UFOs and the existence of other life

[greatwhitenorth]

Wow, dude, you must have really pissed some people off because I just hit you with green reps and it didn't seem to make any difference

Yea well i'm liberal by Canadian standards so most people in here don't really agree with my views

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Kickbuttocks, I'm not sure how to respond to your entire message as your depiction of my understanding of God is so far off, it would take about a 10,000 word essay to clear up everything. However, I esentially believe our differences boil down to where we derive our understandings of God. I've stated many times on these boards that it is completely reasonable to believe in the existence of a "God", it takes the leap of faith to believe that a) "God" is benevolent and/or b) He has revealed himself to us.

My leap of faith is that God has revealed Himself to us through the writings of particular Jewish writings and the life of Christ, which is composed in the Bible. Therefore, I try to keep my understanding of God limited to what I believe He has revealed to us. I know this revelation is not complete...the Bible says so itself, but I do not feel at liberty to add anything the revelation simply because I can reason it (Revelation 22:18 actually says a curse will fall onto those who do such). As I can see no evidence of alien life in the universe through the Bible, I cannot assume it exists simply because reason can allow for the possibility. (And yes, I read von Daniken's Chariots of the Gods when I was in junior high, so I know the argument of a spaceship being represented in Ezekiel. However, von Daniken and others like him error in trying to straight-jacket the apocolyptic writing styles popular in the time period Ezekiel was written into their own modern mythology.)

I'd love to continue this, but the in-laws just stopped for a visit....I'll try to pick this up later.

Buckeyegrad - Yeah, I was worried that I may "over doing it" when I was typing that diatribe. Didn't mean to offend, if I did. I guess I was using your post as a sounding board of sorts and hope I've made it clear that I wasn't trying to just bust your chops. Personally, I enjoy talking about this kinda stuff, and that's all i'm doing. I hope you don't think that what I said before, or what follows, is an indictment of your beliefs or that you need to justify anything to me. I just like hearing other viewpoints...

I would like to ask you, if you limit your understanding of God to what's contained in the bible, how do you A) make the leap of faith that the authors didn't have - at least in part - social/political motives and how do you seperate the two (devine from human contentions) without the use of reason and -particularly with respect to old testament books that outline laws, B) Considering the non-direct nature of the biblical language, how can one have even a cursory understanding of the "nature of God" without reason. IF the answer is "through the church" then I would wonder how, without reason, one can make an intelligent choice upon what preacher to believe. Especially in light of Jesus' warning to be careful of false prophets. If the answer is "understanding God is impossible" why bother contemplating God at all? Seems a rather useless activity if attaining some level of understanding is not the goal.

You mention you see "no evidence of alien life in the universe through the bible" you thus cannot assume existence merely because it's possible through reasoning. I suppose that's a somewhat scientific approach, in as much as it's scientific to not believe in something without evidence to do so. However, in that same regard, the Bible is silent with respect to a great many things that do exist. For example, the Bible, far as I know, is silent with regard to dinosaurs, electricity, nuclear reactions as the source of a star's power, and how an atom works (I've tried to include things that have either obvious evidence of their existence (bones, electricity) and things that are theoretical and yet are the basis for our understanding of the universe - theories that work well enough that Man has actually walked on an entirely different world (the moon)). Yet, despite the silence man has evolved to a point where these things I've listed are taken for granted, proven or otherwise the foundation of various scientific theories. I suspect you might respond that you're not arguing against scientific progress, and thus the silence of the bible on these issues merely indicates their "unimportance" or that the author's failed to include them for other reasons up to and including lack of knowledge of them. I am probably missing how you resolve this, but to me, to operate in the way you indicated you operate with respect to scientific hypothesis (that is, they must be perscribed in the bible) is science and human knowledge nothing but a waste of time? Is there no value in education, in research, in query? Have the last 4,000 years, and more particularly the last 500 years of scientific discovery been for nothing?

To me, and in line with "scientific progress" response I noted above, The bible's silence on aliens is nondeterminative. Aliens existence is not important enough for the Bible to mention and yet no less "real" than the several billion other things that exist that the bible fails to consider. Furthermore, there was a time when "the Church" insisted that the Earth was the center of the universe. The Church based this on their interpratation of the "unique" nature of man. They based it on the Bible. There is no evidence in the bible which would indicate that the Earth would be anywhere else but the center. Turns out that the Earth isn't even the center of our own solar system, much less the galaxy or universe. How do you reconsile this extreme error with reality and yet maintain the notion that you can put your trust in the Bible as a source for scientifically knowable reality? Granted, the above example is just one example, there are other examples of times the church has been wholly in error.

Finally, didn't Jesus teach primarily using parables? Thus, Jesus rarely (never?) answered questions directly, but instead told a story which the listener was to interperate and thus arrive at his/her own conclusion. Does that not indicate to you that Man is supposed to use reason to understand the world and his relationship with the devine, rather than simply rely on the answers of others? And doesn't the later beg the question, how can the "authority" on an issue arrive at the answer without reason? If the answer is devine intervention, I'd ask why then does the devine intervene on an issue, provide an answer, and then centuries later, intervene again and provide a different answer to the exact same question. Seems extremely inefficient and actually makes me wonder what kind of God it is that would intentionally decieve man from the truth. In fact, that sounds a lot like the way the Devil is portrayed - a deciever.

Sorry for the thread jack...

 

[Thump]

BKB,

How do you expect to get back ahead of me in posts when you make long posts that have thought-provocation and meaning?

By the way, did anyone watch that show on Area 51 last night on TLC?

Pretty good show.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

BKB,

How do you expect to get back ahead of me in posts when you make long posts that have thought-provocation and meaning?

By the way, did anyone watch that show on Area 51 last night on TLC?

Pretty good show.

Didn't see the show...

With regard to getting ahead of you on post count... do you forget? I'm post padder or the year!

 

[Thump]

Didn't see the show...

With regard to getting ahead of you on post count... do you forget? I'm post padder or the year!

Oh, I haven't forgotten. Where were you last Friday anyways?

 

[scooter1369]

Didn't see the show...

With regard to getting ahead of you on post count... do you forget? I'm post padder or the year!

Yeah. Piss me off.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Oh, I haven't forgotten. Where were you last Friday anyways?

From time to time, my employer expects me to work. Friday was one of those days.... Actually, I'll probably be limited for the next few weeks. Buncha junk to do.

 

[Thump]

From time to time, my employer expects me to work.

What a bunch of ungrateful assholes!!

 

[buckiprof]

I've heard a couple different theories of the BIG BANG. The first is that everything will continue to move away or spread apart endlessly from the point in space where the BIG BANG occurred, meaning time is only "infinite" in one direction. In other words, there was a beginning of time, but there is no end. This indicates the possibilities are in fact "infinite" and that all possibilities will in fact occur, but haven't necessarily occurred yet.

I've also heard that instead of endlessly moving away or spreading apart, at some point gravitational pull will actually slow this spread and eventually reverse this spread. Everything will once again meet back at the point where it all started, creating another BIG BANG and start the cycle all over again. This would indicate that time is/was "infinite" in both directions with a new "starting point" every so often. This would also indicate that even though time is "infinite" in both directions, there is only a "finite" time between "starting points" to achieve these "infinite possibilities" that I suggested in my first post. If this theory is correct, although time and space are in fact "infinite", the possibilities would not be "infinite" because of the repeating cycles of BIG BANGS, where everything is destroyed and recreated at the same instant. This indicates to me that, while every possibility may occur, they do not occur at the same time or don't have enough time to occur. So instead of there being an infinite number of Saw31s replying to this thread at the same time, there were and will be an infinite number of Saw31s who have replyed and will reply to this thread, since this possibility has occured at least once.

The problem with the Big Crunch, that the universe will expand until gravity causes it to contract and cause another Big Bang is two fold. One, the universe appears to be well short of the necessary matter to allow for gravity to do its thing. IIRC, dark matter would have to make up something like 70% of the universe in order to have enough matter for a Big Crunch. Two, shortly after the Big Bang, the rate of expansion of the universe slowed, which seems somewhat logical. But astronomers now know that the universe is expanding at a faster rate! That is quite problematic if one wants to achieve a Big Crunch.

Time may be infinite (and in onle one direction) but the concept of parallel universes allows for the possibility of all things that could occur to occur. Some of the latest theories involve the idea that our universe is really on a "cosmic" membrane if you will. There may be an infinite number of these membranes. This theory has been tied into the Big Bang as well. It goes something like this: A seemingly dark empty membrane touches another membrane and that causes the "Big Bang" in the dark membrane.

I may have just infinitely confused myself or will confuse myself in the future again, infinitely of course.....

The concept of infinity can do this to most people. It has caused some folks to literally go insane. In my area, since I need to deal with infinity as well as its sibling infinitesimals, I have learned to have a great appreciation for it as well as realizing that common sense an intuition are no good when contemplating infinity. And when I find that I may have been thinking about infinity too long, the best thing to do is to drink....heavily.