Life on other planets

Originally posted by jaywill
At the present time I tend to think that the whole big universe was made by God mainly for human beings.

I could be wrong.

You know, I am inclined to think the same. Of course, people will poke fun at you by saying things like, "Don't you know the size of the universe? How could all this be just for mankind?" To which I would simply say, what's size got to do with anything?

Make jokes at your own risk!! 😠

Originally posted by whodey
I would say it is the study of the immaterial world and the material world. Of course, not everyone would agree.

Then tell me something that are both material and immaterial at the same time? The answer is the same about the religious and science domain, they don't overlap anywhere. Things are either material or immaterial, not ever both. Religion and science never mix.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Then tell me something that are both material and immaterial at the same time? The answer is the same about the religious and science domain, they don't overlap anywhere. Things are either material or immaterial, not ever both. Religion and science never mix.

Such concepts as love is where they overlap. It is the most important thing to us even though science claims that in and of itself it does not exist. In short, it is the window where the two meet.

Originally posted by whodey
Such concepts as love is where they overlap. It is the most important thing to us even though science claims that in and of itself it does not exist. In short, it is the window where the two meet.

In an of itself love does not exist. You don't need science to tell you that. It is more or less obvious, or true by definition. I disagree that science is restricted to the material, science can be used to study love just as easily as it can be used to study anything. Science is a method, not a category of study. When something does not render itself easily studied using scientific methods then it is usually because of lack of information (evidence).

Originally posted by whodey
You know, I am inclined to think the same. Of course, people will poke fun at you by saying things like, "Don't you know the size of the universe? How could all this be just for mankind?" To which I would simply say, what's size got to do with anything?

Make jokes at your own risk!! 😠

====================================
You know, I am inclined to think the same. Of course, people will poke fun at you by saying things like, "Don't you know the size of the universe? How could all this be just for mankind?" To which I would simply say, what's size got to do with anything?
======================================

Well, you know, we walk by faith and not by sight.

When man looks out into the vastness of the universe he naturally feels dwarfed and insignificant. The Psalmist of Psalm 8 considered the huge creation and said "What is man that You are mindful of him?"

The sight of the sheer immensity of creation can only make us feel insignificant. We know we are not because of His word. But that is faith and not sight.

I think the similar thing happens with time. We consider that perhaps the universe has been here for billions and billions of years and man is such a recent creature. How then can man be so significant? We only know we are because of the word of God.

So we believers walk by faith and not by sight. Upon this thought at present I think the whole of the universe may be real estate for God's eternal kingdom. The encrease of His government and of peace, it says, shall have no end - (Isaiah 9:7)

I think the vastness of the univese speaks of the vastness and unsearchable riches of Christ Himself.

And I think if all that space is to be traversed and settled for the kingdom Christ and of God, wherever we go it will be really like being in the same place - the glorious intimacy with God and Christ.

Here on this planet you're "in Jesus" and a million light years away, you are still "in Jesus". I guess we'll find out.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In an of itself love does not exist. You don't need science to tell you that. It is more or less obvious, or true by definition. I disagree that science is restricted to the material, science can be used to study love just as easily as it can be used to study anything. Science is a method, not a category of study. When something does not render itself eas ...[text shortened]... studied using scientific methods then it is usually because of lack of information (evidence).

========================
In an of itself love does not exist.
You don't need science to tell you that. It is more or less obvious or true by definition.
===========================

Sounds like you'd be a good disciple of B.F. Skinner or in favor of a Matrix like technocracy stimulating the brain cells to produce the appropriate amount of "love" or "loyalty" or "respect" or "faithfulness".

Discribe the scientific experiment that proves that truth exists.

Then you can go on to discribe the scientific experiment that confirms that "love by definition does not exist".

As a matter of fact you can also set up the scientific experiment that proves that scientific experiments tell us what is true. What would be that experiment ?

So when you say "You don't need science to tell you" I assume that we nonetheless can choose to have the scientific method demonstrate it for the sake of being "rigorous".

Originally posted by jaywill
Sounds like you'd be a good disciple of B.F. Skinner or in favor of a Matrix like technocracy stimulating the brain cells to produce the appropriate amount of "love" or "loyalty" or "respect" or "faithfulness".

I don't know where you get that from. My views on the manipulation of human emotions have nothing to do with whether or not they can be studied scientifically.

Discribe the scientific experiment that proves that [b]truth exists. [/b]
First tell me what this 'truth' that you are referring to is. The normal use of the term does not refer to an entity and does not 'exist' as such. Of course it does depend on how you use the terms, but whatever way you are using them, it is almost certainly a matter of definition and logic, not a question for science ie truth either exists by definition or the statement is incoherent.

Then you can go on to discribe the scientific experiment that confirms that "love by definition does not exist".
I do not need a scientific experiment to confirm that. It is simply a logical conclusion based on the definition of 'love'. Remember that I said 'in and of itself'. The definition of love as I understand it requires an entity to experience the emotion.

As a matter of fact you can also set up the scientific experiment that proves that scientific experiments tell us what is true. What would be that experiment ?
You clearly have no idea what science is.

So when you say "You don't [b] need science to tell you" I assume that we nonetheless can choose to have the scientific method demonstrate it for the sake of being "rigorous".[/b]
You assume wrong. There is simply no point in applying the scientific method to something you know to be incoherent, nor does on apply the scientific method to questions of logic (all you need is logic).

Originally posted by jaywill
At the present time I tend to think that the whole big universe was made by God mainly for human beings.

I could be wrong.

Why do you think that? Do you have any reason other than a big ego? Does your religion lead you to that conclusion? I thought the Bible had a different story (genesis).

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't know where you get that from. My views on the manipulation of human emotions have nothing to do with whether or not they can be studied scientifically.

[b]Discribe the scientific experiment that proves that [b]truth exists. [/b]
First tell me what this 'truth' that you are referring to is. The normal use of the term does not refer to an en ...[text shortened]... es on apply the scientific method to questions of logic (all you need is logic).[/b]

===========================
You clearly have no idea what science is.
===========================

You mean there is or has always been universal agreement with all scientists that they know what science is ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you think that? Do you have any reason other than a big ego? Does your religion lead you to that conclusion? I thought the Bible had a different story (genesis).

Jaywill wont admit it but he has beliefs that are unbiblical that stop him from thinking that God has created life elsewhere. He believes that God's eternal purpose is to mingle with man. Dont know what that really means except that he thinks God is sitting out there somewhere waiting for the right time to do it. If God has created other civilizations then the importance of mankind will be diluted.

I think that God must have created many thousands of intelligent lifeforms. Virtually every galaxy must have at least one planet like Earth. All at different stages of development. The odds of us being alone in this universe both from a religious and a scientific standpoint must be virtually zero.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Why do you think that? Do you have any reason other than a big ego? Does your religion lead you to that conclusion? I thought the Bible had a different story (genesis).

=============================
Why do you think that? Do you have any reason other than a big ego? Does your religion lead you to that conclusion? I thought the Bible had a different story (genesis).
==============================

Either we suffer from an oversized ego to think that or there are other possibilities.

One of them being that we just greatly underestimate the uniqueness and importance of human beings.

I lean towards the latter. One caveat - saying that maybe we underestimate the importance and uniqueness of human beings is not the same as saying "Other forms of life are not important or unique."

I am not sure what your comment on Genesis meant. But Genesis does show us a dual kind of position of man.

1.) Obviously he is one of many many other kinds of created lives and is connected to them as such.

2.) At the same time man is unique among them being made in the image of God and after the likeness of God.


So, we can be proud yet we cannot be proud without limit. Ie. we still need air and water like the fish. We still need sunlight like the buffalo.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Jaywill wont admit it but he has beliefs that are unbiblical that stop him from thinking that God has created life elsewhere. He believes that God's eternal purpose is to mingle with man. Dont know what that really means except that he thinks God is sitting out there somewhere waiting for the right time to do it. If God has created other civilizations then ...[text shortened]... lone in this universe both from a religious and a scientific standpoint must be virtually zero.

========================
Jaywill wont admit it but he has beliefs that are unbiblical that stop him from thinking that God has created life elsewhere.
===========================

I don't know what "unblbical" beliefs you are talking about. And also, I thought I wrote that "I could be wrong" about the vast universe being created for man.

By the way, did you ever answer those two questions I asked you about Matthew 25:41,46? Seems like you didn't want to answer last time I looked.

=====================
He believes that God's eternal purpose is to mingle with man.
=============================

Not bad. You remembered!

=========================
Dont know what that really means except that he thinks God is sitting out there somewhere waiting for the right time to do it. If God has created other civilizations then the importance of mankind will be diluted.
============================

Two sentences. The first is you putting your words into my mouth. The second is not necessarily having to follow my belief.

If I thought it did I suppose I would not say "I could be wrong".

====================
I think that God must have created many thousands of intelligent lifeforms. Virtually every galaxy must have at least one planet like Earth. All at different stages of development. The odds of us being alone in this universe both from a religious and a scientific standpoint must be virtually zero.
==============================

I don't think you have any basis to assume the probability is zero.
Other than an intuitive sense you have a sample size of ONE planet with life. At present, based on those statistics how can you predict the probability of finding another ?

And I don't oppose you doing so. I just see little basis with the present sample size.

Would you use the number of planets that have water as a basis for making a prediction ?

Originally posted by jaywill
.. By the way, did you ever answer those two questions I asked you about Matthew 25:41,46? Seems like you didn't want to answer last time I looked.

Matt 25 has eternal punishment. I do not equate that with eternal suffering.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Matt 25 has eternal punishment. I do not equate that with eternal suffering.

=========================
Matt 25 has eternal punishment. I do not equate that with eternal suffering.
==================================

Do you want to take it back down to the appropriate thread and continue ?

Originally posted by jaywill
.. I don't think you have any basis to assume the probability is zero.
Other than an intuitive sense you have a sample size of ONE planet with life. At present, based on those statistics how can you predict the probability of finding another ?

And I don't oppose you doing so. I just see little basis with the present sample size.

Would you use the number of planets that have water as a basis for making a prediction ?

The sample size is one. ONE GOD and His son Jesus and His millions and millions of angels, who have probably been around for eons, many thousands and maybe millions of years. The chances that these beings, who have the ability to influence and create lifeforms, only created planet Earth and then rested on their laurels is ZERO.