# God and space aliens



## ambush80 (Oct 19, 2010)

What do you think is more likely to exist, God or extraterrestrial life and why?


----------



## VisionCasting (Oct 19, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> What do you think is more likely to exist, God or extraterrestrial life and why?



I don't dismiss the possibility of extraterrestrial life.  But I am certain of the existence of God.


----------



## packrat (Oct 19, 2010)

*God/Aliens*

Aliens abduct idiots
But
God saves them​


----------



## CAL (Oct 19, 2010)

I know that God exist.I have seen His evidence and felt His presence.Never have seen any evidence of space aliens much less the presence of.


----------



## ronpasley (Oct 19, 2010)

God exist and why I say this is because my life was full of he11 He change me He wash me  He has given me hope joy happiness peace blessing love and a fear of Him.

space aliens I have no idea no evidence of them just some people around here would be as close to and alien I guess


----------



## Lowjack (Oct 19, 2010)

"God created all things the visible and the Invisible"
"All Things were created by Him and for Him"

putting everything in subjection under his feet.” Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. At present, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him.
Heb 2;8


----------



## jason4445 (Oct 20, 2010)

The school of thought about aliens is most of them are not aliens at all, but humans from the future that have come back in time.  This is not all UFO's but mostly the big head, almond eyes, small body things that abduct.  The reasoning being is in the future the science has developed to where they no longer need to reproduce in the natural way, but through cloning and DNA manipulation for mostly a higher intelligence.  That is why they evolved the larger head/brain and a small weak looking body.

However, through all of this some really bad happened to the DNA because of the gene splicing, adding to it, or taking away from it or all three.  Because of this they travel back in time - to our time as well as other times to harvest undisturbed DNA and the genes associated with it.  They do this by abducting and harvesting cell from the reproductive organs and other places, combine the female with the male and grow babies to develop what they need in the future.

You would think that if they wanted genes they would get the Einstein type people, or strong he men types or the most beautiful of women, but instead they go to some trailer park and get some overweight middle aged woman with frozen orange juice cans in her hair as rollers.  The genes they need do not relate to brain power or physical beauty - but the people like these have the certain genes they desire to correct the problem.

I absolutely believe in God, and that he most certainly created  beings and spirits in other dimensions other than humans on earth.


----------



## VisionCasting (Oct 20, 2010)

jason4445 said:


> Because of this they travel back in time - to our time as well as other times to harvest undisturbed DNA and the genes associated with it.  They do this by abducting and harvesting cell from the reproductive organs and other places



You'd think these advanced beings would know of a better way to collect 'pure' DNA than "probing".


----------



## tomtlb66 (Oct 20, 2010)

I know God is real and is alive today, no reason to doubt here, as far as aliens go, i don't know.


----------



## pnome (Oct 20, 2010)

packrat said:


> Aliens abduct idiots
> But
> God saves them​



 That's a good one!


----------



## VisionCasting (Oct 20, 2010)

packrat said:


> Aliens abduct idiots
> But
> God saves them​



Apparently He doesn't save all the idiots.


----------



## packrat (Oct 20, 2010)

*><>*



VisionCasting said:


> Apparently He doesn't save all the idiots.



Now that's a good one


----------



## Ridge Walker (Oct 20, 2010)

I think that it's more likely that there is some sort of life in the universe other than us.  If life could develop here, I don't see why it couldn't develop on a planet or moon that had conditions favorable for life.

RW


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 20, 2010)

jason4445 said:


> The school of thought about aliens is most of them are not aliens at all, but humans from the future that have come back in time.  This is not all UFO's but mostly the big head, almond eyes, small body things that abduct.  The reasoning being is in the future the science has developed to where they no longer need to reproduce in the natural way, but through cloning and DNA manipulation for mostly a higher intelligence.  That is why they evolved the larger head/brain and a small weak looking body.
> 
> However, through all of this some really bad happened to the DNA because of the gene splicing, adding to it, or taking away from it or all three.  Because of this they travel back in time - to our time as well as other times to harvest undisturbed DNA and the genes associated with it.  They do this by abducting and harvesting cell from the reproductive organs and other places, combine the female with the male and grow babies to develop what they need in the future.
> 
> ...



Puff Puff Pass.


----------



## packrat (Oct 20, 2010)

*???*



jason4445 said:


> The school of thought about aliens is most of them are not aliens at all, but humans from the future that have come back in time.  This is not all UFO's but mostly the big head, almond eyes, small body things that abduct.  The reasoning being is in the future the science has developed to where they no longer need to reproduce in the natural way, but through cloning and DNA manipulation for mostly a higher intelligence.  That is why they evolved the larger head/brain and a small weak looking body.
> 
> However, through all of this some really bad happened to the DNA because of the gene splicing, adding to it, or taking away from it or all three.  Because of this they travel back in time - to our time as well as other times to harvest undisturbed DNA and the genes associated with it.  They do this by abducting and harvesting cell from the reproductive organs and other places, combine the female with the male and grow babies to develop what they need in the future.
> 
> ...



O.K. Jason, I want to ask a very scientific question then,
Why are they so ugly if they are so advanced?


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 21, 2010)

packrat said:


> O.K. Jason, I want to ask a very scientific question then,
> Why are they so ugly if they are so advanced?



Duh..... He already told you! BAD DNA!


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 21, 2010)

ted_BSR said:


> Puff Puff Pass.


:


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 21, 2010)

I believe in GOD and the bible says jesus died ONCE for us. If there was life on other planets he would have had to go die for them too. so there is no other life.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 21, 2010)

ambush80 said:


> What do you think is more likely to exist, God or extraterrestrial life and why?



I don't know.  To borrow an unoriginal thought, " There are billions of galaxies with thousands of planets in each one.  If we are the only ones, it seems like an aweful waste of space."

I have never seen a UFO, and that concludes my knowledge of extraterrestrial life.


I grew up in the church.  Was there Sunday morning, night, Wed. night, and Fri. night youth group, with a smattering of other special days thrown in. I am familiar with Mountain Top experiences, and have heard every of miracle modern and old.  My problem is I have never felt God's presence.  I don't witness a person being yanked out of the path of an oncoming car and think, "It's a miracle! God saved him!"  There are too many other people that got hit, that did not get rescued.  It's too random.  

In the Old Testiment and the new, there were frequent, blatant miracles to get people in line.  If I have had a miracle in my life, it was so obscure I flew right by it unaware.  So again I have to say, I don't know.


Boy, the Southern Baptist in my head is giving me some STERN looks right now!


----------



## pnome (Oct 21, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> I believe in GOD and the bible says jesus died ONCE for us. If there was life on other planets he would have had to go die for them too. so there is no other life.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 21, 2010)

pnome said:


>



thats wrong man lol


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 21, 2010)

Gabassmaster said:


> I believe in GOD and the bible says jesus died ONCE for us. If there was life on other planets he would have had to go die for them too. so there is no other life.



  So since the Bible also doesn't mention motorcycles, 4-wheelers or guns, I'll bet they don't exist either, right?


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 21, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> So since the Bible also doesn't mention motorcycles, 4-wheelers or guns, I'll bet they don't exist either, right?



 Its just those things don't matter to salvation, so they did not need to be talked about in the Bible.


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 21, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> Its just those things don't matter to salvation, so they did not need to be talked about in the Bible.



So aliens matter to salvation, but not those things.  Sorry, I must have missed the memo.  Carry on then.


----------



## Gabassmaster (Oct 21, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> So aliens matter to salvation, but not those things.  Sorry, I must have missed the memo.  Carry on then.



They are not ??? who said that????


----------



## stringmusic (Oct 21, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> So aliens matter to salvation, but not those things.  Sorry, I must have missed the memo.  Carry on then.



You have got to stop rearranging words and assuming things so much, you know what they say about assumptions.... The bible never talks about space aliens either.


----------



## davidstaples (Oct 21, 2010)

stringmusic said:


> You have got to stop rearranging words and assuming things so much, you know what they say about assumptions.... The bible never talks about space aliens either.



Right.  But if you go by this quote by gabassmaster:



> I believe in GOD and the bible says jesus died ONCE for us. If there was life on other planets he would have had to go die for them too. so there is no other life.



The Bible never talks about aliens.  Just because it doesn't talk about them (as with guns, motorcycles, etc.) doesn't mean they don't exist.  Sorry... I guess I didn't fully explain my line of reasoning here.  Hopefully that helps explain my thought process a bit.  I was just explaining the flaw in gabassmaster's argument that the lack of talking about a particular subject doesn't mean that the subject doesn't exist.


----------



## VisionCasting (Oct 22, 2010)

davidstaples said:


> So since the Bible also doesn't mention motorcycles, 4-wheelers or guns, I'll bet they don't exist either, right?



Timely principle, timeless application.


----------



## ted_BSR (Oct 22, 2010)

To answer the original question, God is more likely to exist, because something would have to create the ETs.

Not to say I don't belive ETs exist, it is possible.  I have never seen one, but that doesn't mean they do not exist.


----------



## dexrusjak (Oct 23, 2010)

drippin' rock said:


> I don't know.  To borrow an unoriginal thought, " There are billions of galaxies with thousands of planets in each one.  If we are the only ones, it seems like an aweful waste of space."
> 
> I have never seen a UFO, and that concludes my knowledge of extraterrestrial life.
> 
> ...



This is an absolutely fantastic response.  Genuine and honest.  Very refreshing to read.  Thanks.


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 6, 2011)

I dont believe other life exists, I am convinced of it. There is way too much evidence such as the Pyramids in Geza and South America. Places like Puma Puka in Bolivia. I just dont believe that as humans we went from hunters and gatherers and overnight building structures that modern day engineers cant build. The book " Chariots of the Gods" by Eric Von Daniken really opened my eyes to this belief. I just saw on the news a couple months ago where some astronomers found a planet 2 million light years away that has oceans. Oceans. That more than likely means there is life. I believe that we have been visited by some sort of other life in the past. Theres just no other logical explanation.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 6, 2011)

I've yet to see how the presence of aliens was supported by the basic laws of science, so God gets my vote...


----------



## ambush80 (Jan 6, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> I've yet to see how the presence of aliens was supported by the basic laws of science, so God gets my vote...





The existence of God is supported by the basic laws of science.......


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 6, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> I've yet to see how the presence of aliens was supported by the basic laws of science, so God gets my vote...



Then how do you exist?


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Then how do you exist?



According to the basic laws of science (Law of Conservation of Mass, Biogenesis) the earth and it's inhabitants cannot exist. Something out there (whether it be the freak explosion that created matter, or the first living organism to evolve from non-living matter, or the greater being that created it, just depends on your belief) was not bound by the same scientific laws that applies to everything else, a "greater being" if you will. If there is a scientific law that suggests that there must be ET life out there, I'd be appreciate it if you'd let me know. I'd like to study it a bit...


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 6, 2011)

Try this on for size...

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Try this on for size...
> 
> <object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/U6QYDdgP9eg?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>



Neat video. Sounds good and all, but the original argument (before the theory on the formation of life) is flawed. If evolution doesn't account for the formation of the universe and/or life, what exactly does it prove? We know that life has made slight adaptation as the environment has changed, such as the extinction of dinos after the flood, or the increase in microbes after the BP spill. I dare say any Christian believes life directly after creation was exactly the same it is now. 

The video also ignores the Law of Conservation of Mass. Also, if scientists can't create life in a lab, it's little more than an "educated guess", and requires a rather significant amount of faith. 

Tight Lines,
Bub


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 6, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Neat video. Sounds good and all, but the original argument (before the theory on the formation of life) is flawed. If evolution doesn't account for the formation of the universe and/or life, what exactly does it prove? We know that life has made slight adaptation as the environment has changed, such as the extinction of dinos after the flood, or the increase in microbes after the BP spill. I dare say any Christian believes life directly after creation was exactly the same it is now.
> 
> The video also ignores the Law of Conservation of Mass. Also, if scientists can't create life in a lab, it's little more than an "educated guess", and requires a rather significant amount of faith.
> 
> ...



The video answers this at the 1:15 mark.

We also know over time, those slight adaptations add up to significant ones.

Really? What part of the video do you think violates the law of conservation of mass?

Nonsense. There are plenty of things that we know about but can't create in a lab. Give it time, there is still much to learn and discover. I'm just glad the scientists that are working on it didn't assume like you that what we don't know must be supernatural and not worth pursuing. We'd know a lot less right now if they did.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 6, 2011)

vowell462 said:


> I dont believe other life exists, I am convinced of it. There is way too much evidence such as the Pyramids in Geza and South America. Places like Puma Puka in Bolivia. I just dont believe that as humans we went from hunters and gatherers and overnight building structures that modern day engineers cant build. The book " Chariots of the Gods" by Eric Von Daniken really opened my eyes to this belief. I just saw on the news a couple months ago where some astronomers found a planet 2 million light years away that has oceans. Oceans. That more than likely means there is life. I believe that we have been visited by some sort of other life in the past. Theres just no other logical explanation.



Huh?  you lost me...


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 6, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The video answers this at the 1:15 mark.
> 
> We also know over time, those slight adaptations add up to significant ones.
> 
> ...



Law of Conservation of Mass: The principle that matter cannot be _*created*_ or destroyed. 

You are arguing against scientific law (a phenomenon of nature that has been _*proven*_ to *invariably* occur) with theory (a proposed explanation whose _*status is still conjectural*_,_* in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact*_) Either living organisms can be created from non-living matter, or they can't. Despite the video's (a youtube video, hardly scientific proof of anything) attempt to twist things, this theory is in direct conflict with Biogenesis. You can't debunk factual evidence with theories...


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 6, 2011)

No matter was created in that video, just rearranged.


----------



## vowell462 (Jan 7, 2011)

dawg2 said:


> Huh?  you lost me...



I was just stating my belief. I do think that ETs have visited our planet in the past and interacted with humans in ancient times. That is not stating that I believe we evolved from them or that there is no god. My honest answer on religion is that no one knows for sure and that is undeniable. The topic was " what do you think is more likely to exist", I just think that there is alot of evidence pointing towards ETs. Doesnt mean Im right, it just makes sense to me. A good tv show to watch on this subject is Ancient Aliens on History Channel. There are many, many books on the subject as well. I also believe to automatically deny other life on other planets is sophmoric, truth is, we just dont know.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> No matter was created in that video, just rearranged.



You can't rearrange something that hasn't been created...


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> You can't rearrange something that hasn't been created...



Shall I take that as an abandonment of the discussion of a natural origin of life and moving on to a natural origin of matter?


----------



## stringmusic (Jan 7, 2011)

lazybate said:


> OH NO



Did you read the thread "the arrogance of atheism"?


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Shall I take that as an abandonment of the discussion of a natural origin of life and moving on to a natural origin of matter?



No, the discussion was "does science support there being a God?". You found a neat little video on the origin of life and abandoned the rest of the argument. I've proved my point (that you are basing your faith on a theory that can not be replicated, and that no matter how you twist it scientific law does not support the theory), and if facts aren't good enough for you, that's not my problem... I've yet to hear your argument on the natural origin of matter. Just try to come up with something better than an "idea" of how it happened this time. I always thought atheists only based their belief on fact, not faith...


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

You didn't hear an argument for a natural origin of matter because I wasn't making one. Neither was the video.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> You didn't hear an argument for a natural origin of matter because I wasn't making one. Neither was the video.



Exactly, you conveniently shied away from that part of your belief. I assumed since your belief about theory of a natural origin is not based on fact, and atheists base their beliefs solely on fact, than your belief must be based on proven facts about the origin of matter. Was my original assumption that atheism doesn't require faith incorrect? 

Does being a Christian require a certain amount of faith? Yes, it does. But I'll be honest with you, the more I study about the world around us and the laws that govern it, the stronger my belief in God becomes. I can't say the same about aliens...

Tight Lines,
Bub


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 7, 2011)

I can't say for sure there are aliens or not. I would lean toward probably so, but have no proof either way other than books I've read and pictures I've seen.

I do believe in the supernatural, something outside the physical being, ie God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit and that dang ol' debbil.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Exactly, you conveniently shied away from that part of your belief. I assumed since your belief about theory of a natural origin is not based on fact, and atheists base their beliefs solely on fact, than your belief must be based on proven facts about the origin of matter. Was my original assumption that atheism doesn't require faith incorrect?



It's not that I'm shying away from it, I'm just treating it as the separate question that it is. The video explaining how life could originate naturally was directed toward your biogenesis objection. You jumped from that to the origin of mass without even acknowledging that life could have a natural origin. A natural origin of life begins with the presence of matter so it doesn't violate conservation of mass. Even if it were true that matter can only have a supernatural origin that would not in any way prove that life must also have a supernatural origin. These are two separate questions of origin. We were talking about the origin of life. I guess you're now done with that discussion so let's move on to the next objection.

My question for you is, how do you know the existence of the universe requires a supernatural creator to not violate conservation of mass?




fishinbub said:


> Does being a Christian require a certain amount of faith? Yes, it does. But I'll be honest with you, the more I study about the world around us and the laws that govern it, the stronger my belief in God becomes. I can't say the same about aliens...



Well you're the exception to the rule. Most people become less inclined to believe in a God the more they learn about the world around us.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 7, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> It's not that I'm shying away from it, I'm just treating it as the separate question that it is. The video explaining how life could originate naturally was directed toward your biogenesis objection. You jumped from that to the origin of mass without even acknowledging that life could have a natural origin. A natural origin of life begins with the presence of matter so it doesn't violate conservation of mass. Even if it were true that matter can only have a supernatural origin that would not in any way prove that life must also have a supernatural origin. These are two separate questions of origin. We were talking about the origin of life. I guess you're now done with that discussion so let's move on to the next objection.
> 
> My question for you is, how do you know the existence of the universe requires a supernatural creator to not violate conservation of mass?
> 
> ...



But I didn't use JUST biogenesis. You were the one that tried to single it out. And no, I don't particularly care to argue that point over and over and over. The problem is I am using scientific fact (which is in short supply) to base my argument. You on the other hand are using scientific _*theory*_, which is in an almost endless supply. I can find scientific theory to support darn near any argument you like. When you can present scientific facts, I'll be glad to discus biogenesis with you. 

The Law of Conservation of Mass was an equally important bases for my argument, but you didn't care to discus that. In fact I count three posts where you tried to change the subject. 

Law of Conservation of Mass: matter _*cannot*_ be _*created*_ or destroyed. 

Tight Lines,
Bub


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 7, 2011)

BTW, you didn't answer my question. Was I incorrect in my assumption that atheism is based solely on *facts*, not theories or ideas, and therefore requires no faith?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 7, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> But I didn't use JUST biogenesis. You were the one that tried to single it out. And no, I don't particularly care to argue that point over and over and over. The problem is I am using scientific fact (which is in short supply) to base my argument. You on the other hand are using scientific _*theory*_, which is in an almost endless supply. I can find scientific theory to support darn near any argument you like. When you can present scientific facts, I'll be glad to discus biogenesis with you.



The video was loaded with facts. You didn't raise an objection to a single one. You might dismiss it out of hand as just a theory but at least it is compatible with scientific fact. The intent was not to prove how life originated. That is still an unanswered question. It was just to demonstrate that we are making progress in learning how life could originate through natural processes. It's clear to me you aren't interested in seeing such progress because you have conveniently already jumped to the conclusion that "God did it" which no scientific theory could support and really explains nothing. If it were left to you we would have long ago concluded that thunder is caused by Thor and it's not possible for natural processes to generate such loud noises so no point in looking for them.





fishinbub said:


> Law of Conservation of Mass: matter _*cannot*_ be _*created*_ or destroyed.



"In a closed system". 

Given this law, how do you know that energy creation or destruction has occurred in our universe? How do you know it hasn't always been?

How do you know that our universe is and always has been a closed system?

How do you know there wasn't a natural source of energy that sparked the big bang?

How do you know that the total energy of our universe is different now than it was at or prior to the big bang.

How do you know that this law applied at or prior to the big bang?

The answer to all of these questions is that you don't know. Neither does anyone else. It's possible that our universe has a supernatural origin. It's also possible (as uncomfortable as it makes you) that our universe has a natural origin.

This is textbook God of the gaps argumentation. Look for something that we don't know because your God hypothesis fails for the things we do know and instead of being responsible and saying "we don't know" you plug your God in as the only possible answer. Until of course that gap in our knowledge is closed by a natural explanation. Then it's time to look for another.

Go ahead and put your money on the magic sky daddy explanation. You theists have been batting a big goose egg for thousands of years. In every single case there has been a question about our universe that supernatural explanations were posited, when definitive answers were finally reached they were natural ones. There hasn't been a single case where the supernatural explanation for something has been proven right.

As for ET, we know with 100% certainty that life can and does exist in this universe. We don't know if there is extra-terrestrial life but the numbers sure seem to favor it. The prospects for the supernatural being real are about on par with leprechauns and fairies being real, which is to say slim and none.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 7, 2011)

The argument is that scientific law supports a divine creation. You've yet to even dispute that, you simply say "well we don't know everything". To quote the Six Million Dollar Ham, "that's pathetic". 

Simply put, matter cannot be created or destroyed, and life cannot come from non-living matter. You can come up with all the theories you like. Like I said, there are theories that support any side of any argument you could ever imagine! You can play the "we don't know everything" cop out all you want to. You've yet to give proven facts to support your argument. I have.

The problem with you argument is this. It's not that we can't explain natural origin of matter, or natural origin of life, it's the fact that it has been _*proven*_ impossible. There is just an ever so slight difference. Am I saying to end all research? No, but I am saying until that research turns up new FACTS (not theories), the facts support my side of the argument. 

BTW, you've yet to answer my question...

Tight Lines ,
Bub


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> The argument is that scientific law supports a divine creation.



That must explain all the atheist scientists.



fishinbub said:


> You can play the "we don't know everything" cop out all you want to. You've yet to give proven facts to support your argument. I have.



Shame you think the truth is a cop out. You've thrown a scientific principle out there with no demonstration of how it lends more weight to your hypothesis than another. I've posited a number of ways in which a naturally formed universe is 100% compatible with conservation of mass/energy. Until you address those you can't legitimately claim that it supports your position.

I suspect this is something you picked up in some creationist book and now that the argument has fallen flat you have no where else to take it.



fishinbub said:


> It's not that we can't explain natural origin of matter, or natural origin of life, it's the fact that it has been _*proven*_ impossible.



100% False. You're either incredibly ignorant or incredibly dishonest.




fishinbub said:


> Am I saying to end all research? No, but I am saying until that research turns up new FACTS (not theories), the facts support my side of the argument.



You might start with the Universe from Nothing lecture by Lawrence Krauss. The facts might surprise you. But we both know you're not really interested in following where facts lead.


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The video was loaded with facts. You didn't raise an objection to a single one. You might dismiss it out of hand as just a theory but at least it is compatible with scientific fact. The intent was not to prove how life originated. That is still an unanswered question. It was just to demonstrate that we are making progress in learning how life could originate through natural processes. It's clear to me you aren't interested in seeing such progress because you have conveniently already jumped to the conclusion that "God did it" which no scientific theory could support and really explains nothing. If it were left to you we would have long ago concluded that thunder is caused by Thor and it's not possible for natural processes to generate such loud noises so no point in looking for them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ah but leprechauns and fairies are yet another story, how do you know they aren't little supernatural aliens?


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> The answer to all of these questions is that you don't know. Neither does anyone else. It's possible that our universe has a supernatural origin. It's also possible (as uncomfortable as it makes you) that our universe has a natural origin.



Bingo.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> That must explain all the atheist scientists.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all, I'd like to point at that you once again ignored my question. 

The principles I used are pretty dang straight forward! But I guess I'll have to explain it anyways. 

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. What does that say about a big bag that creates matter? First of all, we know that's impossible, because matter can't be created. Strike one. 

Second of all, we know explosions do not happen without some form of fuel. If their was matter to fuel the explosion, it must have been created out of nothingness (which we've already established is impossible) at an earlier time. Strike two.

Thirdly, you need some form of a "trigger" to set off the explosion. This requires some form of energy. Maybe a second react gas to mix with the first, or a spark, or maybe an electric charge. Unfortunately at this time there is no matter! That means there is nothing to cause a spark, no gasses to mix, and no protons or electrons for an electric charge. Strike three. 

You've still yet to produce proven facts to support your argument...

Tight Lines,
Bub


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

mtnwoman said:


> Ah but leprechauns and fairies are yet another story, how do you know they aren't little supernatural aliens?



I don't. But I'm not placing the odds as very high. How about you?


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> First of all, I'd like to point at that you once again ignored my question.



Maybe there is a reason you haven't received an answer. Take a look at what atheism is and see if you can figure it out.




fishinbub said:


> Matter cannot be created or destroyed. What does that say about a big bag that creates matter? First of all, we know that's impossible, because matter can't be created. Strike one.



You keep leaving out "in a closed system". If the universe isn't a closed system then the first law of thermodynamics doesn't apply. I asked you how you know that we are talking about a closed system. You didn't answer.

What we are really talking about with the big bang is energy. Matter and energy are interchangeable under general relativity but there was no matter at the big bang because it was too hot for any to form. If you look at the expansion of the universe and everything in it and roll the tape backwards that takes you to the big bang so it appears all energy was present at that time. In other words, no new energy/matter was created in the big bang, the big bang contained everything. I asked how you know this wasn't the case, that new energy/matter was created. You didn't answer.

For you to use the law of conservation of mass to support a supernatural origin of the universe (by the way, even if you were able to do this it only gets you to the point of deism) here is what you need to demonstrate.

1. The big bang was a closed system.

2. The energy of the big bang was created and has not "always been".

3. Demonstrate that there could be no natural source of the energy, hence it could only be supernatural.

Then once you've done that you open up a whole Pandora's box of questions. If energy must have a first cause (kind of runs against the idea that it can't be created or destroyed doesn't it but you're saying it was) and God has energy then what is the first cause of God? Your answer really answers nothing. It just pushes everything back one step.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Maybe there is a reason you haven't received an answer. Take a look at what atheism is and see if you can figure it out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



First of all general relativity is simply a theory. You've still yet to produce facts to support your argument. 

So you have this ENORMOUS amount of energy that has always been present? It has no "beginning"? An eternally present being is considered super natural, but an eternally present mass of energy is not? How can you explain energy that is eternally present? 

Your also have a poor understanding of creationism. Not only is an omnipotent God not bound by scientific law, but he "wrote" it. Saying God is bound by the same laws as his creation is like saying the restrictor plate on Dale Jr.'s car limits the oxygen intake of his engine builder. It doesn't work that way.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 8, 2011)

Also your argument that I can't prove the universe is a closed system is flawed. The "closed system" simply means matter from somewhere else cannot enter the system. That is irrelevant to the discussion because even if the universe is not a closed system, matter must first be created before it can pass from another system. Nice try, though...


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> First of all general relativity is simply a theory.



Do you think E=MC^2 is wrong?




fishinbub said:


> So you have this ENORMOUS amount of energy that has always been present? It has no "beginning"? An eternally present being is considered super natural, but an eternally present mass of energy is not?



That's right. You're the one so hung up on the idea that energy can't be created or destroyed. OK. Energy exists and it can't be created or destroyed. Therefore it has always existed. Seems a more plausible explanation than magic.




fishinbub said:


> How can you explain energy that is eternally present?



How can you explain a god that is eternally present? At least we can demonstrate that energy really does exist. Demonstrate that a god exists.




fishinbub said:


> Your also have a poor understanding of creationism. Not only is an omnipotent God not bound by scientific law, but he "wrote" it. Saying God is bound by the same laws as his creation is like saying the restrictor plate on Dale Jr.'s car limits the oxygen intake of his engine builder. It doesn't work that way.



In other words, it's magic. You're making claims that are the least likely to be true, unfalsifiable and trying to pass them off as scientific. Sorry bub, that isn't how science works.

All you are doing is plugging your god into a knowledge gap. It could be claimed with just as much evidence (which is to say NONE) that any of the other myriad man made creation myths explain the universe. Given all the other scientific claims surrounding the christian god that have been proven dead wrong, given that no supernatural explanation for natural phenomena has ever been proven true, the odds of you being right in this case are extremely slim. Believe it if you must, but at least have the honesty to admit the possibility of a natural origin.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Also your argument that I can't prove the universe is a closed system is flawed. The "closed system" simply means matter from somewhere else cannot enter the system. That is irrelevant to the discussion because even if the universe is not a closed system, matter must first be created before it can pass from another system. Nice try, though...



And you don't know if energy came from a source external to the big bang or not. Without knowing if it did and what that source was you can't make the claims you are making.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> And you don't know if energy came from a source external to the big bang or not. Without knowing if it did and what that source was you can't make the claims you are making.



Did a little research on relativity. 

"Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that *neither one appears without the other*"

Energy but no mass=flawed theory. Feel free to try again. I suggest you try supporting your argument with facts, though. 

The question was not "does science support YOUR God". My God vs. somebody else' god is a whole other debate for another day. Obviously SOMETHING was not bound by scientific law (unexplainable by natural law, meaning supernatural). If you want to put your faith in a supernatural mass of energy (that based on your theory CANNOT exist), go ahead. I choose to put my faith in God, which I KNOW exists based on personal experience. (which is also another argument for another day)

You've still yet to use facts to support your argument. You simply rely on the "well we don't know everything" cop out. Then when that was shot down you moved on to "you're an ignorant fool who believes in ghosts, magic, and the supernatural". Sorry to burst your bubble, but that ain't gonna fly. You're gonna have to use some FACTS, to support your argument. God is not magic. Magic is simply optical illusions. 

A universe so massive, so complex, and so amazing you'll never be able to wrap your mind around it, created by a random set of occurrences (that can not happen according to the laws of nature) would be quite a magic trick...

Tight Lines,
Bub


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

Nothing supernatural about energy that has always existed. Nothing supernatural about a universe that got it's energy from a natural source. I've laid out the conditions that must be met for you to raise a legitimate objection to a natural origin for the universe based on the first law of thermodynamics. You haven't even attempted to meet that challenge.

Your entire position boils down to this. "We don't know what caused the big bang, therefore a supernatural being is the only thing that could have caused it." That isn't the position of any reputable scientist I have ever heard. I've offered a couple other alternatives that are within the bounds of physics. And they aren't the only ones. But you aren't interested in that because you think you already have an answer that the rest of the world does not. You're making claims that are absolutely false and would still be false even if there was a god that created the universe.

In the end, there is nothing I can do about willful ignorance.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> Did a little research on relativity.
> 
> "Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that *neither one appears without the other*"
> 
> Energy but no mass=flawed theory. Feel free to try again. I suggest you try supporting your argument with facts, though.



BTW, what exactly do you think you are refuting here? Did I ever claim there was energy but no mass?


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Nothing supernatural about energy that has always existed. Nothing supernatural about a universe that got it's energy from a natural source. I've laid out the conditions that must be met for you to raise a legitimate objection to a natural origin for the universe based on the first law of thermodynamics. You haven't even attempted to meet that challenge.
> 
> Your entire position boils down to this. "We don't know what caused the big bang, therefore a supernatural being is the only thing that could have caused it." That isn't the position of any reputable scientist I have ever heard. I've offered a couple other alternatives that are within the bounds of physics. And they aren't the only ones. But you aren't interested in that because you think you already have an answer that the rest of the world does not. You're making claims that are absolutely false and would still be false even if there was a god that created the universe.
> 
> In the end, there is nothing I can do about willful ignorance.



What claims have I made that are false? 

1)Living organisms cannot be produced from non-living matter. *Proven fact. See Law of Biogenesis*

2)Matter cannot be created or destroyed. _*Proven fact. See law of conservation of mass*_

3)Neither energy nor mass is present without the other. *Not a proven fact, but to dispute this statement would also be disputing the bases of your own argument*

Maybe the more important question is, _*what claims have you made that were facts? *_

I've already told you, your "you are ignorant therefore my argument must be correct" crap is not gonna fly. If you want to sling mud, go into politics. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, you're going to have to produce _*FACTS*_.

Also, my argument isn't that we don't know HOW a big bang happens. My argument is that the big bang is physically impossible based on _*PROVEN FACTS*_. You've yet to produce _*PROVEN FACTS*_ that suggest otherwise.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

fishinbub said:


> What claims have I made that are false?
> 
> 1)Living organisms cannot be produced from non-living matter. *Proven fact. See Law of Biogenesis*



Here is the first false claim that you made.

Here is what your link says. Did you read it?

"Louis Pasteur stated the law of biogenesis, that life originates from life. This was meant not as a comment on the origin of all life, but instead as an overturning of the belief in spontaneous generation, that is, that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria could appear fully formed."




fishinbub said:


> 2)Matter cannot be created or destroyed. _*Proven fact. See law of conservation of mass*_



This in and of itself is not a claim I disagree with. It's your application of it that is flawed. Again did you read your own link?

"The Law of Conservation of Mass applies only to a closed system, that is, a system which no energy or matter can leave or enter. In nature, no system is truly closed as nothing in nature is totally isolated from the outside environment and energy or matter may be transferred in many forms, including chemical, heat and light."

You've made the assertion that this means the big bang could only have a supernatural source and gone no further than making the assertion. You haven't done anything to demonstrate your assertion is true. You just keep repeating it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_by_assertion

I even went so far as to provide you with an outline of conditions that would have to be met for your assertion to be true and invited you to demonstrate those conditions are met. You haven't tried much less done it.




fishinbub said:


> 3)Neither energy nor mass is present without the other. *Not a proven fact, but to dispute this statement would also be disputing the bases of your own argument*



I guess it's a good thing I never disputed it then. I still don't know what you think you are refuting here.




fishinbub said:


> Maybe the more important question is, _*what claims have you made that were facts? *_



That it is possible to have a natural origin of both the universe and life. I've demonstrated how it is possible in both cases.




fishinbub said:


> Also, my argument isn't that we don't know HOW a big bang happens. My argument is that the big bang is physically impossible based on _*PROVEN FACTS*_. You've yet to produce _*PROVEN FACTS*_ that suggest otherwise.



My suggestion fishinbub is that you write a paper detailing how the big bang is physically impossible based on "PROVEN FACTS"  and submit it to the National Academy of Sciences for peer review and publication in their journal. I'm sure they would love to read your proof of the origin of our universe.


----------



## fishinbub (Jan 8, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Here is the first false claim that you made.
> 
> Here is what your link says. Did you read it?
> 
> ...



WITHIN nature no system is truly closed, but we are not talking about a system within nature. We are talking about nature as a whole. This "system" includes EVERYTHING, there is nothing outside the "system" to enter or leave. 

Why does it matter what the purpose of the Law of Biogenesis was? It simply states life cannot be produced by non-living matter. It doesn't say anything about how far developed the living organism is. 

Theories are not proven facts, simply ideas. You've yet to produce anything but theories. I reckon I was expecting nothing but facts because faith is a sign of ignorance...

Feel free to produce proven facts at any time. The world won't come to an end or anything. Well, since the universe isn't a closed system, I guess all the matter in the universe could be spontaneously destroyed or something...


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 8, 2011)

Ok this is my last response and then you can have the last word.



fishinbub said:


> WITHIN nature no system is truly closed, but we are not talking about a system within nature. We are talking about nature as a whole. This "system" includes EVERYTHING, there is nothing outside the "system" to enter or leave.



First, you don't know this. Second, I'll grant this and you'll still have your work cut out for you. The energy of the universe may have always existed (more compatible with the first law of thermodynamics than the God theory) or it could have come from a natural source outside our universe that we don't know about or... and if you had watched the Lawrence Krauss lecture I had suggested you would have already seen this, the total energy of the universe is zero and no net energy creation took place.

There are many possibilities including the one you are so eager to claim is the only one. It's just a shame that you are more interested in clinging to one possibility because you like it than accepting what you don't know and following where ever the evidence takes us.




fishinbub said:


> Why does it matter what the purpose of the Law of Biogenesis was? It simply states life cannot be produced by non-living matter.



It matters because it doesn't say what you are trying to claim it says in the context that you are trying to apply it. *Even your own link refutes your claim both in the very first paragraph and in the last paragraph.* I think we are beginning to see a pattern here that reading comprehension is not your strong suit. 

"Some creationists have argued that the law of biogenesis violates evolutionary theory, or goes against the theory that all life originated from inorganic material billions of years ago. This is a specious stand, since the law of biogenesis addresses creation of life within the lifespan of a progenitor, specifically addressing the validity of spontaneous generation. Evolutionary theory also speaks against the claim that life arises fully formed, proposing instead that speciation occurs through very small, gradual changes over many generations."

Read more: The Law of Biogenesis | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_5285455_law-biogenesis.html#ixzz1AVQcYBR4




fishinbub said:


> Theories are not proven facts, simply ideas. You've yet to produce anything but theories. I reckon I was expecting nothing but facts because faith is a sign of ignorance...



What I have claimed to be fact, is and would be even if the origins of life and the universe were supernatural. If you can't understand that then you did not thoroughly read what I wrote.

The field is yours...


----------



## mtnwoman (Jan 9, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> I don't. But I'm not placing the odds as very high. How about you?



Well I wouldn't say it's impossible and wager my life on it.  But you're more of a high roller than me.




I'm a holy roller.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 9, 2011)

Ah but that's exactly what you are doing unless you believe and follow all religions that have ever been. Pascals wager isn't a 50/50 proposition. You're an atheist when it comes to every other god except your own.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 9, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Ah but that's exactly what you are doing unless you believe and follow all religions that have ever been. Pascals wager isn't a 50/50 proposition. You're an atheist when it comes to every other god except your own.



You are correct, Pascal's Wager isn't a 50/50 proposition.  But it is a good hand for someone to have.  It isn't a Royal Flush, but one pair is better than a bust.  There is nothing to lose.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 9, 2011)

Well for the post death threat that Christianity makes you're holding a better hand, assuming of course that god will accept the cynical "believers" who are just covering their tails. For every other religion you reject you're in the same boat as the atheist. What if your wrong? Doesn't that concern you? Given the plethora of religions past and present, odds are you will pick the wrong one and be doomed. Understand why you don't lose sleep at night over the threats of other religions and you'll understand why atheists aren't threatened by yours.


----------



## atlashunter (Jan 9, 2011)

Hitchens puts it more eloquently than I could.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IUwZrVz86q0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IUwZrVz86q0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>


----------



## jbird1 (Feb 22, 2011)

This guy is real "wordsmith"...he makes a very good point in regards to not faking belief.  I viewed this last night and can't stop thinking about it.  It really makes me wonder what % are in it to "curry favor" and are not true believers?


----------



## Jranger (Feb 22, 2011)

atlashunter said:


> Most people become less inclined to believe in a God the more they learn about the world around us.


That post was not aimed at me, but...
I'm less inclined to follow organized religions the more I learn, but I still have a strong belief in a creator of some sort.


----------



## jbird1 (Feb 22, 2011)

Jranger said:


> That post was not aimed at me, but...
> I'm less inclined to follow organized religions the more I learn, but I still have a strong belief in a creator of some sort.



Me too.  I am beginning to understand that I am a Deist more than anything else.


----------

