Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens - Page 4

Wesley · 05-16-2008, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by CyTom

So what does the Vatican think of zombies?

A better question, what does the Papal Church think about Tom Cruicify and the Church of Scientology?

larrysarmy · 05-16-2008, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

Ok ... lets get it back on topic. Maybe the Vatican was preparing for this:

What's even more funny is that some Mars theorists not only believe that water or ice is prevelant, but at one time Mars was covered in water.

But...we have the earth that is 70% water and many don't believe in a global flood that coverd the earth in water as portrayed in Genesis.

Wesley · 05-16-2008, 10:00 AM

Yeah, I can see your point. If it happened a long time ago it was more possible than if it occurred 6000 years ago.

That said, seems like the big flood might have occurred when some land dam or ice mass gave way and allowed a rush of water to spread around Babylon and adjacent area. Looks like it is documented in most religions that survived.

larrysarmy · 05-16-2008, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley

Yeah, I can see your point. If it happened a long time ago it was more possible than if it occurred 6000 years ago.

That said, seems like the big flood might have occurred when some land dam or ice mass gave way and allowed a rush of water to spread around Babylon and adjacent area. Looks like it is documented in most religions that survived.

Well...I guess, IMO, I would hold more to the 6,000-10,000 year theory, but symantics aside...I would probably think the most religions that document a flood...orginially came from the Biblical account. Which by the way....destroys all of the earth...leaving no one (Ark excluding) left to document it.

Wx4Cy · 05-16-2008, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by Wesley

A better question, what does the Papal Church think about Tom Cruicify and the Church of Scientology?

Better yet, why do I care about what they think about anything? Oh sorry, my religious cynicism is showing

.

Kyle · 05-16-2008, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by larrysarmy

If science comes to the end of a phenomena...and can't explain or test/repeat how, why, where from...then what happens?

Then we've reached an area in the realm of philosophy, not science.

CycloneErik · 05-16-2008, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Kyle

Then we've reached an area in the realm of philosophy, not science.

What if science was based on observable phenomena, and we just happen to have a record from someone who was there when He created this whole thing? Would that sort sound like a science?

I never get to ask that question, so I'm truly just curious what people's beliefs there will be.

Full disclosure is good. I am a fundamental, young-earth creationist guy. I've really enjoed the Galileo discussion. Thanks, Phaedrus

larrysarmy · 05-16-2008, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by Kyle

Then we've reached an area in the realm of philosophy, not science.

OK...I agree to a point. BUT....why do you reject the idea of a higher intelligence when science can not test, repeat a certain phenomena?

The_Architect · 05-16-2008, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Wx4Cy

Better yet, why do I care about what they think about anything? Oh sorry, my religious cynicism is showing.

It's important because of the HUGE IMPACT that ET could have on people's faith.

CloneAggie · 05-16-2008, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

What if science was based on observable phenomena, and we just happen to have a record from someone why was there when He created this whole thing? Would that sort sound like a science?

I never get to ask that question, so I'm truly just curious what people's beliefs there will be.

Full disclosure is good. I am a fundamental, young-earth creationist guy. I've really enjoed the Galileo discussion. Thanks, Phaedrus

So if the first thing the creator did was to create someone to document his creation. Would we then believe in creation? Is that what you're asking?

Kyle · 05-16-2008, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneErik

What if science was based on observable phenomena, and we just happen to have a record from someone why was there when He created this whole thing? Would that sort sound like a science?

I'm assuming the "why" I bolded was meant to be a "who." Historical records can be useful to science in formulating hypothesis to investigate and perhaps some other ways. But, to the extent a record/story/myth is clearly contradicted by our observations then the validity of that story has to be called into question. There are hundreds, if not thousands of records/stories/mythologies. The literal account of creation found in Genesis is of very little use and can probably be lumped together with most other mythology as far as scientific support for it goes.

CycloneErik · 05-16-2008, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

So if the first thing the creator did was to create someone to document his creation. Would we then believe in creation? Is that what you're asking?

Good question. My own question lacked some clarity.

I'm not exactly asking if it would be mandatory that the creator's first work would be to create someone to document the creation. As I'm thinking about that idea, it would be difficult for that someone to survive without a place to survive in. Didn't mean to make that sound so odd.

I'm more pointing to the Bible as a work 'whose' writing was guided by that creator. If that creator, who would be an eyewitness, left such a record, which recounted in an observable manner the act of creation, would that kind of sound like it meets the criteria that something must be observable? In a sense, scientific?

Did that make it clearer, or just use a lot more words? (I wish Icould be paid by the word? Man, that would be awesome!!!!)

CycloneErik · 05-16-2008, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by CloneAggie

So if the first thing the creator did was to create someone to document his creation. Would we then believe in creation? Is that what you're asking?

By the way, I somehow missed the spelling mistake that you pointed out. Oops!!!!

Kyle · 05-16-2008, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by larrysarmy

OK...I agree to a point. BUT....why do you reject the idea of a higher intelligence when science can not test, repeat a certain phenomena?

I personally don't believe due mostly to philosophical arguments along problem of evil type lines that I've explored a bit in previous threads that you've been involved in. I think such arguments can convincingly disprove they typical Christian worldview that includes a tri-omni god and eternal damnation. I'll readily admit that they cannot disprove all worldviews including a higher power. With regards to these other worldviews, I haven't seen any good reason to adopt them.

CTTB78 · 05-16-2008, 11:31 AM

If you don't like the Church's stance, start a new one. It's done every day.

Some things can stand the test of time, and some things don't.