No, we clearly have proof of inter dimensional beings that ‘defy’ the laws of nature! IR, visual, and radar tracking of the same targets from multiple airplanes and several crew members with craft covering 10s of thousands of feet in seconds! And then there are paranormal sightings of groups of people modern day and back to antiquity. There’s too much data now for you to make this claim.
So they aren’t supernatural? Assuming this is true, how do you know they aren’t just aliens from some advanced civilization?
Do you believe all those people who claim to have been abducted by aliens are true (oddly, I’ve heard these almost never happen now that people have a camera with them at all times, you know, when they could just snap a picture to prove their claims)?
You a believer in bigfoot?
I won’t even get into all the religious claims that I’m sure you discount since they aren’t from Christians.
How did you get here? (Show your work)
So you’re equating extraterrestrial with supernatural.
Like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg do?
Also, it seems like you killed any semblance of real discussion with your comments about interdimensional beings, and the know logic gods thing…
Highly doubtful. Any carbon based life form in this universe would operate under almost the same rules we are under and couldn’t handle the g loading, walking through walls, communicating brain to brain, etc. Maybe but if they had these powers as an advanced civilization we would be decimated and/or enslaved by now. And some of them are downright evil. Reference a guest on Joe Rogan who said NO ONE who has used the name of Jesus with them has EVER been abducted.
If we evolved from smaller particles into more complexity (impossible) then our moral scheme is merely by chance. But we know it’s not. So, the Moral Argument stands. Look at the 5 Arguments by William Lane Craig I posted above. Rational thought also would be by happenstance. It’s not. A God is required.
No one has ever been abducted, people are making that shit up or hullicinating. Just like the bigfoot folks.
Joe Rogan is notorious for having quacks on.
[quote=“Gurudriver10, post:208, topic:1286114”]
If we evolved from smaller particles into more complexity (impossible) then our moral scheme is merely by chance. [/quote]
No it’s not, it’s been shaped by natural selection. I’d suggest the works of Michael Tomasello if you want to understand contemporary ideas on the topic. I don’t know if he’s been on Rogan or not, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say he’s got a boatload of publications in scientific journals.
We’ve only really been at it for a few hundred years and look at where we are heading already. Any sort of interstellar travel is likely to be done by probes,drones/robots and the likes, not actual aliens.
That Craig website reads like thinly-veiled pseudoscience. The Kalam argument requires a syllogism and assumptions as its foundation. This is not rigorous, even for philosophy.
You’ve made unsubstantiated statements that humans (I’m not sure who the “we” is that you’re using) were imbued with a god-given moral scheme and rational thought requires a deity. This is arrogant and very myopic—ignoring other non-western culture and philosophies—and not inquisitive.
What did you think after reading this this book?
Well, if it is like the stuff he linked earlier it goes assume god, therefore god.
I believe he also recently posted that the Bible is the inerrant word of god. So that’s what we are dealing with here.
The stand out Dawkins takeaway was that he agrees the universe and life are designed. That’s all I needed to hear!
You can’t get 'round the Moral Argument. No atheist has been able to get over that hurdle. Another one, not Craig’s, is that all codes are written by a sentient being (Francis Crick called DNA a code"; therefore, a divine, sentience build our DNA. There are so many arguments for God it’s hard to keep track! Inductive reasoning alone would/should lead somewhere there but that doesn’t seem to be how it goes.
I don’t understand what you’re referring to here.
1 Like
Hear? So you didn’t read it. And Dawkins argues the opposite of what you state. A deign requires a designer and there’s no evidence of this is what he concludes.
Also, atheists etc don’t need to “get ‘round the Moral Argument” as it is not relevant to anything. And again, a human construct (western Christianity) that’s academic.
I’m not sure why you connect a Crick with any dogma; he was a self-identifying atheist as a 12yo. He “believed that scientific understanding removed the need for religious explanations of natural phenomena.”
If you’re going to engage in discussion, at least get your facts—truth—correct.
So your “God” is an alien. Then he’s not a God at all.
Posted above, William Lane Craig’s 5 Arguments for the Existence of God. The Moral Argument is in there. No way around it.
Ok, this is a bold (and incorrect) statement! Our laws are based on our morality. As I said before, you need more grounding in logic and philosophy. And I’ve seen Dawkins debated into the ground by theists and heard his rants against Christianity so I don’t need to read his biased books. Same with Hitchens and Harris.