Life On Mars & Religion?

This part is very stinky

asearchfortruth.com wrote:

3) Science may not be able to substantiate Creation and Reality, as it is limited to the physical dimension, but neither can it refute that that is.
4) Because the blind man cannot see the moon does not negate the moon's existence or its effects upon the earth.

They are saying that because science cannot expressly disprove god it must follow that one can rationalize the existence of god, which of course is nonsense.

Science cannot refute that there might be a talking pig either.

0 Replies

"They are saying that because science cannot expressly disprove god it must follow that one can rationalize the existence of god, which of course is nonsense."

No, it is saying that simply because man cannot perceive the existence of God does not prevent the existence of God.

0 Replies

There are alot of things that science cannot explain I mean a hundred years ago it was crazy to think that you could fly around in a contraption made by man and now we are sending people to the moon. but i definately think that science no matter how long it looks will ever find god under a microscope or anywhere else it looks. science is a skeptical vantage point where unless they can disect it and find out how it works then it dose not exist.

0 Replies

thats the only answer you will get out of science if thats where you choose to look for god.

0 Replies

Ethmer wrote:

"They are saying that because science cannot expressly disprove god it must follow that one can rationalize the existence of god, which of course is nonsense."

No, it is saying that simply because man cannot perceive the existence of God does not prevent the existence of God.

Again trying to prove a negative is futile. Also it is simply untrue that man cannot perceive the existence of god. All people who believe in god believe they can perceive the existence of god.

0 Replies

LeftCoastBum wrote:

thats the only answer you will get out of science if thats where you choose to look for god.

Simply because you claim science does not or cannot explain something in no way validates the likelihood of such a thing. Prove there are no talking pigs. Your whole contention is based on the premise that there is or may be a god, and that science cannot or will not find it. Neither of which you have any evidence or argument whatsoever to back up.

0 Replies

exactlly just like that blind man, he has to perceive that the moon is real, just because everyone says its real dosent mean that it is to him he has to perceive that it is.
ans science WILL NOT perceive that their is an all seeing being that they cannot prove.

0 Replies

LeftCoastBum wrote:

ans science WILL NOT perceive that their is an all seeing being that they cannot prove.

Right and neither will you or anyone else based on that set of criteria.

0 Replies

God, by definition, is a non-corporeal Being.

To deny the existence of a non-corporeal Being based on lack of empirical evidence is absurd.

0 Replies

well yeah in all reality there is no proof either way until he comes down from the sky spiting lightning bolts from his eyes there will be no proof either way im just saying that from a scientific vantage point they are always gonig to deny the existance of somthing that they cannot prove (but i still believe in a greater power personally)

0 Replies

real life wrote:

God, by definition, is a non-corporeal Being.

To deny the existence of a non-corporeal Being based on lack of empirical evidence is absurd.

If you are addressing me, I made no argument against the "existence of a non-corporeal being based on lack of empirical evidence".

Also it is simply untrue that "god by definition is a non-corporeal being". There are in fact many religions where god is personified in, or as, a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things?

Simply because you espouse a monotheist Christian non-corporeal being based on your beliefs in no way delineates god per se.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

God, by definition, is a non-corporeal Being.

To deny the existence of a non-corporeal Being based on lack of empirical evidence is absurd.

While to insist on the existence of such a being with the same lack of evidence makes perfect sense.... Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:
God, by definition, is a non-corporeal Being.

To deny the existence of a non-corporeal Being based on lack of empirical evidence is absurd.

While to insist on the existence of such a being with the same lack of evidence makes perfect sense....

Empirical evidence is only one out of many types of evidence. There is historical evidence. And our legal systems rely on evidence based on witness testimony etc. and also upon circumstantial evidence.

To insist, as many atheists/agnostics seem to , that empirical evidence is the only type of evidence is not intellectually honest IMHO.

Often it is implied or stated outright that if one cannot see, feel, hear God etc then obviously He cannot be real.

This not only presupposes that the questioner must be omniscient (i.e. he has seen, heard, felt all that there is in the universe) ; it also ignores other types of evidence.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
God, by definition, is a non-corporeal Being.

To deny the existence of a non-corporeal Being based on lack of empirical evidence is absurd.
If you are addressing me, I made no argument against the "existence of a non-corporeal being based on lack of empirical evidence".

Also it is simply untrue that "god by definition is a non-corporeal being". There are in fact many religions where god is personified in, or as, a real living being, and/or real living beings, and/or a real thing and/or real things?

Simply because you espouse a monotheist Christian non-corporeal being based on your beliefs in no way delineates god per se.

No, I wasn't addressing you.

I was referring to 'God' as in 'the God of the Bible' which is the only concept of God that I will explain or defend. The adherents of any other belief can defend their own. I have no interest in defending something I do not believe in.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

I have no interest in defending something I do not believe in.

Chumly wrote:

How are you and your religion going to deal with life on Mars, (assuming we find it) given that the popular creation theologies (that I am aware of) do not encompass Martian life.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
I have no interest in defending something I do not believe in.
Chumly wrote:
How are you and your religion going to deal with life on Mars, (assuming we find it) given that the popular creation theologies (that I am aware of) do not encompass Martian life.

Life on another planet would probably make no difference to religion. Why would it?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Life on another planet would probably make no difference to religion. Why would it?

Chumly wrote:

Jesus said, "Every Martian who hears these words of Mine and acts upon them will be like a wise Martian who built his house upon the red sand. And the rain fell and the floods came and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall". And the Martains saw that the terraforming was good.

New Solar Testament 7:28.29

Chumly wrote:

And God said, go up now to Mars City and make your living-place there: and put up an altar there to the God who came to you when you were in flight from your brother Esau of Earth.

New Solar Testament

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Chumly wrote:
real life wrote:
I have no interest in defending something I do not believe in.
Chumly wrote:
How are you and your religion going to deal with life on Mars, (assuming we find it) given that the popular creation theologies (that I am aware of) do not encompass Martian life.

Life on another planet would probably make no difference to religion. Why would it?

I hate to disgrace Chumly's humorous fugue with reason, but since you have chimed in, here goes:

If you examine the major issues raised in the Edenic rebellion, in particular the rightfulness of God's sovereignty, you cannot help but understand that these are unique to earth.

Either God has the right to set standards for his creations or he does not.

God's regulations are either for our benefit or they are not.

Sentient beings will serve God either out of love for him or out of selfishness.

Once these issues have been settled, further rebellion may be dealt with immediately.

And, until these issues have been settled, the existence of life on other planets is a matter only of speculation.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Mars does have an alluringly watery past, so I bet we either find life in some form, or fossil records. However, I don't recall any of the popular creation theologies mentioning life on mars.

check this out! http://xfacts.com/gusev2004/gusev.html what is funny is that there is evidence that nasa is altering the color of the photos that they show us of mars. saying that it is unhospitable but what about that algy growing there?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Often it is implied or stated outright that if one cannot see, feel, hear God etc then obviously He cannot be real.

True. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has so often been maligned in similar fashion.

0 Replies

Life On Mars & Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know