Alien Life? You better hope God exists!

[sealybobo]

If a creator created us he did it be planting a seed. That means all life is related. Theists have the poof hypothesis.

This god also intentional murdered all the dinosaurs and moved a Moon here.

Okay, so... the moon is very important to life on Earth. It is the moon which keeps Earth in gyroscopic orbit. Without that, we would not have seasons. Think about how many life forms are totally dependent on seasons for their reproductive cycles? In other words, they would not be possible without the changes in season. It also is responsible for the oceanic tides. Think about how many life forms in the ocean are totally dependent on the tides for reproduction? This life could not be possible without the tides created by the gravitational force of the moon.

True. So? Whaat conclusion are you making from this?

Well, if billions of various life forms are vitally dependent on the dynamics present because of the moon, seasons and tides, then we have to conclude they probably couldn't have existed and evolved into what we have today. I mean, how can a life cycle who's reproduction relies on seasons happen if there are no seasons?

Now... with all the trillions of planetary possibilities, it's entirely possible that some other planet just so happened to benefit from the "trick shot" of another body careening off of it at just the right angle to set it into a weird wobbling rotation, where a large chunk of it's discarded planetary debris coalesced into a proper sized moon in just the right orbit to create a gyroscopic effect, creating seasons and tides... oh yeah, and it just so happened to have abundant liquid oceans enabled by atmospheric pressure which was the result of several other variables in play.. and oh yeah, it also just so happened to "luck out" and get a molten core of iron and nickel which gave it a protective electromagnetic field to shield living things from cosmic radiation... and then, by some unknown mechanism, life originated there... THEN.... it evolved over millions of years into intelligent life. Yeah, I'll admit that's a possibility. I just think if it happened, God had something to do with it.

Who?

 

[sealybobo]

The universes beyond our universe die too. Circle of life. What’s beyond our universe. It’s not god

You don't if there is a universe beyond our universe. You DO understand what "UNI" means, correct? It means ONE! So it's actually an oxymoron to say "universes beyond our universe" because a "universe" is the only one. I understand you mean "multiverse" but that is a theory... and ironically, it's a theory we can never prove. So from a "scientific method" perspective, it's no different than a theory of God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It’s another possibility and makes much more sense considering there can never be an absolute end going in any direction. There’s always something on the other side of any wall

 

[sealybobo]

Of course the universes are confined to science. They are born live and die. The cosmos are alive you can clearly see. You are a part of it.

Anyways this is something we need to stop telling our children this lie. I just realized this is how we are holding the masses back. Instead of telling a young child the scientific truth we lie about a creator and we point to holy books as evidence. Your denial of evolution and global warming are evidence

You know, I was thinking about this the other day. Back when Isaac Newton was writing Principia and formulating the Laws of Motion.... people of that time were sharing the story of Jesus Christ, the baby in the manger, the Great Flood, Moses parting the Red Sea and the Ten Commandments..... all of that was being discussed among the people of the time. In fact, Newton himself spent the later part of his life writing what would eventually become the basis for modern Protestant Doctrine. He acknowledged a "mercurial spirit" coursing through our universe which could not be explained by physics which he largely created.

When Constantine ruled over Rome, he was the first emperor to convert to Christianity. He was instrumental in the Edict of Milan which delivered religious tolerance for Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. This particular religious belief was very important to the people of that time, just as it is today.

But let's go back WAY further... let's go back 70,000 years to Lake Mungo. This is where we've found the remains of some of the oldest human civilization. They actually buried the dead with ceremonial rituals using red ocher. This means, even way back then, humans believed in spiritual nature.... something greater beyond the physical.

Now, all of a sudden... just in your lifetime, you have some silly obscure notion that something you have to say is going to simply erase all those years of human thought? That, somehow, mankind is simply going to abandon thinking about the spirit or spiritual things because... you're "smarter" than anyone ever to have roamed the Earth? Because you've adopted a faith-based belief in theories you cannot prove... and that's the whole basis on which you think humanity is to abandon it's age old beliefs. That's just incredible to me that you would even contemplate such a thing.

Well that’s what’s happening anywhere that’s not fundamentally religious. People are evolving to not be spiritual religious nuts. Even you only argue for a vague concept of god. Generic. You are proof religion is going away.

Imagine when more people like you stop telling the religious lies. The awakening has begun.

By the way the day newton started getting religious was the day he stopped coming up with new ideas. Neal Debra’s Tyson explained that yes he did get religious and he proved nothing after that. What a waste. What great new invention or discovery came from looking for god? Usually god stays out of the science lab

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It's not vapid or pointless. It's tautological. Unless something is eternal (beyond the bounds of time), then it must have been created if it exists. So, either physical things exist and were created or they are eternal. IF they are eternal, that defines divinity. Then, the physical universe is God. IF not eternal, physical things require creation, if they exist.

God is not a physical thing, so demanding explanation for God's creation is not relevant.

It's not only vapid and pointless, it's circular. "Everything needs a creator; therefore everything was created."

Oh, and the hilarious hedge: "If they weren't created, then they are God. How do we know? God was not created, and everything else was."

Two circular arguments... It's hard to tell which is more vapid and pointless than the other!

Well, because most of us understand English.

"CREATE" literally means "to bring into an existent state of being." This means, in the context we are talking, a PHYSICAL state. God is NOT physical. There is no "circular argument" here, it's just a term that doesn't apply to God. We all 100% agree that God is not physical.

"DIVINITY" literally means "the property or state of being a deity or godlike entity." This means, if physical nature is eternal and always existed, it is itself, in a godlike state. Therefore, the physical universe becomes God.

That was all a steaming pile designed to avoid my point. You are a charlatan. Your arguments are terrible, and you dance from argument to argument, as they are undermined by simpler arguments which show how terrible they are.

 

[Boss]

And therefore God cannot create anything physical, you dishonestly left that part out!!!

Correction: God is the ONLY thing that can create something physical.
The physical cannot create itself.

Correction:
"Ex nihilo nihil fit." From nothing, nothing comes.

And yet... Something exists, therefore... something Created it!

No, something physical exists therefore some physical thing has always existed.

No it hasn't.

 

[Boss]

The universes beyond our universe die too. Circle of life. What’s beyond our universe. It’s not god

You don't if there is a universe beyond our universe. You DO understand what "UNI" means, correct? It means ONE! So it's actually an oxymoron to say "universes beyond our universe" because a "universe" is the only one. I understand you mean "multiverse" but that is a theory... and ironically, it's a theory we can never prove. So from a "scientific method" perspective, it's no different than a theory of God or a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

It’s another possibility and makes much more sense considering there can never be an absolute end going in any direction. There’s always something on the other side of any wall

Science can only apply to that which it can measure, test and evaluate. Lots of things "made sense" but were totally wrong.

And again, for those of you who want to proclaim an infinite universe and eternal physical nature, you are literally defining a state of divinity.

 

[Boss]

OK, everything needs a creator. You realize how incredibly vapid and pointless such a simplistic mindset that is? For instance: Who created the creator? And so on and so forth. It's absurd. Why insert the NEED for a creator? When clearly the universe is far more complex and beyond our understanding.

It's not vapid or pointless. It's tautological. Unless something is eternal (beyond the bounds of time), then it must have been created if it exists. So, either physical things exist and were created or they are eternal. IF they are eternal, that defines divinity. Then, the physical universe is God. IF not eternal, physical things require creation, if they exist.

God is not a physical thing, so demanding explanation for God's creation is not relevant.

It's not only vapid and pointless, it's circular. "Everything needs a creator; therefore everything was created."

Oh, and the hilarious hedge: "If they weren't created, then they are God. How do we know? God was not created, and everything else was."

Two circular arguments... It's hard to tell which is more vapid and pointless than the other!

Well, because most of us understand English.

"CREATE" literally means "to bring into an existent state of being." This means, in the context we are talking, a PHYSICAL state. God is NOT physical. There is no "circular argument" here, it's just a term that doesn't apply to God. We all 100% agree that God is not physical.

"DIVINITY" literally means "the property or state of being a deity or godlike entity." This means, if physical nature is eternal and always existed, it is itself, in a godlike state. Therefore, the physical universe becomes God.

That was all a steaming pile designed to avoid my point. You are a charlatan. Your arguments are terrible, and you dance from argument to argument, as they are undermined by simpler arguments which show how terrible they are.

You didn't make a point, shithead. You made a complaint and hurled some insults. Your arguments have undermined nothing, my arguments are still kicking ass and I really don't think you know what a charlatan is.

 

[Boss]

Of course the universes are confined to science. They are born live and die. The cosmos are alive you can clearly see. You are a part of it.

Anyways this is something we need to stop telling our children this lie. I just realized this is how we are holding the masses back. Instead of telling a young child the scientific truth we lie about a creator and we point to holy books as evidence. Your denial of evolution and global warming are evidence

You know, I was thinking about this the other day. Back when Isaac Newton was writing Principia and formulating the Laws of Motion.... people of that time were sharing the story of Jesus Christ, the baby in the manger, the Great Flood, Moses parting the Red Sea and the Ten Commandments..... all of that was being discussed among the people of the time. In fact, Newton himself spent the later part of his life writing what would eventually become the basis for modern Protestant Doctrine. He acknowledged a "mercurial spirit" coursing through our universe which could not be explained by physics which he largely created.

When Constantine ruled over Rome, he was the first emperor to convert to Christianity. He was instrumental in the Edict of Milan which delivered religious tolerance for Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. This particular religious belief was very important to the people of that time, just as it is today.

But let's go back WAY further... let's go back 70,000 years to Lake Mungo. This is where we've found the remains of some of the oldest human civilization. They actually buried the dead with ceremonial rituals using red ocher. This means, even way back then, humans believed in spiritual nature.... something greater beyond the physical.

Now, all of a sudden... just in your lifetime, you have some silly obscure notion that something you have to say is going to simply erase all those years of human thought? That, somehow, mankind is simply going to abandon thinking about the spirit or spiritual things because... you're "smarter" than anyone ever to have roamed the Earth? Because you've adopted a faith-based belief in theories you cannot prove... and that's the whole basis on which you think humanity is to abandon it's age old beliefs. That's just incredible to me that you would even contemplate such a thing.

Well that’s what’s happening anywhere that’s not fundamentally religious. People are evolving to not be spiritual religious nuts. Even you only argue for a vague concept of god. Generic. You are proof religion is going away.

Imagine when more people like you stop telling the religious lies. The awakening has begun.

By the way the day newton started getting religious was the day he stopped coming up with new ideas. Neal Debra’s Tyson explained that yes he did get religious and he proved nothing after that. What a waste. What great new invention or discovery came from looking for god? Usually god stays out of the science lab

Isaac Newton was "religious" his entire life. He attended Trinity College, a religious university, on the letter of his uncle who was a reverend. Among his early writings was his listing of sins before age 19. Maybe "Neal Debra" was too stupid to read up on Newton?

In any event, the world has always had people like you. Never has there been more than about 5% nihilists among the general population, the rest of us are spiritually connected. Now you can fool yourself into thinking that you're making a difference with your rants and protests but nothing you have ever said has changed my mind one iota and I bet I speak for the overwhelming majority of people here and on the planet. You are totally inconsequential.

 

[edthecynic]

And therefore God cannot create anything physical, you dishonestly left that part out!!!

Correction: God is the ONLY thing that can create something physical.
The physical cannot create itself.

Correction:
"Ex nihilo nihil fit." From nothing, nothing comes.

And yet... Something exists, therefore... something Created it!

No, something physical exists therefore some physical thing has always existed.

No it hasn't.

Proven with a repeatable experiment. You cannot disprove a repeatable experiment with pontification! So post your repeatable experiment that some thing can come from nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

those of you who want to proclaim an infinite universe and eternal physical nature, you are literally defining a state of divinity.

No, they are defining ENERGY!!!!!

 

[Boss]

Proven with a repeatable experiment. You cannot disprove a repeatable experiment with pontification! So post your repeatable experiment that some thing can come from nothing.

I can't prove God with physics. God isn't physical.

This is tautological. Physical nature, space, time, energy and matter DO exist. Unless they always existed (state of divinity) then they had to be created. Newton's Laws of Motion indicate the universe began 14.5 billion years ago. There was no time or space before that. Physics cannot apply devoid of space and time. Both space and time are required for physics to happen.

 

[Boss]

those of you who want to proclaim an infinite universe and eternal physical nature, you are literally defining a state of divinity.

No, they are defining ENERGY!!!!!

Not physical energy. It cannot exist without space and time in which to exist.

 

[edthecynic]

those of you who want to proclaim an infinite universe and eternal physical nature, you are literally defining a state of divinity.

No, they are defining ENERGY!!!!!

Not physical energy. It cannot exist without space and time in which to exist.

Please link to your repeatable experiment that proves your fabrication.
Thank you in advance.

 

[edthecynic]

Proven with a repeatable experiment. You cannot disprove a repeatable experiment with pontification! So post your repeatable experiment that some thing can come from nothing.

I can't prove God with physics. God isn't physical.

This is tautological. Physical nature, space, time, energy and matter DO exist. Unless they always existed (state of divinity) then they had to be created. Newton's Laws of Motion indicate the universe began 14.5 billion years ago. There was no time or space before that. Physics cannot apply devoid of space and time. Both space and time are required for physics to happen.

HOGWASH!
It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be CREATED nor destroyed. Newton's Laws indicate nothing of the kind. Time exists in terms of motion, kinetic energy is the energy of motion. That IS physics.

 

[Boss]

Please link to your repeatable experiment that proves your fabrication.
Thank you in advance.

Law of Motion is repeatable and irrefutable.

 

[Boss]

HOGWASH!
It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be CREATED nor destroyed. Newton's Laws indicate nothing of the kind. Time exists in terms of motion, kinetic energy is the energy of motion. That IS physics.

This is why spiritual nature is required.

 

[edthecynic]

Please link to your repeatable experiment that proves your fabrication.
Thank you in advance.

Law of Motion is repeatable and irrefutable.

Please show how one or all of Newton's 3 Laws of motion prove irrefutably your lie that "physical energy cannot exist without space and time in which to exist."

Since it is obvious you have no idea even what Newton's 3 Laws of motion are, I will list them for you.

Newton’s 1st Law  The first law of motion sates that an object will not change its speed or direction unless an unbalanced force (a force which is distant from the reference point) affects it. Another name for the first law of motion is the law of inertia.

Newton’s 2nd Law  The second law of motion states that acceleration is produced when an unbalanced force acts on an object (mass). The more mass the object has the more net force has to be used to move it.

Newton’s 3rd Law  The third law of motion sates that for every action there is a an equal and opposite reaction that acts with the same momentum and the opposite velocity.

 

[edthecynic]

HOGWASH!
It has been proven by a repeatable experiment that energy can neither be CREATED nor destroyed. Newton's Laws indicate nothing of the kind. Time exists in terms of motion, kinetic energy is the energy of motion. That IS physics.

This is why spiritual nature is required.

No, that is why you are full of shit!

 

[Boss]

Please show how one or all of Newton's 3 Laws of motion prove irrefutably your lie that "physical energy cannot exist without space and time in which to exist."

Since it is obvious you have no idea even what Newton's 3 Laws of motion are, I will list them for you.

Newton’s 1st Law  The first law of motion sates that an object will not change its speed or direction unless an unbalanced force (a force which is distant from the reference point) affects it. Another name for the first law of motion is the law of inertia.

Newton’s 2nd Law  The second law of motion states that acceleration is produced when an unbalanced force acts on an object (mass). The more mass the object has the more net force has to be used to move it.

Newton’s 3rd Law  The third law of motion sates that for every action there is a an equal and opposite reaction that acts with the same momentum and the opposite velocity.

Newton's Laws of Motion aren't what proves energy and matter cannot exist without time and space. The Laws of Motion indicate a universe in motion was set into motion. Our universe is in motion, therefore we can conclude it was set into motion by some force. If it was set into motion, then it isn't eternal, it had a beginning. We believe that was about 14.5 billion years ago if our physical calculations are correct.

Time and space are dimensions in a physical universe. Before the universe began, time and space did not exist. If they existed, then a physical universe existed. You can't have the dimensions of a physical universe without a physical universe, it's tautological.

For ANYTHING in physics to happen, it requires time and space. You cannot demonstrate ANY physical phenomenon which doesn't require time or space. They are essential dimensions. While it is TRUE that physics cannot create or destroy energy and matter, the fact that energy and matter require a physical universe in which to exist, along with the tautological fact that dimensions of a physical universe can't exist without a physical universe, this establishes that some force outside of physical nature created physical nature along with space, time, energy and matter.

 

[edthecynic]

Newton's Laws of Motion aren't what proves energy and matter cannot exist without time and space. The Laws of Motion indicate a universe in motion was set into motion. Our universe is in motion, therefore we can conclude it was set into motion by some force. If it was set into motion, then it isn't eternal, it had a beginning. We believe that was about 14.5 billion years ago if our physical calculations are correct.

No, of course, Newtonian inertia was found to be flawed by Einstein. Newton inertia states a body in motion stays in motion and a body at rest stays at rest unless acted upon by an outside force. According to Einstein, there is no such thing as a body at rest, everything is constantly being acted on by outside forces.

Albert Einstein and the Theory of Relativity

Special Relativity

FIRST POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY: there is NO SUCH THING AS ABSOLUTE REST