Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Science also presents the "reasonable" claim that life on earth was seeded by aliens.
Who's Science? Science is a body of experts within specific fields and for something to be called "science" at least 90% of the people who study and get an accredited degree on that subject have to agree upon it. No 90%(vast majority) of scientists in any field have found evidence that life was seeded on this planet by other life. Claiming such things would be ridiculous and would only serve if the point is to compare that scenerio against something even more ridiculous (and against the scenerio of abiogenesis that biology currently has for life on this planet) such as Genesis belief. Why do you go around spewing lies?
Science also presents the "reasonable" claim that life on earth was seeded by aliens.
Actually, the reasonable claim that science has presented is that it is possible that the building blocks for life could have come from outer space (such as asteroids and comets). That is a different argument from claiming that it was seeded by aliens.
Well, I might moan if my answer had been tested (or not). Ignoring it altogether is not a test of the answer.
i wasn't accusing your answers of having been tested; I was saying that tigetmax was moaning about my rebuttals; moaning is usually done with coherent explanation or goal, while complaining usually needs those facets.
i wasn't accusing your answers of having been tested; I was saying that tigetmax was moaning about my rebuttals; moaning is usually done with coherent explanation or goal, while complaining usually needs those facets.
That is not a theory I personally believe in, but that claim is logically possible and doesn't violate any known law of nature I am aware of.
It's certainly more credible than the "a magic guy used magic to make it all happen" theory.
The two alternative explanations are that life came here on some comet or piece of space debris (Panspermia theory. Posed by some scientists). There is also the suggestion that visiting Alien scientists came here and turned primates into humans (posed by some scientifically non - credible cultists). They are both speculative without any real evidence (rewriting Sumerian Myth doesn't really stand up as hard evidence) and we atheists do not believe in them any more than we believe in the goddunit theory, but it does mean that Goddunnit is not the only alternative to abiogenesis.
True, both theories just move the question of where the life-forms evolved down the line a bit. One can supposedly argue that the fossil evidence of abiogenesis is more evident of the original planet where the microorganisms or scientists evolved than it is here.
What is not credibly open to doubt is that once the pre - cambrian life- forms appeared, the course of evolutionary development is supported by museums -full of evidence and only those who don't really understand the argument or are blinded by religion can refuse to see it.
i wasn't accusing your answers of having been tested; I was saying that tigetmax was moaning about my rebuttals; moaning is usually done with coherent explanation or goal, while complaining usually needs those facets.
I meant "without". And now that I think about it, moaning sometimes does have a goal.
I don’t understand. Was your intention to pretend that I didn’t answer at all?
No, I wasn't "pretending" anything. I'm not going to engage in a long rambling sort of discussion style - that's all. You posted and I chose not to respond...nothing complicated about that is there?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
How does not responding to my points help anyone? If they are correct, yet you do not understand them, then it is bad for you. If they are wrong, yet you do not correct them, then it is bad for everyone else.
You seem to be overestimating the importance of your own opinions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
I do not like having meaningless discussions, especially when I notice that they are meaningless.
Ditto...and I fear that continuing to attempt a dialog with you may lead to a meaningless discussion. Indeed, I hesitated to respond for that very reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Sitting here and buddy chatting would not make me a happy camper. We must try hard if we are to work for humanity at all.
Personally, I don't see web forum discussions as doing a whole lot for humanity. In case you haven't noticed, it doesn't take long for posts to grow incredibly long even when discussion points are limited to one or two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
For me, it is usually the short, vague, sourceless posts that draw my suspicions of the poster’s integrity. My observation has been that people tend to want to flaunt only themselves yet hide their possible shortcommings and learn nothing but ignore all, out of confusion I would suspect; yet confusion is usually at the fault of the confused.
...and of course, you're NEVER confused are you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Am I to assume that no reader has an interest in being reasonable?
I suppose you can assume whatever you wish. My point is that it makes no sense to attempt to reason with people who refuse to be reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
I am not the only one who will read your responses. But if you want to share only little, that is really your choice. You are welcome to address or not address any of my responses.
I'm fine with sharing my opinion...we just seem to have different preferences concerning format.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Mainly though, You asked how good and evil could exist without God and I shared with you a few scenarios… was there some mistake made in these?
Your "scenarios" were lost somewhere in the rambling. If I happen to observe you making a specific assertion with respect to this issue I'll be more than happy to address it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Oh, I was under the impression that you had scholarly experience and “reason” on your side of the argument for the necessity of the existence of at least 1 god.
Scholarly experience? As far as Christianity, yes, I do see it as the most reasonable alternative. But I try to keep an open mind. If you have a more reasoned and logical alternative I'm more than willing to hear you out...just not all in one post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
What do you mean by whatever? Am I to gather from this that you are still a “real” Christian even though you don’t fully know or understand God’s material representative on earth?
By "whatever" I mean, whatever it is you mean when you use the term "Christian idol."
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
I didn’t think I had that many points actually… you asked how good and evil could exist and I answered with the scenario that you might not have heard before, mainly that good and evil are observed and defined, and thus exist, whether by their own power or the simple characteristics of reality.
Spoken like a true mystic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
Chango had answered that good and evil are completely arbitrary subjective opinions and that each person defines his own good and evil based on his own desires and observations. So his scenario was already laid out.
Yes. It was laid out precisely, plainly and concisely. IMO, we could all learn a lot from his example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
It looks like in the end there actually were only two responses to your question anyway, and thus only two main points. However your multiple responses had to be met with equal respect, you gave me 12 responses in your post and I gave you 1 response for each, to better understand why you thought what you wrote. I would say that makes our “brevity” about equal.
Aren't you forgetting something? It was your long meandering post that necessitated my 12 (I didn't count so I'll take your word for it) responses in the first place. It seems to me, that if the discussion is going to be kept manageable, both of us need to keep it as concise as possible. I have my doubt's as to whether or not you're up for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuminousTruth
After all, this thread is called “A Reasonable Argument for God” not “Let’s all participate in small talk, so that the readers don’t get confused”. I was pretty sure I was being as reasonable as I could be. And still am. If anything, it is the small talk that gets me confused...
There is a vast difference between "small talk" and making a clear, understandable and concisely articulated point. If you're up to the latter, perhaps we can continue. If not, well, at least it can't be said that I didn't try.
They are both speculative without any real evidence (rewriting Sumerian Myth doesn't really stand up as hard evidence) and we atheists do not believe in them any more than we believe in the goddunit theory, but it does mean that Goddunnit is not the only alternative to abiogenesis.
.
I must disagree my friend. As an atheist, I disagree with the Goddunnit theory much more than the alien theory, under the following logic:
A claim for which there is no evidence for or against, I may either believe or disbelieve... I am unsure.... Except that to the extent a claim violates known laws of nature, I discredit the claim.
For example, if someone were to claim that there were a habitable planet within the milkyway, I would be agnostic to that claim. I simply don't know, but it's certainly possible. But if someone claimed that magic leprechauns existed that could disappear at will and grant three wishes, I would disbelieve that claim, simply on the basis that in order for that claim to be true much of what we know about physics would have to be false.
While I have no direct evidence for or against either claim, I am more cautious of claims that violate the known laws of science.
And to the extent a claim violates known laws of nature, I am less likely to believe it is true.
In this view, the claim that aliens seeded life on earth is unlikely, but I don't think it violates any of the known laws of science. Certainly, with what we know to be true, alien life forms could possibly exist, and they could possibly have come to this earth - without violating one known law of nature.
But an omnipotent God violates even more known laws of nature than that Leprechaun I discussed. Because an omnipotent God can violate all of the laws of nature and more. He could be invisible, he could shape shift, he could be in several places at once, he could fail to conserve matter/energy, etc.
So that is why I said that I don't believe that an alien life form started life on earth, but since the theory doesn't violate any known law of nature I have to acknowledge that it is possible. However I disbelieve in a God even more than I disbelieve in Leprechauns - and far more than I disbelieve alien life forms could exist, simply because that claim violates nearly all known law of science.
But to be clear, I believe the more traditional explanation offered by science is most likely to be true.
Last edited by Boxcar Overkill; 09-15-2011 at 10:31 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
