• 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
Does life on other planets disprove the bible?

It is my beleif "MY BELEIF" not neccessarly others.

That God or a higher interventiong created the universe, earth and gave living beings a chance to evole into what we are today.

After that I do not know, perhaps this higher intervention made differant lifeforms with a differant versions of the bible , perhaps not.

Of course this is mearly an opinion exept I do have faith in God which is after all my choice.
 
presluc said:
Does life on other planets disprove the bible?
Click to expand...

Yes... it clearly does.

It is my beleif "MY BELEIF" not neccessarly others.
Click to expand...

It is a clear and logical step that it is so...

That God or a higher interventiong created the universe, earth and gave living beings a chance to evole into what we are today.
Click to expand...

That may be, but that is not the argument. The argument is does life on other planets disprove the Bible, the mere fact that the Bible states that the Earth was created in one day and is six thousand years ole and not over billions of years old refutes the Bible.

After that I do not know, perhaps this higher intervention made differant lifeforms with a differant versions of the bible , perhaps not.
Click to expand...

Inconceivable...

Of course this is mearly an opinion exept I do have faith in God which is after all my choice.
Click to expand...

Faith in something that does not exist is indeed your choice...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
If it's not literal, it can't be taken on faith, and the whole structure of Christianity is completely dependent on the veracity of the claim that Mary wasn't getting laid. That can't be verified and only if the Bible is proven true in the parts that are testable is it sensible to believe the unproven parts that don't make any sense in light of common experience.

Common experience says that there are a many ways a girl can get pregnant without having to explain it with horny angels.

But if Jesus isn't magically contrived, then he's just a man, just a philosopher, and not something worth dying for.
Click to expand...
Not true, the veracity of Christianity is based upon Jesus rising from the dead.
 
Tucker Case said:
Good point.

Moderator's Warning:
Everyone needs to get back on topic. I'm included in this and I've given myself a very stern warning for my indiscretions. Bad, Tucker. Bad. I'm also threadbanning myself from the thread for my part in the derailment.
Click to expand...
:spank: I'll fix you.
 
phattonez said:
This thread is stupid, no one here knows about the Bible. The Bible has two creation stories! Genesis 1 is not the same as Genesis 2. Want to know why? Genesis 1 says that animals came before man. Genesis 2 says that man came before animals. You think that the Bible actually describes the creation of Earth then you're either uninformed or being deceitful.
Click to expand...
I encourage you to start a thread on this very subject. It would probably be interesting.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yes... it clearly does.



It is a clear and logical step that it is so...



That may be, but that is not the argument. The argument is does life on other planets disprove the Bible, the mere fact that the Bible states that the Earth was created in one day and is six thousand years ole and not over billions of years old refutes the Bible.



Inconceivable...



Faith in something that does not exist is indeed your choice...
Click to expand...

Well, first of all we have no proof that there is life on other planets.
So how can you disprove one thing by using an unproven thing?

2ND of all what the bible states has been debated for centuries.
Example the earth is 6 thousand years old according to who's time frame.
Would that be eastern or Pacific time.
The same with the time of the big bang theory is the time fram based on standard or daylights saving.
Perhaps devine intervention has a differant time frame all together
Ask tourself this question which planet is older in years Mercury, Earth or Jupiter.
As far as faith not existing that is your beleif I respect that.
However to not have faiith in ones self to succeed, would be difficult for me.
 
Goobieman said:
Interesting. How so?
Click to expand...

In Genesis 1 we read that God created plants on the earth on Day 3, birds to fly in the atmosphere and marine life to swim in the ocean on Day 5, and animals to inhabit the land on Day 6. Human beings were also made on Day 6 and were given dominion over the animals. But where does the Bible discuss the creation of life on the “lights in the expanse of the heavens”? There is no such description because the lights in the expanse were not designed for life. God gave care of the earth to man, but the heavens are the Lord’s (Psalm 115:16).

16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s;
But the earth He has given to the children of men.

Aliens and the Bible - Answers in Genesis

There are numerous sites that say essentially the same thing, and then all we have to do is read Genesis itself. The Bible is the Word of God. It is not debatable. It says what it says and means what it means or it is nothing. If one part is debatable or incorrect, then all of it is debatable. The Bible is all or nothing, for either God is Infallible or he is Fallible. Christians can't have it both ways.

Well, first of all we have no proof that there is life on other planets.
So how can you disprove one thing by using an unproven thing?

Originally Posted by presluc
2ND of all what the bible states has been debated for centuries.
Example the earth is 6 thousand years old according to who's time frame.
Would that be eastern or Pacific time.
The same with the time of the big bang theory is the time fram based on standard or daylights saving.
Perhaps devine intervention has a differant time frame all together
Ask tourself this question which planet is older in years Mercury, Earth or Jupiter.
As far as faith not existing that is your beleif I respect that.
However to not have faiith in ones self to succeed, would be difficult for me.
Click to expand...

Ditto

Originally Posted by presluc
I think he's being sarcastic...
Click to expand...

actually, I was initially but i'm not ultimately... :lol:
 
Bodhisattva said:
There are numerous sites that say essentially the same thing, and then all we have to do is read Genesis itself. The Bible is the Word of God. It is not debatable. It says what it says and means what it means or it is nothing. If one part is debatable or incorrect, then all of it is debatable. The Bible is all or nothing, for either God is Infallible or he is Fallible. Christians can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
Well, OK... but how does the absennce of proof equate to proof of absence?
 
Goobieman said:
Well, OK... but how does the absennce of proof equate to proof of absence?
Click to expand...
I do not think it does. If the Bible never mentions God creating extraterrestrial life, does that actually mean it did not happen? Maybe God deemed it unimportant to relay this information to us at the time.
 
EgoffTib said:
I do not think it does. If the Bible never mentions God creating extraterrestrial life, does that actually mean it did not happen?
Click to expand...
Only if you assume The Bible describes every action ever underdaken by God.
That assumption is, well, unsupportable.
 
Goobieman said:
Only if you assume The Bible describes every action ever underdaken by God.
That assumption is, well, unsupportable.
Click to expand...
It seems that we concur, though I am intrigued to see Bodhisattva's response.
 
I admit that I have not read all of the responses in this expansive thread, but I have saw that many have the same stance that I have in that the Bible never claims to be an account of all of the acts taken by God. Thus, life outside of Earth does not mean the Bible is false any more than the discovery of dinosaurs have.
 
Bodhisattva said:
In Genesis 1 we read that God created plants on the earth on Day 3, birds to fly in the atmosphere and marine life to swim in the ocean on Day 5, and animals to inhabit the land on Day 6. Human beings were also made on Day 6 and were given dominion over the animals. But where does the Bible discuss the creation of life on the “lights in the expanse of the heavens”? There is no such description because the lights in the expanse were not designed for life. God gave care of the earth to man, but the heavens are the Lord’s (Psalm 115:16).

16 The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord’s;
But the earth He has given to the children of men.

Aliens and the Bible - Answers in Genesis

There are numerous sites that say essentially the same thing, and then all we have to do is read Genesis itself. The Bible is the Word of God. It is not debatable. It says what it says and means what it means or it is nothing. If one part is debatable or incorrect, then all of it is debatable. The Bible is all or nothing, for either God is Infallible or he is Fallible. Christians can't have it both ways.

Well, first of all we have no proof that there is life on other planets.
So how can you disprove one thing by using an unproven thing?



Ditto



actually, I was initially but i'm not ultimately... :lol:
Click to expand...

Well God's word may not be debatable what man writes can be.
Now I know some Religous people and maybe some presidents may say the God speaks to them but although I have faith in God , organized religion is a differant story,
However this is my opinion what others think is theirs.

You should try harder at the ultimate and less at the actual.lol
 
Goobieman said:
Well, OK... but how does the absennce of proof equate to proof of absence?
Click to expand...

There was a phrase I heard when I was growing up it has not been used that much in today's society, but perhaps it would fit here,

We don't know.
 
Goobieman said:
Well, OK... but how does the absennce of proof equate to proof of absence?
Click to expand...

Evidence of absence supports the notion of absence.

E.G., if you claim you have a cat in your trunk and I open your trunk and there is no cat then that is definitive proof that no cat is visible in your trunk. If I search in your trunk and find no cat this supports the notion further that no cat is present in your trunk. If I then get heat sensors and sound detectors and still find no evidence of what manifestations a cat would leave in your trunk then this is yet further evidence for the absence of a cat in your trunk.

If you now claim the cat is invisible, massless, heatless, and otherwise undetectable, then now all you've done is equivocate "cat" with this invisible, massless, heatless, and otherwise undetectabl being you claim is in your trunk.
 
Here's the problem with this whole "absence of proof" thing. The onus is on the theist, not the atheist.

If the theist says that god exists, proper support for this claim cannot be the lack of "proof of absence" because it shifts the onus onto the atheist. Which forces the atheist to prove that nothing is there. This makes the argument assume that God already exists, which is a circular argument.

If the theist is the one making the claim, then the theist needs to use proper support for this claim, and not just to shift the onus onto the atheist.
 
Lightdemon said:
Here's the problem with this whole "absence of proof" thing. The onus is on the theist, not the atheist.
Click to expand...
Thats depends.
If the theist says 'God exists' then it is up to him to prove it.
If the atheist says 'God does not exist', it is up to him to prove it.

There have been several posters here that happily claim that they can disprove God (not that they have had any success).

If the theist says that god exists, proper support for this claim cannot be the lack of "proof of absence" because it shifts the onus onto the atheist.
Click to expand...
Yes. But 'absence of proof is not proof of absence' is best, and most properly used as the response to the atheists claim that there is no proof that God exists.

My favorite counter to those that claim there is no God is the implication inherent to the Necessity of Reality found in that position -- that if not God, then everything that is, that has been and that will be is created by the Laws of PHysics.
 
Goobieman said:
If the atheist says 'God does not exist', it is up to him to prove it.
Click to expand...

"God does not exist" is not a simple claim, it's a counter claim, specifically to the claim that "God exists." The onus is still on the theist.

The initial point must always start at nothing, so that the null hypothesis can be used as a control.


Yes. But 'absence of proof is not proof of absence' is best, and most properly used as the response to the atheists claim that there is no proof that God exists.
Click to expand...

When I hear someone using that line of logic, it just tells me that they don't have enough evidence to back up their claim and is trying to shift the onus onto their opponent.

When the atheist points out that the theist lacks proof, and they pull out the old "absence of proof is not proof of absence" they're actually just begging the question.

What I normally suggest to the theist is that they should find better evidence.

My favorite counter to those that claim there is no God is the implication inherent to the Necessity of Reality found in that position -- that if not God, then everything that is, that has been and that will be is created by the Laws of PHysics.
Click to expand...

And how does the atheist react?
 
Lightdemon said:
"God does not exist" is not a simple claim, it's a counter claim, specifically to the claim that "God exists." The onus is still on the theist.
Click to expand...
If the atheist initiates the claim, it is up to him to support it.

When I hear someone using that line of logic, it just tells me that they don't have enough evidence to back up their claim and is trying to shift the onus onto their opponent.
Click to expand...
If the opponent makes the claim there there is no God, and tries to prove it by the absence of proof to that effect, then the theist, rightly, notes that this proves nothing.

And how does the atheist react?
Click to expand...
Most of the time, they dont get it, at least initially.
I then tell them that this means everything is set in stone, from the moment of the big bang. Everything.

This then devolves into many different conversations, most of which have them trying to explain how free will can exist, even though -everything- is created by the laws of physics.
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
If the atheist initiates the claim, it is up to him to support it.


If the opponent makes the claim there there is no God, and tries to prove it by the absence of proof to that effect, then the theist, rightly, notes that this proves nothing.
Click to expand...

When does the atheist initiate the claim? If the theist never claim that "God exists," then the atheist never would have made the counter claime that "God does not exist." The origin of the argument has always been started by the theist, thus the onus has always been on them.


Most of the time, they dont get it, at least initially.
I then tell them that this means everything is set in stone, from the moment of the big bang. Everything.

This then devolves into many different conversations, most of which have them trying to explain how free will can exist, even thught -everything- is created by the laws of physics.
Click to expand...

It's like a video game. Ultimately, you have to follow the story in the game, but how you do it is up to you. Therefore, free will can exist, but the ultimate ending cannot be altered. What's wrong with this position? It seems logical to me.
 
A person's beliefs, for whatever reason they form them and hold them, are none of anyone's damn business or concern unless said believer forces those beliefs upon others.

Argument is now moot, as life on other planets as relating to a work of Terran historical fiction (or misinterpreted belief) is ricockulous.

:D
 
Lightdemon said:
When does the atheist initiate the claim?
Click to expand...
A zillion different ways.
Starting out a conversatin with "There is no God" is one of them.

It's like a video game. Ultimately, you have to follow the story in the game, but how you do it is up to you
Click to expand...
That's the point -- its not.
If -everything- is created by the laws of physics, then nothing is up to you, it is all set in stone. "Everything" would include your thoughts, your actions, etc. All of it is pre-ordained and unchangeable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom