Space Exploration

[PKT_VOL]

(I'm not trying to give you a hard time. Like I said, I understand your perspective. I'm just giving mine.)

Or there's another alternative... God was showing off.

Perhaps He wanted to create the universe in such a way that, no matter how smart man got, no matter how hard we looked or far we saw... It would only reveal more of His power and glory.

Those verses are very vague. I included the Milky Way in my last post in case he wanted to showoff a black hole, billions of other stars and planets, a unified galaxy, etc.

There are multiple ways to show off. He can show of equally at the macro-level. He could have always shown out better on this planet and solar system but he didn't.

What I don't understand is how you can look at the rest of the observable universe, the implied mulitverse via inflation (Level 1 and 2) and quantum mechanics (Level 3), and not have a reasonable doubt as to whether Earth and mankind are the center of all creation. That maybe, you (not just you, many feel the same way) suppress and minimize God's plan, creation, aspiration, and power to just Earth and mankind.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Those verses are very vague.

They seem fairly specific to me, but OK. In any event, it doesn't change the fact that they present one of many possible design decisions God could have made as alternatives to your presumption that the rest of the universe would be one big, inefficient waste of space if there weren't life elsewhere.

I included the Milky Way in my last post in case he wanted to showoff a black hole, billions of other stars and planets, a unified galaxy, etc.

OK. And I presented the idea that the bigger the universe, the wider we cast our gaze, the more glory He displays of Himself.

There are multiple ways to show off. He can show of equally at the macro-level. He could have always shown out better on this planet and solar system but he didn't.

I believe He did show off equally at every level.

And the manufacturer could have chosen to put my car engine in the rear. It doesn't change the fact that it's in the front, and they made decisions as to why they put it there. They could have made different decisions for different reasons, like Porsche does, but they didn't. Perhaps because they had different priorities. Perhaps because they made different budgetary decisions. Perhaps because Porsche wants different handling properties. Perhaps just because Porsche just like being known for being different.

In any event, they each made decisions based on what they wanted to produce.

What I don't understand is how you can look at the rest of the observable universe, the implied mulitverse via inflation (Level 1 and 2) and quantum mechanics (Level 3), and not have a reasonable doubt as to whether Earth and mankind are the center of all creation. That maybe, you (not just you, many feel the same way) suppress and minimize God's plan, creation, aspiration, and power to just Earth and mankind.

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying the earth is the physical center of the universe.

And just to be clear, I said in my first post on the subject that I don't really know one way or the other. (I think that implies some level of doubt.) I'm saying what I suspect, based on what I consider to be the words of the Creator. Those words say that the universe was created to house humanity, and the heavens are there as signs, to mark time, and as a message to us.

It makes sense. It is not rationally inconsistent and, as far as I know, it does not contradict what we know of the universe.

 

[volprof]

Only when NASA gets it's collective **** together and starts planning a viable Lunar base and going through with said plans.

I would gladly sacrifice Congress's salaries and pensions for said project.

 

[PKT_VOL]

They seem fairly specific to me, but OK. In any event, it doesn't change the fact that they present one of many possible design decisions God could have made as alternatives to your presumption that the rest of the universe would be one big, inefficient waste of space if there weren't life elsewhere.

OK. And I presented the idea that the bigger the universe, the wider we cast our gaze, the more glory He displays of Himself.

Weird exchange we are having here. I feel like I am in the twilight zone. You are positing an argument from vanity (about a God that stresses humbleness) and I am positing that your God, if he exists, is better than you are giving him credit for. Weird, weird conversation.

And the manufacturer could have chosen to put my car engine in the rear. It doesn't change the fact that it's in the front, and they made decisions as to why they put it there. They could have made different decisions for different reasons, like Porsche does, but they didn't. Perhaps because they had different priorities. Perhaps because they made different budgetary decisions. Perhaps because Porsche wants different handling properties. Perhaps just because Porsche just like being known for being different.

In any event, they each made decisions based on what they wanted to produce.

Which would be permissible explanation if the attributes of perfection and benevolence weren't given to him. Personally, I think the best explanation is the best of all possible worlds but that would inevitably question his omnipotence. Which, by the way, I don't believe is nearly as big of a deal as apologists make it out to be.

Just so we're clear, I'm not saying the earth is the physical center of the universe.

I wasn't talking about physical center. It obviously isn't. I'm talking about the (center) purpose of creation. Unless the design requires a certain amount of randomness (see above).

And just to be clear, I said in my first post on the subject that I don't really know one way or the other. (I think that implies some level of doubt.) I'm saying what I suspect, based on what I consider to be the words of the Creator. Those words say that the universe was created to house humanity, and the heavens are there as signs, to mark time, and as a message to us.

It makes sense. It is not rationally inconsistent and, as far as I know, it does not contradict what we know of the universe.

I think the tracking of time is a silly argument.

Message? Who knows. You seem to hold a deep conviction that there is a profound message via a burning bush, Jesus, various other prophets, and messengers all contained correctly in a book (which takes precedent over everything). Religions of all kinds are in the same boat. Thus, I feel like we are so far apart on what counts as a trustworthy message that such a discussion would be utterly futile.

Signs would follow the same logic as the message point above. I did watch a documentary the other day about Constantine and a meteor that was probably responsible for his conversion to Christianity (changing history in a huge way). Signs, or at least the perception of signs, can be very interesting things.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Weird exchange we are having here. I feel like I am in the twilight zone. You are positing an argument from vanity (about a God that stresses humbleness) and I am positing that your God, if he exists, is better than you are giving him credit for. Weird, weird conversation.

On one hand, I'm sorry you perceive it that way. I really don't consider it an appeal to vanity, or flattery. I'm just laying out the argument that God created the Universe in such a way that we would be astounded by His glory, the more we perceive of it.

On the other, I feel a bit better about our interactions. I've worried for some time that my interactions with you went too far to the side of sarcasm, so it's nice to know that now you feel flattered by our conversations--especially if unintentional. Maybe it's a step in the right direction.

Or are you inferring that God is vain and prideful that He would show off? And that would make Him a hypocrite for then stressing humility in humanity? If so, I'm surprised. We've covered that already in the past.

Pride:a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.

Figure out how an infinitely perfect God would have too high an opinion of Himself and get back too me. And explain how it's hypocritical for a perfect being to expect humility from imperfect beings. Seems about right to me.

You even brushed up to this when you said:

Which would be permissible explanation if the attributes of perfection and benevolence weren't given to him. Personally, I think the best explanation is the best of all possible worlds but that would inevitably question his omnipotence. Which, by the way, I don't believe is nearly as big of a deal as apologists make it out to be.

This would actually be a part of the "nest possible worlds" argument, I'd think.

Part of the "best possible worlds" argument is the idea that one must know the Creator's purpose for creating. i.e. Fitness fir purpose.

You know the drill. Love/Free Will/Rebellion. Etc... Etc...

But to add to that, I believe knowing and submitting to God is the best thing that could happen to a person. If that's the case, then glorifying Himself to humanity is good for humanity.

And it in no way questions His omnipotence. I'm surprised someone with such a respect for logic would fall into that. Jesus said that with Him, all "things" are possible. You seem to think that since God didn't create a "non-thing", or logical contradiction, He's not omnipotent.

I'll leave it to you to figure that one out.

I think the tracking of time is a silly argument.

OK.

Message? Who knows. You seem to hold a deep conviction that there is a profound message via a burning bush, Jesus, various other prophets, and messengers all contained correctly in a book (which takes precedent over everything). Religions of all kinds are in the same boat. Thus, I feel like we are so far apart on what counts as a trustworthy message that such a discussion would be utterly futile.

OK. I've alluded to this several times.

Signs would follow the same logic as the message point above. I did watch a documentary the other day about Constantine and a meteor that was probably responsible for his conversion to Christianity (changing history in a huge way). Signs, or at least the perception of signs, can be very interesting things.

OK. And they can.

 

[PKT_VOL]

On one hand, I'm sorry you perceive it that way. I really don't consider it an appeal to vanity, or flattery. I'm just laying out the argument that God created the Universe in such a way that we would be astounded by His glory, the more we perceive of it.

On the other, I feel a bit better about our interactions. I've worried for some time that my interactions with you went too far to the side of sarcasm, so it's nice to know that now you feel flattered by our conversations--especially if unintentional. Maybe it's a step in the right direction.

Or are you inferring that God is vain and prideful that He would show off? And that would make Him a hypocrite for then stressing humility in humanity? If so, I'm surprised. We've covered that already in the past.

Pride:a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc.

Figure out how an infinitely perfect God would have too high an opinion of Himself and get back too me. And explain how it's hypocritical for a perfect being to expect humility from imperfect beings. Seems about right to me.

1) I don't know how that isn't vanity, showboating, etc. It is not like there is another (grander) purpose to the creation (outside of our solar system) and showing off to humans just happens to be byproduct of other worthy purposes (under your view). That is the difference. I am advocating for another grander purpose. The fact that we are amazed about the universe just goes with studying it. It isn't the central purpose.

2) I'm not inferring the vanity; I've been arguing against it. And yes, the vanity goes against the message of Jesus (as I interpret it).

3) You know I don't buy perfect vs imperfect (God vs humans; good vs sin). Having said that, I do expect the rule maker to live by the same message/rules that he gives. I do not respect a deity that would live by the motto "do as I say, not as I do". I think it is demeaning to your deity to look at the universe the way you do. As I have stated before, if he exists (which I obviously doubt), then he is either much grander/better than you give him credit or he has sovereignty only over this region of space. Christians (minus the Mormons) wholeheartedly reject the latter, so I've argued for the former.

You even brushed up to this when you said:

This would actually be a part of the "nest possible worlds" argument, I'd think.

Part of the "best possible worlds" argument is the idea that one must know the Creator's purpose for creating. i.e. Fitness fir purpose.

You know the drill. Love/Free Will/Rebellion. Etc... Etc...

But to add to that, I believe knowing and submitting to God is the best thing that could happen to a person. If that's the case, then glorifying Himself to humanity is good for humanity.

And it in no way questions His omnipotence. I'm surprised someone with such a respect for logic would fall into that. Jesus said that with Him, all "things" are possible. You seem to think that since God didn't create a "non-thing", or logical contradiction, He's not omnipotent.

I'll leave it to you to figure that one out.

Like I said, I think the best possible world theory is the best explanation for theological problems with respect to God and creation. If you don't except it, that is fine. If you don't, I just think you are on shakier grounds.

The best possible world scenario, for me at least, is less about purpose and more about natural restrictions. For example, we cannot build or do anything we want. We are restricted by the natural laws of the universe. Similarly, God could be restricted by natural laws or a tool of some sort needed to created our universe. Again, you are free to object this solely on Jesus's quote but I don't feel that it is a sound premise to work from.

 

[Orange_Crush]

1) I don't know how that isn't vanity, showboating, etc. It is not like there is another (grander) purpose to the creation (outside of our solar system) and showing off to humans just happens to be byproduct of other worthy purposes (under your view). That is the difference. I am advocating for another grander purpose. The fact that we are amazed about the universe just goes with studying it. It isn't the central purpose.

2) I'm not inferring the vanity; I've been arguing against it. And yes, the vanity goes against the message of Jesus (as I interpret it).

3) You know I don't buy perfect vs imperfect (God vs humans; good vs sin). Having said that, I do expect the rule maker to live by the same message/rules that he gives. I do not respect a deity that would live by the motto "do as I say, not as I do". I think it is demeaning to your deity to look at the universe the way you do. As I have stated before, if he exists (which I obviously doubt), then he is either much grander/better than you give him credit or he has sovereignty only over this region of space. Christians (minus the Mormons) wholeheartedly reject the latter, so I've argued for the former.

Do you let your dog drive a car? No. Because something can be appropriate for one level of being and not for another.

lol

Jesus' message was that people should be humble. He abided that message by humbling himself to become a 'people'. His further message was that people should glorify God because God deserves all glory. (Ever wondered if maybe that was a big reason for the rule that people should be humble?) Read Matthew 5 and 6. Both parts of that message are in there--repeatedly.

And I'm duly noting that you failed to speak to all of my points about God and His showing off--i.e. the possibility that it was for our benefit.

Like I said, I think the best possible world theory is the best explanation for theological problems with respect to God and creation. If you don't except it, that is fine. If you don't, I just think you are on shakier grounds.

I do accept it. I stated as much.

The best possible world scenario, for me at least, is less about purpose and more about natural restrictions. For example, we cannot build or do anything we want. We are restricted by the natural laws of the universe. Similarly, God could be restricted by natural laws or a tool of some sort needed to created our universe. Again, you are free to object this solely on Jesus's quote but I don't feel that it is a sound premise to work from.

It absolutely is about purpose, especially if you're bringing pain/suffering/evil into the conversation. You can ask how pain/suffering/evil exists in a universe created by an all-powerful, benevolent God (and you have). The very next question must then be, "Well, what was He trying to achieve?"

No?

And you seem to be starting from the premise that He was constrained by 'natural laws'. But if He created the natural laws, He could not have been constrained by 'natural laws'. That's simple cause/effect logic. Instead, one could consider that perhaps natural laws were defined by His character, thus His only constraint would be His character--i.e. He was His only constraint.

So, if scripture is true, and He describes Himself as "not a God of chaos', then one could say that His character is to be an orderly, rational, logical being. If this is the case, then one can see that He is self-constrained to be logical, and not internally contradictory.

Thus, we have the laws of logic that are based on His character. Love without free will is a contradiction. Thus, to get a universe with the existence of love, He had to allow for free will. Thus the existence of rebellion. Thus the existence of pain/suffering/evil in a universe with a benevolent creator God.

Thus, again--the question of intent is important.

Now, if a relationship with Him is the only way to eventually escape the ravages of pain/suffering/evil/death, then it is rational to conceive that His self-glory is for the benefit of humanity.

To recap:

God is not a human, so it's disingenuous for you to play the "do as I say not as I do" card. He is in a different class.

God is a logical God, so was self-constrained to create what He created for the purposes He desired.

The Universe glorifies Him, no matter how far we peer into it.

As Romans 1-2 indicate, it's good for humanity that God be glorified through the creation, because it can draw us closer to Him. (ETA: That section also points out that humanity must humble ourselves to accept Him, so the command against pride is for our good.)

I'm still not sure one way or the other on the whole 'alien life' question. And I'm OK with that.

 

[Velo Vol]

EmDrive Is an Engine That Breaks the Laws of Physics and Could Take Us to Mars

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

EmDrive Is an Engine That Breaks the Laws of Physics and Could Take Us to Mars

Again....What's the reason we want to go to Mars in the first place because I forget why that's so important to the world as a whole & by the year 2030? And where will the $$$ come from since we are out of $$$ to fund such a project let alone to pay for the protection for our own citizens from the influx of illegals coming through our border?

 

[PKT_VOL]

Do you let your dog drive a car? No. Because something can be appropriate for one level of being and not for another.

lol

Jesus' message was that people should be humble. He abided that message by humbling himself to become a 'people'. His further message was that people should glorify God because God deserves all glory. (Ever wondered if maybe that was a big reason for the rule that people should be humble?) Read Matthew 5 and 6. Both parts of that message are in there--repeatedly.

And I'm duly noting that you failed to speak to all of my points about God and His showing off--i.e. the possibility that it was for our benefit.

1) I didn't create my dog in the image of myself or the habit he lives in.

2) You should know that I don't accept that God "deserves" glory for being God any more than Zeus "deserves" glory for being Zeus or Allah "deserves" glory for being Allah.

3) Which ones for our benefit? The time, calender, etc? I addressed those.

I do accept it. I stated as much.

We must have different ideas of what is entailed by best of all possible worlds and the theological implications. No way we are on the same page here.

It absolutely is about purpose, especially if you're bringing pain/suffering/evil into the conversation. You can ask how pain/suffering/evil exists in a universe created by an all-powerful, benevolent God (and you have). The very next question must then be, "Well, what was He trying to achieve?"

No?

And you seem to be starting from the premise that He was constrained by 'natural laws'. But if He created the natural laws, He could not have been constrained by 'natural laws'. That's simple cause/effect logic. Instead, one could consider that perhaps natural laws were defined by His character, thus His only constraint would be His character--i.e. He was His only constraint.

The point with best of all possible worlds is that something has to give with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity with respect to the world we find ourselves in here. Best of all possible worlds gives an out by restricting one quality (particularly omnipotence).

As for your assertion that his restrictions come internally is of no consequence to me (although I think that is weak). Restrictions are restrictions. Omnipotence has no restrictions. It is restriction free (either internal or external).

So, if scripture is true, and He describes Himself as "not a God of chaos', then one could say that His character is to be an orderly, rational, logical being. If this is the case, then one can see that He is self-constrained to be logical, and not internally contradictory.

Thus, we have the laws of logic that are based on His character. Love without free will is a contradiction. Thus, to get a universe with the existence of love, He had to allow for free will. Thus the existence of rebellion. Thus the existence of pain/suffering/evil in a universe with a benevolent creator God.

Thus, again--the question of intent is important.

Now, if a relationship with Him is the only way to eventually escape the ravages of pain/suffering/evil/death, then it is rational to conceive that His self-glory is for the benefit of humanity.

A certain amount of chaos is needed for free will. If no chaos, then we live in a strictly deterministic world where free will is just an illusion.

Love is not determined by free will as much as we would like to believe. Genes, subconscious attractions, randomness, etc. are involved.

Free will does not mean rebellion. For true rebellion, one would have to truly know what he/she is rebelling against. That is not encompassed in free will.

Furthermore, the exercising of free will is not a just reason for pain/suffering/evil; particularly the exercising of free will by one person way back when on everyone else.

God is not a human, so it's disingenuous for you to play the "do as I say not as I do" card. He is in a different class.

It is not disingenuous to expect the creator, who created us in his image, to lead by example.

 

[Orange_Crush]

1) I don't know how that isn't vanity, showboating, etc.

(Sorry to double up on you...)

Vanity: excessive pride in one's appearance, qualities, abilities, achievements, etc.; character or quality of being vain; conceit:

You're yet to state how God, if He is infinitely great, can have an excess of pride, self-value, etc...

 

[PKT_VOL]

(Sorry to double up on you...)

Vanity: excessive pride in one's appearance, qualities, abilities, achievements, etc.; character or quality of being vain; conceit:

You're yet to state how God, if He is infinitely great, can have an excess of pride, self-value, etc...

Our ideas of vanity are pretty small compared to the multiverse. Is that because we are less vain or we have less opportunity? The size of the act or the resources of the individual to perform any particular act of vanity (rich person vs poor person; God vs human) doesn't change whether the act is vain.

Now, if would want to take issue with "excessive", fine. It is rather subjective. I certainly think the creation of the multiverse is not necessary if only it was created for his "glory". Attributing the world "perfect" or "infinitely great" to his character doesn't suddenly excuse such an act.

 

[Orange_Crush]

We must have different ideas of what is entailed by best of all possible worlds and the theological implications. No way we are on the same page here.

The point with best of all possible worlds is that something has to give with an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent deity with respect to the world we find ourselves in here. Best of all possible worlds gives an out by restricting one quality (particularly omnipotence).

No. It doesn't. See below.

As for your assertion that his restrictions come internally is of no consequence to me (although I think that is weak). Restrictions are restrictions. Omnipotence has no restrictions. It is restriction free (either internal or external).

Then you are operating on a flawed definition of 'omnipotence'.

(of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.

I've made the point that He is able to do any thing. The idea that He would have the ability to do any non-thing (i.e. logical contradiction) is a logical non-statement.

It's the equivalent of saying that God can't be God as described because He can't make a cubed sphere.

A certain amount of chaos is needed for free will. If no chaos, then we live in a strictly deterministic world where free will is just an illusion.

OK. Does an ounce of chaos negate all logic? Does an exploding volcano mean that cubed spheres exist? I'm really not sure what you think this point proves. But OK.

Love is not determined by free will as much as we would like to believe. Genes, subconscious attractions, randomness, etc. are involved.

Go research the Biblical definition of love, and get back with me.

Free will does not mean rebellion. For true rebellion, one would have to truly know what he/she is rebelling against. That is not encompassed in free will.

Free will means the possibility of rebellion.

Furthermore, the exercising of free will is not a just reason for pain/suffering/evil; particularly the exercising of free will by one person way back when on everyone else.

I'm sorry. I truly did laugh out loud at that. Hold on. I'm still laughing...

OK...

Care to expand, Mr. Moral Realtivist?

lol.

giggle...

Chuckle...

OK. I'm OK now. Promise. Sorry.

It is not disingenuous to expect the creator, who created us in his image, to lead by example.

You're a smart guy. Now, I suspect you're being purposefully difficult.

You've made the 'image' reference a couple of times, so I guess I need to make something explicit that I shouldn't have to.

That up there: ^

It can't drive a car, for two reasons.

It's not a person.

It's not a dog.

It's a picture. It's an image.

It resembles a dog, but it is obviously not a dog. Even resembling a dog, and giving the ability to roughly approximate a dog and know some things about a dog once I look at it... It's not a dog. It's an image.

And of course, if it were a dog, it still couldn't drive a car, because... well... It's a dog.

You know what else I don't let my dog do? Crap in the house. But I crap in the house all the time. Because I know how to use a toilet.

I'm not being a hypocrite by crapping in the house and not letting my dog crap in the house.

 

[Grand Vol]

Again....What's the reason we want to go to Mars in the first place because I forget why that's so important to the world as a whole & by the year 2030? And where will the $$$ come from since we are out of $$$ to fund such a project let alone to pay for the protection for our own citizens from the influx of illegals coming through our border?

So are we counting you in the "no, it's a waste of money" block?

The technology has other applications besides space travel. If it's shown to work here on earth and can be a non-polluting source of propulsion (not sure yet), what would be the issue with continuing to adapt this technology?

I mean, if we can send back the illegals to their home nation without adding more pollution to the ozone layer, that's kind of a win-win in my book.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Our ideas of vanity are pretty small compared to the multiverse. Is that because we are less vain or we have less opportunity?

Our ideas of 'vanity' are largely defined by comparison of ourselves to external actions/the universe/etc. I simply refuse to allow you to use the same comparison for God without making comment.

The size of the act or the resources of the individual to perform any particular act of vanity (rich person vs poor person; God vs human) doesn't change whether the act is vain.

I disagree. Again, you are using human to compare against human. I refuse to allow you to use human as comparison to God, without comment.

Now, if would want to take issue with "excessive", fine. It is rather subjective. I certainly think the creation of the multiverse is not necessary if only it was created for his "glory". Attributing the world "perfect" or "infinitely great" to his character doesn't suddenly excuse such an act.

We've spent a couple of pages and thousands of words to circle back around to opinion. And that's all good.

As I see it, we've found no rational/logical inconsistency in the belief that God, as described in the Bible, built the entire universe in such a way that it would glorify Himself to humanity more and more, the more we explore it and learn of it.

You don't like Him. That's no great surprise either.

I understand and respect why you believe, statistically, that there must be life out there waiting to be discovered. I think that is a very rational and respectful place to leave it.

I always appreciate our discussions. Thank you for that, PKT.

:hi:

 

[Orange_Crush]

It is not disingenuous to expect the creator, who created us in his image, to lead by example.

And, He did. That's a major tenet of Christianity.

Phil 2:5-8 -- Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,a who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant,b being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

 

[Grand Vol]

EmDrive Is an Engine That Breaks the Laws of Physics and Could Take Us to Mars

Those "breaking laws of physics" things can turn interesting right quickly. I've always loved hearing the stories of "you can't do that! It's impossible!" and someone does it anyway.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

So are we counting you in the "no, it's a waste of money" block?

The technology has other applications besides space travel. If it's shown to work here on earth and can be a non-polluting source of propulsion (not sure yet), what would be the issue with continuing to adapt this technology?

I mean, if we can send back the illegals to their home nation without adding more pollution to the ozone layer, that's kind of a win-win in my book.

Forget the money part to my original question....I want to know the reason or what's the purpose of going to Mars in the first place & why is it important for us to do so? Just to say we did so? We've been to the moon & back but......so what?

 

[Grand Vol]

Forget the money part to my original question....I want to know the reason or what's the purpose of going to Mars in the first place & why is it important for us to do so? Just to say we did so? We've been to the moon & back but......so what?

Because we can...

Discussed ad nauseam in this thread with many different points of view coming up.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Because we can...

Discussed ad nauseam in this thread with many different points of view coming up.

Is it to set up a living base there on Mars & to use that living base as a place for us to launch ourselves into space for the purpose of space exploration to other worlds or planets.....that's my question I suppose?

 

[PKT_VOL]

No. It doesn't. See below.



Then you are operating on a flawed definition of 'omnipotence'.



I've made the point that He is able to do any thing. The idea that He would have the ability to do any non-thing (i.e. logical contradiction) is a logical non-statement.

It's the equivalent of saying that God can't be God as described because He can't make a cubed sphere.



OK. Does an ounce of chaos negate all logic? Does an exploding volcano mean that cubed spheres exist? I'm really not sure what you think this point proves. But OK.



Go research the Biblical definition of love, and get back with me.



Free will means the possibility of rebellion.



I'm sorry. I truly did laugh out loud at that. Hold on. I'm still laughing...

OK...

Care to expand, Mr. Moral Realtivist?

lol.

giggle...

Chuckle...

OK. I'm OK now. Promise. Sorry.



You're a smart guy. Now, I suspect you're being purposefully difficult.

You've made the 'image' reference a couple of times, so I guess I need to make something explicit that I shouldn't have to.

That up there: ^

It can't drive a car, for two reasons.

It's not a person.

It's not a dog.

It's a picture. It's an image.

It resembles a dog, but it is obviously not a dog. Even resembling a dog, and giving the ability to roughly approximate a dog and know some things about a dog once I look at it... It's not a dog. It's an image.

And of course, if it were a dog, it still couldn't drive a car, because... well... It's a dog.

You know what else I don't let my dog do? Crap in the house. But I crap in the house all the time. Because I know how to use a toilet.

I'm not being a hypocrite by crapping in the house and not letting my dog crap in the house.

I'm on my mobile waiting for the poker tournament to start, bear with me.

The difference or separation between thing and non-thing as you put it, would be restrictions. What the nature of these restrictions are up for debate. However, true omnipotence would not be restricted in such a way. As I said before, I don't see God not being omnipotent (but relatively omnipotent) as a problem in theology.

I never said chaos neglected logic. I merely pointed out the relationship between chaos and free will.

I care not what the Bible defines as love.

The rebellion/free will comment was about what I think constituents true rebellion. The difference is illustrated between Adam/Eve/Satan and me (or other who happen to not believe but have no true knowledge from which to truly rebel).

You know what I say is my opinion. We have been through this. It is not just in my opinion. I said nothing of objectively unjust.

As for the dog analogy, it doesn't hold. I didn't create the dog or his world.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Our ideas of 'vanity' are largely defined by comparison of ourselves to external actions/the universe/etc. I simply refuse to allow you to use the same comparison for God without making comment.



I disagree. Again, you are using human to compare against human. I refuse to allow you to use human as comparison to God, without comment.



We've spent a couple of pages and thousands of words to circle back around to opinion. And that's all good.

As I see it, we've found no rational/logical inconsistency in the belief that God, as described in the Bible, built the entire universe in such a way that it would glorify Himself to humanity more and more, the more we explore it and learn of it.

You don't like Him. That's no great surprise either.

I understand and respect why you believe, statistically, that there must be life out there waiting to be discovered. I think that is a very rational and respectful place to leave it.

I always appreciate our discussions. Thank you for that, PKT.

:hi:

In fairness, I never argued that your God was vain. I argued the opposite. You insist it was purposefully for his glory rather than a side effect. I reject that argument but state if it were true, then it would fit the definition/characteristic of being vain.

Like I stated earlier, I seem to think more highly of your God than you do (bigger purpose than glory).

 

[PKT_VOL]

And, He did. That's a major tenet of Christianity.

Precisely. Which goes against the glory argument.

 

[Grand Vol]

Is it to set up a living base there on Mars & to use that living base as a place for us to launch ourselves into space for the purpose of space exploration to other worlds or planets.....that's my question I suppose?

Discussed as well in this thread lol.

To me as I stated before, we've never really taken the logical steps into the cosmos like that. We're still in the exploratory mode and haven't crossed the threshold into colonization yet. But I'd assume that would be an eventual step in the process.

Mars does make a good jumping point for exploration of the outer solar system. Resupplying said colony wouldn't be easy and it would need self sustainment to a degree. And the only way to determine what would be needed for that partial self sustainment would be exploration in the beginning.

And for PKT, it would make a well located base to serve as a dandy anti-PHA platform to knock off inbound threats to Earth.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I care not what the Bible defines as love.

You should, if it's a conversation about why the God of the Bible created the universe, then what He has to say about the definition of His reason would bear tremendous weight on the discussion.

It's called judging a worldview from within.

Hint. 1 Corinthians says that His greatest ideal in creation was "love". This was immediately following a lengthy definition of what He meant by "love".

Hint # 2. It wasn't a chemical reaction.

The rebellion/free will comment was about what I think constituents true rebellion. The difference is illustrated between Adam/Eve/Satan and me (or other who happen to not believe but have no true knowledge from which to truly rebel).

Feel free to go back to Romans 1 and 2. It discusses this. After mentioning the universe, it even says at the close of its argument, "Therefore, oh man, you are without excuse..."

As for the dog analogy, it doesn't hold. I didn't create the dog or his world.

So? And I mean that. So what?

Your argument is that God, if He is to create any self-aware being, is morally constrained to create them equal to Himself?

lol