have they found anything?

[amb]

I agree. We have no idea how long our civilization will last.


Why is that? Couldn't there right now be hundreds of civilizations just about like ours throughout the galaxy? Why do you suppose we would be the first? (We're nowhere near capable of interstellar travel right now. There could be others that are much closer--if it's even possible.)

Again, there's no reason that the sort of thing that happened here can't happen elsewhere in the galaxy--and there are an awful lot of elsewheres out there!

I harp back to the argument of the habitable zone of a typical galaxy which is around 10% of the total galaxy which probably accounts for the same amount of stars. Out of that 10% of stars, how many will actually be life friendly like our sun and having a planet at just the right habitable zone as is Earth to allow life to evolve over 4.5 billion years? Not forgetting the importance of a large moon to stabilise Earth's orbit.
Of course there is bound to be other Earths out there because of the sheer numbers of galaxies and the trillions of stars. My argument is that the Earth is rarer than some astrobiologist claim.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I harp back to the argument of the habitable zone of a typical galaxy which is around 10% of the total galaxy which probably accounts for the same amount of stars. Out of that 10% of stars, how many will actually be life friendly like our sun and having a planet at just the right habitable zone as is Earth to allow life to evolve over 4.5 billion years? Not forgetting the importance of a large moon to stabilise Earth's orbit.
Of course there is bound to be other Earths out there because of the sheer numbers of galaxies and the trillions of stars.

And the notion that only this 10% of the galaxy is habitable is pure, unsupported conjecture. I've already answered this one.

There is not dearth of heavy metals elsewhere in the galaxy as you had claimed. And the "too much radiation" issue could be resolved any number of ways.

I've also already addressed the notion that a large moon is needed to stabilize a planet's orbit. (It's not.) Are you suggesting that without a large moon a planet's orbit would be unstable? What physics or observations of planets support that notion?
ETA: Are the orbits of Venus and Mars unstable?
Also, as I've said before, even if a large moon is a prerequisite to complex life, as you speculate, there's no argument that says a large moon is impossible elsewhere in the galaxy. It could well be that our solar system is typical (where 1 in 3 of roughly earth-sized planets has a very large moon).

My argument is that the Earth is rarer than some astrobiologist claim.

So now we're back to the word "rarer". As I've pointed out this is a relative term. I would agree that intelligent life might be rare enough that we're never likely to encounter another civilization out there, but there could still be hundreds or thousands in our galaxy alone. Here you've at least defined "rarer" as being "rarer than some astrobiologists claim." Do you have any evidence that any astrobiologists claim there is life somewhere? (As far as I know all scientists follow the evidence unless they're just speculating or opining or something. I don't know of any who make a claim for the existence of life when there is no evidence for it. If they do, I agree with you that it's bad science.)

So you're abandoning the claim that we are unique in the galaxy?

 

[Radrook]

I brought up the problem of omniscience wrt to The Fall. (God made them, but couldn't foresee that they'd eat the forbidden fruit?) You said omniscience doesn't include things that are unknowable, such as paradoxes (like a 4 sided triangle). I'm pointing out that since The Fall is not such a paradox, it should be knowable to an omniscient God.

But it could very well be impossible to predict an outcome without any basis for doing so.
Predictions don't exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why they are made. If I predict an outcome as certain, you will ask me why I say such a thing. I will give you my reasons based on my observations which indicate that outcome under given circumstances will be a certainty. In the natural sciences we can do this with ease. Two chemicals mixed together will result in a given consequence. But in the social or behavioral sciences this isn't
so. A stimulus can produce a multitude of reactions. Let me illustrate.

A person goes to the movies at a given date and hour. Why? Interest in the film? Boredom at home? Escaping from the police and trying to blend in? Doing research for a term paper? Part of his job as a columnist? Looking for a girlfriend? Spying on his wife? Hit man planning to kill? Waiting for an interview for an usher job? We see the behavior which is movie watching but can't say why unless we are intimately knowledgeable with the motives.

Another example and perhaps a better one. If challenged to fight will Joe run or hold his ground? I can predict with certainty only if I am familiar with Joe's character. For example if he is a strict pacifist I will predict he won't fight. If belligerently inclined or violently inclined I'll predict he will fight. If a coward I will predict he will flee or beg for mercy. If he has all those characteristics in varying amounts then I will have to evaluate which one takes precedence over the others. His present family situation. His present mood. All bear upon the prediction as well.


However, if there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate what Joe's a behavior will be then I have no basis for any type of prediction except that the Joe will exercise he freedom to choose. If Joe has no character flaws I can hone in on, then I can predict he will do the right thing because he is flawless. Predicting otherwise involves going against what I know about the Joe, that he has no mental or physical flaws indicating a flawed action. Create a perfect machine and perfect function is expected unless the user misuses or abuses it somehow. Like pouring sand into the engine for example. I'm of course referring to the Adam Eve scenario.

Neither is most of the future, yet there are plenty of claims in the Bible and by theists of all kinds that God does in fact know the future (especially in terms of human events).

But if Adam and Eve were flawless, how could they sin?

When we speak of perfection we have to consider that perfection is a subjective term and varies in accordance with the person setting up the criteria. In this instance the criteria for perfection required the ability to choose. Inability to choose, then would have signified imperfection or flaw.

No way. You're not talking about knowledge now, you're talking about making educated guesses. Omniscience is the claim of knowledge. And the Bible and most theists give this as an attribute of God. Not that he's just really good at statistics.

If indeed they are claiming someone can know the unknowable then they are creating a paradox. Being omniscient means knowing all that is knowable. T require more from omniscience than knowing the knowable is irrational just as requiring that someone who can lift anything liftable be required to lift the unlovable. Or someone who can solve all solvable problems solve the unsolvable such as squaring a circle.

Nope, that's not what it says in Joshua:[/qupote]

Well, all I see him doing is describing what he is seeing. But let's take this a step further.
Let's assume that an almight being is incapable of extending daylighjt without having to
stop earth's rotation momentarily. Let's say that at a moment diriung hiuman history the
almighty being decided to do it. Then Joshuah would have been 100% correct in the literal meaning of his words wouldn't he? Actiually, even if that's not the ponderous method [from our standpoint] used, Joshuah would still report it in the same manner in harmony with his observations.

Yes, in fact we do. Astrophysicists do routinely. I'm a bit of an amateur astronomer myself, and I guarantee you I talk with others of the sun being a star.

I didn't say that astromnomers bnever refer to the sun as a star or that they don'y referr to it constantlky as a star. I said that most of manbkind speak of it as the sun, descreibe it as rosing and setting as if it itself were the primary cause for that perceived motion.

And I appreciate that. I think after your first comment, someone asked what the religious ramifications would be of discovering ET intelligence, and that's where this side conversation took off.

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. You're talking about a very specific meaning of God.

The meaning of God or the ID I introduced was in accordabnce with the Christian concept
requiring that explanation.

gain, this side conversation took off from the question about the religious ramifications of ET intelligence.) ID is just a stand-in for that concept--one that lets you avoid discussing more troublesome aspects of the concept. I can think of no honest use for the term.

Again you accuse me of dishonestly and cunningly trying to avoid discussing things which you think I consider troublesome instead of trying to use terminology more consistent with the thread's theme. Actually, I don't find anything having to do with an ID troublesome.
So I really don't know what you are redferring to. Neither am I inclined to feel obligated to
repeatedly explain my preference for certain terms after being called a hipocriteical dishonest, cowardly sneaking liar. If indeed that is the way you are perceiving my posts then maybe you should place mne on ignore.

BTW
You keep mentioning the majority of theists and thelogians. To me that sounds like appeal to tradition or bandwagon.

 

[Radrook]

I brought up the problem of omniscience wrt to The Fall. (God made them, but couldn't foresee that they'd eat the forbidden fruit?) You said omniscience doesn't include things that are unknowable, such as paradoxes (like a 4 sided triangle). I'm pointing out that since The Fall is not such a paradox, it should be knowable to an omniscient God.

But it could very well be impossible to predict an outcome without any basis for doing so.
Predictions don't exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why they are made. If I predict an outcome as certain, you will ask me why I say such a thing. I will give you my reasons based on my observations which indicate that outcome under given circumstances will be a certainty. In the natural sciences we can do this with ease. Two chemicals mixed together will result in a given consequence. But in the social or behavioral sciences this isn't
so. A stimulus can produce a multitude of reactions. Let me illustrate.

A person goes to the movies at a given date and hour. Why? Interest in the film? Boredom at home? Escaping from the police and trying to blend in? Doing research for a term paper? Part of his job as a columnist? Looking for a girlfriend? Spying on his wife? Hit man planning to kill? Waiting for an interview for an usher job? We see the behavior which is movie watching but can't say why unless we are intimately knowledgeable with the motives.

Another example and perhaps a better one. If challenged to fight will Joe run or hold his ground? I can predict with certainty only if I am familiar with Joe's character. For example if he is a strict pacifist I will predict he won't fight. If belligerently inclined or violently inclined I'll predict he will fight. If a coward I will predict he will flee or beg for mercy. If he has all those characteristics in varying amounts then I will have to evaluate which one takes precedence over the others. His present family situation. His present mood. All bear upon the prediction as well.


However, if there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate what Joe's a behavior will be then I have no basis for any type of prediction except that the Joe will exercise he freedom to choose. If Joe has no character flaws I can hone in on, then I can predict he will do the right thing because he is flawless. Predicting otherwise involves going against what I know about the Joe, that he has no mental or physical flaws indicating a flawed action. Create a perfect machine and perfect function is expected unless the user misuses or abuses it somehow. Like pouring sand into the engine for example. I'm of course referring to the Adam Eve scenario.

Neither is most of the future, yet there are plenty of claims in the Bible and by theists of all kinds that God does in fact know the future (especially in terms of human events).

But if Adam and Eve were flawless, how could they sin?

When we speak of perfection we have to consider that perfection is a subjective term and varies in accordance with the person setting up the criteria. In this instance the criteria for perfection required the ability to choose. Inability to choose, then would have signified imperfection or flaw.

No way. You're not talking about knowledge now, you're talking about making educated guesses. Omniscience is the claim of knowledge. And the Bible and most theists give this as an attribute of God. Not that he's just really good at statistics.

If indeed they are claiming someone can know the unknowable then they are creating a paradox. Being omniscient means knowing all that is knowable. T require more from omniscience than knowing the knowable is irrational just as requiring that someone who can lift anything liftable be required to lift the unlovable. Or someone who can solve all solvable problems solve the unsolvable such as squaring a circle.

Nope, that's not what it says in Joshua:[/qupote]

Well, all I see him doing is describing what he is seeing. But let's take this a step further.
Let's assume that an almighty being is incapable of extending daylight without having to
stop earth's rotation momentarily. Let's say that at a moment during human history the
almighty being decided to do it. Then Joshua would have been 100% correct in the literal meaning of his words wouldn't he? Actually, even if that's not the ponderous method [from our standpoint] used, Joshua would still report it in the same manner in harmony with his observations.

Yes, in fact we do. Astrophysicists do routinely. I'm a bit of an amateur astronomer myself, and I guarantee you I talk with others of the sun being a star.

I didn't say that astronomers never refer to the sun as a star or that they don't refer to it constantly as a star. I said that most of mankind speak of it as the sun, describe it as rising and setting as if it itself were the primary cause for that perceived motion.

And I appreciate that. I think after your first comment, someone asked what the religious ramifications would be of discovering ET intelligence, and that's where this side conversation took off.

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument. You're talking about a very specific meaning of God.

The meaning of God or the ID I introduced was in accordance with the Christian concept
requiring that explanation.

gain, this side conversation took off from the question about the religious ramifications of ET intelligence.) ID is just a stand-in for that concept--one that lets you avoid discussing more troublesome aspects of the concept. I can think of no honest use for the term.

Again you accuse me of dishonestly and cunningly trying to avoid discussing things which you think I consider troublesome instead of trying to use terminology more consistent with the thread's theme. Actually, I don't find anything having to do with an ID troublesome. So I really don't know what you are referring to. Neither am I inclined to feel obligated to repeatedly explain my preference for certain terms after being called a hypocritical dishonest, cowardly sneaking liar. If indeed that is the way you are perceiving my posts then maybe you should place me on ignore.

BTW
You keep mentioning the majority of theists and theologians. To me that sounds like appeal to tradition or bandwagon.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But it could very well be impossible to predict an outcome without any basis for doing so.
Predictions don't exist in a vacuum. There are reasons why they are made. If I predict an outcome as certain, you will ask me why I say such a thing. I will give you my reasons based on my observations which indicate that outcome under given circumstances will be a certainty. In the natural sciences we can do this with ease. Two chemicals mixed together will result in a given consequence. But in the social or behavioral sciences this isn't
so. A stimulus can produce a multitude of reactions. Let me illustrate.

A person goes to the movies at a given date and hour. Why? Interest in the film? Boredom at home? Escaping from the police and trying to blend in? Doing research for a term paper? Part of his job as a columnist? Looking for a girlfriend? Spying on his wife? Hit man planning to kill? Waiting for an interview for an usher job? We see the behavior which is movie watching but can't say why unless we are intimately knowledgeable with the motives.

Another example and perhaps a better one. If challenged to fight will Joe run or hold his ground? I can predict with certainty only if I am familiar with Joe's character. For example if he is a strict pacifist I will predict he won't fight. If belligerently inclined or violently inclined I'll predict he will fight. If a coward I will predict he will flee or beg for mercy. If he has all those characteristics in varying amounts then I will have to evaluate which one takes precedence over the others. His present family situation. His present mood. All bear upon the prediction as well.


However, if there is absolutely NOTHING to indicate what Joe's a behavior will be then I have no basis for any type of prediction except that the Joe will exercise he freedom to choose. If Joe has no character flaws I can hone in on, then I can predict he will do the right thing because he is flawless. Predicting otherwise involves going against what I know about the Joe, that he has no mental or physical flaws indicating a flawed action. Create a perfect machine and perfect function is expected unless the user misuses or abuses it somehow. Like pouring sand into the engine for example. I'm of course referring to the Adam Eve scenario.

And here you've made an excellent case that you (and the rest of us humans) are not omniscient.

Many theists claim that God is different, and can know what is unknowable to us.

When we speak of perfection we have to consider that perfection is a subjective term and varies in accordance with the person setting up the criteria. In this instance the criteria for perfection required the ability to choose. Inability to choose, then would have signified imperfection or flaw.

It's still logically contradictory. If the thing is perfect, any change (making a choice) would mean either it is now imperfect, or it wasn't perfect before.

If indeed they are claiming someone can know the unknowable then they are creating a paradox.

Being omniscient means knowing all that is knowable.

You're just leaving off a great big consideration: "unknowable" to whom? Generally, the term refers to humans. Omniscience is the claim that God knows what is unknowable to humans. Otherwise, it only means that God knows what humans know.

Again, from the Baltimore Catechism:

18. Q. Does God know all things?

A. God knows all things, even our most secret thoughts, words, and actions.

So are the most secret thoughts words and actions of other people knowable? (They're not knowable to me--hence the term "secret".)

And if you like, I can provide plenty of examples that theists believe God knows the future. (Not guess or makes statistical assessments of the probabilities, but actually knows.) So my reading of the meaning of "omniscience" is certainly based in what people actually profess to believe.

Nope, that's not what it says in Joshua:

Well, all I see him doing is describing what he is seeing.

Where are you getting that? I cited the story where Joshua commanded the Lord God to stop the sun, and he did so. Nothing about it just looked like the sun stood still for a long time. I left on that bit where it says this event is not like anything that has happened before or since--where God basically obeyed the command of a man. That's certainly proof that it's not your reading--where the phrase the sun stood still just means it seemed like a long day (because even you said that that happens all the time).

I didn't say that astromnomers bnever refer to the sun as a star or that they don'y referr to it constantlky as a star. I said that most of manbkind speak of it as the sun, descreibe it as rosing and setting as if it itself were the primary cause for that perceived motion.

But you're completely ignoring that the "science" of the Bible is wrong on many accounts. It used the cosmology of its day (and varied over time). It was taken to support a geocentric model at least up until the 17th Century. (The Church prosecuted Galileo for suspicion of heresy because he was promoting the Copernican model as an accurate description of the natural world, which the Church claimed was in conflict with the holy scriptures.)

I'm not making this up. Nowhere in the Bible does it treat the sun as if it were a star.

In Matthew, there is a description of a strange star--one that men could see in the East yet follow from the East (an obvious mistake on the author's part) and that stopped and hovered over Herod's palace, then moved again and stopped and hovered over the house where Jesus was born.

Again you accuse me of dishonestly and cunningly trying to avoid discussing things which you think I consider troublesome instead of trying to use terminology more consistent with the thread's theme. Actually, I don't find anything having to do with an ID troublesome.
So I really don't know what you are redferring to. Neither am I inclined to feel obligated to
repeatedly explain my preference for certain terms after being called a hipocriteical dishonest, cowardly sneaking liar. If indeed that is the way you are perceiving my posts then maybe you should place mne on ignore.

How about this entire section of the Kitsmiller v. Dover Board of Education decision? The title is "1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism".

There is abundant evidence that the Intelligent Design Movement is merely new terminology for religious ideas, and that the only "Designer" they're referring to is God. Do you know what "cdesign proponentists" refers to?

You keep mentioning the majority of theists and thelogians. To me that sounds like appeal to tradition or bandwagon.

Because we're talking about my assertion that historically religious people have had to change their doctrine when it comes face to face with contradictory evidence of science.

It would be an appeal to tradition or bandwagon if I were actually supporting those beliefs. In fact, I'm attacking them!

ETA: In other words, it's not an appeal to the masses if the proposition I'm trying to support is "this is what the masses profess to believe".

I'm using stuff like the Baltimore Catechism or beliefs that are widely held by theists and theologians to make my case that these things have had to change when confronted with science. (That assertion to support the idea that finding an ET intelligence would force them to change some more. Another example--if God had to incarnate and save another species, wouldn't the creeds that referred to Jesus as the "only begotten Son" of the Father have to be amended?)

I'm talking about majority beliefs because otherwise, I've found, theists tend to refuse to put forth their actual beliefs or even to deny their own beliefs and turn into deists before my very eyes.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I harp back to the argument

I think you meant "hark".

 

[Radrook]

And here you've made an excellent case that you (and the rest of us humans) are not omniscient.

Many theists claim that God is different, and can know what is unknowable to us.

Of course if you asked them that's the response you might get. But you are asking me.

It's still logically contradictory. If the thing is perfect, any change (making a choice) would mean either it is now imperfect, or it wasn't perfect before.

As I said, perfection is determined by the one setting the criteria.

You're just leaving off a great big consideration: "unknowable" to whom? Generally, the term refers to humans. Omniscience is the claim that God knows what is unknowable to humans. Otherwise, it only means that God knows what humans know.

Again, from the Baltimore Catechism:


So are the most secret thoughts words and actions of other people knowable? (They're not knowable to me--hence the term "secret".)

From a human standpoint.

BTW

I bet you have no problem suspending disbelief when confronted with a good sci fi film where aliens communicate via thoughts. It's just when the God thing is introduced
isn't it?

And if you like, I can provide plenty of examples that theists believe God knows the future. (Not guess or makes statistical assessments of the probabilities, but actually knows.) So my reading of the meaning of "omniscience" is certainly based in what people actually profess to believe.

Again! What does what people profess to believe have to do with me?

are you getting that? I cited the story where Joshua commanded the Lord God to stop the sun, and he did so. Nothing about it just looked like the sun stood still for a long time. I left on that bit where it says this event is not like anything that has happened before or since--where God basically obeyed the command of a man.

I have no problem accepting that. I do have a problem accepting pop-goes-the-weasel abiogenesis though.

That's certainly proof that it's not your reading--where the phrase the sun stood still just means it seemed like a long day (because even you said that that happens all the time).

I never said that!

But you're completely ignoring that the "science" of the Bible is wrong on many accounts. It used the cosmology of its day (and varied over time). It was taken to support a geocentric model at least up until the 17th Century. (The Church prosecuted Galileo for suspicion of heresy because he was promoting the Copernican model as an accurate description of the natural world, which the Church claimed was in conflict with the holy scriptures.)

Geocentricity might have been claimed by the Church. But the church also claimed rthe right to skin and burn people alive after ripping out their tongues ad other such nonbiblical practices as being biblically supported. Were they right on that? Of course not. The Church was wrong just as it was wrong in their claim that the Bible supports a geocentric earth. Yes, I know all the counterarguments and interpretations and citations that can be used to make it appear that way.
But I don't find them compelling.




I don't represent any denominational church on this forum

I'm not making this up. Nowhere in the Bible does it treat the sun as if it were a star.

Did I say that it did?

In Matthew, there is a description of a strange star--one that men could see in the East yet follow from the East (an obvious mistake on the author's part) and that stopped and hovered over Herod's palace, then moved again and stopped and hovered over the house where Jesus was born.

I have no difficulties with that passage. I do have difficulties with fish slowly turning into people though.

this entire section of the Kitsmiller v. Dover Board of Education decision? The title is "1. An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About "Gaps" and "Problems" in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism".

There is abundant evidence that the Intelligent Design Movement is merely new terminology for religious ideas, and that the only "Designer" they're referring to is God. Do you know what "cdesign proponentists" refers to?

It's completely irrelevant from my standpoint.

Because we're talking about my assertion that historically religious people have had to change their doctrine when it comes face to face with contradictory evidence of science.

I never said trhey didn't.

It would be an appeal to tradition or bandwagon if I were actually supporting those beliefs. In fact, I'm attacking them!

But you're wasting your time with someone who's not defending those beliefs.

ETA: In other words, it's not an appeal to the masses if the proposition I'm trying to support is "this is what the masses profess to believe".

I don't claim to represent the masses on this forum.

ng stuff like the Baltimore Catechism or beliefs that are widely held by theists and theologians to make my case that these things have had to change when confronted with science. (That assertion to support the idea that finding an ET intelligence would force them to change some more. Another example--if God had to incarnate and save another species, wouldn't the creeds that referred to Jesus as the "only begotten Son" of the Father have to be amended?)

Since I don't hold those Trinitarian beliefs you need to debate that with someone who does on the religious forum.

I'm talking about majority beliefs because otherwise, I've found, theists tend to refuse to put forth their actual beliefs or even to deny their own beliefs and turn into deists before my very eyes.

But this thread isn't about religion-is it? Furthermore, its completely legitimate to adopt different philosophical stances on a forum of this kind for the sake of exploring different angles to the same issues. I think its called playing devils advocate for discussion's sake? Happens all the time. Nothing unusual and no one ever makes an issue out of it. So it's a bit unrealistic to vehemently try to deprive a member of that right.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course if you asked them that's the response you might get. But you are asking me.

No, I'm not.

I think a lot of this is a misunderstanding, so let me review a bit:

Someone on this thread asked what the theological ramifications of discovering ET intelligence might be.

I commented that many religious people will have to revise their theology to accommodate this new information, as they have done in the past.

You took issue with it, and I thought were debating on this point. Now I see that you are asserting only that you yourself personally are a believer who will not need to revise his theology to accommodate any new science.

Maybe you took my statement to mean "All religious people" will have to revise their theology. (I mean to check my exact wording, but the forum has been acting sluggishly for me, so I can't do so just now.) If my wording said that, I'm happy to retract that part and make it "Many religious people". I'm pretty sure that was what I intended.

This is why it makes sense to me to show the Baltimore Catechism and to talk about majority religious beliefs and the Catholic Church's doctrine on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, but doesn't to you. (If my assertion was "all believers" you only have to show one example--yourself--that it doesn't apply to.)

I hope that clears up most of this.

I bet you have no problem suspending disbelief when confronted with a good sci fi film where aliens communicate via thoughts. It's just when the God thing is introduced
isn't it?

The willing suspension of disbelief to enjoy a work of fiction is not at all a sign that I actually believe that the fiction is not fiction. It's not all like belief in God. I have never once confused something that is fiction for real life.

Again! What does what people profess to believe have to do with me?

Nothing. See above.

That's certainly proof that it's not your reading--where the phrase the sun stood still just means it seemed like a long day (because even you said that that happens all the time).

I never said that!

When I said that the cosmology used in the Bible has the sun going around the Earth, you said:

Where does it say those things? Joshua was describing what he saw during a battle. That the sun appeared not to move in the sky. Even today we write of the sun setting and rising as if it were the one doing the moving.

I hope the passage I cited shows that this is not a proper reading. Especially the last verse where it says that something like this has never happened before or since--where God obeyed the command of a human. (This referred to Joshua telling God to stop the sun, and then the sun stopping.)

Granted you personally never held the geocentric model as a religion tenet, but plenty of people in the past actually did.

Geocentricity might have been claimed by the Church. But the church also claimed rthe right to skin and burn people alive after ripping out their tongues ad other such nonbiblical practices as being biblically supported. Were they right on that? Of course not. The Church was wrong just as it was wrong in their claim that the Bible supports a geocentric earth. Yes, I know all the counterarguments and interpretations and citations that can be used to make it appear that way.

I agree they were wrong (though perhaps with different point of view than the one you have). My point is, that they didn't admit they were wrong until science force them to. I expect something similar would happen if and when we found ET intelligence.

WRT the Bible never referring to the sun as a star:

Did I say that it did?

You certainly implied that the cosmology used in the Bible was consistent with modern astronomy. It certainly is not.

As for your own personal beliefs, I accept that you have never had to change them to suit science. The modern Catholic Church has no problem, for example, with the fact that the authors of many of the books of the Bible clearly believed in the geocentric model. (They don't claim the Bible is error free in that way, and they recognize that the writing should take into account the language, culture, history, genre etc. of the period in which it was written.)


WRT the "star in the east":

I have no difficulties with that passage.

But you know stars don't behave that way, right? You know they're so far away that it's foolish to speak of them stopping over a palace or a house, right?

I do have difficulties with fish slowly turning into people though.

Who says fish turn slowly into people?
In the theory of evolution, an organism lives and dies the same species. Always. There is no morphing from one to another. This is a childishly simplistic misunderstanding of evolution.

But you're wasting your time with someone who's not defending those beliefs.

Since I don't hold those Trinitarian beliefs you need to debate that with someone who does on the religious forum.

See above.

But this thread isn't about religion-is it? Furthermore, its completely legitimate to adopt different philosophical stances on a forum of this kind for the sake of exploring different angles to the same issues. I think its called playing devils advocate for discussion's sake? Happens all the time. Nothing unusual and no one ever makes an issue out of it. So it's a bit unrealistic to vehemently try to deprive a member of that right.

You've lost me here. Who is trying to deprive whom of any right?

Previously, you were disengaging from discussion on these topics because the views I'm citing don't line up with your own personal views. Now you seem to be saying that you're capable of defending a position even if it's not your own personal belief.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It just occurred to me. Regarding the story of the sun stopping in the sky in Joshua:

if you weren't saying that the passage means the sun only appeared to hold still because it seemed like a long day, then you might be arguing that the Earth stopped rotating.

Is that what you meant? Surely you realize that that's as incompatible with reality as the geocentric model!

 

[amb]

And the notion that only this 10% of the galaxy is habitable is pure, unsupported conjecture. I've already answered this one.

There is not dearth of heavy metals elsewhere in the galaxy as you had claimed. And the "too much radiation" issue could be resolved any number of ways.

I've also already addressed the notion that a large moon is needed to stabilize a planet's orbit. (It's not.) Are you suggesting that without a large moon a planet's orbit would be unstable? What physics or observations of planets support that notion?
ETA: Are the orbits of Venus and Mars unstable?
Also, as I've said before, even if a large moon is a prerequisite to complex life, as you speculate, there's no argument that says a large moon is impossible elsewhere in the galaxy. It could well be that our solar system is typical (where 1 in 3 of roughly earth-sized planets has a very large moon).


So now we're back to the word "rarer". As I've pointed out this is a relative term. I would agree that intelligent life might be rare enough that we're never likely to encounter another civilization out there, but there could still be hundreds or thousands in our galaxy alone. Here you've at least defined "rarer" as being "rarer than some astrobiologists claim." Do you have any evidence that any astrobiologists claim there is life somewhere? (As far as I know all scientists follow the evidence unless they're just speculating or opining or something. I don't know of any who make a claim for the existence of life when there is no evidence for it. If they do, I agree with you that it's bad science.)

So you're abandoning the claim that we are unique in the galaxy?

I never said we are unique. I have always said we may well be.
Actualy there was a news report in this mornings paper where a scientist who's name I can't remember. [Should have clipped it out] Who said that the chances of another intelligent civilization existing at the same time as us would be an enormous coincidence. The universe is probably teeming with microbial life according to this fellow.

 

[Radrook]

No, I'm not.

I think a lot of this is a misunderstanding, so let me review a bit:

Someone on this thread asked what the theological ramifications of discovering ET intelligence might be.

I commented that many religious people will have to revise their theology to accommodate this new information, as they have done in the past.

You took issue with it, and I thought were debating on this point. Now I see that you are asserting only that you yourself personally are a believer who will not need to revise his theology to accommodate any new science.

Maybe you took my statement to mean "All religious people" will have to revise their theology. (I mean to check my exact wording, but the forum has been acting sluggishly for me, so I can't do so just now.) If my wording said that, I'm happy to retract that part and make it "Many religious people". I'm pretty sure that was what I intended.

This is why it makes sense to me to show the Baltimore Catechism and to talk about majority religious beliefs and the Catholic Church's doctrine on geocentrism vs. heliocentrism, but doesn't to you. (If my assertion was "all believers" you only have to show one example--yourself--that it doesn't apply to.)

I hope that clears up most of this.

I understand. But I never claimed that the religious wouldn't have to change their theology. So when you argue that some will have to, I wonder what you are trying to prove since I am not arguing against that point. Also, you are confusing Church doctrine with biblical teachings. As I pointed out becfore and as is well-known, they very often were diamerically opposed.

The willing suspension of disbelief to enjoy a work of fiction is not at all a sign that I actually believe that the fiction is not fiction.

Of course not.

It's not all like belief in God. I have never once confused something that is fiction for real life.

I am not talking about confusing reality with fiction. I watch and read and write fiction and don't confuse one with the other. However, what many people proclaim as outlandish if it is claimed that an ID might be able to do it is accepted as a possibility if you change the ID to an alien. That's the mentality I am referring to.

When I said that the cosmology used in the Bible has the sun going around the Earth....

That's what you choose to derive from what was said. There are many things written in the Bible that people said either because they were deluded or under demon possession. Are we to take those as Bible teachings as well? The whole book of Job is full of false arguments which Job's tormentors used against him. Anyone can go to that book, arbitrarily pick any of those statements and claim that the Bible teaches it as truth not as utterances from misguided individuals. So even if Joshua was stating what he saw in the belief that what he saw was what you say he thought he saw it would only prove Joshua's ignorance.

I hope the passage I cited shows that this is not a proper reading. Especially the last verse where it says that something like this has never happened before or since--where God obeyed the command of a human. (This referred to Joshua telling God to stop the sun, and then the sun stopping.)

Well, if it happened before-- when? If it happened since-- when?

Granted you personally never held the geocentric model as a religion tenet, but plenty of people in the past actually did.

So what does that have to do with the thread's subject? Furthermore, I never claimed that they didn't. So if you are trying to convince someone it definitely shouldn't be me.

I agree they were wrong (though perhaps with different point of view than the one you have). My point is, that they didn't admit they were wrong until science force them to. I expect something similar would happen if and when we found ET intelligence.

Isn't that what you do? Admit you are wrong when science proves you are wrong? Actually, there is nothing wrong in admitting one didn't really understand what one was reading when the truth comes out whether the truth be revealed via biblical research or science.

You certainly implied that the cosmology used in the Bible was consistent with modern astronomy. It certainly is not.

I gave three specific examples which you obviously don't find compelling. Actually, I have discussed this subject extensively on this forum before and have found the evidence presented often constitutes a wrenching of meaning via striving to deprive biblical authors from using simile and metaphor. For example the statement of "four corners of the earth" is taken as an indication that a four-cornered earth is being literally referred to when the expression simply means throughout the whole world. It's even used today and people using it don't literally mean four corners. Also, regardless of the fact that the introduction to the book where the statement appears tells us at the outset that the information would be given via symbols. That is shunted aside as irrelevant.

Then they contradict themselves when they deem it convenient by saying that people at that time saw the earth as a flat circle. If so, why refer to it as having four corners unless the reference isn't literal?

Then writers are assumed ignorant of what previous biblical writers had written and are accused of totally ignoring it and proceeding to contradict it regardless of what reader reaction might be.

People living during those times are depicted as uncaring or as being oblivious to all the scriptural mangling and fakeries going on even though these same people depended on those writings for guidance and were very keen on anyone tampering with them.


And a host of other things that gets old and tiresome after a while. That's why I no longer waste my time in that kind of discussion.

As for your own personal beliefs, I accept that you have never had to change them to suit science.

I have to change my personal beliefs to suite science all the time. In fact, that's why I subscribe to a science magazine. So that I can keep up with the current advances in science and change my views accordingly.

The modern Catholic Church has no problem, for example, with the fact that the authors of many of the books of the Bible clearly believed in the geocentric model. (They don't claim the Bible is error free in that way, and they recognize that the writing should take into account the language, culture, history, genre etc. of the period in which it was written.)

The authors of such books as you mention, must have read where Isaiah wrote that the earth rested on nothing. Isn't that the way it looks from space? As if it were resting on nothing? They also had read that it appears as circular since that's the way Isaiah described it. Doesn't appear circular from space? Of course Isaiah spoke of God extending the heavens like a gauze. This they might not have understood since when we look up it doesn't seem to be stretching itself out that way. Only after the red shift knowledge did we realize it is being stretched out like a gauze. I know, there have been countless efforts to discredit this by giving the statements other interpretations. But I don't find them compelling.

BTW
You are confusing the secretaries with the author.

But you know stars don't behave that way, right? You know they're so far away that it's foolish to speak of them stopping over a palace or a house, right?

Well, you claim that the Catholic Church and other theologians interpret biblical data within cultural and historical context. So if we follow the same rule then we can understand that any light appearing in the sky would have been mistaken for a star.

Who says fish turn slowly into people?
In the theory of evolution, an organism lives and dies the same species. Always. There is no morphing from one to another. This is a childishly simplistic misunderstanding of evolution.

No, I understand what evolution teaches perfectly well. The operative word here is "slowly". But no matter how slowly we go, it still comes to the claim that our ancestors were fish. Or if you prefer, fishlike. Of course after the fishlike ancestors we have piglike ones and the most recent the supposed ape-like ones. In between all those we have other such outlandish claims of ancestry. Why you take umbrage with me describing it that way is beyond me since that is exactly what you believe.

You've lost me here. Who is trying to deprive whom of any right? Previously, you were disengaging from discussion of these topics because the views I'm citing don't line up with your own personal views. Now you seem to be saying that you're capable of defending a position even if it's not your own personal belief.

What I'm saying is that it is perfectly legitimate to try to defend certain philosophical points for the sake of honing one's skills in argumentation. For example, I was once given the option either to defend those involved in the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident in Russia or to condemn them ass irresponsible. I chose to defend them as innocent of negligence. But I could just as easily have tilted the essay the other way and condemned them as guilty. The truth of course isn't always a simple black or white answer. Sometimes the truth lies somewhere in the gray area. But since I wasn't assigned to support a gray area I had to take a stand pro or con. Given the choice of proving a gray area might have revealed perhaps the real truth. But that would have required a different approach albeit a more balanced on depending on objectivity. What I'm trying to say is that in a forum such as this sometimes one assumes a pro or a con in order to delve more deeply into a subject from another angle. Testing the waters as it were and not because one is being hypocritical or striving to deceive or otherwise hoodwink.

 

[Radrook]

It just occurred to me. Regarding the story of the sun stopping in the sky in Joshua:

if you weren't saying that the passage means the sun only appeared to hold still because it seemed like a long day, then you might be arguing that the Earth stopped rotating.

Is that what you meant? Surely you realize that that's as incompatible with reality as the geocentric model!

The passage means that's what Joshua saw happening and expressed it exactly as he saw it happen. How else was he supposed to express it? Even today knowing the the solar system isn't geocentric-if I saw the phenomenon that way I'd express it exactly like he did. How would you describe it?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The passage means that's what Joshua saw happening and expressed it exactly as he saw it happen. How else was he supposed to express it? Even today knowing the the solar system isn't geocentric-if I saw the phenomenon that way I'd express it exactly like he did. How would you describe it?

I would never see the sun standing still in the sky because it can't happen, so I would never have cause to describe it.

I would describe this account as a work of fiction written by people who held a geocentric view of the natural world.

Now--do you think the Earth's rotation stopped and then restarted resulting in what Joshua saw?

And do you think that is consistent with reality?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I never said we are unique. I have always said we may well be.

And I agreed and said there may also be thousands of tech-using ET civilizations in our galaxy. Do you accept that as well? If you don't, then you are in fact asserting that we are unique.

Actualy there was a news report in this mornings paper where a scientist who's name I can't remember. [Should have clipped it out] Who said that the chances of another intelligent civilization existing at the same time as us would be an enormous coincidence. The universe is probably teeming with microbial life according to this fellow.

Yes, I'm aware of these views. From what I've seen, they're based on wild assumptions and unproven speculation.

There's no evidence to support the idea that the universe is probably teeming with microbial life but that there are vanishingly small chances of there being other intelligent civilizations. It's just speculation.

 

[arthwollipot]

Now--do you think the Earth's rotation stopped and then restarted resulting in what Joshua saw?

Not only would the earth's rotation about its own axis have to have stopped, but its revolution around the sun also, or there would have been some perceptible apparently motion of the sun in the sky.

What mechanism could possibly cause such a thing?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not only would the earth's rotation about its own axis have to have stopped, but its revolution around the sun also, or there would have been some perceptible apparently motion of the sun in the sky.

What mechanism could possibly cause such a thing?

Especially without causing massive cataclysm that would pretty much wipe humans off the face of the Earth.

 

[arthwollipot]

Especially without causing massive cataclysm that would pretty much wipe humans off the face of the Earth.

Of course, God being... well, God... could easily make this happen without any trouble at all because His power is unlimited. If he wants the Earth to stop, then by golly it stops!

So the question becomes - why was this extra-long day not reported by any other civilisation on the planet at the time? I would have thought it would be unusual enough to show up in the Egyptian records. And the Chinese have been obsessive record-keepers for millennia - why don't they make any mention of this phenomenon?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course, God being... well, God... could easily make this happen without any trouble at all because His power is unlimited. If he wants the Earth to stop, then by golly it stops!

But I believe Radrook would reject the ability to do things that are logically impossible (like squaring the circle) as being something an omnipotent being could do. Surely stopping the Earth's rotation and restarting it without the cataclysms would be similarly impossible. (I put that right up there with ghosts that walk through walls--where walls are immaterial to the ghost, but the floor is not.)

So the question becomes - why was this extra-long day not reported by any other civilisation on the planet at the time? I would have thought it would be unusual enough to show up in the Egyptian records. And the Chinese have been obsessive record-keepers for millennia - why don't they make any mention of this phenomenon?

That's also good evidence that the story is inconsistent with reality.

 

[amb]

Tell me of one single event in the bible that's constitant with reality. There is none.
There is even some doubt that Moses himself ever existed, as Abraham didn't as well.
Certainly the Egyptians make no reference to a Moses.

 

[Radrook]

I would never see the sun standing still in the sky because it can't happen, so I would never have cause to describe it.

Many things that were once thought impossible are currently happening.

I would describe this account as a work of fiction written by people who held a geocentric view of the natural world.

I believe that you have brought this to my attention several times. I also believe I understood you the first time you told me. Why the repetition?

Now--do you think the Earth's rotation stopped and then restarted resulting in what Joshua saw?

Well, if indeed the ID is almighty, and is in full control of all the forces he created, then I don't really see a problem. Even an ID that isn't almighty but merely far more advanced technologically than we are could have pulled that off and convinced the observers that what they described was happening.


He could simply have made it appear as if these things were occurring from the vantage point of the geographical area Joshua was in. Sort of a localized planetarium type effect. In short, the request was made but how the ID brought about is anybody's guess. I tend to think he made it a local phenomenon.

And do you think that is consistent with reality?

What is reality?

If I would have told you a few years back that stars in the outer fringes of galaxies can have escape velocities with no detectable means to keep them in orbit and yet they stay there you would have classified it as being out of touch with reality. Actually, if we can't even prove that the exterior world isn't a brain in a vat generated phenomenon, or we don't yet know if other dimensions exist, or the very nature of our universe which might or might not be merely one among billions of others. In view of our profound ignorance in reference to such things, can we be justified in being dogmatic about what is and what isn't possible or what does and what doesn't exist beyond the realm of our senses.

So from a purely metaphysical standpoint we shouldn't be too hasty in glibly tagging things as ultimately real. We can say that within the parameters of what we know it appears that such and such is real, Or it appears as if such and such is highly improbable. But the certainty that you are claiming is simply hubris since you can't really know what you are claiming to now for a with the certainty that you are claiming it.

BTW
You are being inconsistent in first saying that the Biblical events need to be understood within the cultural historical context and then insisting that Joshuah should have described what he observed with our cultural terminology.