"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

It is impossible for aliens to exist if we believe in a god as christianity defines it. If god was a supernatural being, the master of the universe and the ruler of all, he would not have made multiple societies on planets throughout the universe. The bible tells us that we are unique and special in this regard.

Man is special in that he is made in the image of god, however, he is endowed with freewill.

These basic christian principles contradict with the belief that "aliens"- higher beings of non-human origin somewehre out in the galaxy, exist.

However, if you don't beleive in the bible, all sorts of interesting possibilities pop up.

Christianity = No aliens.

Open Mindedness = a univers full of possibilities.

Perhaps its time we redefined our spiritual stance as a planetary species?

I was talking to this (overtly) Christian girl one time and her reasoning for believing that aliens "probably do not exist" was that she felt humans are "special" and that the "gift of life was granted to us and only us".

What a load of shit.

I should have told her that even if the probability of life coming about on a planet is a billion to one, and there are 300 billion galaxies in the universe, life will still occur in 300 of them, not to mention there are 200-400 billion stars per galaxy, each with the possibility of multiple planets orbiting them, increasing the odds even more.

Though, I suppose one should also take into account that dual star systems will most likely never support life, gaseous planets, and all other sorts of variables, but the odds are still, in my opinion, incredibly in favor of there being some type of life somewhere else in the universe.

That's ridiculous because Christians believe that God created the entire universe. Why would he create so much potential for life, but then just leave it all empty? They're not just shiny stars for us to stare at.

It never says that God only created man and woman in His image. It also never says physical image. The quote could be referring to mental image (the fact that we are sentient).

quote:Originally posted by bung:

but the odds are still, in my opinion, incredibly in favor of there being some type of life somewhere else in the universe.



Like I said in the other alien thread, nobody knows the odds for life on other planets. Anybody who says otherwise is full of shit.

Yeah the bible never says anything about god creating life on another planet, most likely because the writers of the bible wrote it in a time when earth was still considered to be the center of the universe.

Basically, christianity is dead. The possibility of a god still exists, but in light of these new questions that science has provided us with, the bible is just too riddled with holes to be the perfect good book.

There is much more out there than what the limited scope of christianity reveals to us.

quote:Originally posted by samurai_steve:

Yeah the bible never says anything about god creating life on another planet, most likely because the writers of the bible wrote it in a time when earth was still considered to be the center of the universe.

Basically, christianity is dead. The possibility of a god still exists, but in light of these new questions that science has provided us with, the bible is just too riddled with holes to be the perfect good book.

There is much more out there than what the limited scope of christianity reveals to us.

I ask this out of curiosity, not disagreement, but could you please enlighten me?

[This message has been edited by King_Cotton (edited 01-31-2007).]

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

I ask this out of curiosity, not disagreement, but could you please enlighten me?



Well this is just one perspective that i have, and im not saying its right or wrong, but i am concerned with the general direction of mankind these days... The world is divided by people with dissenting opinions.

Many people think that the united states is indirectly policing the world, making the world safe for democracy, the only godly form of government known to man.. I think it's safe to say that the typical american beleives that america is ruling under gods graces, and that all the senseless acts of war are justified.

There are also the people who say that there is no such thing as god, and that the existence of life is purely a product of scientific happenings. Because of the ability of humans to prove that the earth is more than 4 billion years old, it is impossible that the earth was created in 7 days, rendering the bible ficitonal.

Let's not forget the chinese, who were ruled under the iron thumb of a confucian style government, which requires the absolute consent of its citizens to the ruling power.

There many other popular styles of thinking, and every single one beleives that it's ways are correct and just. However, it is impossible to say that one style of thinking and living(religion)is just and another is not, because each style has it's own merit.

I beleive that every single person on the entire planet must compromise if we are to achieve the planetary peace required to reach into the stars and star to search for answers to the really important questions.

All religions, philosphies, ways of life, what have you, have a certain quality to them that makes them viable. What the planet needs is a flexible philosophy that can be adopted by all and accepted by all which will allow the planet to mature and grow into a galactic power.

I think that the philosophy i mentioned should go something like this:

- All life is precious, killing another human is never justifiable.

-knowldedge is the ultimate power in the universe, and as a species, we should seek out only the truest knowledge.

-cooperation is the only thing that will allow us to achieve anything worthwhile (cooperation: people or greater entities working in common with commonly agreed upon goals and possibly methods, instead of working separately in competition)

- Tolerance is a requirement if we are to achieve anything worthwhile. If a person does not want to learn the ways of a certain thought style, it is the right of that person. However, if that person wishes to share his opinion with somebody else, he must be willing to hear the other persons opinions and thought style as well.

-nothing is false until it is accurately disproven. The existence of a god is not a false idea, as it has yet to be disproven.

-It is the duty of the species to expand to the limit of it's abilities. This is the way of life.

-It is also the duty of the species to never destroy life where it can be helped. This means that expansion must be limited to allow for the existence of other species.

I dunno im still workin on it. I'll take a few philosophy classes and revise it maybe?



[This message has been edited by samurai_steve (edited 02-01-2007).]

Consider this about God: He exists outside of the realms of nature. If science can only prove empirically things that exist inside nature, then science can never prove or disprove the existence of God.



Back to your ideas. Where do they come from? Is it just a coincidence that they seem to coincide with most laws humans regard as just? Can they be linked to a supreme Moral Law that is unwavering?

Genesis is only undeniably fictional when taken literally. If God exists outside of time, then can 7 days really be applicable to Him? Also, is it not possible that God sort of set things into motion and let the universe grow and expand? Could it be that God knew humans (and other sentient beings) would come along someday, yet he also knew that we would only attempt to contact Him when we realized our sentience?

About the typical American: I think the older the person is the more inclined they are to believe that the U.S. is guided by God. Younger citizens seem to know the reality of our faulty government. However, I think God guides the willing. This means those willing by deed, not by decree. Several officials may claim to be working for God, but they're actions beg to differ.

Jesus cared about actions, not so much verbal intentions.

I think this ignores the loopole of what the Bible DOESN'T say. It never mentions that God didn't have several prjects going on.

(Dammnit! I'm taking part in Theology! I'm gonna have to take part in some philosophy to even it out)

I've always wondered why people always assume it means God made man in his PHYSICAL likeness?

Maybe man is on some other planet and we are the aliens.

There are two creation stories... look it up in Genesis (Bereshit) man and woman are created not once but twice, now this can be taken in the usual way (the story of Lilith) or literally and therefore religious proof that at least one other world exists with life created by G-d. Think about it.

quote:Originally posted by Fascistsmasher:

There are two creation stories... look it up in Genesis (Bereshit) man and woman are created not once but twice, now this can be taken in the usual way (the story of Lilith) or literally and therefore religious proof that at least one other world exists with life created by G-d. Think about it.

But how would primitive man know about the other civilizations? If they had truly met another intelligent species, doesn't it seem likely that it would've been documented in better detail? Also in both accounts the term "man" is used, and because Genesis should be interpreted contextually and symbolically, not literally, it seems unlikely that only the term "man" should be taken literally. Then this runs into the problem of different species if the book only refers to man.

I'm not using the goddamn bold and quote tags for every one of your philosophy points so just know that I am commenting under each of them, and his start with a dash.

- All life is precious, killing another human is never justifiable.

Self Defense? Greater good?

-knowldedge is the ultimate power in the universe, and as a species, we should seek out only the truest knowledge.

-cooperation is the only thing that will allow us to achieve anything worthwhile (cooperation: people or greater entities working in common with commonly agreed upon goals and possibly methods, instead of working separately in competition)

- Tolerance is a requirement if we are to achieve anything worthwhile. If a person does not want to learn the ways of a certain thought style, it is the right of that person. However, if that person wishes to share his opinion with somebody else, he must be willing to hear the other persons opinions and thought style as well.

-nothing is false until it is accurately disproven. The existence of a god is not a false idea, as it has yet to be disproven.

Should we not consider unicorns false then? There are a million things we can't disprove, yet that is not a reason to believe in any of them. If there were to be a God who cared about whether or not we knew he existed, you can be sure he would let all of us know (assuming he is competent or not malevolent).

-It is the duty of the species to expand to the limit of it's abilities. This is the way of life.

-It is also the duty of the species to never destroy life where it can be helped. This means that expansion must be limited to allow for the existence of other species.

I dunno im still workin on it. I'll take a few philosophy classes and revise it maybe?

where does it say that the bible souldn't be taken literally?

"oh yeah ,by the way guys,i'm making it so that you can't actually say anything is solid,and therefore making it so you all have to argue for fucking MILLENNIA and it's not my fault if you fuck it up by reading my book in a metaphorical sense'

fuck christianity.metaphorical bullshit. as one previous poster said"it has too many holes to be viable anymore"

im too lazy to quote so don;t mind me if that isn't spot on.

quote:Originally posted by midgeymonkey2:

where does it say that the bible souldn't be taken literally?



Where does it say it should? Remember the Bible is a book about God, but written by man, so it's likely to have flaws, but that doesn't negate the entire premise.

quote:Originally posted by samurai_steve:

Basically, christianity is dead. The possibility of a god still exists, but in light of these new questions that science has provided us with, the bible is just too riddled with holes to be the perfect good book.

That is why they call each other "People of the Faith" That is exactly what it is. No matter how much facts there are to disprove religions there are still going to be those who believe in it. People who believe in Evolution believe more in reasoning; the same with those who believe in life on other planets. With your reasons you the OP stated, I believe there is life out there; however, if there isn't, wouldn't that be nearly unbelieveable. At that point, would more people begin to convert to Christianity?

In response to IanBoyd3...

I said that killing another human is never justifiable,

your replied, what about killing for self-defense, or for greater good?

Well consider the situations in which humans kill others...First of all, murder is a fairly rare occurance. Most humans value their own life, killing another means that you value your own life above somebody elses.( murder is an act of self-preservation, wheter to protect one's own life, or to preserve a mental image that one has created for himself)

If our entire society is to advance, we must recognize that every single person believes that their own lives are very important. By killing another, we place ourselves above somebody else, and this is never justifiable.

Every person has merit to their ways of thinking. Murderers have the capability to reform, and become something better. If we kill a murderer, we are stealing that possibility from them. That is why it is never justifiable.

Part of the fascination that society has with serial killers is that most serial killers are Highly intelligent. The acts of murder are a form of expression, and even this heinous act has a grain of knowledge that we can learn from. Thus,civilized society must never kill killers.

If we must kill to defend ourselves, it is only because our society has created an imperfect human, and that person has values that allow him or her to commit murder, and our instinctive values of self-preservation counter-act these desires, creating conflict.

The problem lies in society. We must stop killing in every way that we can, so as to advance as a society. Once every single person has achieved this universal respect for life, peace will ensue.

You also said " Should we not consider unicorns false then? " Ignoring the grammatical errors, the purpose of this question was to show that there are many things that we cannot disprove.

You are right, We cannot disprove Unicorns. Unicorns DO exist, but not in a physical sense. There is no such thing as an existing species that is related to the horse that has a horn growing out of it's head in the unicorn fashion.

The realm in which the unicorn exists is that of the imaginary, or fictitional. If you search your entire life, you will never find an existing unicorn as fantasy describes it, that is, as a horned creature with magical powers and a penchant for giving beautiful virgins rides in enchanted meadows. These musings are the subjects of the mind, but the effect that this pre-conceived and somewhat silly notion has on the holders of the fantasy is real.

unicorns are not real in the physical sense, but they do effect people in a very real sense, thus making the concept of unicorns impossible to disprove.

These conclusions were arrived at using reason, and as a society, that is what we need to do in order to better understand the world around us.

quote:Originally posted by King_Cotton:

Consider this about God: He exists outside of the realms of nature. If science can only prove empirically things that exist inside nature, then science can never prove or disprove the existence of God.



Back to your ideas. Where do they come from? Is it just a coincidence that they seem to coincide with most laws humans regard as just? Can they be linked to a supreme Moral Law that is unwavering?

Genesis is only undeniably fictional when taken literally. If God exists outside of time, then can 7 days really be applicable to Him? Also, is it not possible that God sort of set things into motion and let the universe grow and expand? Could it be that God knew humans (and other sentient beings) would come along someday, yet he also knew that we would only attempt to contact Him when we realized our sentience?

About the typical American: I think the older the person is the more inclined they are to believe that the U.S. is guided by God. Younger citizens seem to know the reality of our faulty government. However, I think God guides the willing. This means those willing by deed, not by decree. Several officials may claim to be working for God, but they're actions beg to differ.

Jesus cared about actions, not so much verbal intentions.



If science can only prove empirically things that exist inside nature, then science can never prove or disprove the existence of God.

That may be true, but if we accept that the bible is inherently flawed because it is written by man, then the details of god's power may be a flawed description as well. Personally, if there is a god, i would assume that he operates within the laws of the universe. You said yourself that genesis is only false when taken literally, and since science gives us real and concrete answers about the world around us, i think that we should use it as a way of examining the actual possibility of the existence of god. I think that we should try to prove that he is real.

In short, we should not leave up to chance the possibility of a god. We should at least accurately theorize the details of his existence.

"Can they be linked to a supreme Moral Law that is unwavering?"

Well perhaps im too much of an agnostic, but i believe that the only reason that there are similarities between the moral codes of human nations around the world is this:

Every early society was faced with the same challenges: build a social heirarchy, stabilize it, and allow the social elite to reap the benefits of the relative peace that they gave to the masses. An very unstable structure indeed, but far better than the life of an unthinking forest mammal. What most societies found to work was this:

a-provide relative order for the masses

b-maintain that order

Most people don't like dying very much, so staying alive was part of the relative order provided. So was the guarantee of basic living staples, food, water, a house, the very basics required for life.

When a government gave these things, it recieved respect, admiration, and most importantly, trust. Trust is key to stability.

Every single human has the same basic needs, and those who wish to control the masses for whatever reason, must meet those basic needs. The means for controlling the masses has been very similar in all societies, because humans all think in a very similar fashion.

That is why my ideas seem to coincide with the global status quo. I believe that the moral code of men evolved as a natural response to the desires of the aristocracy, and this happened in every single large society.

However, i still believe in the possibility of a god, but blind faith will only slow us down as a society in the end. We must base all speculations on fact, Truth will guide us as a people now, not faith. It is a new age, and this is what i propose as necessary.