It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Harder To Believe In - God or Aliens?

page: 42
6
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:51 AM
link   
CS
Good point! Many people view the ancestry of Arab people and Islam back to the battle between Abrham's sons, Isaac and Ishmael. That comes from the book of Genesis.




posted on Dec, 23 2004 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Hello all. I'm a new member, but I've been around here reading for a while.

I just have to say this. I believe in God. I have my reasons. I have no proof. How do all you people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution have any proof? Darwin's theory is just that: a theory. There is no solid evidence. But yet you look at us as if we're ignorant fools. I may be mistaken, but, didn't Darwin admit he was totaly wrong just before he died?

I DO believe in evolution, the big bang, and string theory. But, I believe God set the ball rolling. How did it just happen? I know you will ask, "Who created God". That's where faith comes in.

And yes I do believe there are aliens out there. It would be a big waste if we are the only intelligent beings in the universe.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by CyCoKie]



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with your position. I just wonder why so many people can't accept a creator as our source. Or feel it's necessary to come up with a far fetched theory of our origin.



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 12:45 PM
link   
In my view its easier to believe in aliens that a god. I mean a thought of one amn making us all dont make me laugh there is no proof god existing at all not even the slightest amount. where as aliens exist whether or not you like it. the infinite universe with all its galaxies and stars there is another life form out there there has to be another planet around the same distance from a star as we are think about it



posted on Dec, 24 2004 @ 01:57 PM
link   
But that leaves unanswered how the universe came to be in the first place.



posted on Dec, 25 2004 @ 08:00 PM
link   
Heres my theory.God is real.He is as real as you and me.What you have to understand is that we are`nt the only beings created by God.God created other beings so that he could love more then just one kind of people/species.Theirs a saying in the bible.``So god made people of all races,all colours and all walks of life``.I think thats how it is said but not sure,something similar.But i believe that some of the beings he created he did not give them feelings,some he did,some he gave them humanoid bodies,some he didnt.My proof of all this.Well if he did only jus make one type of people,``humanbeings``then why bother to make animals,reptiles,etc.

Well thats my opinion,i hope that helps your answer.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 02:45 AM
link   
Common Sense, I assume you use logic hence your name. Instead of just believing God has always been, why not just assume the universe has always been.

On a different note, I'm not sure if "Our Creator" was an ET but the creation of Earth and the heavens in Genisis sounds alot like what terraforming would be like. "Us" is use used numerous times instead of "I" in the Bible insinuating multiple Gods, not one.

I would just like to know why you think God created the universe and if so who was his/her/its creator?



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Charlie
There's one good reason the universe didn't always exist. Matter cannot create matter, therefore something must have created the universe. This something must also exist beyond the realm of time and space.

With regard to God, most, if not all, religions believe has always existed. That goes back to his existence beyond time and space.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
I can accept that there might be a higher power but I do not think that it created mankind. With regards to matter creating matter there are so many unkown variables to be considered. There are so many things humans do not know about the universe and so even the smartest person to have ever lived is an idiot. Everything I know I am only 99% sure of. So who konws what we may discover in the future.

I wasn't completely clear on where you thought "GOD" came from though.



posted on Dec, 26 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   
I didn't read every single post yet, so I don't know if this has been said yet.
If God exists in the Biblical sense, then he is an extra-terrestrial.

Extra "Outside; beyond", Terrestrial "Having a mundane, worldly quality"

So if God is an omnipotent entity in the kingdom of heaven, then He is not of the Earth, and therefore an extra-terrestrial.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
After having read many posts on religious conspiracies and aliens, I've noticed a number of things. First of all, we seem to have a large nummber of atheists on ATS. Second, there's a lot of speculation that God is really an alien. Third, many people, atheists included, find it easier to believe all sorts of bizarre stories about aliens yet can't seem to simply believe in God without putting some twist on it.

And that is my question. Why? If God is an alien, then who created him? If there is no God, why do some choose to beleive that the human race was placed on earth by a bunch of reptiles from another galaxy? Who created the reptiles and their galaxy? there is certainly less "evidence" to support that notion than simply believing in God. At least there's the Bible to support that traditional belief.

In any event, I'm looking forward to reading well thought out accounts of the reasons behind many of the beliefs that I question.

Thanks!


To be a true atheist, you will deny existance in any form of god. So your statement on atheists believing that god is an alien does not make sense, or if atheists actually believe that..then they're just hypocrites. But it if god being an alien meaning.. aliens play the role of god, assisting in creation of human life, then yeah i understand that then.

A reason i think that people will believe in aliens more than god is because, it is strange to think that out of the many planets and stars throughout the universe cannot be home to other species other than what can be found on Earth.

Both beliefs in god and aliens rely on the stories of others..or personal encounters. Belief in god is taught through religion and the teachings of religion comes from the bible..or other holy books such as the Qu'ran that have been written such a long time ago and all come from other peoples experiences in forms of written stories, almost exactly the same way people are able to believe in aliens and such. It is just that to non-religous people the stories and events in the bible seem too farfetched and there alot of things that are hard to make sense of. Compare the belief of a supernatural being creating everything in seven days, and being the reason that everything is the way it is today is because of a so called god, to the belief of existance of other beings from other planets, when life is already possible on our planet, which would seem more farfetched and would make one easier to believe than the other?

I don't believe in either, but this is just an open view from me, and why i think itd be easier to believe in aliens rather than god...



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   
I was wondering if anyone shares the theory that I stated earlier about the "GOD' described in the Bible and other holy texts were really aliens. Im basing this all on info I've read on the internet so it may be total nonsense.
I do not know where aliens could have come from but here it is.

The aliens either tearraformed the earth(Genisis) or destroyed the dinosaurs so that we may populate the earth. We were created in their image but they bred us with apes(explaining the gaps in evolution beatween us and apes). Humans sometime after described these events and the ones to come in the only words they were familiar with(lights in the sky being fiery chariots descending from the clouds or heaven). The seprent(maybe a repililian alien I've heard so much about) that Eve encountered was merely another species offering knowledge to humans. The creators of humans cloned the first male and female to populate the earth so that they may mine ur resources for themselves.

I know it does not make much snese but I would appreciate any feedback so that I may improve upon it.



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Do You Believe that Evolution is True?
If so, then provide an answer to the following questions. "Evolution" in this context is the idea that natural, undirected processes are sufficient to account for the existence of all natural things.
Something from nothing?

The "Big Bang", the most widely accepted theory of the beginning of the universe, states that everything developed from a small dense cloud of subatomic particles and radiation which exploded, forming hydrogen (and some helium) gas. Where did this energy/matter come from? How reasonable is it to assume it came into being from nothing? And even if it did come into being, what would cause it to explode?
We know from common experience that explosions are destructive and lead to disorder. How reasonable is it to assume that a "big bang" explosion produced the opposite effect - increasing "information", order and the formation of useful structures, such as stars and planets, and eventually people?

Physical laws an accident?
We know the universe is governed by several fundamental physical laws, such as electromagnetic forces, gravity, conservation of mass and energy, etc. The activities of our universe depend upon these principles like a computer program depends upon the existence of computer hardware with an instruction set. How reasonable is it to say that these great controlling principles developed by accident?
Order from disorder?

The Second Law of Thermodynamics may be the most verified law of science. It states that systems become more disordered over time, unless energy is supplied and directed to create order. Evolutionists says that the opposite has taken place - that order increased over time, without any directed energy. How can this be?

ASIDE: Evolutionists commonly object that the Second Law applies to closed, or isolated systems, and that the Earth is certainly not a closed system (it gets lots of raw energy from the Sun, for example). However, all systems, whether open or closed, tend to deteriorate. For example, living organisms are open systems but they all decay and die. Also, the universe in total is a closed system. To say that the chaos of the big bang has transformed itself into the human brain with its 120 trillion connections is a clear violation of the Second Law.

We should also point out that the availability of raw energy to a system is a necessary but far from sufficient condition for a local decrease in entropy to occur. Certainly the application of a blow torch to bicycle parts will not result in a bicycle being assembled - only the careful application of directed energy will, such as from the hands of a person following a plan. The presence of energy from the Sun does NOT solve the evolutionist's problem of how increasing order could occur on the Earth, contrary to the Second Law.

Information from Randomness?
Information theory states that "information" never arises out of randomness or chance events. Our human experience verifies this every day. How can the origin of the tremendous increase in information from simple organisms up to man be accounted for? Information is always introduced from the outside. It is impossible for natural processes to produce their own actual information, or meaning, which is what evolutionists claim has happened. Random typing might produce the string "dog", but it only means something to an intelligent observer who has applied a definition to this sequence of letters. The generation of information always requires intelligence, yet evolution claims that no intelligence was involved in the ultimate formation of a human being whose many systems contain vast amounts of information.
Life from dead chemicals?

Evolutionists claim that life formed from non-life (dead chemicals), so-called "abiogenesis", even though it is a biological law ("biogenesis") that life only comes from life. The probability of the simplest imaginable replicating system forming by itself from non-living chemicals has been calculated to be so very small as to be essentially zero - much less than one chance in the number of electron-sized particles that could fit in the entire visible universe! Given these odds, is it reasonable to believe that life formed itself?

Complex DNA and RNA by chance?
The continued existence (the reproduction) of a cell requires both DNA (the "plan") and RNA (the "copy mechanism"), both of which are tremendously complex. How reasonable is it to believe that these two co-dependent necessities came into existence by chance at exactly the same time?

Life is complex.
We know and appreciate the tremendous amount of intelligent design and planning that went into landing a man on the moon. Yet the complexity of this task pales in comparison to the complexity of even the simplest life form. How reasonable is it to believe that purely natural processes, with no designer, no intelligence, and no plan, produced a human being.
Where are the transitional fossils?

If evolution has taken place our museums should be overflowing with the skeletons of countless transitional forms. Yet after over one hundred years of intense searching only a small number of transitional candidates are touted as proof of evolution. If evolution has really taken place, where are the transitional forms? And why does the fossil record actually show all species first appearing fully formed, with most nearly identical to current instances of the species?

ASIDE: Most of the examples touted by evolutionists concentrate on just one feature of the anatomy, like a particular bone or the skull. A true transitional fossil should be intermediate in many if not all aspects. The next time someone shows you how this bone changed over time, ask them about the rest of the creature too!

Many evolutionists still like to believe in the "scarcity" of the fossil record. Yet simple statistics will show that given you have found a number of fossil instances of a creature, the chances that you have missed every one of its imagined predecessors is very small. Consider the trilobites for example. These fossils are so common you can buy one for under $20, yet no fossils of a predecessor have been found!.

Could an intermediate even survive?
Evolution requires the transition from one kind to another to be gradual. And don't forget that "natural selection" is supposed to retain those individuals which have developed an advantage of some sort. How could an animal intermediate between one kind and another even survive (and why would it ever be selected for), when it would not be well-suited to either its old environment or its new environment? Can you even imagine a possible sequence of small changes which takes a creature from one kind to another, all the while keeping it not only alive, but improved?
ASIDE: Certainly a "light-sensitive spot" is better than no vision at all. But why would such a spot even develop? (evolutionists like to take this for granted). And even if it did develop, to believe that mutations of such a spot eventually brought about the tremendous complexities of the human eye strains all common sense and experience.

Reproduction without reproduction?
A main tenet of evolution is the idea that things develop by an (unguided) series of small changes, caused by mutations, which are "selected" for, keeping the "better" changes" over a very long period of time. How could the ability to reproduce evolve, without the ability to reproduce? Can you even imagine a theoretical scenario which would allow this to happen? And why would evolution produce two sexes, many times over? Asexual reproduction would seem to be more likely and efficient!
ASIDE: To relegate the question of reproduction to "abiogenesis" does NOT address the problem. To assume existing, reproducing life for the principles of evolution to work on is a HUGE assumption which is seldom focused on in popular discussions.

Plants without photosynthesis?
The process of photosynthesis in plants is very complex. How could the first plant survive unless it already possessed this remarkable capability?
How do you explain symbiotic relationships?
There are many examples of plants and animals which have a "symbiotic" relationship (they need each other to survive). How can evolution explain this?

It's no good unless it's complete.
We know from everyday experience that an item is not generally useful until it is complete, whether it be a car, a cake, or a computer program. Why would natural selection start to make an eye, or an ear, or a wing (or anything else) when this item would not benefit the animal until it was completed?
ASIDE: Note that even a "light-sensitive spot" or the simplest version of any feature is far from a "one-jump" change that is trivial to produce.

Explain metamorphosis!
How can evolution explain the metamorphosis of the butterfly? Once the caterpillar evolves into the "mass of jelly" (out of which the butterfly comes), wouldn't it appear to be "stuck"?
It should be easy to show evolution.
If evolution is the grand mechanism that has produced all natural things from a simple gas, surely this mechanism must be easily seen. It should be possible to prove its existence in a matter of weeks or days, if not hours. Yet scientists have been bombarding countless generations of fruit flies with radiation for several decades in order to show evolution in action and still have only produced ... more (deformed) fruit flies. How reasonable is it to believe that evolution is a fact when even the simplest of experiments has not been able to document it?

ASIDE: The artificial creation of a new species is far too small of a change to prove that true "macro-evolution" is possible. A higher-order change, where the information content of the organism has been increased should be showable and is not. Developing a new species changes the existing information, but does not add new information, such as would be needed for a new organ, for example.

Complex things require intelligent design folks!
People are intelligent. If a team of engineers were to one day design a robot which could cross all types of terrain, could dig large holes, could carry several times its weight, found its own energy sources, could make more robots like itself, and was only 1/8 of an inch tall, we would marvel at this achievement. All of our life's experiences lead us to know that such a robot could never come about by accident, or assemble itself by chance, even if all of the parts were available laying next to each other. And we are certain beyond doubt that a canister of hydrogen gas, no matter how long we left it there or what type of raw energy we might apply to it, would never result in such a robot being produced. But we already have such a "robot" - it is called an "ant", and we squash them because they are "nothing" compared to people. And God made them, and he made us. Can there be any other explanation?


[edit on 27-12-2004 by rich34]



posted on Dec, 27 2004 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by CommonSense
At least there's the Bible to support that traditional belief.





I haven't read the entire thread but I would like to add my two cents. The bible(lowercased for a reason) is a collection of stories that is perpetuated by (I'm sorry) a childhood belief that was never confronted. The bible does not support anything. In my lifetime, I have found that I could visit a bookstore and purchase many books in the non-fiction section, the bible is not one of them.


This day we put alot of credence into proof; the bible has no proof to back itself up, only an "I told you so" attitude and a flourishing arguement in the realm of "What If".



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Charlie Murphy
I can accept that there might be a higher power but I do not think that it created mankind. With regards to matter creating matter there are so many unkown variables to be considered. There are so many things humans do not know about the universe and so even the smartest person to have ever lived is an idiot. Everything I know I am only 99% sure of. So who konws what we may discover in the future.

I wasn't completely clear on where you thought "GOD" came from though.


If you do not believe in God,then thats your business.Who created god,i dont know,obviously i cannot answer all the question for you.All I can say is that iv have been trying to link my faith to this subject for years and that explanation about God been the creator of everything was the most reasonable explanation i came up with ,i thought personally.

My Question to you now is that since i have no good answer for your question,then who did create the Universe if it was not our almighty God?I believe you would not beable to answer that question because if it is not God,then who is it?or what is it?Im sure that you do not have any proof,for that would be preposterous due to the many impossibilities to the origin of your knowledge.Therefore i believe this whole topic will become an impass rather than a good answer.

...By the way im glad you find my name so intriging,Blacksteel is actually metaphorically speaking for mysterious things as the colour black,has always been known for being such a mysterious looking colour(and evil) back in medeviltimes,and as for steel,being an example of an object,made mysterious by this colour.



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Black Steel,
Im not saying something didnt create the universe im saying that I dont think it also didnt created human beings. I think we as humans in biblical times thought that the entinty that created us(Aliens as I stated above) created everything else as well. I just feel that believing in miracles and God in the christian veiw is like believing in magic. Such as Moses parting the sea. Nobody can part water just by thinking about it or praying, but by using electricity you can move the water.(If you use a comb to comb your hair for a while and let the static electricity build up and then place it next to a thin stream of water coming out of a tap it will bend the water) There is so much unknown about the universe and so maybe in time we will discover a way in which matter or energy(or dark matter and energy) behaves differently then currently believed.

I know you dont know where "God" came from but I was curious on any theories you may have to support this belief.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 04:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyCoKie
Hello all. I'm a new member, but I've been around here reading for a while.

I just have to say this. I believe in God. I have my reasons. I have no proof. How do all you people who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution have any proof? Darwin's theory is just that: a theory. There is no solid evidence. But yet you look at us as if we're ignorant fools. I may be mistaken, but, didn't Darwin admit he was totaly wrong just before he died?

I DO believe in evolution, the big bang, and string theory. But, I believe God set the ball rolling. How did it just happen? I know you will ask, "Who created God". That's where faith comes in.

And yes I do believe there are aliens out there. It would be a big waste if we are the only intelligent beings in the universe.

[edit on 23-12-2004 by CyCoKie]


Huh? You do realise that darwinism and evolution are interchangeable? The samething? And Darwin rechanting evolution on his deathbed is just a myth spread by theists, but even if it were true, it wouldnt matter, because evolution is tried and true; the best explanation we have as to our origins. Funny how you ask people for proof, and then pull the faith card when it cames to yours.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Alec Eiffel,
Yes I do realize that they are the same. I guess I should have worded that a bit more carefully. And I wasn't really asking for proof of evolution because I know there is none as, rich34 pointed out. You either belive or you don't.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 08:26 PM
link   
100% Harder to believe in GOD... IMO

I am not a believer of aliens being in contact/visiting earth.. But am pretty sure that somewhere out there in the universe ( which is all made up of the same basic elements ) there must be some sort of living being.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Well there is a theory, called umm... EVOLUTION !? maybe?
I find it hard to believe that any thing was created by a superior being, things exist because of chains of complexities.
And if the question "If aliens created humans, then who created aliens?" were valid, I would bring about the question "If God created humans, than who created God?"



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join