Has NASA found (potentially) extraterrestrial life?

[Alc]

That was something written in one of Paul's letters, it wasn't spoken by Jesus, but that too would be covered under love your neighbor's as yourself....

Edit: I just reread you post, you mean one of the ten commandments was that "honor..." not the two.... That doesn't change my answer though.

So JC was all about efficiency? Got it

 

[Kryst51]

So JC was all about efficiency? Got it

That's one way of looking at it.... Though in all seriousness, The context of these two commandments is that Jesus was debating (This is found in Mark 12) with some pharisees, and another person (a teacher maybe?) heard them and went up to them and asked Jesus the question about which of the commandments was the greatest... To which Jesus replied that the first was the one about loving God with all your heart and the second greatest was the love your nieghbor one.

I think (my opinion) that the man was trying to trick Jesus into committing heresy by putting one of the ten commandments over the others, but Jesus knew what the man was trying to do and replied in kind by summing up the ten commandments.

 

[Rabbie]

That's one way of looking at it.... Though in all seriousness, The context of these two commandments is that Jesus was debating (This is found in Mark 12) with some pharisees, and another person (a teacher maybe?) heard them and went up to them and asked Jesus the question about which of the commandments was the greatest... To which Jesus replied that the first was the one about loving God with all your heart and the second greatest was the love your nieghbor one.

I think (my opinion) that the man was trying to trick Jesus into committing heresy by putting one of the ten commandments over the others, but Jesus knew what the man was trying to do and replied in kind by summing up the ten commandments.

I think that Jesus was smart enough to know that telling people NOT to do something can put the idea in their head. Much smarter to plant a positive idea

 

[Kryst51]

I think that Jesus was smart enough to know that telling people NOT to do something can put the idea in their head. Much smarter to plant a positive idea

That sounds plausible too. It certainly helps you to see the 10 commandments in a different light.

 

[Mike375]

Adam and Alc

You are misreading me on what I said about faith and Glaxiom.

Glaxiom and the crew have faith and only faith that our natural laws can provide the answer. The are working on that "faith" just the same as the religious person is basing what they do on faith for the trip to heaven.

My understanding of our lives being much shorter than Adam and Eve is because God brought that about.

And Adam as to an event or events that triggered Bible stories I am being vague because I don't know what they were. I simply feel that the Bible must of being triggered by something or some things that happened.

With your Christian friend, I can tell you from first hand experience if you go up against a genuine "born again" and one that is very educated they will handle with ease anything you dish up on the Bible. Trust me, I have been through it a few times before and as you know I am not someone that lacks persistence in this area

The one I mentioned to you before is a good one on why Intelligent Design is OK given how rough and ready things can be with us and animals. The Bible tells you God altered things once Adam and Eve picked the apple A medical specialist is a real handful because not only does he have the intellect but he will bring up real life cases in medicine.

So you either base your ideas on what you can prove to be true (i.e. current physical laws) or what a book tells you is true but which contradicts what you can prove. Where do you draw the line? I don't think the fact that a book is old and promises that it's true is any basis for discarding knowledge

Alc

Adam will accuse me of being evasive here For a "believer" as in a "born again" I think he has the faith the same way we have faith Access is OK. We are on board and we make our queries and VBA and macros and so on. We don't do a daily check to see if Access is OK. Of course Microsoft can change things whenever they want with updates and so on.

The actual analogy that was given to me related to disability insurance and policy wording etc. in the sense "I am on board as a believer" then analyse policy wording etc.

But what is in the Bible that will cause conflict. It is not as though the bible says a square has 5 sides etc. There are a few things like the sun stopping in the sky and big fish swallowing someone but they are miracles, one offs if you like.

But even you, Mike, don't agree with that. Earlier in the thread I asked if you would rather have a trained doctor treat you or someone who had faith that they could treat you, and you said the doctor. So I'd say it is safe to assume you value science higher than non-scientific claims when it is important.

In general that is true. However, the stuff we are talking about is a little different because the science can be real up in the air stuff. But if Glaxion tells me the smallest particle known is an xyz then I will believe him over some totem pole stuff.

But if Glaxiom tells me that telepathy or whatever you want call it is impossible the I don't agree, at least for me and some other people. He might be correct for you.

But at the end of the day, all of us, incldining Glaxiom, Hawking and Co simply don't know. However, "evidence" we each see plus our feelings send us in a direction.

My position is that I feel very sure that our natural laws don't have the answer. With the Bible I am in the doubters corner but I am not prepared to discount it. However, if it turns out be approximately true then I don't think the god of the Bible is the bloke that kicked off the universe or universes. A branch manager if you like.

I can tell you that if you spend some time with medical specialists that are "born agains" and in the hospital and they are showing you what they regard as impossible and can only happen via some form of devine intervention it does make you think. These blokes are hardly the illiterates of the word and they are dealing in real stuff.

As a side note, many people suggest the reason for so many medical specialist following the Bible is because it is good politics since private practice specialists inavariably do most of or at least very much of their work in private hospitals, which are church owned. However that does not hold water with "born agains" because they are not real keen on the formal religions. Also a problem in Catholic run hospitals because the Catholic church is not a 100% Bible supporter.


Rabbie,

You will find the for real "born again" the Bible is taken literally. And when I mention medical specialists I have as clients that are "born agains" I mean they take the Bible literally and that includes the earth being only a few thousand years old. When you think about it that fits the Bible as Adam and Eve were created as adults.

 

[Mike375]

Here is a bit stuff about Eugene Cernan. He was last man on the moon as commander of Apollo 17. Because of my interest in the space program I went to the trouble to meet him when he came out to Australia not long after Apollo had finished and got to spend about half an hour with him.

What are blokes like Eugene Cernan and the late Werner von Braun seeing? We are not talking about dummies here. No, it does not prove there is something there but surely it would give pause to any reasonable thinking person

http://deistreview.blogspot.com/2009/03/eugene-cernan-deist.html

 

[Rabbie]

But what is in the Bible that will cause conflict. It is not as though the bible says a square has 5 sides etc. There are a few things like the sun stopping in the sky and big fish swallowing someone but they are miracles, one offs if you like.

But the bible does give an inaccurate value for PI (3). I believe one american state (I think Tennessee but I am open to correction on this) tried to make that the official value in the state.

Rabbie,

You will find the for real "born again" the Bible is taken literally. And when I mention medical specialists I have as clients that are "born agains" I mean they take the Bible literally and that includes the earth being only a few thousand years old. When you think about it that fits the Bible as Adam and Eve were created as adults.

Yes I know there are people who take every word in the bible literally. Even, I believe those bits where there are contradictions. I was just pointing out that the vast majority of Christians disagree with that view. My point was that people can be good Christians without taking a literalist approach.

 

[Mike375]

All the "born agains" I have met take it literally. Although whether that extends to the smaller stuff I don't know. But the big stuff like Genesis etc they take literally.

I have spent very little time with them on the aspect of being a good person etc. My understanding is for salvation you must accept Jesus. If the world's best person but don't accept Jesus then no salvation.

Personally, I don't see there is an issue taking it literally if someone believes in God since God can do things anyway He wished. As I posted above if you assume the Ark was true then calculating the amount animals is not relevant because if the Ark is true then God is true.

 

[ChipperT]

All the "born agains" I have met take it literally. Although whether that extends to the smaller stuff I don't know. But the big stuff like Genesis etc they take literally.

I have spent very little time with them on the aspect of being a good person etc. My understanding is for salvation you must accept Jesus. If the world's best person but don't accept Jesus then no salvation.

Personally, I don't see there is an issue taking it literally if someone believes in God since God can do things anyway He wished. As I posted above if you assume the Ark was true then calculating the amount animals is not relevant because if the Ark is true then God is true.

Not necessarily. You could conceivably have an instance where an ancient built a big boat (for various reasons) and when a local flood threatened, loaded his family and all of his livestock on it and waited out the flood, which gave rise to the legend of the Ark. In such a case the "ark" was true, the story is fact-based fiction, and God is unproven.

 

[Mike375]

I know what you are saying.

My point is if you accept the Ark as in the Bible then acceptance of God will also be there and hence any calculations are no longer applicable.

What caused someone to write Genesis and why did they write it. What puzzles me with the Bible is how it was all put together and did not just disappear and especially since there was no mass communication etc.

 

[Adam Caramon]

That sounds plausible too. It certainly helps you to see the 10 commandments in a different light.

I personally like George Carlin's take on the 10 commandments

Adam and Alc

You are misreading me on what I said about faith and Glaxiom.

Actually, if you look at our answers, we both read you the same way. We take exception with your use of the word "faith" in this context. Either you're wanting to use that word for its connotations, or pick a different word.

But if Glaxiom tells me that telepathy or whatever you want call it is impossible the I don't agree, at least for me and some other people. He might be correct for you.

Right, because you believe you have had telepathic experiences, and you trust your personal experiences over logic and facts. Its like when someone loses their car keys, but they "know" they put them on the table. Well, if no one else was in the house, is it most likely that you're mistaken and you did not put them on the table, or some sort of supernatural event occurred to move your keys?

Also, as far as trotting out individual persons of exceptional intelligence/fame/whatever as poster boys of "there must be something out there", you would need to statisitically show that medical specialists or rocket scientists, or whatever, as a group, tend to be believers.

There will always be exceptions. Groups, trends, etc: they are observable and able to be analyzed. Then you can make hypotheses on what the numbers mean.


Let me ask you, Mike, a question in a slightly different vein. Do you think that religions, or "somethings out there" should take any role in making public policy, laws, affecting people's rights, etc. Or do you feel you should only make these things based upon facts?

 

[Alc]

Let me ask you, Mike, a question in a slightly different vein. Do you think that religions, or "somethings out there" should take any role in making public policy, laws, affecting people's rights, etc. Or do you feel you should only make these things based upon facts?

To pre-empt (possibly), since everything is a matter of 'faith', doesn't that mean that there are no 'facts'? If this is the case, then isn't religion - or even superstition, to go a step further - as good a basis as anything else?

 

[ChipperT]

I know what you are saying.

My point is if you accept the Ark as in the Bible then acceptance of God will also be there and hence any calculations are no longer applicable.

What caused someone to write Genesis and why did they write it. What puzzles me with the Bible is how it was all put together and did not just disappear and especially since there was no mass communication etc.

It's no big mystery. Most cultures without a rich written language had a very good system of oral history. For example, the Celtic cultures had the bardic system, the American Indian had the medicine man. The keepers of the oral history were highly respected and had high status in the society. Once the written language was invented, those histories were among the first to be written down and thus codified.

The first 5 books of the Bible can be very closely tied to the Gilgamesh writings of the ancient Sumerians, some of whose written histories have survived. The Gilgamesh sagas were written 2,000-3,000 years before the Bible and are from the same general area as the Abrahamic histories. Do a little research and you might just be surprised at the similarities, including a Great Flood. But you should also note that the dieties in the Gilgamesh writings were VERY different than the Abrahamic God.

 

[Mike375]

Actually, if you look at our answers, we both read you the same way. We take exception with your use of the word "faith" in this context. Either you're wanting to use that word for its connotations, or pick a different word.

Working on the basis that our natural laws will provide the solution is most definitely faith and especially when you consider pre Big Bang. Hawking has said we can't go there because we don't have the physics, maybe there was no physics.

Atheists seem to get upset when the word faith is used not when used out of this discussion.

Right, because you believe you have had telepathic experiences, and you trust your personal experiences over logic and facts. Its like when someone loses their car keys, but they "know" they put them on the table. Well, if no one else was in the house, is it most likely that you're mistaken and you did not put them on the table, or some sort of supernatural event occurred to move your keys?

To write off personal experiences that repeatedly occur is foolish.

Also, as far as trotting out individual persons of exceptional intelligence/fame/whatever as poster boys of "there must be something out there", you would need to statisitically show that medical specialists or rocket scientists, or whatever, as a group, tend to be believers.

I don't need statistics for something like that. Whether it is 10% of them or 50% makes no difference. I said "what do these people see". Also I did not say "they believe as a group" What I did say is I have not seen the same thing with other professions to anywhere near the degree I see with medical specialists. I don't need statistics to verify that because apart from my own observation it is a fairly logical outcomes since medical specialist by the very nature of their work will be far more exposed to experiences that make them seek an answer.

But as we discussed before we are different personalities. If I waited for the last bit of factual information to arrive before making a decision I would be out of business.

Let me ask you, Mike, a question in a slightly different vein. Do you think that religions, or "somethings out there" should take any role in making public policy, laws, affecting people's rights, etc. Or do you feel you should only make these things based upon facts?

In general religion should be left out of things such as politics. Although of course that does not mean laws will always be based on "facts"

Although I would prefer if leading policticians were not atheists. The reason for that is atheists are very commonly socialists in their political views. If you want some "statistics" on that you only need to look at all the speakers for the big atheist convention in Australia early last year. It read like a list of Australia's academic lefties

In case you have not yet worked it out I am politically very far to the right

 

[Mike375]

To pre-empt (possibly), since everything is a matter of 'faith', doesn't that mean that there are no 'facts'? If this is the case, then isn't religion - or even superstition, to go a step further - as good a basis as anything else?

Of course there are facts or at least what we accept as facts. Most people will accept as a fact the sun will rise tomorrow morning. But that is not a 100% fact.

But "faith" is at different levels. For example, later today I am going to do some cold calling to generate appointments to get Access and Website business. I have not called this market before, however i will know after maybe 30 minutes how things will look. I have "faith" my judgement will be correct because I have a lot of experience cold calling and I have called this market before (solicitors) for insurance when I was doing that business. However, that is a much smaller degree of faith than me believing "something is out there" or Glaxiom believing our natural laws can provide the solution to how it all started.

As a side note this is my website and what is used to sell Access and websites. It is emailed to people who I get to first base with on a cold call. You might get some ideas that could be of use or add any suggestions. Actually it took about 10 different website version to get to this version and yes Adam, a product of hard core statistical data come from my data base on sales results.

www.mike375.com

 

[Galaxiom]

Glaxiom has faith that the natural laws we have cover everything and thus he can eventually get the answer. Although I think he is shaky on pre Big Bang. But let's assume for just a moment that it becomes known that there are other universes and all with different natural laws to what we have. Then Glaxiom and the crew are finished. But he has "faith" that is not the case. He is working on the basis that whatever happens here with atoms or whatever will provide the answers.

Rubbish. I actually pointed out in earlier posts that an increasing weight is being given to theories that propose the existence of other universes, especially having different physical laws from our own. I said that we would need to extend our physics to cover the general principles that we currently experience as a special case. I even pointed out that this would be in much the same way as Einstein encompassed Newton's work as a special case of low velocity within the general case of Relativity.

You continue to mash definitions. To you, natural means "known". You then classify the currently unknown as unknowable, despite the fact that science continues to move the boundary of the known inexorably into the unknown.

In my case I don't believe our natural laws contain the answer and if that is the case then Glaxiom and the boys will get no closer to the answer than a native with his totem pole

Your answer is that there can be no knowable answer. Your answer is no better than the totem pole because it has neither theory nor evidence. It is just a dumb supposition based on ignorance. "We don't know, we never will, therefore there must be some kind of god".

You clearly have no understanding of where the science stands and don't want to know because that would upset your faith in your supernatural "something out there".

 

[Adam Caramon]

Atheists seem to get upset when the word faith is used not when used out of this discussion.

Faith is something that nonbelievers do not put much stock into. Its only natural to try to not allow concepts that you consider favorably to be tarnished or misconstrued.

If you want to talk about faith, you can talk about faith. But if you want to talk about the unknown, it doesn't always require faith.

I get the feeling that to have a meaningful discussion with you I would have to have a thesaurus next to me. Each time you used a word in the way that it didn't make sense, I'd have to ask if you meant one of the other words.

To write off personal experiences that repeatedly occur is foolish.

Agreed. I would not write them off. I would visit a mental health professional (hopefully that doesn't sound to harsh).

I don't need statistics for something like that. Whether it is 10% of them or 50% makes no difference. I said "what do these people see".

Ok, but you're sharing these examples for a purpose. You're seemingly trying to show that if exceptional people are religious, then religion has to have some truth to it.

I'm just letting you know that you're failing to illustrate that point by trotting out individual examples. Maybe other people are convinced though, I can only speak for myself.

In general religion should be left out of things such as politics. Although of course that does not mean laws will always be based on "facts"

So, your answer is yes and no. Why am I not surprised? I suppose I shouldn't waste my time asking for a specific example?

Although I would prefer if leading policticians were not atheists. The reason for that is atheists are very commonly socialists in their political views.

I would agree that non-believers as a whole tend to lean to the left.

If you want some "statistics" on that you only need to look at all the speakers for the big atheist convention in Australia early last year. It read like a list of Australia's academic lefties

Well, non-belief and academics do go hand-in-hand, so that is much what I would expect.

In case you have not yet worked it out I am politically very far to the right

Yeah, I sort of figured that out.

 

[Mike375]

Adam,

I am not showing people who are believers so as to convince you. Only doing it to illustrate what can, at least in part, make me think about things in different directions.

As a very general thing, that is, plenty of exceptions, atheists will often be employees and their income will be lower than they think it should be. They are not often found in the sales areas, especially the self employed sales areas. For example, medical specialists who are staff specialists are rarely believers and those who are believers are only at the most basic level. I have never seen a staff specialist that is even close to a "born again". Academically the staff specialist and private practice bloke are the same but the income difference is enormous.

The reason these debates will never resolve is because each side approaches things from a different direction. In addition our personalities and experiences pre dispose us to one view or the other.

 

[Mike375]

Rubbish. I actually pointed out in earlier posts that an increasing weight is being given to theories that propose the existence of other universes, especially having different physical laws from our own.

I know you said that. So how do can you get the answer when there are different physics in place elsewhere.

You continue to mash definitions. To you, natural means "known". You then classify the currently unknown as unknowable, despite the fact that science continues to move the boundary of the known inexorably into the unknown.

Natural laws to me mean those that operate here and obviously extend beyond earth.

Your answer is that there can be no knowable answer. Your answer is no better than the totem pole because it has neither theory nor evidence. It is just a dumb supposition based on ignorance. "We don't know, we never will, therefore there must be some kind of god".

That is true, I don't think we can ever know. But the "god" could be a form of "physics" that is beyond your wildest imagination.

You clearly have no understanding of where the science stands and don't want to know because that would upset your faith in your supernatural "something out there".

Obviously I don't have your knowledge of physics. However, I don't have a preferred option for the solution and the reason is simple. The "solution" already exists. It is not like we are lobbying to get a "solution" across the line.

 

[Mike375]

Glaxiom,

A bit of general question for you and just answer in a general way since the audience are physicists.

As you stand now how do you see the universe or universes starting. Or were they always there. If they had a beginning how do you see things before the beginning.

I am sure you must have views that extend beyond what your current knowledge gives. Or if like, based on your current knowledge what do you believe was at the start etc.

Let's say someone is going to make a movie and they want you as technical director. How would the movie look when covering the kick off etc.