How is believing in aliens that much different from believing in a god? I don't think it's much different at all, we humans still know very little about our universe, almost nothing on how it works.
Hebrews 11:1 - "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."
Romans 3:3 - "What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? [4] Not at all!"
1 Corinthians 13:13 - "And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love."
I will provide you some detail:The church accepted that the earth was the centre of the universe and that the sun orbited the earth. Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."It was Copernicus that provided Renaissance Europe with the first heliocentric model for the solar system. This placed the sun at the centre of the system. Copernicus was a catholic Cleric, who was raised by his uncle (who later became prince-archbishop). Copernicus presented the heliocentric model to Pope Paul III who encouraged the theories publication. In fact, Copernicus book titled "The Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres" was dedicated to Pope Paul III.The concept of a heliocentric solar system was later deemed heretical by the church as it was in direct conflict with the bible: Chronicles 16:30 states that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved."Psalm 104:5 says, "[the LORD] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises."etcThis is where science and religion split apart.After Copernicus, Galileo defends the helicentric model of the solar system and was trialed for heresy and imprisoned. He spent 9 years confined to his Villa under house arrest until he died of natural causes.The heliocentric model is now PROVEN to be a true. So the bible is FALSE.Also, just to note, Copernicus cannot be given full credit for the heliocentric model. The first recorded document that mentions the model penned by the indian sage - Yajnavalkya - who lived around 900-800BC.
No you sillyMonotheistic religious thought all agree that God created everything so therefore the credit for everything goes for God. By extension: The reason FOR everything is God, therefore all our toils are for NOTHING. Why bother doing anything when its God's will? A four year old dying of cancer? Lets pray for them because if they die then it was obviously God's wish for them to die!Religion propped up administration. When people branched out after Copernicus and started toa) Learn to readb) Reject doctrinec) Actually start testing theories and ideasThe administration started to get fractured as it was teaching ideas contrary to observation. Observations which people still today quite happily ignore(The Grand Canyon for instance)As religion slowly moved away from being the sole source of intellectual discovery, directly beneficial inventions were put into practice. Doctrines were hurriedly re-written to take these into account and explanations were created to show how our rapid scientific advance showed how just truly amazing God's universe really is.Unfortunately those people who study the fundamental building blocks of everything(Quantum mechanisists) and Cosmologists realised long ago that: Randomness is the universe. That is: No intelligence runs the universeWhich leads us to the final conflict: Religion requires a non-corporeal, non-local super-intelligent and impossibly perfect being as its overall explanationScience requires nothing but observable phenonemon
Brendan is bringing up some good points here, by ignoring them, you other guys are just making yourself look worse.He said he believes in aliens, in fact he believes the universe is full of life.I also believe the universe is full of life, and many other people in the world believe too.And as to date, we have not any evidence of the existence of life outside our own world.How is believing in aliens that much different from believing in a god? I don't think it's much different at all, we humans still know very little about our universe, almost nothing on how it works.However there is one difference, aliens are still part of out universe, but if a god exists, that god would not be part of our universe.And the thing is science is constrained by our universe, so the existence of a god is beyond what science will ever be able to prove or disprove. A god is not subject to the laws of our universe, science is.So when you say there is not proof that god exists, your right, there isn't, and there never will be proof either way.So all that is left is belief.
I've been saying it since page 2 but we'll recap itSimply put: Given two conflicting attitudes or beliefs a persons cognitive(that is 'thinking ability' to you dumb people) functions immediately either discard, dismember or incorporate the new attitude/information/belief into their own. This is basically the main reason why religions are so fractured, except for Islam which is fractured on birthright/power issues.Quote from: WikipediaCognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior.You cant attack faith with reason. You attack it with factsAlso: This thread has a point. It weeds out the weak. Or I weed out the weak. Or weakly weed. One of those
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term which describes the uncomfortable tension that comes from holding two conflicting thoughts at the same time. More precisely, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior.
Science people going head to head with religious people in a glorious battle.
Wouldnt the discovery of aliens invalidate the idea of God and prove the Bible false?
OMG Spacemonkey! Why? Why did you ressurect this thread?
It wouldn't invalidate the idea of God, however it would prove the creationist view of the bible is wrong.
But what would happen if they advocated the lack of God with sound, validated evidence? Would anything change?Probably not. Probably make things even WORSE
The best thing about Finance Minister Bill English\'s latest Budget is that it does finally signal a much greater role for the private sector in the New Zealand economy. And another step along the way to extract this country from the political cul-de-sac in which Helen Clark\'s Labour Government parked us.
They may have time travel, hence they have evidence.
Because they can watch the universe getting created?Stick it in fast forward?
I fine, just still waiting for your explanation on how time travel would prove/disprove the existence of a god.
