to the atheists on the board

I don't think that God would have anything to do with it. I, personally, am a strong believer that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Considering that the universe is so much larger than our already large solar system, and considering that Earth has life, I don't see why another planet somewhere millions of 'light miles' away - somewhere we have no idea of in some completely unknown solar system - why wouldn't there be life elsewhere?

As for religion in general..I feel it should be kept to oneself. If you're Christian, Jewish, Buddist etc, I think people should keep it to themselves and NEVER judge someone based on someone elses religion.

I think that 60% of what is wrong in the world has to do with religion. Look how many wars, murders and other atrocities were caused all thanks to a conflict in beliefs..It baffles me..

 

Supposing they find a foxhole on Mars?

Seriously, rather than a house, let's pose a more likely outcome of life and the Mars pursuit: evidence - convincing evidence let's say - of past or current microbial organisms.

Then what?

If I told my wife there were germs discovered on Mars she would send a can lysol to NASA, but what do you all think?

 

I'd say that our current base of real knowledge (in which tenfly's POSSIBILITY today is reasonable--that life exists elsewhere in the universe) would immediately become a PROBABILITY, which is a whole new level up within the spectrum of certainty. It would be a monumental discovery.

And it would still have no bearing on a proof that god exists.

 

As a former theist, I believe the answer to this lies in addressing the first question "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent." You can't attack God's omnipotence just by saying there exists something he can't do. (like the 'could God make a rock so heavy that he himself couldn't lift it?' argument that some atheists use)

Given the assumption that evil is a choice each person makes, God would be violating man's choice by not allowing him to choose good or evil. I think it's a pretty decent argument.

Of course, the atheist challenges with 'couldn't God give man multiple choices, all which are good choices?' Now we're stuck.

I think the bigger problem is, how can the Christian view of heaven be reconciled with the idea that God gives man the choice whether to do good or evil? The Christian view of heaven is one of perfection, one without evil. But how can there be no possibility of evil if there is also free will? Do beings no longer have free will when they go to heaven? The Christian can't have it both ways; if it's impossible to have free will without the possibility of evil on earth, it follows that it's impossible to have free will in heaven without the possibility of evil in heaven.

(Sorry to get off the subject, but everybody else does it!)

 

>Given the assumption that evil is a choice
>each person makes,

But that is not what the theists generally state (and that is why in my earlier posts I denoted my definition of "good and evil" from theirs.

Evil to a thiest involved the external "forces of evil" meaning the devil.

JB

 

So what is it that you can't teach to a human?

Truth, maybe? Freedom?

 

To the theists on the board:


One question fellas.

Imagine there's some alien who has the definitive answer to whether God created the universe and life on it or evolution did it, and he is able to prove it.

He offers a wager to you. $100,000,000 if you choose correctly whether God or evolution did it.


Here is your shot at the 'big time'. Not a lot in this world that $100MM can't get you. Think carefully and, perhaps for the first time in your lives for some of you )), start considering the evidence.

I'm not particularly interested in your answer, but ask this question of yourself and reflect on which choice you'd make and why you'd make it.

 

More amusing to watch people use irrational and unsupported notions of order from designers, when they do not know any of that is not false, or to be more likely than Santa.

One day, like the children who eventually become aware of the real nature of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny and their purposes , the more adult will become aware that the design from a designer concept may well be as useful and just as mythical as either Santa or the Bunnies.

Yes you are correct I think the human mind is amazing. Amazing enough not to accept such statements of assertion, presupposition and assumption on face value.

The human mind, having amazing attributes, uses them not to blindly accept “the development and construction of the mind is but a wholly random occurrence ….” Or that there must be “design, plan, or order behind it”

Presumably you provide these comments for the purposes, or for the same convenient argument, as a Santa Claus is to children.

Why should those who think about ‘the development and construction of the mind’ have reason to conclude it ‘is but a wholly random occurrence’??

Evolution is not a ‘wholly random occurrence’ I know of no science which states the mind is ‘but a wholly random occurrence’ or that it was created by a creator either?

So adults dress as children and conclude that there is a higher intelligence, when there is no evidence of any - and that isn’t childishness, confined within its own childish intelligence ?

Nothing exists unless it is in space and time.

Without “relativistic logic” there is no substance to judgments or conclusions and anything is unconnected to the universe, planets, people, events, individuals or to the situations any are involved. Without “relativistic logic” there are no situations.

And without any of that time space and ‘relativistic logic’ stuff, you have a gobbledegook which is fixed and bound in meaningless nonsense.

Human beings are not that way. They do not act as you would have your light bulb do.

Unlike the light bulb, some use the consciousness they hold for enquiry and to establish whether or not there is, or could be, external wiring and a power source created by a separate being or entity. Apparently no confirmation of this whatsoever exists, and over the millennia of endless debates and demands by some apologists, there is no reasonable or substantial evidence that there is or ever was

It has become so very apparent, that the only means of understanding creation and existence, is to use scientific principles and explanation in an attempt to comprehend them.

People do this because they don’t want to rely on assumption and assertion like your light bulb. They can see perhaps that doing so leads to ignorance and some need for a guilt ridden demeaning self-depreciation, which then takes the lazy route to a metaphysical ,invisible, unknowable creator designer thing, which in the end requires no explanation!!

How can there be a logical and reasoned validation of any sort without the use of logic and reason.??

And, why should the sensual perceptions designed by this intelligent designer not provide the perception they were designed for anyway ? One of those being that logic and reason are meaningful and offer a means to definitions of true and factual.

Another thing, if what you say were correct, then it applies equally to your thinking of a design from a designer concept too. If in your view logic reason and sensual perception leaves “relativistic thinkers” without validation, then equally it must leave your design from a designer notion without validation .

Or is that too logical to be validated !!

You would use something which is not logical to test logic? Are you a Lutheran??

 

letting the anti-anthiests hijack the philosophical repercussions of
the existenence or not of life beyond earth.

 

I would pick evolution, collect the 100 mil and scream out " THANK YOU GOD"