About Belief, Religion and God

[BBriere]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

I think unlike some that the study of science is more proof of intelligent design than anything else. When we think about how every minute detail had to be just so in order to even start, let alone, sustain life, then I think we realize how our existence as just a random chance of events really makes little sense. We are also left to wonder why other planets and solar systems cannot sustain life. Why have the right elements not ocurred again on earth for life to begin spontaneously? How could such an expansive, infinite, and often times unexplainable universe have been created out of a singularity no bigger than an atom? I think it’s truly amazing.
[/quote]

…see, it’s just a matter of perspective. You think the conditions for life existing on Earth were put in place just to sustain us. I say we evolved the way we did because the conditions were right…

…think about the size of the universe for a moment. It’s estimated that our galaxy holds 100 billions stars, and the visible universe contains over a 100 billions galaxies. On such a scale, and on such a cosmic timeframe, life arising spontaneously is simply inevitable…[/quote]

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…remember when i took your use of the word “metaphysics” to mean something suprahuman or divine? That you use that word here again with the implied intent that that word points at something undefineable is a smoke screen, an attempt to conjur bigger meaning from something that is naturally occuring…

Metaphysics are just simply objects that have no physical matter. That�??�?�¢??s it, it�??�?�¢??s not more complicated than that. It�??�?�¢??s no smoke screen, unless your arguing that ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc are not real, then we have a problem.

…you should watch the lecture i posted a few posts up, it deals with what we have in common with our fellow animals, and where we are unique in nature. But no matter how unique the attributes we have as humans, all these attributes can be explained by natural selection and evolution and physical traits…

Not consciousness, evolution does not explain the existence of consciousness or what possess it.
I am not against natural selection or evolution, but it doesn�??�?�¢??t explain everything. We are animals be we have notions of good and evil, we have morality, animals do not. Animals are not faced with moral dilemmas, they just do what they do.

…you think having an idea about something shows that God exists? You believe that because we thought of God that means God exists? Why does one follow from the other? How does one follow from the other? Explain that if you can please, because i have a hard time understanding that…

That is an ontological argument. Not having an idea about something. Tracking the sources of all things whether in the temporal realm or not, leads up. Ever notice, for instance, that as the more you break things down, the more in common everything�??�?�¢??s basic make up is? So you and I are different people, we are made of cells, cells are made up atoms, atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons, those suckers are made up of other shit�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦.So we go from being vastly different to both being made up of sub atomic particles. You I have different properties, sub atomic particles, other than location, have the same properties.
[/quote]

…actually pat, researchers in the field have observed cultural behaviour in animals, especially primates. They know what an “other” is. They are able to show compassion and empathy, and even use “tit for tat” or the golden rule. Chimps on border patrol kill other chimps from neighbouring terratoria. You should really watch that lecture…
[/quote]
None of which is an example that they have knowledge of good and evil. Animals behave badly, but that doesn’t mean evil. There is a difference.

…whether thought is evidence of something that is a matter of opinion, and that we’re made of star dust and emptiness i can’t argue about with you because i agree there with you. The BBC film deals with this subject, and it’s a pity you won’t watch it. If you are willing to dissect reality and life, and come to an understanding about the underlying processes that brought us here, why stop at beliefs? Why not dissect beliefs aswell, and challenge them?

I have…I have studied this plenty. I seriously doubt a BBC special is going to make an ass hair’s worth of difference. It doesn’t solve the problem. If you think I disagree with the science of evolution your wrong…It’s good model. As to whether space dust breathed life into us, now that is debatable. We don’t actually know what life is. We can throw together all the parts of a person but we cannot make it live. The “life” part is something else and is not tangible. It is something we’re a part of not something we own.
Just because I am a theist, don’t think I arrived at that conclusions without serious study.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the belief in a deity is irrational and illogical. That is why i have no religious beliefs. If you can find Yusef, he’ll be more than happy to discuss Islam with you [in a different thread]… [/quote]

I see the opposite. Non-belief in a �?�¢??diety�?�¢?? if you so choose to call it that, it illogical. Without a source you have to accept a completely illogical argument, that everything comes from nothing. We say everything came from something. That is actually more logical. To be the initial source it, by definition, cannot have a source and must exist outside the causal chain�?�¢?�?�¦.It�?�¢??s very basic in it�?�¢??s simplicity.

[/quote]

…not non-belief, but no belief. I don’t think we’ve come from nothing, i think we evolved from the basic building blocks found in abundance in the universe. Where do those building blocks come from? I don’t know, but it’s here. Believing that the reason that it’s here is due to an even bigger mystery, God, that i can’t do. It’s simple as that…[/quote]

So that’s it, you give up? Well that’s your prerogative of course but it’s not a good argument. “I don’t know how all this got here, but I know God didn’t do it.” You’re going to have to do better than that or give up.

Think about this, every single thing that exists has an infinite amount of properties. Everything that exists, physical or not, came from somewhere else. It’s not a useless exercise to follow these patterns as see what they yield. As you break things down everything gains a commonality to it. The simpler the element, the closer to the source.

[ephrem]

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

I think unlike some that the study of science is more proof of intelligent design than anything else. When we think about how every minute detail had to be just so in order to even start, let alone, sustain life, then I think we realize how our existence as just a random chance of events really makes little sense. We are also left to wonder why other planets and solar systems cannot sustain life. Why have the right elements not ocurred again on earth for life to begin spontaneously? How could such an expansive, infinite, and often times unexplainable universe have been created out of a singularity no bigger than an atom? I think it’s truly amazing.
[/quote]

…see, it’s just a matter of perspective. You think the conditions for life existing on Earth were put in place just to sustain us. I say we evolved the way we did because the conditions were right…

…think about the size of the universe for a moment. It’s estimated that our galaxy holds 100 billions stars, and the visible universe contains over a 100 billions galaxies. On such a scale, and on such a cosmic timeframe, life arising spontaneously is simply inevitable…[/quote]

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth.
[/quote]

…within our lifetime we’ll have telescopes that are able to see planets lightyears away upclose. Currently technology is not able to determin through wavelength analysis which elements are present in the atmosphere of far away planets, but scientists are getting there. Astronomers are finding more and more planets, and even solar systems that resemble ours. It’s just a matter of time…

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

I think unlike some that the study of science is more proof of intelligent design than anything else. When we think about how every minute detail had to be just so in order to even start, let alone, sustain life, then I think we realize how our existence as just a random chance of events really makes little sense. We are also left to wonder why other planets and solar systems cannot sustain life. Why have the right elements not ocurred again on earth for life to begin spontaneously? How could such an expansive, infinite, and often times unexplainable universe have been created out of a singularity no bigger than an atom? I think it’s truly amazing.
[/quote]

…see, it’s just a matter of perspective. You think the conditions for life existing on Earth were put in place just to sustain us. I say we evolved the way we did because the conditions were right…

…think about the size of the universe for a moment. It’s estimated that our galaxy holds 100 billions stars, and the visible universe contains over a 100 billions galaxies. On such a scale, and on such a cosmic timeframe, life arising spontaneously is simply inevitable…[/quote]
It’s actually more than that, we’re talking trillions. I don’t see any of it happening spontaneously. What ever happens is caused by something else. There is not a single solitary thing in the universe that was not caused by something else, therefore it is not random. If things were random the stuff of science would be useless because we could not count on the conclusions.

As far as probabilities? I’d say the odds of life are probable out of trillions if not quadrillions of potential out comes. Except we don’t know what life is…What makes a tree alive and a rock not? We know it’s not, but why? They share a common origin after all, both move and change over time and both affect their environment and are subject to it, so what’s the difference?

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

I think unlike some that the study of science is more proof of intelligent design than anything else. When we think about how every minute detail had to be just so in order to even start, let alone, sustain life, then I think we realize how our existence as just a random chance of events really makes little sense. We are also left to wonder why other planets and solar systems cannot sustain life. Why have the right elements not ocurred again on earth for life to begin spontaneously? How could such an expansive, infinite, and often times unexplainable universe have been created out of a singularity no bigger than an atom? I think it’s truly amazing.
[/quote]

…see, it’s just a matter of perspective. You think the conditions for life existing on Earth were put in place just to sustain us. I say we evolved the way we did because the conditions were right…

…think about the size of the universe for a moment. It’s estimated that our galaxy holds 100 billions stars, and the visible universe contains over a 100 billions galaxies. On such a scale, and on such a cosmic timeframe, life arising spontaneously is simply inevitable…[/quote]

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth.
[/quote]

…within our lifetime we’ll have telescopes that are able to see planets lightyears away upclose. Currently technology is not able to determin through wavelength analysis which elements are present in the atmosphere of far away planets, but scientists are getting there. Astronomers are finding more and more planets, and even solar systems that resemble ours. It’s just a matter of time…
[/quote]

We already can, but keep in mind that the image we see is subject to distance. So that if we are looking at a planet 100 million light years away, the image we see is 100 million years old…Maybe life had not evolved on that place at that time.

Things get mighty warped in the space-time continuum.

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
…remember when i took your use of the word “metaphysics” to mean something suprahuman or divine? That you use that word here again with the implied intent that that word points at something undefineable is a smoke screen, an attempt to conjur bigger meaning from something that is naturally occuring…

Metaphysics are just simply objects that have no physical matter. That�??�??�?�¢??s it, it�??�??�?�¢??s not more complicated than that. It�??�??�?�¢??s no smoke screen, unless your arguing that ideas, thoughts, feelings, etc are not real, then we have a problem.

…you should watch the lecture i posted a few posts up, it deals with what we have in common with our fellow animals, and where we are unique in nature. But no matter how unique the attributes we have as humans, all these attributes can be explained by natural selection and evolution and physical traits…

Not consciousness, evolution does not explain the existence of consciousness or what possess it.
I am not against natural selection or evolution, but it doesn�??�??�?�¢??t explain everything. We are animals be we have notions of good and evil, we have morality, animals do not. Animals are not faced with moral dilemmas, they just do what they do.

…you think having an idea about something shows that God exists? You believe that because we thought of God that means God exists? Why does one follow from the other? How does one follow from the other? Explain that if you can please, because i have a hard time understanding that…

That is an ontological argument. Not having an idea about something. Tracking the sources of all things whether in the temporal realm or not, leads up. Ever notice, for instance, that as the more you break things down, the more in common everything�??�??�?�¢??s basic make up is? So you and I are different people, we are made of cells, cells are made up atoms, atoms are made of electrons, protons, and neutrons, those suckers are made up of other shit�??�??�?�¢?�??�??�?�¦.So we go from being vastly different to both being made up of sub atomic particles. You I have different properties, sub atomic particles, other than location, have the same properties.
[/quote]

…actually pat, researchers in the field have observed cultural behaviour in animals, especially primates. They know what an “other” is. They are able to show compassion and empathy, and even use “tit for tat” or the golden rule. Chimps on border patrol kill other chimps from neighbouring terratoria. You should really watch that lecture…

None of which is an example that they have knowledge of good and evil. Animals behave badly, but that doesn’t mean evil. There is a difference.[/quote]

…actually, as observed in the wild, chimps have empathy; so they’re able to distuingish between what is fair and what is not…

…whether thought is evidence of something that is a matter of opinion, and that we’re made of star dust and emptiness i can’t argue about with you because i agree there with you. The BBC film deals with this subject, and it’s a pity you won’t watch it. If you are willing to dissect reality and life, and come to an understanding about the underlying processes that brought us here, why stop at beliefs? Why not dissect beliefs aswell, and challenge them?

I have…I have studied this plenty. I seriously doubt a BBC special is going to make an ass hair’s worth of difference. It doesn’t solve the problem. If you think I disagree with the science of evolution your wrong…It’s good model. As to whether space dust breathed life into us, now that is debatable. We don’t actually know what life is. We can throw together all the parts of a person but we cannot make it live. The “life” part is something else and is not tangible. It is something we’re a part of not something we own.
Just because I am a theist, don’t think I arrived at that conclusions without serious study. [/quote]

…fair enough. However, God does not solve the riddle, it just removes it from our reality into the realm of beliefs where everything goes. If you explain the mystery of our existence by pointing at an even bigger mystery, you’ve explained nothing…

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…the belief in a deity is irrational and illogical. That is why i have no religious beliefs. If you can find Yusef, he’ll be more than happy to discuss Islam with you [in a different thread]… [/quote]

I see the opposite. Non-belief in a �??�?�¢??diety�??�?�¢?? if you so choose to call it that, it illogical. Without a source you have to accept a completely illogical argument, that everything comes from nothing. We say everything came from something. That is actually more logical. To be the initial source it, by definition, cannot have a source and must exist outside the causal chain�??�?�¢?�??�?�¦.It�??�?�¢??s very basic in it�??�?�¢??s simplicity.

[/quote]

…not non-belief, but no belief. I don’t think we’ve come from nothing, i think we evolved from the basic building blocks found in abundance in the universe. Where do those building blocks come from? I don’t know, but it’s here. Believing that the reason that it’s here is due to an even bigger mystery, God, that i can’t do. It’s simple as that…[/quote]

So that’s it, you give up? Well that’s your prerogative of course but it’s not a good argument. “I don’t know how all this got here, but I know God didn’t do it.” You’re going to have to do better than that or give up.

Think about this, every single thing that exists has an infinite amount of properties. Everything that exists, physical or not, came from somewhere else. It’s not a useless exercise to follow these patterns as see what they yield. As you break things down everything gains a commonality to it. The simpler the element, the closer to the source.[/quote]

…it’s not giving up, it’s acknowledging that [a belief in] God does not explain anything…

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

I think unlike some that the study of science is more proof of intelligent design than anything else. When we think about how every minute detail had to be just so in order to even start, let alone, sustain life, then I think we realize how our existence as just a random chance of events really makes little sense. We are also left to wonder why other planets and solar systems cannot sustain life. Why have the right elements not ocurred again on earth for life to begin spontaneously? How could such an expansive, infinite, and often times unexplainable universe have been created out of a singularity no bigger than an atom? I think it’s truly amazing.
[/quote]

…see, it’s just a matter of perspective. You think the conditions for life existing on Earth were put in place just to sustain us. I say we evolved the way we did because the conditions were right…

…think about the size of the universe for a moment. It’s estimated that our galaxy holds 100 billions stars, and the visible universe contains over a 100 billions galaxies. On such a scale, and on such a cosmic timeframe, life arising spontaneously is simply inevitable…[/quote]

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth.
[/quote]

…within our lifetime we’ll have telescopes that are able to see planets lightyears away upclose. Currently technology is not able to determin through wavelength analysis which elements are present in the atmosphere of far away planets, but scientists are getting there. Astronomers are finding more and more planets, and even solar systems that resemble ours. It’s just a matter of time…
[/quote]

We already can, but keep in mind that the image we see is subject to distance. So that if we are looking at a planet 100 million light years away, the image we see is 100 million years old…Maybe life had not evolved on that place at that time.

Things get mighty warped in the space-time continuum.

[/quote]

…does that mean you’re open to the idea that life isn’t limited to us on Earth?

[i’m off to bed. See you tomorrow]

[BBriere]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

I think unlike some that the study of science is more proof of intelligent design than anything else. When we think about how every minute detail had to be just so in order to even start, let alone, sustain life, then I think we realize how our existence as just a random chance of events really makes little sense. We are also left to wonder why other planets and solar systems cannot sustain life. Why have the right elements not ocurred again on earth for life to begin spontaneously? How could such an expansive, infinite, and often times unexplainable universe have been created out of a singularity no bigger than an atom? I think it’s truly amazing.
[/quote]

…see, it’s just a matter of perspective. You think the conditions for life existing on Earth were put in place just to sustain us. I say we evolved the way we did because the conditions were right…

…think about the size of the universe for a moment. It’s estimated that our galaxy holds 100 billions stars, and the visible universe contains over a 100 billions galaxies. On such a scale, and on such a cosmic timeframe, life arising spontaneously is simply inevitable…[/quote]

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth.
[/quote]

…within our lifetime we’ll have telescopes that are able to see planets lightyears away upclose. Currently technology is not able to determin through wavelength analysis which elements are present in the atmosphere of far away planets, but scientists are getting there. Astronomers are finding more and more planets, and even solar systems that resemble ours. It’s just a matter of time…
[/quote]

We already can, but keep in mind that the image we see is subject to distance. So that if we are looking at a planet 100 million light years away, the image we see is 100 million years old…Maybe life had not evolved on that place at that time.

Things get mighty warped in the space-time continuum.

[/quote]

…does that mean you’re open to the idea that life isn’t limited to us on Earth?

[i’m off to bed. See you tomorrow][/quote]

There is always a possibility that there may be life somewhere. Afterall, the universe far more expansive than we can really ever calculate since it’s always expanding.

[ephrem]

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…does that mean you’re open to the idea that life isn’t limited to us on Earth?

[i’m off to bed. See you tomorrow][/quote]

There is always a possibility that there may be life somewhere. Afterall, the universe far more expansive than we can really ever calculate since it’s always expanding. [/quote]

…if we do find [some kind of] life out there, wouldn’t it mean that the bible is a bronze age interpretation of our existence by the standards of that time, instead of the inerrant word of God?

[BBriere]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…does that mean you’re open to the idea that life isn’t limited to us on Earth?

[i’m off to bed. See you tomorrow][/quote]

There is always a possibility that there may be life somewhere. Afterall, the universe far more expansive than we can really ever calculate since it’s always expanding. [/quote]

…if we do find [some kind of] life out there, wouldn’t it mean that the bible is a bronze age interpretation of our existence by the standards of that time, instead of the inerrant word of God?[/quote]

If we find life on another planet, and that would be a big IF, it would really have no implications unless it was mutli cellular, self aware, complex beings as ourselves. It would not necessarily discount the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that human beings are God’s most precious creation. Does that mean that he could have created other equal life forms and not cared as much about them? There is no definitive answer to this question. The most reasonable explanation is that there is no other intelligent life in the universe. If we think about the fact that we live on a planet that is actually conducive to life, something we have not found elsewhere, and we are the only intelligent life on this planet, it means that it has to be very doubtful that there was intelligent life on another planet. If we find uni-cellular life or even more simple multi-cellular life (i.e. mammals, reptiles, etc.), it would really hold no implications to the Bible. Afterall, there are multitudes of animals on this planet and God only has a plan for one, humans.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…fair enough. However, God does not solve the riddle, it just removes it from our reality into the realm of beliefs where everything goes. If you explain the mystery of our existence by pointing at an even bigger mystery, you’ve explained nothing…
[/quote]

Well, I agree God does not solve the riddle, because it’s not a riddle. It does solve the problem though and I will explain how. Let me prelude that I am not inventing anything everything I am espousing is based of off of the cosmological argument. Wiki does a pretty good job explaining it along with arguments and counter arguments.

Cosmological argument

Here’s how and why it works so well. The existence of everything in the universe is based on something else. Everything was caused by something else. This poses a philosophical problem because it leads an infinate regress which leads to circular reasoning. This is a logical fallacy. It’s ends up saying “Why are we here, because we’re here…Roll The bones” ← Rush. Well that’s not why. Aristotle reasoned that since it cannot continue infinitely, there must necessarily be a first cause. This first cause must itself be uncaused. This is a very digested version of what I am talking about. You can look at the wiki page for more detailed info. The argument from contingency is the more interesting one to me because it removes time from the equation.
Something interesting to note, Aristotle had no experience of monotheism or any such notion in his world, he arrived at the conclusion through pure reason. The argument has stood the test of time and has never been refuted, though many have tried. I could go on and on…

BTW, if you run across the “Kalaam” version, it is the worst, he was an idiot. There are many versions…The thing about the cosmological argument is that it isn’t an argument per se, it’s an argument style, you can start from anywhere and arrive at the same conclusion.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…does that mean you’re open to the idea that life isn’t limited to us on Earth?

[i’m off to bed. See you tomorrow][/quote]

Well of course, it would be just plain obtuse not to be open to that possibility. It’s not something I care about, but it is very possible.

[pat]

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…if we do find [some kind of] life out there, wouldn’t it mean that the bible is a bronze age interpretation of our existence by the standards of that time, instead of the inerrant word of God?[/quote]

It is already, but there are lessons to be learned from it.

[ephrem]

…thank you for discussing this with me pat, i appreciate it…

[Makavali]

[quote]pat wrote:
we have morality, animals do not.[/quote]

More human arrogance. Believe it or not other animals are capable of empathy and morality. It may not live up to your Biblical morality, but it exists.

[ephrem]

[quote]BBriere wrote:

If life arising was truly inevitable then other planets and other solar systems surely could have given birth to some form of life. Think about when scientists study other planets they are looking for life in the form of micro organisms not giant green monsters with tentacles and laser beams for eyes and fangs and (oh oops, I got carried away). Anyway, we are not even unique in having life on our own planet yet other planets don’t even have the most basic forms of bacteria or single celled organisms. The idea that all life arose from the same single celled organism has almost completely been discredited as evidence suggests that other life sprang up that was not at all related to other living creatures. Therefore, we would have to assume that spontaneous generation happened on earth not only once but probably millions of times. If that were so then it would also make sense that spontaneous generation was still happening on earth. [/quote]

…you’re talking about the planets in our solar system, right? That’s limiting the search for extraterrestrial life quite a bit, don’t you think? Can you provide a credible link to research that discredits single cell origins of life? Can you explain what spontaneous generation has to do with what we were talking about?

[ephrem]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…fair enough. However, God does not solve the riddle, it just removes it from our reality into the realm of beliefs where everything goes. If you explain the mystery of our existence by pointing at an even bigger mystery, you’ve explained nothing…
[/quote]

Well, I agree God does not solve the riddle, because it’s not a riddle. It does solve the problem though and I will explain how. Let me prelude that I am not inventing anything everything I am espousing is based of off of the cosmological argument. Wiki does a pretty good job explaining it along with arguments and counter arguments.

Cosmological argument

Here’s how and why it works so well. The existence of everything in the universe is based on something else. Everything was caused by something else. This poses a philosophical problem because it leads an infinate regress which leads to circular reasoning. This is a logical fallacy. It’s ends up saying “Why are we here, because we’re here…Roll The bones” ← Rush. Well that’s not why. Aristotle reasoned that since it cannot continue infinitely, there must necessarily be a first cause. This first cause must itself be uncaused. This is a very digested version of what I am talking about. You can look at the wiki page for more detailed info. The argument from contingency is the more interesting one to me because it removes time from the equation.
Something interesting to note, Aristotle had no experience of monotheism or any such notion in his world, he arrived at the conclusion through pure reason. The argument has stood the test of time and has never been refuted, though many have tried. I could go on and on…

BTW, if you run across the “Kalaam” version, it is the worst, he was an idiot. There are many versions…The thing about the cosmological argument is that it isn’t an argument per se, it’s an argument style, you can start from anywhere and arrive at the same conclusion.[/quote]

…eventough i don’t necessarily disagree with your sentiments, this ultimate first cause is unknown and can’t be know by us for the simple reason that, if that first cause does exist, it must exist outside of time and space. If that is at all possible, and that first cause does exist outside of time and space, how will we ever know what it is?

…the assertion by deists and religious people that [a] God is the first cause, in all it’s antropomorphic glory, may sooth the not-so critical thinker, but i will always feel insincere; trying to convince myself of something that, ultimately, is a lie to me. If this first cause exists, it’s irrelevant to everyday life and existence, imo…

[ephrem]

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…does that mean you’re open to the idea that life isn’t limited to us on Earth?

[i’m off to bed. See you tomorrow][/quote]

There is always a possibility that there may be life somewhere. Afterall, the universe far more expansive than we can really ever calculate since it’s always expanding. [/quote]

…if we do find [some kind of] life out there, wouldn’t it mean that the bible is a bronze age interpretation of our existence by the standards of that time, instead of the inerrant word of God?[/quote]

If we find life on another planet, and that would be a big IF, it would really have no implications unless it was mutli cellular, self aware, complex beings as ourselves. It would not necessarily discount the Bible. The Bible makes it clear that human beings are God’s most precious creation. Does that mean that he could have created other equal life forms and not cared as much about them? There is no definitive answer to this question. The most reasonable explanation is that there is no other intelligent life in the universe. If we think about the fact that we live on a planet that is actually conducive to life, something we have not found elsewhere, and we are the only intelligent life on this planet, it means that it has to be very doubtful that there was intelligent life on another planet. If we find uni-cellular life or even more simple multi-cellular life (i.e. mammals, reptiles, etc.), it would really hold no implications to the Bible. Afterall, there are multitudes of animals on this planet and God only has a plan for one, humans.[/quote]

…there are definitly animals on this planet who are more intelligent than some humans! But i can’t refute your circular logic, and i don’t want to. I accept your opinion. Thanks…