if other Life is Discovered wouldn't this Pose a problem?

Agent Uranium [GPC] writes:

quote:

---

In fact if we find our universe teeming with life forms that, to me, would show the hand of a creator much more than if only we exist. Makes sense?

---

No, I'd say the exact opposite. The universe is too big for an entity to travel through.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Agent Uranium [GPC] responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

No, I'd say the exact opposite. The universe is too big for an entity to travel through.

---

​

Forgive me if I sound amateurishly thick, but I don't understand your point? How does the universe's size make a difference?

---

You can't get there from here.If you're going to have life on other planets created by somebody, you have to get there in order to do your creation. The closest star from Sol is over four light years away.And that's just the question of life in our own galaxy. If you include the possibility of life in other galaxies, you've got to figure out how to traverse hundreds of thousands of light years.The universe is too large to traverse.My personal opinion, based upon nothing more than my gut feeling, is that we are not alone in the universe. We are, however, isolated.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Agent Uranium [GPC] responds to me:

quote:

---

But surely an omnipresent, omniscient god could transcend such petty little matters as The Laws Of Physics?

---

If you're going to invoke magic, then just say so.In that case, we're left with the presence of life in other parts of the universe being of absolutely no informational value for it is consistent both with evolution and with magic.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dr Cresswell responds to me:

quote:

---

Agent Uranium wasn't invoking magic, just classically understood Christian theism.

---

What is that if not "magic"?

quote:

---

You may, or may not, accept the possibility of an omnipotent, omnipresent diety, but surely dismissing such a being as "magic" is hardly a constructive contribution to the debate.

---

Only if you have some pre-conceived notion that "magic" is somehow beneath god, that there is something different between "magic" and "divine."What is "magic," after all, if not the breaking of natural laws? What's so special about god doing it that it requires special words to describe it?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dr Cresswell responds to me:

quote:

---

I hold a view of God as creator and sustainer of the universe. I believe that all things are the direct action of God.

---

Well, then, here's a question:Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?That is, if I take a handful of coins and toss them on the ground, do they land in their final position all on their own or does god come down and personally, consciously, and deliberately place those coins?You seem to be running toward a result that explains everything...and thus actually explains nothing.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Agent Uranium [GPC] responds to me:

quote:

---

Perhaps God created our Universe as a self-contained portion of existence. Accordingly all Laws of Physics hold true within our Universe and God needs to do nothing else.

---

Then life still evolved and was not created. On top of that, life came about naturally and was not created.Is that really the position you want to take?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Dr Cresswell responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything? .... You seem to be running toward a result that explains everything...and thus actually explains nothing.

---

​

I'm not actually trying to explain anything (at least, nothing related to the material universe) - I let science do that. In a sense I'm very happy to say everything happens on its own ... science is a self-consistent system that describes things happening on their own and in its field it is complete. However, I don't find a complete scientific description enough. Which is where I have to say God is at work behind and within all things (in a manner that is imperceptible to science).

---

Um, then you're saying that god is required for everything. If "god is at work behind and within all things," then you gotta have god in there.Is there anything that can happen without god?And by the way: If something is imperceptible, how do you know it's there?

quote:

---

I need God to give meaning above and beyond mere explanation.

---

That's a completely separate question.

quote:

---

And I need God to be intimately involved in the universe rather than some deistic God. This does explain everything and nothing, with God directly causing every action and everything acting solely in response to material causes.

---

No, that isn't explaining everything and nothing. That's direct contradiction.The point behind an explanation that explains everything actually explains nothing is that the explanation is consistent with every possible outcome. We're trying to find out of X has any effect upon process Y. If every single possible result of Y is consistent with X, then the presence of X doesn't actually change anything. Every possible outcome is consistent so rather than explaining something, we have explained absolutely nothing.Instead, what you're saying is that god, a supernatural being, makes everything happen and then turning around and saying that those things are natural.Well, it can't be both. Supernatural beings behave in supernatural ways. If it's natural, then it cannot be a supernatural action.

quote:

---

A contradiction? Of course. I'm happy to live within the contradiction. I don't ask anyone else to join me.

---

All I'm asking is that you be honest and admit that it's illogical and thus has no evidence to support it.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!