Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   if other Life is Discovered wouldn't this Pose a problem?
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 1 of 107 (48418)
08-02-2003 10:14 PM


if Other Life in the Universe is Discovered wouldn't this pose a Problem for the Bible? which seems to say the earth is the Center of the Universe. and if Intelligent Life is found(like us) wouldn't this Falsify us Being the most perfect creation? Please creationists Post!

  
Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 107 (48667)
08-04-2003 6:28 PM


I answer not as a creationist
Mainly because I wouldn't classify myself as one. Leaving this fact: that the bible doesn't explicitly mention aliens aside, I could very well accept that life on earth came about as an accidental process if only we exist. If more & more alien life forms make themselves known then it feels harder for me to explain them all away as "an accident of evolution".
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?
------------------
quote:
All the boys think she's a spy

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 08-04-2003 6:31 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 3 of 107 (48669)
08-04-2003 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-04-2003 6:28 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-04-2003 6:28 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-04-2003 6:35 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 107 (48670)
08-04-2003 6:35 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Rrhain
08-04-2003 6:31 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
quote:
Originally posted by Rrhain:
-->
No, I'd say the exact opposite. The universe is too big for an entity to travel through.
< !--UE-->< !--UB
Forgive me if I sound amateurishly thick, but I don't understand your point? How does the universe's size make a difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Rrhain, posted 08-04-2003 6:31 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 08-04-2003 6:49 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 5 of 107 (48673)
08-04-2003 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-04-2003 6:35 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-04-2003 6:35 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-04-2003 7:02 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 107 (48675)
08-04-2003 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rrhain
08-04-2003 6:49 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
But surely an omnipresent, omniscient god could transcend such petty little matters as The Laws Of Physics?
I do in fact, agree that other life forms exist and that we remain isolated. I KNOW that last part - the very reason our planet Earth hasn't had huge death-inducing rocks hit it more constantly comes from our position in our galaxy, our isolation, shielding from Jupiter, etc. etc.
, 08-04-2003

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 08-04-2003 6:49 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 08-04-2003 7:39 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 7 of 107 (48677)
08-04-2003 7:18 PM


if in fact we where accidental as you say(I like to use Probability and I believe this is the case) and there are other planets with life. that doesn't mean a creator did it. it Just means that it happened again and again. the Universe is in fact suspected to be teeming with life. the Universe is a Big place its Going to happen someplace and again another place and another place(I don't mean every solar system has life though nowhere near that at all) but if it is more common then expected it simply means life is not as rare as we think it is. that by NO means points to a creator.
lets say there is a creator what is the point in planets like Jupiter ,Saturn etc...?
[This message has been edited by DC85, 08-04-2003]

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 8 of 107 (48678)
08-04-2003 7:39 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-04-2003 7:02 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-04-2003 7:02 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Dr Cresswell, posted 08-05-2003 1:13 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 107 (48806)
08-05-2003 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Rrhain
08-04-2003 7:39 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Rrhain, posted 08-04-2003 7:39 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-05-2003 8:54 PM Dr Cresswell has not replied
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2003 9:18 PM Dr Cresswell has not replied
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 9:18 AM Dr Cresswell has replied

  
Agent Uranium [GPC]
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 107 (48838)
08-05-2003 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Cresswell
08-05-2003 1:13 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
quote:
Originally posted by Dr Alan Cresswell:
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.
Do not misunderstand me, I realise this. It just feels, to me, that a universe teeming with life would call into question my own feelings on whether Life did start off as a fortunate accident.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Cresswell, posted 08-05-2003 1:13 PM Dr Cresswell has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 08-05-2003 9:29 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 107 (48840)
08-05-2003 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Cresswell
08-05-2003 1:13 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
"Magic" is a short word for anything that lies outside of the physical world. For anything that can be speculated upon without any limits to what the imagination can conjure up.
It can be a geni in a bottle or a god in the sky. There is no difference between tham as far as the explanatory power they offer. It is all "magical".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Cresswell, posted 08-05-2003 1:13 PM Dr Cresswell has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 107 (48842)
08-05-2003 9:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Agent Uranium [GPC]
08-05-2003 8:54 PM


Fortunate accident
The occurance of life in many places can't, as has been said, tell us much about how it came about.
It may, if we can get there to study it, help us understand how life can arise.
If that is by a low probability process (and we demonstrate that very well) then as more cases arise we would have to ask how that could be. Is something we don't understand "helping" it along? Or is our demonstration of "low" probability wrong in some way?
If it is by a reasonable, less low probability process then finding lots would just demonstrate that it is easy for it to arise and there is no need for any "guidance". But we need some idea of how before we can determine this.
If we don't have any idea of how it arises but we find (through remote sensing) that it has arisen often that would indicate that whatever process is involved is, in fact, not low probability (yes, yes, there may be a supernatural explanation -- but there always is--(invoking it the face of the unknown is simply another case of God of the Gaps and not interesting either theologically or scientifically). It may help use pick candidate conditions and processes.
It is beginning to look like the process may not be low probability. In which case no invocation of "magic" is needed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Agent Uranium [GPC], posted 08-05-2003 8:54 PM Agent Uranium [GPC] has not replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 380 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 13 of 107 (48863)
08-06-2003 1:19 AM


yes but. why do we just assume its a low probability for Life to arise? I mean it could be its so common and easy to come about that looking back we would think it was stupid for us to think other wise. I mean for all we know life can form anywhere. it might that it just so happens our solar system might be low on it(our planet is the only one to have it unless a moon has some) I mean we seem to think Life is special when it might just be a common occurrence

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by uranium_235, posted 09-21-2003 4:51 PM DC85 has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 14 of 107 (48900)
08-06-2003 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dr Cresswell
08-05-2003 1:13 PM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dr Cresswell, posted 08-05-2003 1:13 PM Dr Cresswell has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Dr Cresswell, posted 08-06-2003 11:43 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Dr Cresswell
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 107 (48929)
08-06-2003 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Rrhain
08-06-2003 9:18 AM


Re: I answer not as a creationist
(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 me
2) 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 9:18 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 08-06-2003 5:56 PM Dr Cresswell has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024