• 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
Is it or is it not your position? You've contradicted yourself.

Goobieman said:
An Atheist states, without provocation: There is no God. There is no proposal to the contrary, implied or explicit, there is only his statement
Click to expand...

Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?

That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god, for I am skeptical of all of the illogical claims made for EVERY man-made god.

Goobieman said:
The ONLY burden for anyone at this point is for the person making the claim to support that claim.
Click to expand...

If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that? Man-made deities or deistic prime-movers of all kind possible conceptions? How do you know this?" Because a yes to those statements would imply that this person was claiming to know something that as far as we understand, they couldn't.

However, if we are in a disagreement because you claim there is a god, and I am skeptical, the burden of proof is on you.

Goobieman said:
Some of those that argue there is no God.
"Everything" is an all-encompassing word.
Click to expand...

Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room" I do not mean the air, the particles, US soil, the people I'm talking to, etc... The use of "everything" requires context.

If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies, they did not mean that the laws of physics are a creative force that determine the future of said universe. In regard to the physical laws, they were set, not created, @ the big bang and if they were set otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Goobieman said:
Beats me. Doesnt change the fact that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then you are forced to agree with the idea there is no such thing as free will as --everything-- is already set in stone -- and so, to then deliberatly and willfully think that you -do- have free will is necessarily self-delusional.
Click to expand...

So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?

I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.

Goobieman said:
If not the laws of physics, then what?
Click to expand...

The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.

To regard "everything" as a creation is a misnomer, to regard it as all encompassing is an equivocation; "Everything" requires context. Do you want me to explain how the galaxy we evolved in formed according to the laws of physics?

Goobieman said:
If you want to argue that this position is false, that's fine, but you'll need to then tell that to those who DO believe that everything is created by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

I don't "need" to do anything, thats what it means to have free-will. Who are these people you allege make this claim?

Goobieman said:
Think of an infinite billiard table, with a huge number of balls.
As soon as the cue breaks contact with the cue ball, the end position of every one of the other balls is pre-determined.
Scale up as necessary.
Click to expand...

:yawn: I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.

Goobieman said:
No. You didn't. Those impulses are all governed by the laws of physics, and controlled by same. The conditions that existed at the moment of the firing of the impulse that then created said impulse are there not because of anything you did, but because of a huge number of interactions all set in place by the laws as they goverened the results from the initial pulse of the big bang.
Click to expand...

I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?

Goobieman said:
There is no choice, as choice creates something that is NOT created by the laws of physics, which is not possible if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

You're confused again... There is choice, there is free will, man is a being of volitional consciousness, thought is not an automatic process, the connections of logic are not reached by instinct.

Goobieman said:
An Atheist states, without provocation: There is no God. There is no proposal to the contrary, implied or explicit, there is only his statement
Click to expand...

Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?

That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god.

Goobieman said:
The ONLY burden for anyone at this point is for the person making the claim to support that claim.
Click to expand...

If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that? Man-made deities or deistic prime-movers of all kind possible conceptions? How do you know this?"

Because a yes to those statements would imply that this person was claiming to know something that as far as we understand, they couldn't.

Goobieman said:
Some of those that argue there is no God.
"Everything" is an all-encompassing word.
Click to expand...

Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room" I do not mean the air, the particles, US soil, the people I'm talking to, etc...

If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies. In regard to the physical laws, they were set, not created, @ the big bang and if they were set otherwise we wouldn't be here.

Goobieman said:
Beats me. Doesnt change the fact that if you believe that -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then you are forced to agree with the idea there is no such thing as free will as --everything-- is already set in stone -- and so, to then deliberatly and willfully think that you -do- have free will is necessarily self-delusional.
Click to expand...

So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?

I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.

Goobieman said:
If not the laws of physics, then what?
Click to expand...

The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.

To regard "everything" as a creation is a misnomer, to regard it as all encompassing is an equivocation; "Everything" requires context. Do you want me to explain how the galaxy we evolved in formed according to the laws of physics?

Goobieman said:
If you want to argue that this position is false, that's fine, but you'll need to then tell that to those who DO believe that everything is created by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

I don't "need" to do anything, thats what it means to have free-will. Who are these people you allege make this claim?

Goobieman said:
Think of an infinite billiard table, with a huge number of balls.
As soon as the cue breaks contact with the cue ball, the end position of every one of the other balls is pre-determined.
Scale up as necessary.
Click to expand...

:yawn: I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.

Goobieman said:
No. You didn't. Those impulses are all governed by the laws of physics, and controlled by same. The conditions that existed at the moment of the firing of the impulse that then created said impulse are there not because of anything you did, but because of a huge number of interactions all set in place by the laws as they goverened the results from the initial pulse of the big bang.
Click to expand...

I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?

Goobieman said:
Irrelevant to my point. Neurology is just chemistry, which is just physics.
To argue that you have some control over your neruology means that you, not the laws of physics, is creating something, an impossibility if -everything- is created by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

Chemistry is not just physics, our brain is a computer no matter what the circuits are made of, or how the data is sent. We are so much more than the sum of our parts, its sad to see such obvious cognitive dissonance combined with complete ignorance of the study of neurology.

I have control over my thoughts and body, I can prove it; Can you prove otherwise?

Lachean said:
The laws of physics APPLY everywhere in the universe, but matter is not controlled by them.
Goobieman said:
Everything is governed, controlled and acts according to the laws of physics. Everything. No exception.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So this blatant misunderstanding of what the laws of physics do IS your position? You do not believe that we have free will? I see...

Goobieman said:
Sure they are. Up until the advent of man, its impossible to argue that -anything- was created by anything other than the laws of physics - specificlaly., how they govern the interaction between mass and energy.

The sun? Created by gravity. The earth? Same.

Sure it was - as I said, 'everything' is all-encompassing.

I am not at all sure how you arent klar on this:

If everything is created by the laws of physics, then there can be no free will as to choose to do something is to create something that was NOT ceated by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

"Everything" is NOT created by the laws of physics, anyone who claims this (which you seem to be) misunderstands all terms used.
 
Last edited:
You knew it wasn't my position, so you're in contradiciton and I'm bored/hungry.

Goobieman said:
And, really, its not MY argument that everything was created by the laws of physics
---------------------
Everything is governed, controlled and acts according to the laws of physics. Everything. No exception.
Click to expand...

You can see where I might be confused... If determinism is your position, then say so. Else, drop it because it isn't mine, nor is a godless universe deterministic according the the scientific consensus, nor is determinism inherent in the atheistic position.

I highly suggest even a wikipedian education into Free Will, [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurology"]Neurology[/ame] and [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics"]Physics[/ame].

Ayn Rand said:
To think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call “human nature,” the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question “to be or not to be” is the question “to think or not to think.” “A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to read up on [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism"]Determinism[/ame] because its utter tripe, that is proven false by the contradicting fact of our free will.
 
Last edited:
You can see why I was mislead

Djoop said:
Get out of your debating mode! I said a metaphysical concept, I'm not a deist. Even if I would be of faith, I couldn't imagine picking one of the abrahamic faiths, I do have some morals.
Click to expand...

I wasn't in "Debate Mode" but I sure am now. This is what you said:

Djoop said:
Sure God exists, as a metaphysical concept, the question is do you believe the cultists who claim to know its will.
Lachean said:
Which god are you talking about? How are you sure it exists?
Djoop said:
Watch the vid ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I KNOW that the concept exists, hence the word "god." "Sure God exists" only in the same sense that EVERY CONCEPTION EVER exists. When you say that something exists metaphysically you're still making a truth claim about the universe.

And when you ask the question about cultists claiming to know "its will" that further suggests that you were a believer. Then when in response to my asking "How are you sure it exists" you, tell me to watch a vid? Rather than, if you weren't a believer, correcting me at my first question as to your position?...

You should have been clearer, your language was misleading.
 
Last edited:
Re: You can see why I was mislead

Lachean said:
I wasn't in "Debate Mode" but I sure am now. This is what you said:



I KNOW that the concept exists, hence the word "god." "Sure God exists" only in the same sense that EVERY CONCEPTION EVER exists.
Click to expand...
Thank god, you got it. That was also hitchens comment, in the vid I posted.

When you say that something exists metaphysically you're still making a truth claim about the universe.

And when you ask the question about cultists claiming to know "its will" that further suggests that you were a believer. Then when in response to my asking "How are you sure it exists" you, tell me to watch a vid? Rather than, if you weren't a believer, correcting me at my first question as to your position?...

You should have been clearer, your language was misleading.
Click to expand...

Yes it had nothing to do with you failing to understand my initial comment, which only supported your position. I apologise, have a nice day.
 
Goobieman said:
Keep deluding yourself - you have my pity.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who is delusional. Remember, you're the one asking for evidence of nothing. Like it or not, the burden of proof will always be on the side of the theist.
 
Goobieman said:
And so how does that necessarily preclude there being life there?

And... the idea that The Bible is an exhaustive, all-inclusive list of every action God ever took is, well, beyond ridicule. Not even the most whacked of the most whacked fundamentalists believe this.
Click to expand...

I have met many people that take the Bible as all-inclusive the as the literal word of god.

I think that there is life out there... I guess I have no idea what your point is, since you keep on suggesting that I am implying that there is no life out there, when what I am saying is quite different.
 
Bodhisattva said:
I have met many people that take the Bible as all-inclusive the as the literal word of god.

I think that there is life out there... I guess I have no idea what your point is, since you keep on suggesting that I am implying that there is no life out there, when what I am saying is quite different.
Click to expand...
Are you just trying to be argumentative. I call bull**** on you knowing many people that think the Bible is all there is. If you know people, I want to know their names...I'll contact them. Does anyone really believe an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God can be written down in that little Bible? :roll:
 
American said:
Are you just trying to be argumentative. I call bull**** on you knowing many people that think the Bible is all there is. If you know people, I want to know their names...I'll contact them. Does anyone really believe an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God can be written down in that little Bible? :roll:
Click to expand...

If the Bible doesn't fully explain God, what does? The bible is the most strongest authority there is about God.
 
Last edited:
Lightdemon said:
If the Bible doesn't fully explain God, what does? The bible is the most strongest authority there is about God.
Click to expand...
Yes it is, but that does not imply that everything about God is in it.
The Bible is the book about the salvation of man by God.
It's not a book all about God.
 
American said:
Yes it is, but that does not imply that everything about God is in it.
The Bible is the book about the salvation of man by God.
It's not a book all about God.
Click to expand...

So you're saying there's a lot of stuff we don't know about God.
 
epicdude86-albums-stuff-picture1285-3d-dinosaur.png
 
Life on other planets would certainly disprove some common Christian beliefs, but not the Bible per se.
I don't think life on other planets is mentioned in the Bible in any way, but some of the OT events and race of Elohim could be explained by an alien presence.
 
scourge99 said:
So are these prophecies the one's from the OT? The one's that most Jews regard as NOT being fulfilled by Jesus?

Christians have revised or reinterpreted many prophecies of the OT from what was traditionally believed by Judaism in order to apply them to Jesus.
Click to expand...



"Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy. "Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Daniel 9:24-26


Daniel is told that there would be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks (7x7+62x7=483 years) until 'the Anointed One, the prince' would come.

Do you know of a different Messiah from that time?
 
This peculiar maths needs some explanation, Ted.

Which flood was the end to what war in connection with Jesus, and after which 62 weeks was he "cut off"?
 
roderic said:
This peculiar maths needs some explanation, Ted.

Which flood was the end to what war in connection with Jesus, and after which 62 weeks was he "cut off"?
Click to expand...


Days are actually Hebrew (360 day) years.


"Seventy weeks are determined For your people and for your holy city, To finish the transgression, To make an end of sins, To make reconciliation for iniquity, To bring in everlasting righteousness, To seal up vision and prophecy, And to anoint the Most Holy. "Know therefore and understand, That from the going forth of the command To restore and build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince, There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; The street shall be built again, and the wall, Even in troublesome times. "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

Daniel 9:24-26


Daniel is told that there would be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks (7x7+62x7=483 years) until 'the Anointed One, the prince' would come.

Most historians agree on the date of 444 B.C. as the time of the issuing of the decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah. Since the length of time [seven "sevens" (sheva) plus sixty-two "sevens"] was given to a Jew (Daniel), we know the years/prophetic days are 360 literal days in length.
483 Hebrew years is literally 173,880 days. This is the same as 476 Solar/Julian years. This takes us to the time of Christ's Crucifixion.



Titus destroyed the "city and sanctuary" in 70 AD, but no specific time is prescribed for this event in this passage since the sixty-nine weeks are complete when Messiah is "cut off".

FYI: A "flood" in Bible prophesy often refers to a flood of people, as in a sea of people.

I'm reluctant to comment on which war since many Bible prophesies have multiple fulfillments and are also fulfilled in type. Hitler, for example, is certainly a type of anti-Christ to the extent that he had a number associated with his name (not 666, but rather 555) and murdered millions while making himself a god, but he was not the actual anti-Christ. I could speculate that the war that was to end prior to the end of "desolations" was WWII since only then did the Jews return to reestablish Israel, but I really don't have the background to say for sure one way or another.
 
Ok, thanks for clarifyng, Ted, I did not know any of this.
 
Re: Is it or is it not your position? You've contradicted yourself.

Lachean said:
Is this some kind of hypothetical straw-man?
Click to expand...
No. Its been argued here before. Heck, even in this topic, people have said they could disprove God.

That is not inherently the atheist position, technically speaking a-theist means without belief. I for one do not believe in any god, for I am skeptical of all of the illogical claims made for EVERY man-made god.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is not the position held by every atheist, but it IS an argument put forth by some.

If a person went around claiming "there is no god" without provocation, the more appropo response would be, "What do you mean by that?
Click to expand...
You are certainly free to ask that. However, there is nothing wrong with asking ‘can you prove that?’

However, if we are in a disagreement because you claim there is a god, and I am skeptical, the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...
And, as I have noted, there has been no claim of the existence of God.

Not quite, you're equivocating again. When I say "I own everything in this room"...
Click to expand...
Actually, no – I am taking the word at face value; to argue that ‘everything’ doesn’t REALLY mean ‘everything’ is to equivocate.

The use of "everything" requires context.
Click to expand...
And what about the subject issue necessitates that ‘everything’, in context’ means something other than ‘EVERYthing?
We are, after all, talking about Creation, specifically, creation without God.

If you've ever heard someone say "everything was created @ the big bang" they meant the atoms/dark matter that eventually formed the galaxies, they did not mean that the laws of physics are a creative force that determine the future of said universe.
Click to expand...
You do not know that – and, in fact, I find when this issue comes up, that those who say or agree with the idea that ‘everything was created by the laws of physics’ really DO mean ‘everything’, until they realize the implications of that statement – and then –they- equivocate.

As far as a ‘creative force’ – as I said, the Sun, earth, moon, stars, etc – if they were not created by the laws of physics, then what?

So who are you arguing against then? Who has accepted your straw-man as their position that EVERYTHING is "created" by the laws of physics?
Click to expand...
There is no specific example in this thread. As I said in the beginning, I was discussing MY experience with this particular subset of the subject, and that experience covers decades.

I believe everything (matter and space-time) began @ the big bang, and behaves according to the laws of physics.... The thought I have are CREATED in my head though volition, without a god at the source of this universe or determinism setting the @ the big bang.
Click to expand...
OK... and so, given that the electro-chemical nature of the brain activity associated with thought and the actions derived from same are all governed by the laws of physics, what mechanism allows for the control of the process necessitated by ‘free will’?

Something must allow you to control the process. The process is governed by the laws of physics. What allows you to control those laws to create the electro-chemical reaction you want?

:yawn: I understand determinism, I also understand it to be tripe. We are not mindless billiard balls. Man is a being of volitional consciousness.
Click to expand...
You DO agree that anything that was created independent of advent of ‘consciousness’ is an example of the billiard ball table, yes?

As already asked, how does consciousness allow you to control the process?
Hoe can you be sure that it even does allow control?

I thought you regarded that argument as false, and not your own?
Click to expand...
I’m simply advocating the position for the sake of argument.

You're confused again... There is choice, there is free will, man is a being of volitional consciousness
Click to expand...
How do you know?

Chemistry is not just physics...
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. The interactions of atoms and molecules lumped under ‘chemistry’ are all determined by physics.

I have control over my thoughts and body, I can prove it
Click to expand...
Actually, you cannot.
You can only prove your perception of control, not that you actually have control.

So this blatant misunderstanding of what the laws of physics do IS your position? You do not believe that we have free will? I see...
Click to expand...
I’m simply advocating the position for the sake of argument.

"Everything" is NOT created by the laws of physics...
Click to expand...
It is, unless you are equivocating as to the meaning of the word.
 
Lightdemon said:
If the Bible doesn't fully explain God, what does?
Click to expand...
Nothing.

The idea that any book ever written about anyone has ever FULLY accounted for EVERY action EVER taken by that person is utter nonsense; this is -especially- the case with an omnipresent, omnipotent God.
 
American said:
Are you just trying to be argumentative. I call bull**** on you knowing many people that think the Bible is all there is. If you know people, I want to know their names...I'll contact them. Does anyone really believe an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God can be written down in that little Bible? :roll:
Click to expand...

Ted Jones 555-746-8876
Susie Parker 555-478-9872

Check up on them and then get back to me. :roll:

Let's review what is actually bull**** instead!

Originally Posted by Goobieman
And so how does that necessarily preclude there being life there?

And... the idea that The Bible is an exhaustive, all-inclusive list of every action God ever took is, well, beyond ridicule. Not even the most whacked of the most whacked fundamentalists believe this.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
I have met many people that take the Bible as all-inclusive the as the literal word of god.

I think that there is life out there... I guess I have no idea what your point is, since you keep on suggesting that I am implying that there is no life out there, when what I am saying is quite different.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that the Bible is, "all there is"? Obviously Goobie said it and I did not. What I said is obviously quite different. I am sure that you are simply gonna reinforce your error, but who knows? Perhaps you might seek clarification instead. Get back to me when you develop some maturity. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
Your actions and admitted positions speak far louder than your words.
Click to expand...

It's not like my "admitted" positions mean much to you. You cherry picked my "admitted" positions. Like the position of me being agnostic, you don't acknowledge that, as if you had the ability to assign me my beliefs anyway :roll: You also did not acknowledge the second part of my argument. You're afraid of conceding that little point because you just can't concede anything. At all. Which is still hilarious to watch you do it.
 
Lightdemon said:
It's not like my "admitted" positions mean much to you. You cherry picked my "admitted" positions. Like the position of me being agnostic, you don't acknowledge that, as if you had the ability to assign me my beliefs anyway :roll: You also did not acknowledge the second part of my argument. You're afraid of conceding that little point because you just can't concede anything. At all. Which is still hilarious to watch you do it.
Click to expand...
I see you delusions go much further than just your positions on God....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom