Definitive Proof that GOD Exists?

[Lonestar_logic]

It's easy to understand at a superficial level. But useful knowledge about how and why it works the way it does is another matter. It's like the difference between an early human's understanding of fire (basically, just how to start one) and a physicist's comprehension. That requires more than just 'faith'.

No it doesn't require more than faith. Faith is all that is required.

Your fire analogy is flawed in the sense that the basic understanding of fire is knowing the ingredients needed to produce it (heat, fuel and oxygen). Understanding how heat passes from molecule to molecule and things like that has no bearing on a persons ability to use it.

(John20: 29 ) Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

that's not an answer.
faith requires action ,that is to say when someone takes on a faith, SPECIFIC rules and regulations are applied, if a person declines to follow those rules and regs, they are ousted from that belief system.
so faith in and of itself is not enough.

Just where did I suggest faith required no action? Having faith is an action in that faith is believing what you can't see, prove or touch.

 

[Mom]

Self esteem issue huh? ♫ ♫

yeah yours...

She has a problem with my self esteem? Since you know so much then explain how that can be.

Or was your comment just a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?

God expects you to believe in him without ONE shred of evidence? Is this the gullibility test?

And you're forgetting about the REAl ruler of the universe, the great spaghetti monster. Why don't you believe in him?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It's easy to understand at a superficial level. But useful knowledge about how and why it works the way it does is another matter. It's like the difference between an early human's understanding of fire (basically, just how to start one) and a physicist's comprehension. That requires more than just 'faith'.

No it doesn't require more than faith. Faith is all that is required.

For the kind of understanding I'm proposing, it does. The fire analogy is appropriate. You're describing what is required to use and experience religion, as opposed to understanding it.

I don't know of anyone of faith that has no understanding of their religion.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

yeah yours...

She has a problem with my self esteem? Since you know so much then explain how that can be.

Or was your comment just a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?

God expects you to believe in him without ONE shred of evidence? Is this the gullibility test?

And you're forgetting about the REAl ruler of the universe, the great spaghetti monster. Why don't you believe in him?

I see your kind everyday and I'll pray for you.

 

[daws101]

Self esteem issue huh? ♫ ♫

yeah yours...

She has a problem with my self esteem? Since you know so much then explain how that can be.

Or was your comment just a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?

let's see... your unnecessary response to mom's comment just screams self esteem issues.
From my pov if you really believe, like you say you do, then no comment made about it by any one else should have no effect.
also when your second comment ; "because you are incapable of anything more substantive"-LS is factored in it corroborates my observation.

 

[daws101]

She has a problem with my self esteem? Since you know so much then explain how that can be.

Or was your comment just a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?

God expects you to believe in him without ONE shred of evidence? Is this the gullibility test?

And you're forgetting about the REAl ruler of the universe, the great spaghetti monster. Why don't you believe in him?

I see your kind everyday and I'll pray for you.

was that a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?

 

[dblack]

No it doesn't require more than faith. Faith is all that is required.

For the kind of understanding I'm proposing, it does. The fire analogy is appropriate. You're describing what is required to use and experience religion, as opposed to understanding it.

I don't know of anyone of faith that has no understanding of their religion.

At this point in time, I don't think anyone really understands religion - any more than cavemen understood fire (even if they were able to use it).

 

[Boss]

That's all very melodramatic but the "angry fundamentalist" thing is getting old. .

What's getting old is repeatedly being called a "fundamentalist" or "religious" when I have repeatedly gone out of my way to say I am not religious, and many have described my personal beliefs as "atheistic." I do believe in a god, it's just not the religious incarnation traditionally understood by organized religions.

So why does this accusation persist? Do you think that only religious people are spiritual?

Many ancient peoples had beliefs in gods, spirits and all sorts of superstitions which were used to explain phenomena they didn’t understand.

Again, if this were a valid theory, we would see a DRAMATIC decline in human spiritual belief, as science explained away ALL the unknown questions of ancient man. Superstition, which was not based in religious theology, HAS declined, it is nowhere near as prevalent today as in our past. If your were arguing against mere superstition, I can see that point, because we also see a rapid decline in superstitious beliefs, but that has not occurred with spirituality, just as many humans are spiritual in nature as before science was invented....which, by the way, WAS invented to "explain the unexplained." Ironic!

The Abrahamic god of the desert is more recent but no less a vehicle for superstition. Share the knowledge why your god(s) are extant to the exclusion of other, more ancient gods. When you can share that knowledge in a way that would verify your claim that you in some way attain supremacy over the Dayaks, then you'd have some cleats in the turf. But it's all gainsay.

I'm not here to argue specific theological belief, I reject most religious belief. All religion is good for in this discussion, is to prove mankind's intrinsic connection to something greater than self, and that man has an imagination.

The only thing we have ("we" meaning those who don't embrace your particular theology) is your assertion about something you call "spirituality" but are unable to define in any meaningful way. It seems you're actually using terms you don't understand to press your fundamentalist religious agenda. You like to make the claim to mysterious, supernatural "spiritual" connections and that humans have always had an inherent hard-wiring to this mumbo-jumbo so hey-- why don't you show us all the evidence that places your alleged spirit realms into a meaningful context?

I do not have a theology. I have defined spirituality and spiritual nature. I even gave examples of spiritual evidence, which you continue to reject and dismiss. I am not a fundamentalist, I don't practice religion, so I have no religious agenda. The reason you continue making this false insinuation, is because this is about your war on religion. You have no intention of ever being open minded on this topic, because you fear it would lend support to religious arguments, and you hate religion. Therefore, you have closed your mind to possibilities, because you are intolerant of religion and religious beliefs.

This is not about religion, or religious incarnations of who god is. I will agree with you on just about any criticism you have for religion or religious incarnations of god. That does not negate human spiritual connection at all. You have simply conflated religion with spirituality, and closed your mind.

I have no answer for that.

 

[daws101]

the classic dodge!

Not a dodge, just an understanding of the mentality of people like her and you.

You need God to reveal Himself to you before you will ever believe. Which is quite odd seeing that you already believe so much that has not been proven.

Leave the poor boy alone, he's got nothing.

may be you're right ..he makes it sooo easy.

 

[Montrovant]

Three quick things.

First, you have said that in order to observe the spiritual, one must believe in the spiritual. That is not the case for observing a rock fall. Your continued harping on the 70k year thing aside, that's a huge difference.

I never said "in order to observe the spiritual, one must believe in the spiritual" that is a misinterpretation. You can certainly observe the spiritual and reject the belief it is spiritual. Just as you can see the rock fall, we can see human history and connection to spiritual belief. Our conclusions for what we observed are different.

Second, whether I love my mother or not is subject to change. Is your belief in god's existence subject to change? If not, your analogy falls flat.

My belief in god is not subject to change. My analogy only fails if I were trying to say something different. I don't know about you, but most people are going to always love their mother, that's not ever going to change. My point was, you can't prove this to me, and you have no need to prove it to me. If I don't believe you, it doesn't change your love for your mother. I can challenge you, ridicule you, demand physical evidence, it won't change what you know in your heart to be true.

Third, my point about you deciding you know the answers is not just about a particular statement you've made, but the sum of what you've posted in this thread. Your evidence for almost everything you've claimed about the spiritual boils down to, 'because I say so.'. You seem as convinced of the veracity of your claims as anyone else, yet because others disagree with you, they are closed minded and afraid of the answers they may receive, yet you are not. That continues to seem like arrogant double standard to me.

Well I am sorry that I am so well-informed and well-equipped to debate the topic of my thread. In the future, I will try to start threads where you can make valid points that I can't refute, so you will feel better about things. I've not once posted "because I say so" in this thread, I'm not sure where you are reading this, but please give some example so we can clear up this misinterpretation as well.

Most people will always love their mothers, sure. But what if they found out something terrible about her? What if she did something monstrous to them? New information about her can still affect their view. If you say your belief in god's existence cannot change, then you have a closed mind about it, no?

Again, you miss the point. It is not whether I can bring up points that you refute or not that matters. It is that you describe the beliefs of those who disagree with you as closed minded. It is that you assume they are afraid of the answers you think they will find. You apparently assume no one can ask the questions you are talking about and come to any conclusions other than those you have. It is that you admit to using circular logic in your arguments but think that is perfectly ok and should not be a point of contention, because even if it's circular logic, it's still true!
You seem to equate disagreement with your conclusions with closed mindedness and fear. That is a basic tenet of extreme views, be they religious, political, or whatever. 'I'm right. Not only am I right, but anyone who disagrees with me isn't just wrong, they are stupid or fearful or illogical and irrational. No reasonable person can possibly come to any other conclusion than mine.'. That is the tone, for want of a better word, I get from your posts.

I'm sorry if I've misread you. Here's an example of what you've said that led me to my conclusion :

Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence.

And further in that post :

I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.

So it was objective observation, not simply observation, that you talked about there. Ok, I'll accept I misrepresented you. I can only assume, if that is the case, that you mean that one who doesn't believe in the spiritual will still see the spiritual but will simply believe it to be something else?

Have to go out, bbl.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

God expects you to believe in him without ONE shred of evidence? Is this the gullibility test?

And you're forgetting about the REAl ruler of the universe, the great spaghetti monster. Why don't you believe in him?

I see your kind everyday and I'll pray for you.

was that a snide remark because you are incapable of anything more substantive?

No not at all. That was a sincere comment, every word was absolutely true.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

For the kind of understanding I'm proposing, it does. The fire analogy is appropriate. You're describing what is required to use and experience religion, as opposed to understanding it.

I don't know of anyone of faith that has no understanding of their religion.

At this point in time, I don't think anyone really understands religion - any more than cavemen understood fire (even if they were able to use it).

I for one fully understand my religion.

 

[Boss]

Most people will always love their mothers, sure. But what if they found out something terrible about her? What if she did something monstrous to them? New information about her can still affect their view. If you say your belief in god's existence cannot change, then you have a closed mind about it, no?

I didn't say my belief cannot change, I said it won't change. Just like I can never convince you that you don't love your mother, no 'evidence' I can produce, will change your love. You don't require your love to be validated by me, if I don't believe you love your mother, it doesn't mean you don't love her, and it will never mean that.

Again, you miss the point. It is not whether I can bring up points that you refute or not that matters. It is that you describe the beliefs of those who disagree with you as closed minded.

I have said that people who have closed their minds to spiritual evidence are closed-minded, because that's what they are. It's not my belief, it's what they are. It has nothing to do with agreement, I am sure there are plenty of religious people in this thread who disagree with my view of god.

It is that you assume they are afraid of the answers you think they will find. You apparently assume no one can ask the questions you are talking about and come to any conclusions other than those you have. It is that you admit to using circular logic in your arguments but think that is perfectly ok and should not be a point of contention, because even if it's circular logic, it's still true!

You raised the circular logic, I merely pointed out that circular logic isn't necessarily wrong. You can't refute that statement. I maintain, if you can accept spiritual evidence, the proof of god's existence is definitive and overwhelming. The problem is, you close your mind to spiritual evidence, dismiss it as coincidence or delusion, and refuse to open your mind to any other possibility. I believe you do this because you know the spiritual evidence is too overwhelming, you have no argument to counter it, and so you have to disallow spiritual evidence.

You seem to equate disagreement with your conclusions with closed mindedness and fear.

Again, there are several religious people in this thread, I am certain we have a difference of opinion regarding god. They have not reached the same conclusion as me, obviously. You are closed minded because your mind is closed to spirituality... is that circular reasoning? Perhaps, but it's true.

That is a basic tenet of extreme views, be they religious, political, or whatever. 'I'm right. Not only am I right, but anyone who disagrees with me isn't just wrong, they are stupid or fearful or illogical and irrational. No reasonable person can possibly come to any other conclusion than mine.'. That is the tone, for want of a better word, I get from your posts.

Funny, that sounds exactly like what all the god-haters are doing in this thread!

I'm sorry if I've misread you. Here's an example of what you've said that led me to my conclusion :

Again, "circular reasoning" does not mean something is wrong! In this case, it is absolutely accurate and correct, in order to acknowledge spiritual evidence, you must believe in spiritual evidence.

And further in that post :

I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.

So it was objective observation, not simply observation, that you talked about there. Ok, I'll accept I misrepresented you. I can only assume, if that is the case, that you mean that one who doesn't believe in the spiritual will still see the spiritual but will simply believe it to be something else?

Have to go out, bbl.

You got it! That's what I am saying.... we both witness the rock fall... you explain scientifically, that it's the force of gravity... I disagree and contend it is the force of god, because I reject physical science as an explanation. (this is a hypothetical for those joining in late, I have not presented this actual argument) We observe the 70k year history of man, we observe everything we know and understand about animal behavior and inherent behavioral traits, and some of us realize there is a very real spiritual connection humans make to some power greater than self. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not see this the same way. In both cases, the 'evidence' is there, the tests and observations are there, the conclusions are what differ.

 

[Hollie]

Most people will always love their mothers, sure. But what if they found out something terrible about her? What if she did something monstrous to them? New information about her can still affect their view. If you say your belief in god's existence cannot change, then you have a closed mind about it, no?

I didn't say my belief cannot change, I said it won't change. Just like I can never convince you that you don't love your mother, no 'evidence' I can produce, will change your love. You don't require your love to be validated by me, if I don't believe you love your mother, it doesn't mean you don't love her, and it will never mean that.

Again, you miss the point. It is not whether I can bring up points that you refute or not that matters. It is that you describe the beliefs of those who disagree with you as closed minded.

I have said that people who have closed their minds to spiritual evidence are closed-minded, because that's what they are. It's not my belief, it's what they are. It has nothing to do with agreement, I am sure there are plenty of religious people in this thread who disagree with my view of god.



You raised the circular logic, I merely pointed out that circular logic isn't necessarily wrong. You can't refute that statement. I maintain, if you can accept spiritual evidence, the proof of god's existence is definitive and overwhelming. The problem is, you close your mind to spiritual evidence, dismiss it as coincidence or delusion, and refuse to open your mind to any other possibility. I believe you do this because you know the spiritual evidence is too overwhelming, you have no argument to counter it, and so you have to disallow spiritual evidence.



Again, there are several religious people in this thread, I am certain we have a difference of opinion regarding god. They have not reached the same conclusion as me, obviously. You are closed minded because your mind is closed to spirituality... is that circular reasoning? Perhaps, but it's true.



Funny, that sounds exactly like what all the god-haters are doing in this thread!

I'm sorry if I've misread you. Here's an example of what you've said that led me to my conclusion :


And further in that post :

I did not say spiritual is made up of something that can't be objectively observed. You aren't reading my words. I can't communicate with you if you won't read my words. Spiritual is non-physical, but it most certainly can be objectively observed by people who believe in spiritual nature. It can not be objectively observed by those who reject spiritual evidence. There is no basis in logic for spiritual entities to have physical evidence, and you can never physically prove something spiritual.

So it was objective observation, not simply observation, that you talked about there. Ok, I'll accept I misrepresented you. I can only assume, if that is the case, that you mean that one who doesn't believe in the spiritual will still see the spiritual but will simply believe it to be something else?

Have to go out, bbl.

You got it! That's what I am saying.... we both witness the rock fall... you explain scientifically, that it's the force of gravity... I disagree and contend it is the force of god, because I reject physical science as an explanation. (this is a hypothetical for those joining in late, I have not presented this actual argument) We observe the 70k year history of man, we observe everything we know and understand about animal behavior and inherent behavioral traits, and some of us realize there is a very real spiritual connection humans make to some power greater than self. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not see this the same way. In both cases, the 'evidence' is there, the tests and observations are there, the conclusions are what differ.

In order to avoid complete buffoonery, are you going to present evidence for this "spiritual-ness" you rattle on about but never quite get around to demonstrating?

 

[Montrovant]

You got it! That's what I am saying.... we both witness the rock fall... you explain scientifically, that it's the force of gravity... I disagree and contend it is the force of god, because I reject physical science as an explanation. (this is a hypothetical for those joining in late, I have not presented this actual argument) We observe the 70k year history of man, we observe everything we know and understand about animal behavior and inherent behavioral traits, and some of us realize there is a very real spiritual connection humans make to some power greater than self. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not see this the same way. In both cases, the 'evidence' is there, the tests and observations are there, the conclusions are what differ.

Would it be fair to say that humans do not directly observe the spiritual? That, like gravity, while we see the effects, things spiritual are not 'visible', that our senses do not directly detect them?

I'm trying to understand in more detail what you describe. Is god a being? Are there spiritual beings? If humans had different perceptions, would we see them as some sort of creature?
Is it possible the spiritual is actually part of the physical realm, but we have not found a way to detect it yet? Think of it like dark matter. It is believed to exist but we cannot directly detect it (assuming I'm not butchering the theory behind dark matter). Given further technology, however, perhaps we may someday see it, like seeing a spectrum of light not visible to the naked eye.

 

[numan]

I for one fully understand my religion.

Stupidity consists in wanting to come to a conclusion.
---Elemire Zola

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.
---Voltaire

Only the shallow know themselves.
---Oscar Wilde

.

 

[edthecynic]

Most people will always love their mothers, sure. But what if they found out something terrible about her? What if she did something monstrous to them? New information about her can still affect their view. If you say your belief in god's existence cannot change, then you have a closed mind about it, no?

I didn't say my belief cannot change, I said it won't change. Just like I can never convince you that you don't love your mother, no 'evidence' I can produce, will change your love. You don't require your love to be validated by me, if I don't believe you love your mother, it doesn't mean you don't love her, and it will never mean that.



I have said that people who have closed their minds to spiritual evidence are closed-minded, because that's what they are. It's not my belief, it's what they are. It has nothing to do with agreement, I am sure there are plenty of religious people in this thread who disagree with my view of god.



You raised the circular logic, I merely pointed out that circular logic isn't necessarily wrong. You can't refute that statement. I maintain, if you can accept spiritual evidence, the proof of god's existence is definitive and overwhelming. The problem is, you close your mind to spiritual evidence, dismiss it as coincidence or delusion, and refuse to open your mind to any other possibility. I believe you do this because you know the spiritual evidence is too overwhelming, you have no argument to counter it, and so you have to disallow spiritual evidence.



Again, there are several religious people in this thread, I am certain we have a difference of opinion regarding god. They have not reached the same conclusion as me, obviously. You are closed minded because your mind is closed to spirituality... is that circular reasoning? Perhaps, but it's true.



Funny, that sounds exactly like what all the god-haters are doing in this thread!

I'm sorry if I've misread you. Here's an example of what you've said that led me to my conclusion :


And further in that post :


So it was objective observation, not simply observation, that you talked about there. Ok, I'll accept I misrepresented you. I can only assume, if that is the case, that you mean that one who doesn't believe in the spiritual will still see the spiritual but will simply believe it to be something else?

Have to go out, bbl.

You got it! That's what I am saying.... we both witness the rock fall... you explain scientifically, that it's the force of gravity... I disagree and contend it is the force of god, because I reject physical science as an explanation. (this is a hypothetical for those joining in late, I have not presented this actual argument) We observe the 70k year history of man, we observe everything we know and understand about animal behavior and inherent behavioral traits, and some of us realize there is a very real spiritual connection humans make to some power greater than self. You reject spiritual nature, therefore, you do not see this the same way. In both cases, the 'evidence' is there, the tests and observations are there, the conclusions are what differ.

In order to avoid complete buffoonery, are you going to present evidence for this "spiritual-ness" you rattle on about but never quite get around to demonstrating?

Don't hold your breath. He hasn't yet. The ONLY spirituality shown so far has depended on the existence of physical human beings. While he claims it is possible for the spiritual to exist without the existence of humans, he has yet to demonstrate it.

He will insist that his pontifications are proof of the existence of the spiritual before the existence of the physical and then give another example of the physical being spiritual (actually the same example over again) while admitting the spiritual can't be physical. So even after showing that he is ass backwards on spirituality by his own examples, he will then claim that anyone who does not accept his pontifications on spirituality does not believe in the spiritual.

 

[Youwerecreated]

are you really this blindly arrogant what you posted was plagiarized ,you have yet to credit the real authors.
not only that the "facts" you speak of are from creationist sites.
they are pseudoscience steaming piles of false premise religious dogma.
not facts. the quote below proves this:

"What I stated was a known fact and I read it with many different creationists sources but confirmed their claims before posting it". YWC

confirming bullshit with bullshit is still bullshit.

So you're claiming they were your words ?

asked and answered.

Your classic dodge!

 

[Youwerecreated]

why can't you say I have no proof there isn't life out there?

Why should I ? is there life out there ?

now you're contradicting yourself. you've yammered endlessly that earth is special and there is no life anywhere else. With absolutely no evidence of any kind.

the bible even refutes your bullshit:

Does the discovery of life on other planets contradict with religions?
answer:

No, if life is discovered on other planets then it will not contradict with religions.

Below are opinions from view points of different religions:

A. In the Islamic religion:
•It is mentioned in Quran, Muslim's holy book, that God (the Creator) is the Lord of all worlds. God says in Quran that God is the Lord of what we know and what we don't. God says in Quran that we have known only little. Accordingly, nothing in Quran or Islam religions contradicts with the possibility of discovering life on other planets. God says in Quran (meaning English translation):
•{In the name of Allah (God), the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful. (1) [All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds...} [Quran, chapter 1, verse 1-2]
•{To Him belongs what is in the heavens and what is on the earth and what is between them and what is under the soil. (6)} [Quran, chapter 20, verse 6]
•{And they ask you, [O Muhammad], about the soul. Say, "The soul is of the affair of my Lord. And mankind have not been given of knowledge except a little." (85)} [Quran, chapter 17, verse 85]
•{The seven heavens and the earth and whatever is in them exalt Him. And there is not a thing except that it exalts [Allah] by His praise, but you do not understand their [way of] exalting. Indeed, He is ever Forbearing and Forgiving. (44)} [Quran, chapter 17, verse 44]
•There is a religious explanation, even before such discoveries, revise these verses:
{28. And He it is Who sendeth down the saving rain after they have despaired, and spreadeth out His mercy. He is the Protecting Friend, the Praiseworthy. 29. And of His portents is the creation of the heaven and the earth, and of whatever beasts He hath dispersed therein. And He is Able to gather them when He will.}[quoted from, Meanings of the Golrious Quran, by Marmaduke Pickthall]
Here the mention of Heavens and earth, meant the whole universe,
•{12. Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof. The commandment cometh down among them slowly, that ye may know that Allah is Able to do all things, and that Allah surroundeth all things in knowledge.}So, for certain there is life on other parts of the universe, whether we discovered this or not.




The above Quran verses confirm that we still don't know except a little and that God is the Creator of all worlds what we know and what we don't. Accordingly, discovering life on other planets doesn't contradict with Quran or with Islam religion.

B. In the Christian religion:
•There is nothing in the Bible that says God created life only on this planet. Doesn't even rule out other intelligent life in the universe. But after seeing the mess we created in this world, He would probably not try again.
•Most certainly. The Bible speaks nothing of life on other planets, though some may craft an explantion through through vague references and loose endings. However, the fact remains that would seriously hinder Christian credibility as an absolute religion whose implications are universal. What I think is more interesting is that this does not rule out the existence of God as creator, merely the existence of a God we thought we knew. This discovery would force us as an entire race to seriously question our faith - at least where we rest our faith - because a discovery like that would prove beyond doubt many religions false.
•The original unadulterated idea of God transmitted to us by Adam through Noah is one of having no form, no physical or natural bounds, one beyond perception and even conception (the imagination). That theology is completely invulnerable and impervious to a discovery of life at another location. Only theologies which are self (human)-centric could be weakened by such a discovery.
•Read the Scriptures as God speaks to Abraham. He says that he has created worlds without end. The Scriptures do not say that life and God's children are restricted to just this earth. If God would create one world where Billions have lived, why would He not create another place, where more of His children can be tested whether they will follow what is right or not. There are Christian churches that use other holy Christian writings as well as those gathered into 'The Bible'. Certain of those writings reveal that God has created "worlds without number" ... and "the inhabitants thereof are as numberless as the sands upon the seashore" [Moses 1:28] ... 'and the inhabitants thereof, are begotten sons and daughters unto God', ... "But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you ... For behold there are many worlds ..." [Moses 1:35] Here is also a scientific way to test the truthfulness of the Gospel. Put it to the test. Exercise a little faith, read the scriptures, pray about it and wait for answer. And when you receive the answer, feed it and let it grow. It's an experiment. Try it. (And to express an idea that God has killed millions is incorrect. We have the freedom to choose; it's a sacred right. We are judged by those choices. We are free to choose and those who have decided to murder suffer their choices.)
•The simple answer is no. God has no limits, and the only limit in religion is the mind of man, who is unable to comprehend this. The real answer is: the Baha'i Faith teaches that there are an infinity of other planets out there, and each is alive with God's creatures. They may be very unlike us, but they exist.
•For some religions, the answer would be "we already knew that". For most others, the answer would be "we already knew that, it's just that you misunderstood us before".
•I do not think that it would debunk religion. Science and religion serve VERY different needs of humanity, religion is a matter of faith; faith is belief without proof. Science is a tool to understand our surroundings and has zero room for "faith". I do not think that religion and science are mutually exclusive.
•Actually, the Bible itself says there is intelligent life other than man. There are intelligent beings called angels, cherubim, seraphim, there are the four beasts which stand before the throne of God. The Bible is full of "life on other planets." Also, Christian writers in the last century wrote many sci-fi stories about encountering life on other planets, etc. Some were better than others, but the concept is not foreign to Orthodox Christianity. And if you incorporate Christian fantasy writings such as The Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings, the treatment of the idea of intelligence other than man is even more fully developed. The "problem" posed by the possibility of life on other planets is mostly a moral question. If there are other beings, do they have to obey the same rules as we do? What if their religion were contradictory to ours? Would that challenge the truth of ours? If they experienced a "fall" as our first ancestors did, do they need redemption? In fact, I once heard about a sci-fi story written by a non-Christian author (I have not read it) in which humans land on a planet and Jesus is there getting ready to die on the cross. Several of the earthmen try to stop His execution but Jesus won't let them. He tells them it's necessary for Him to die there, just as He had to die on earth.
•In every single religious book eg. "Bible" it doesn't say that life doesn't exist on other planets. But in most religious books it states that there are nine planets eg. Mercury, which have life on them... Life being some form eg. Bacteria, not necessarily "Aliens" and in my personal opinion UFO's are a load of CRAP, you can see in UFO sighting pics and videos that its all rubbish. But religions' explanation would be along the lines of what it says in their religious books.
•The Bible does mention life in other planets that has not gotten corrupted by sin like in earth.

Does the discovery of life on other planets contradict with religions

this is another case of you. casting god in your own image.

If You want to believe in miracles be my guest.

 

[Youwerecreated]

this is one of those pseudoscience religious dogma sites nothing they say is based on fact.
my math tells me you and them are talking out your collective ass.
but thanks for helping me showcase your fraudulent knowledge of science.

Your math skills are poor as was pointed out in the other thread take a hike dumbass.

Your math skills are so poor and that is why you can't see truth concerning the receding moon.