Edward
Science can't comment on the existence of God. Scientists can use the data to conclude one way or another but either conclusion goes beyond the evidence.
We come to conclusion by what we see. I don't mean just the eyes but also the data gathered through the instruments we have devised.
Science is but the gathering of data. That's all. Science is not an entity of it's own. Science makes no conclusion. What conclusions are made from the data gathered through science is up to the mind of the one making the conclusion.
I've posted this before and will again.
Christians believe the miracles of Christ. At least I hope so anyway. The water to wine, the healings, the Transfiguration, the feeding of the multitudes with but a few fish and loaves of bread, walking on water and the calming of the seas to name just a few. Believing in Christ is one thing but believing Him is quite another.
The miracle of the feeding of the multitudes really doesn't get the attention it deserves in my opinion. Sure, there may be other miracles that seem so much more, what shall I say, important I guess, but feeding 5,000 men and those with them was no small feat. But He did it as a matter of course. No big thing.
OK, so I'm a fellow in the farthest ranks and receive one of the fish the disciples distributed throughout the crowd. I have no clue where it came from but I do know how old it is by what I see. A matured fish.
Is it fresh I ask? To which the disciple replies, you betcha!
But how fresh? Just how old is the fish anyway? By what I see in my hand, by the experience I've gathered through a lifetime of observation, knowing fish, I would surmise at least 6 months. Maybe a little less, maybe a little more depending on the kind of fish I was given. But absolutely not just a few minutes or a matter of an hour two. Yet, I see the fish in my hand, I make the conclusion of all I observed throughout my years. 6 months.
Creation can't be proven by what we see or detect. How could I possibly come to the correct age of that fish with what data I'm given into my hand? How? Impossible. How can there be the semblance of maturity without age? How can something that exists in the present not have a past? We know transformation. mix this with that, add energy or do something and what went in comes out something else. But there had to be something before to get something now.
Could all of our technology, all of our collective thought and collective logic deduce the true age of the fish not knowing what had occurred not long before? Are we so sure of ourselves that we have what it takes to understand the power of God? Or are we so bold in our own intelligence as to set limits on the mind of God? But yet, we conclude... 6 months. There is no other acceptable answer. We cannot prove the unprovable. Therefore we are right and the disciple is the one deceived.
"What are your beliefs/views on extraterrestrials (aliens)?"
SETI has been looking for 50 years. Nothing. I'm not saying there isn't other life "out there" but rather it may be so far away we may never know no matter how much time this world has to exist within the astronomical time frame allowed... by science.
After 50 years all is quiet. Silent.
Let me just put it this way.
If there was a nuclear holocaust and you were the only one left living in the United States, Blanca, Colorado and there was one lonely soul left in Atrani, Italy both would be totally alone.
There's a popular probability scenario of life elsewhere that goes something like this...
There are X number of stars in the universe. (Of course that number is huge)
If but 1% of those stars have planets and...
if but 1% of those planets are earth-like and...
if but 1% of those planets had the building blocks of life and...
if but 1% actually evolved life then...
There is X number of possibilities that life out there exists.
The above has a name, something about a "ladder" but the name escapes me.
Anyway, the whole thing begins with no provable percentage. It's simply a small number pulled out of the air with no basis but that it seems small at first glance. With the astronomically huge amount of heavenly bodies to start with even that small number results in quite a tidy sum.
But:
The beginning percentage can't be too big because then the result would be too large. Not really believable. If the beginning percentage is too small then the result could be nothing, close to zero. So there's a window in which the beginning percentage must occupy. Go outside that window either way and the argument falls apart.
Therefore the assumption made that there is indeed other life out there dictates the beginning percentage. Go outside that range and the assumption is no longer supported.
Now, if we had proof of say, life on Mars, we could then calculate a more accurate beginning percentage than just pulling a number out of the air that must lie within a prescribed window that supports the assumption. Now we have something substantial to base the claim. But without a beginning, without actual life discovered elsewhere there is no place to start other than a supposition first selected to prove an assumption first believed.
Aliens travel here?
Why?
SETI has been listening, looking for 50 years. There are 133 stars within 50 light years of us. Yes, a small number but the expanse is quite unimaginable. How many seconds in 50 years? Now multiply that by 186,000 and you get a number beyond our comprehension. Heck, we have a hard time with $1 trillion dollars (a million millions) let alone the number suggested here.
UFOs
Exactly that. Unidentified. Nothing more, nothing less. They are unidentified. If there was a real clue to their true origin they wouldn't be so, well, unidentified. they are unidentified therefore they came from somewhere else? How do we come to that conclusion? We don't know where they came from, we don't know what they are therefore they must be visitors from outer space. No doubt about that. Therefore the unidentified are... identified. We simply can't accept the fact we don't know what they are and let it go at that. "Aliens" is just too convenient to ignore.
Because they are inexplicable we use the best technology we have to explain them. We did the same thing in the 1600s. Superstition. That was the best technology of the time. Explained just about everything. Seems ludicrous now but it was totally plausible then. Totally. We're no different. Just a bit more, how shall I say, technical I guess. 400 years from now our technology will be just as absurd as we view superstition but by that time we'll have another technology to base explanation of the inexplicable. 400 years from that same thing. How could those people actually believe that? Absurd. We know better. Those people were so backward back then...
You get my drift.
Only on the present can we base our ideas. The future is as unimaginable as the internet was a mere 20 years ago . Or more accurately, the things we can't explain. And those things will always be with us as long as we are who we are. Human.
To tell the truth it's easier to believe in God than it is to believe in aliens.
Think about it.
But then, we think only of the things we want to. No more and no less. That's just the way we are regardless of, well, where the fish came from in the first place.
Long post. The longest I've ever made on this forum.
"What are your beliefs/views on extraterrestrials (aliens)?"
But you asked.
um our ressurection is a physical one not a spiriutal one. that is clear.
There are far too many nutters masquerading as 'scientists'
and, in the process, bringing Christianity into disrepute.