realities, which are defined by their respective universes, which may or may not be similar to ours. Therefore the possibility of a different reality cannot be determined by our definitions of reality because it is not based on the same universe.

Let's just ask you a simple question: Do you think it's possible that there are multiple universes?
 
I was wandering when somebody would bring that up if nobody had before I got to the last page I was going to.

Two points I would like to bring up about what the human race preceive as logica;.

1 The human race as a whole is in fact illogical.
How so?

2 How we preceive logic today may change what we see as logocal in a matter of years.
True. It may. It may not.

That's my opinion anyway and I shouldn't have to give examples for either point.
Of course you don't have to give reasoning or evidence for your claims.
But on what basis should anyone take your claims seriously?
 
The way we define reality is based on our understanding in this universe. You're not able to define reality in any other universe because of our ignorance of such.

I simply gave the notion that there may be multiple realities, which are defined by their respective universes, which may or may not be similar to ours. Therefore the possibility of a different reality cannot be determined by our definitions of reality because it is not based on the same universe.

Let's just ask you a simple question: Do you think it's possible that there are multiple universes?

Our understanding of reality in no way defines the limits of reality. It only defiens our understanding of reality.

Reality is defined as the entirety of things that exist.

What you refer of as "multiple realities" is actually only multiple facets of a singular reality.

When I refer to the word "reality" I mean it in the sense of the definition of the word: "all things that are real".

If there is something real outside of our understanding, it is not less real than if it is within our realm of understanding.

Also, you are using the word "define" wrong. Teh way we describe reality is base don our understanding of what it real. Teh way it is defined is inclusive of things outside fo our understanding.
 
Last edited:
It can't exist if it is not a part of reality.
But what we perceive as reality or concpetualize as reality is not necessarilly objective reality.


Our concepts or perception does not necessarilly accurately reflect actuality.
 
The rules of logic are bound by what we perceive reality is. Our perception may be wrong.

Not in the slightest. The rules of logic are defined by reality. the truth of a premise is not dependent on our perceptions. It is true or false regardless of whether we perceive the trueness correctly or not.
 
But what we perceive as reality or concpetualize as reality is not necessarilly objective reality.


Our concepts or perception does not necessarilly accurately reflect actuality.

But our conceptualization of reality doesn't dictate what reality encompasses.

Even if we are unaware of the realness of a thing, if it is real, it is part of reality.

Our understanding is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Where in my premises did I mention perception or human understanding? Nowhere.

Why? Because it is irrelevant to the discussion.
 
Not in the slightest. The rules of logic are defined by reality.
The rules of logic are founded on our perception of reality. We thus far cannot be certain what is "real reality". We can only assume that our perception accurately reflects "real reality".
How did we "discover" the rules of logic? Do you claim they are absolute?

The truth of a premise is not dependent on our perceptions. It is true or false regardless of whether we perceive the trueness correctly or not.
No. The trueness is dependent on conformity to logic which was developed from our perception of reality.
Thus, logic is dependent on our perception.

For example, why is it not possible to find that something contrary to logic. How can we be so sure?
 
But our conceptualization of reality doesn't dictate what reality encompasses.
I agree. But until we define reality we cannot claim to be accurately representing it. Thus we can only claim to know about perceived reality. Not "real reality".

Even if we are unaware of the realness of a thing, if it is real, it is part of reality.
no, not necessarilly. My imagination or hallucinations can be perceived as real but are not actually real. A comparable phenomenon could be our perception of reality.

Our understanding is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Where in my premises did I mention perception or human understanding? Nowhere.
but you can't claim to know anything outside our understanding. So yes, our understanding, our perception, is the only relevant thing in this discussion.
 
The rules of logic are founded on our perception of reality. We thus far cannot be certain what is "real reality". We can only assume that our perception accurately reflects "real reality".
How did we "discover" the rules of logic? Do you claim they are absolute?

They were defined by man, but they are dependent upon reality and not our perception of reality.

If we perceive something incorrectly, it won't change the soundness of th elogic, only our understanding of it's soundness.

No. The trueness is dependent on conformity to logic which was developed from our perception of reality.

This is false.

The logic is dependent on conformity to truth. Soundness is defined as such. A valid arguemtn that contains true premsies.

If we discover that a logical argument we thought was sound actually has false premises, it doesn't go from being sound to being unsound. It was always unsound. Our knowledge of it's unsoundness is all that is changed.

Since trueness is a major factor in logic,
Thus, logic is dependent on our perception.

For example, why is it not possible to find that something contrary to logic. How can we be so sure?

Because once such a thing is discovered, we realize immediately that what we incorrrectly thought was a logical argument had always been illogical. That's the nature of logic. It's define as being above our flawed perceptions.
 
I agree. But until we define reality we cannot claim to be accurately representing it. Thus we can only claim to know about perceived reality. Not "real reality".

We have defined reality: It is the totality of real things and events. That's what the word is defined as.

What we need to do is not define reality, as it's parameters are already defined by their very existence, but instead describe reality. That comes as we learn more about what is real and what exists.

no, not necessarilly. My imagination or hallucinations can be perceived as real but are not actually real. A comparable phenomenon could be our perception of reality.

Actually they are real. They are real imaginations and hallucinations. They exist as what they are..

It's a matter of altering your perceptions from the subjective to the objective. A hallucination is a very real thing. It is a hallucination. What is depicted by that hallucination, however, is fake.

What realness is is not dependent on our perceptions. Even though a person inaccurately believes his hallucination may be a demon, the demon is not real. The hallucination, however, is real.

but you can't claim to know anything outside our understanding. So yes, our understanding, our perception, is the only relevant thing in this discussion.

Not at all. The logical argument I presented contained a specific premise. That premise included the word "reality" using the correct definition of the word. the correct definition of that word does not limit reality to that which we understand. It limits it to the totality of real things or events.

reality - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Real, in this context, is defined as: "occurring or existing in actuality"

real - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
 
What I was saying is that it might have APPEARED to be a worldwide flood to people because what they saw get flooded, was the only world they knew. Do you think they had any idea what was farther than their borders in ancient times?? Most of these stories pre-date continent spanning (or even region spanning) peoples.


SO let's say some backwater tribe in Asia gets flooded out. They percieve that the World, actually the known world to them, gets flooded. And then add to that translation issues, which apparently aren't possible because of the Universal Grammar theory that paris brought up...cause...ya know how ancient languages were about as different as Italian and Spanish...


and wtf...Clams? really? CLAMS?! Don't bring the clams into this because you KNOW what picture I'm going to post...

EDIT: Too late.[/IMG]

But the Bible is supposed to be Divinely Inspired. How else could the Apostles write word for word waht Jesus said 300-400 years earlier? If some of it is wrong, meaning if those that wrote about the flood covering the world (and that it really covered only the world that they knew) was wrong, and most of the world was not actually covered, then those that wrote about it were wrong, and God let them write it down even though it was wrong, and that then logically leads one to question the rest of the Bible.

Also, if it was only part of their world, how did they get animals from all over the world.
 
But the Bible is supposed to be Divinely Inspired.

Ok. I'm with you on this.

How else could the Apostles write word for word waht Jesus said 300-400 years earlier?

The Apostles wrote their gospels 300-400 years after Jesus?


If some of it is wrong, meaning if those that wrote about the flood covering the world

ok, now we're in the old testament...

(and that it really covered only the world that they knew) was wrong, and most of the world was not actually covered, then those that wrote about it were wrong, and God let them write it down even though it was wrong, and that then logically leads one to question the rest of the Bible.

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.


Also, if it was only part of their world, how did they get animals from all over the world.

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.
 
Our understanding of reality in no way defines the limits of reality. It only defiens our understanding of reality.

Reality is defined as the entirety of things that exist.

What you refer of as "multiple realities" is actually only multiple facets of a singular reality.

When I refer to the word "reality" I mean it in the sense of the definition of the word: "all things that are real".

If there is something real outside of our understanding, it is not less real than if it is within our realm of understanding.

Also, you are using the word "define" wrong. Teh way we describe reality is base don our understanding of what it real. Teh way it is defined is inclusive of things outside fo our understanding.

So can there be multiple universes?
 
Did you see that movie with Jet Li? I think it was him. I believe it was called "The One" or "One" time to IMDB that ****!

I saw Jet Li once at a grocery store around my neighborhood. He has a house in San Marino, CA. :mrgreen: I'll ask him, if I see him again.
 
I saw Jet Li once at a grocery store around my neighborhood. He has a house in San Marino, CA. :mrgreen: I'll ask him, if I see him again.

Yeah anyways, in the movie I'm thinking of there are actually 23 "univereses" that make up the MULTIVERSE and if you kill yourself in the other universes, all the other you's get stronger until you can like do Matrix ****. It's amazing.

I want to kill the other 'me's


THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!


No wait...that's Highlander...
 
There is no such thing as "the illogical". Illogical is an adjective.

OK...
As -anything- is possible, there's no necessary relationship between logical and possible.

If you want to define omnipotent as the ability to do anything that is possible, then, as anything is possible, your 'limit' to omnipotence is one of mere rhetoric.
 
How so?

True. It may. It may not.


Of course you don't have to give reasoning or evidence for your claims.
But on what basis should anyone take your claims seriously?

Ok you want basis you got basis, but it's so easy.

1 Humans kill each other for just about any reason you could name.
Is this logical?

2. In 1945 it was concidered logical to have a segregated army, in 1955 it was concidered logical to have segregated schools.
Today these are not logical that is unless you are a bigot or a raicist.
POINT MADE LOGIC CHANGES.

Any other questions?
 
Back
Top Bottom