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

Agent Uranium wasn't invoking magic, just classically understood Christian theism. 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.But, I do agree with you on one point. The presence of life in other parts of the universe has no informational value regarding the existance or otherwise of God (though if you accept God exists it may inform your views on the nature of God), for such life could be consistent with both atheistic evolution and theism.Alan

(also in response to NosyNed)On the difference between magic and divine action.1) and a bit petty I admit, but magic has connotations of trickery and deceitfulness (probably from watching too many magic shows on TV as I grew up). I just don't feel comfortable seeing the word in relation to the actions of God. Maybe that's just me2) and a bit more serious. I'm a Christian (but not a Creation in six days 6000 years ago person). I hold a view of God as creator and sustainer of the universe. I believe that all things are the direct action of God. Science describes the material universe in a complete and self-consistent manner (in principle anyway ... considering there are gaps in current knowledge) that doesn't include any extra-material (ie divine) component. This, for me, is a matter of faith that can neither be proved or disproved from scientific observations. If you want to call divine action magic then everything is magic.3) I believe it is possible for God to do things differently, and very occasionally to suspend, supercede or otherwise get around the laws of physics that describe his normal action. I call these miracles, I don't really object to others calling them magic. As a matter of faith I believe miracles have happened, but again I don't think they can be either proved or disproved by science.4) I have not said that the presence of intelligent life here, or indeed elsewhere, is the result of anything miraculous/magical. That doesn't make it any less, in my opinion, the work of God. The presence, or otherwise, of a scientific description of something like the origin and evolution of life makes no difference to me in my belief that it is the work of God.Alan

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). I need God to give meaning above and beyond mere explanation. 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. A contradiction? Of course. I'm happy to live within the contradiction. I don't ask anyone else to join me.Alan

quote:

---

And by the way: If something is imperceptible, how do you know it's there?

---

I said imperceptible to science (ie you can't set up an experiment to measure God at work). Science isn't the only route to knowledge. But, I'm not going to try to use science to prove God - because that is basically an abuse of science.

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

That's a completely separate question.

---

Well, not really. If all that I needed was an explanation of the origins of life on earth or elsewhere then yes it would be seperate. As it is the meaning and purpose that my belief in God gives that requires me to examine how that God relates to the universe ... that examination has led me to my views regarding God being at work in all things.

quote:

---

No, that isn't explaining everything and nothing. That's direct contradiction.

---

As I admit. I am trying to contemplate a God I believe in who is infinitely more than I am ... that that results in direct contradiction doesn't worry me - anymore than classical Christian teaching such as God being One and Three or Christ being fully God and man.

quote:

---

Well, it can't be both. Supernatural beings behave in supernatural ways. If it's natural, then it cannot be a supernatural action.

---

Why can't the supernatural result in natural actions that are consistant with purely natural processes - which is what I'm proposing. I grant that if all you're interested in is natural processes then the supernatural is superfluous - which is why science done properly doesn't look beyond the natural, nor can it provide proof for the supernatural. But I'm not interested solely in natural processes.AlanPS we've moved a long way from the question of life elsewhere. Do you want to start another topic to follow this discussion?