• 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
I think I getcha now, so let's try this again:

If God can do anything, nothing is impossible. If nothing is impossible, then is there such a thing as the illogical?

"The illogical" doesn't actually exist for the exact same reasons "the impossible" doesn't exist. "Impossible" and "illogical" are both adjectives.

The only "things" that can have the quality of being illogical are arguments or reasoning. When we say someone is "illogical" we don't mean that the person has the quality of being illogical, we mean that they are a person who uses illogical arguments and reasoning.

But even if nothing is truly universally impossible, it doesn't mean that it is regionally or subjectively impossible.


Is there anything that is impossible to do?


Loads of stuff can have the quality of being impossible under the right parameters. It depends on a bunch of things.

For example, things like a yellow circle that is a blue triangle can't really exist. The key here is the word "Is" (not to get all Clintonesque on you)

Such a thing cannot exist because it would actually be a third thing that has the qualities of both a yellow circle and a blue triangle. It would require a new name to describe it, because those descriptions have specific meanings for specific objects that do not have the qualities of the other. They are partially defined by the fact that they don't have the qualities of the other. That's why it could not be yellow circle that is a blue triangle.

But an omnipotent being could create this third thing that has the qualities of both of those objects. It would be a new thing that possesses all of the qualities of those things without the contradictory nature of the definitions of those things. Essentially, the terminology used is inadequate to describe such a thing because it cannot accurately encompass it's nature. This is actually a limitation on language (which is not limitless), not on the omnipotent being.

Whereas I could never do such a thing as create that third object. For me, it is definitely impossible on all levels. So there would still be actions that are impossible as well as things that could not exist based on semantics (think rock so heavy it could not be lifted. This is along the same lines. God could create something that had the qualities of those two things, but it would be a third thing heretofore unconceived of so the terminology used would not accurately describe it).




I explained this poorly before when I used the yellow circle is a blue triangle example. The limitation is not really on the omnipotent being, it is the fact that the thing created could not be described as a yellow circle that is a blue triangle.

So when I said that an omnipotent being couldn't do that, it was an error on my part because I never fully explained that I was trying to point out that such a thing cannot exist as described by our current language. It would necessitate a totally different verbiage.

But there is no limitation that states that an omnipotent being cannot a thing that has all the qualities of a yellow circle and all the qualities of a blue triangle.

Such a thing's creation would be possible, while the creation of a "yellow circle that is a blue triangle" is not possible because the language used in that sentence cannot possibly describe such a thing that would have the qualities mentioned above.

Also, things could be impossible regionally or subjectively. It is currently impossible for me to fart with enough force to launch myself from downtown Chicago to the moon.

So that is impossible under the current parameters. Now, if an omnipotent being decided to grant me that ability, it would easily be possible. It is also possible said entity, if it exists, could choose to grant me that ability. That's why I created the statement as I did. I defined the parameters so that the statement was definitely true.
 
Take me to your leader.
Bout time some one said that
 
"The illogical" doesn't actually exist for the exact same reasons "the impossible" doesn't exist. "Impossible" and "illogical" are both adjectives.

The only "things" that can have the quality of being illogical are arguments or reasoning. When we say someone is "illogical" we don't mean that the person has the quality of being illogical, we mean that they are a person who uses illogical arguments and reasoning.

But even if nothing is truly universally impossible, it doesn't mean that it is regionally or subjectively impossible.

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.
 
I have it on very good authority that God drives a pea soup green 74 Duster.
The Bible directly states that "He drove them out in His Fury".
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.

Better yet:

"Does life on other planets disprove books which do not mention other planets."
 
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".

You haven't understood what I meant...
It doesn't matter to me what you believe in. It doesn't matter to me what anyone believes in. What I was trying to point out to you, hoping you'd take it as advice, was that you gave a very bad presentation of your beliefs. You were not coherent, and you were not good at articulating what you believed. It took so long for you to explain your actual position, which wasn't even the same as the one you initially started with. That is what I meant.

In short, I'm saying you need to improve your writing. Your thoughts are not connected, you do not address the points correctly sometimes, and you go off on tangents talking about something else. Again, sorry if I sound mean.
 
Loads of stuff can have the quality of being impossible under the right parameters. It depends on a bunch of things.
My question was asked without parameter, so that the ability of an omnipotent being could be addressed.

Your answer provided me what I was looking for -- that nothing is impossible for an omnipotent being.

So, after all that, we agree.
 
You haven't understood what I meant...
It doesn't matter to me what you believe in. It doesn't matter to me what anyone believes in. What I was trying to point out to you, hoping you'd take it as advice, was that you gave a very bad presentation of your beliefs. You were not coherent, and you were not good at articulating what you believed. It took so long for you to explain your actual position, which wasn't even the same as the one you initially started with. That is what I meant.

In short, I'm saying you need to improve your writing. Your thoughts are not connected, you do not address the points correctly sometimes, and you go off on tangents talking about something else. Again, sorry if I sound mean.

Oh look a critic sorry but old news my man.

Perhaps if you spent less time correcting others and focusing more on the point of this discussion about possibilities and beleofs you might make a point.

What next you gonna start a thread called the bad post of presluc?

My post may have been a bad representation but eventualy it came to the point possibilities and does life on other planets disprove the bible.

All you have done is post about how bad my representaion is.
You want perfection you are on the wrong planet

You want to be a critic try Fox news they're always correcting everybody and everything.
This is a Debate forum.
 
Oh look a critic sorry but old news my man.

Perhaps if you spent less time correcting others and focusing more on the point of this discussion about possibilities and beleofs you might make a point.

What next you gonna start a thread called the bad post of presluc?

My post may have been a bad representation but eventualy it came to the point possibilities and does life on other planets disprove the bible.

All you have done is post about how bad my representaion is.
You want perfection you are on the wrong planet

You want to be a critic try Fox news they're always correcting everybody and everything.
This is a Debate forum.
You're getting defensive instead of taking LightDemon's advice. His point was that your posts are difficult to understand due to poor spelling, incorrect usage of words and a lack of grammar. If you resolve these issues, your posts will be more comprehensible and your argument better understood.
 
You're getting defensive instead of taking LightDemon's advice. His point was that your posts are difficult to understand due to poor spelling, incorrect usage of words and a lack of grammar. If you resolve these issues, your posts will be more comprehensible and your argument better understood.

Thanks but no thanks.

I'm kinda proad to be the only poster on Debate Politics forum to make mistakes.

I gotta tell ya though it's lonely at the top sometimes I get the feeling there are more that make mistakes but you wouldn't lmow about would you?:cool:
 
A desire for mediocrity (at least) =/= desire for perfection.

Just saying.

Perfection is a journey not a destination.

Unless your post be perfect everytime do not judge mine,

JUST SAYING:2wave:
 
Oh look a critic sorry but old news my man.

Perhaps if you spent less time correcting others and focusing more on the point of this discussion about possibilities and beleofs you might make a point.

What next you gonna start a thread called the bad post of presluc?

My post may have been a bad representation but eventualy it came to the point possibilities and does life on other planets disprove the bible.

All you have done is post about how bad my representaion is.
You want perfection you are on the wrong planet

You want to be a critic try Fox news they're always correcting everybody and everything.
This is a Debate forum.

I not trying to "critique" you, I was only trying to help you out. I have nothing against you, friend. I'm only asking for a bit more coherency on your part, so that we do not keep on misunderstanding each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom