Does God have unrealistic expectations?

[Justin108]

Christians often claim that we all deserve death / hell because we are sinners. It is because of our being sinners that we need to accept Jesus and ask for his forgiveness.

Christians also often claim that we are all indeed sinners. If this is the case, if literally every single one of us is a sinner, does it mean that to be sin-free is virtually impossible? If it is impossible for our species to not sin, why does God punish us with death / hell if we give in to what is apparently impossible to resist?

Furthermore, if we all sin, doesn't that suggest that sinning is part of our very nature? If it is part of our nature, does this not in turn suggest that God (having made us and all) created this nature, thereby designing us to be sinners? If so, it's even more unrealistic to expect us to behave in contrast to our nature, and then punishing us with death / hell

[Zzyzx]

.

Maybe you can provide a source for the science behind the Bible flood?

I said it appears as if it COULD have been.

Of course, ONE BILLION cubic miles of water could have magically appeared to fit the story then disappeared afterward.

I'm not stating a fact. When the SE Asian tsunami happen back in 2004, the the waves spread over two continents.

Correction: That tsunami affected the coastal margins, mere edges, of continents " decidedly not "spread over two continents." How far inland do you think the effects extended?

If we are talking about an earthquake that the Richter Scale has not recorded before, the waves could have reached all the continents. Now this doesn't mean the everyone drowned and the floods reached the mountaintops.

Waves to reach mountain tops would have to be 30,000 feet (five miles) high " and would STILL not meet the Genesis description of the flood.

Building of an Ark wouldn't help. It would have been sudden. So, no, there is no science behind the Biblical flood.

Thank you.

I am not alluding that the flood story in the Bible happened or that there were Arks and things. However, it is proving that all the cultures around the world got their stories from the same source. That source was probably an explanation to them why the catastrophe happened. What that source is, I don't know.

Cultures worldwide do NOT need a "source" to explain to them about floods. Floods HAPPEN in lowlands, coastal areas, river valleys. Using a boat to survive would not require great innovation and taking domestic animals aboard would not be beyond reasonable expectation.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 180 by Claire Evans]

Some artist drew stylized people is my "interpretation". People can and do make representations of imaginary things as well. Who knows what they really intended back then?

Except it couldn't possibly have been aliens?

Sure, why not?

It could POSSIBLY be anything at all. Maybe, it was the aliens drawing bad pictures of the people that we see on the caves. How are we to know?

The time to believe something is when we have sufficient evidence for it. Cave pictures that may remind you of imaginary beings isn't what I would call sufficient evidence at all, sorry.

To pretend to KNOW that the paintings you linked to are of "aliens" is ridiculous. Of course nobody knows that.. but imagine? Yes, a lot of people do imagine all kinds of things. No big deal. People are very inventive.

I will post the information I gave to Zzyzx:

Those fantasy figures strangely resemble what people see today. It's quite extraordinary that the UFOs seen today look exactly the ones on the cave paintings. The typical "Grey Aliens" look exactly what is on those paintings.

Yes, isn't it strange? You can make a correlation between cave paintings and other works of art...a.k.a "Grey Aliens". Bravo.

This isn't evidence of grey aliens, this is evidence of creativity. But keep your eyes open for the big news coming from Russia. When you DO get the big news, let us all know. I'm only interested in the evidence, not the claim, thank you. A stylized drawing on a wall isn't evidence for aliens, sorry.

Now even if you think the corpse in the above is fake, then it is remarkable how people have the same idea what an alien looks like as those ancient cave dwellers.

Not remarkable at all, no, who SAYS that they were pictures of aliens? We have no reason at all to think any cave painting is of ALIENS. And of course, everyone knows the Roswell corpse was a complete fake. I wonder why you bother to bring that up? It only serves to discredit your theory, not confirm it.

Due to the evidence I have provided, it would be fallacious of you to say that those paintings were definitely fantasy figures. And let us not forgot that there is just not one example of depictions of aliens. They are around the world.

You really should look up what constitutes good scientific evidence.

Oh, they COULD be accurate pictures of aliens, we don't KNOW. So the "evidence" is perfectly useless. Bring us an actual grey alien, and then we will be able to compare. Until then, the pictures are just that. Pictures.

Now, there was no global flood that covered the whole earth. It appears as if it could have been due to a large earthquake that the waves reached all the continents. What the stories around the world seem to infer is that these cultures go these stories from the same source. What that is, I don't know.

Maybe you can provide a source for the science behind the Bible flood?

I said it appears as if it COULD have been. I'm not stating a fact.

Infinite amounts of things COULD have been. So what?

So, no, there is no science behind the Biblical flood.

Good, we have progress. I agree, there are lots of CLAIMS and STORIES that just are FICTIONAL. The Bible flood, and aliens are examples of fiction gone out of hand. People really do want to believe strange things.

You don't believe in the Bible flood, because, as you say, there is no science for it, however, you choose to believe in alien visitation even though science for that also doesn't exist.

You aren't being consistent in your methodology. Use the same skepticism you use for the story about the Biblical flood on alien visitations, and you will be on the right track. Right now, I just see that you are being gullible when it comes to the alien claims.

I don't know what a "god is", either. I'm an agnostic and an atheist.

You can't be both. An agnostic is someone who thinks it is not possible to know if God exists or not. So they are neutral. Atheists aren't. They just don't believe. They state it as a fact that God doesn't exist.

I can and am both an atheist and an agnostic.

You might be interested in learning how. I am not alone. Most atheists that I hang around with and discuss with are also agnostics.

Agnosticism, as you say, is about KNOWLEDGE of god... the "a" in the front of the "gnostic" means that there is NO knowledge... Agnostics aren't neutral about knowledge concerning gods.. we say we DON'T or CAN'T know anything about gods.

That's the epistemological part ...the not knowing about gods.... and it's not a neutral position.

Atheism is about BELIEF in god. There is no BELIEF in the theistic god in atheism. And you are wrong to think that atheist must state as a fact that gods do not exist. Some do, and some like me, don't. Most critical thinking atheists are like me... agnostics and atheists, both.

So, I used to be a theist. I believed in a theistic god.
Then I became an agnostic, when I understood that I really could not pretend to myself that I could KNOW anything about gods.
Then, since I didn't KNOW anything about gods, I found it quite ridiculous to BELIEVE in any gods, so I stopped doing that.

Now, of course, these two positions are OPEN in the sense that as soon as I can know and do know about gods, then I will no longer be an agnostic. And, of course, I will believe in the gods I know about, so ..out goes atheism too. But that all depends on good EVIDENCE... and I don't have that now, so... agnostic and atheist.

Now, if you are one of "those" who will keep insisting that I can't possibly BE an agnostic and an atheist at the very same time, I will tell you that you are a bit behind the times. This isn't 1869 anymore, when the term "agnostic" was coined. Words do change over time. Its of no use for you to argue about the meaning of some words that the people who USE them don't agree on.

But this is a completely different topic. Maybe you can start a new thread on the meanings of "agnostic" and "atheist"...

I am not alluding that the flood story in the Bible happened or that there were Arks and things. However, it is proving that all the cultures around the world got their stories from the same source. That source was probably an explanation to them why the catastrophe happened. What that source is, I don't know.

That doesn't follow at all. Just because people from around the world experience the world in similar fashions..( i.e. there are floods all around the world )... doesn't mean they got their FLOOD stories from some "same source". In any case, you don't have any evidence that they did. I wonder why you even bother to bring that up in a debate?

You say you don't know "the source" , but you ASSUME that their is one without evidence? ... No, sorry, that doesn't work at all for a critical thinker.

Aliens aren't little green men. Surely you should know that?

Oh boy.... I don't believe in aliens visiting the planet, green, beige, orange, polka dot or BLUE..... doesn't matter the color. You are joking, about the color, yes?

We don't have any evidence for aliens, no matter WHAT the color, so it's no use to pretend to us that you KNOW what their color is. Show us an alien.. and we will know the color right off.. no arguments.

What is credible evidence to you???

Try these for starters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evidence.html
http://theconversation.com/scientific-e ... t-it-14716
http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/ ... ce-WEB.pdf
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/coreofscience_01
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empiri ... ition.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

I URGE you to take a look at the above pages... they are very helpful.

[Claire Evans]

.

Maybe you can provide a source for the science behind the Bible flood?

I said it appears as if it COULD have been.

Of course, ONE BILLION cubic miles of water could have magically appeared to fit the story then disappeared afterward.

What do you mean "disappeared afterward"? Waves retreat.

I'm not stating a fact. When the SE Asian tsunami happen back in 2004, the the waves spread over two continents.

Correction: That tsunami affected the coastal margins, mere edges, of continents " decidedly not "spread over two continents." How far inland do you think the effects extended?

By "over two continents", I did not mean it engulfed the entire continents. The waves reached SE Asia at the coast, and South Africa. I'm explaining how all continents can be affected by waves if we have a mega quake that has never been recorded before. I'm not suggested that these waves would cover the entire earth. It would affect all continents.

If we are talking about an earthquake that the Richter Scale has not recorded before, the waves could have reached all the continents. Now this doesn't mean the everyone drowned and the floods reached the mountaintops.

Waves to reach mountain tops would have to be 30,000 feet (five miles) high " and would STILL not meet the Genesis description of the flood.

Building of an Ark wouldn't help. It would have been sudden. So, no, there is no science behind the Biblical flood.

Thank you.

I am not alluding that the flood story in the Bible happened or that there were Arks and things. However, it is proving that all the cultures around the world got their stories from the same source. That source was probably an explanation to them why the catastrophe happened. What that source is, I don't know.

Cultures worldwide do NOT need a "source" to explain to them about floods. Floods HAPPEN in lowlands, coastal areas, river valleys. Using a boat to survive would not require great innovation and taking domestic animals aboard would not be beyond reasonable expectation.

Why do all these flood stories have the common theme of the gods being angry at mankind and sending a flood and that they had to save ALL animals. Not just domestic ones. And the ones who boarded the Ark were the only ones to survive. That just doesn't gel with local floods. The similarities are too strong to dismiss as coincidence.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 180 by Claire Evans]

Some artist drew stylized people is my "interpretation". People can and do make representations of imaginary things as well. Who knows what they really intended back then?

Except it couldn't possibly have been aliens?

Sure, why not?

That's a start.

It could POSSIBLY be anything at all. Maybe, it was the aliens drawing bad pictures of the people that we see on the caves. How are we to know?

The time to believe something is when we have sufficient evidence for it. Cave pictures that may remind you of imaginary beings isn't what I would call sufficient evidence at all, sorry.

It is strange that all caves around the world have depiction of these aliens who look exactly alike? What I was hoping that you would be open to the idea that it could be aliens.

To pretend to KNOW that the paintings you linked to are of "aliens" is ridiculous. Of course nobody knows that.. but imagine? Yes, a lot of people do imagine all kinds of things. No big deal. People are very inventive.

I will post the information I gave to Zzyzx:

Those fantasy figures strangely resemble what people see today. It's quite extraordinary that the UFOs seen today look exactly the ones on the cave paintings. The typical "Grey Aliens" look exactly what is on those paintings.

Yes, isn't it strange? You can make a correlation between cave paintings and other works of art...a.k.a "Grey Aliens". Bravo.

It's just the vast majority of those who claim to have seen these aliens have not see these cave paintings.

This isn't evidence of grey aliens, this is evidence of creativity. But keep your eyes open for the big news coming from Russia. When you DO get the big news, let us all know. I'm only interested in the evidence, not the claim, thank you. A stylized drawing on a wall isn't evidence for aliens, sorry. .

Telepathic creativity. You will only get a revelation of aliens when it is the time. Some Russian is not going to be the one to do it.

Now even if you think the corpse in the above is fake, then it is remarkable how people have the same idea what an alien looks like as those ancient cave dwellers.

Not remarkable at all, no, who SAYS that they were pictures of aliens? We have no reason at all to think any cave painting is of ALIENS. And of course, everyone knows the Roswell corpse was a complete fake. I wonder why you bother to bring that up? It only serves to discredit your theory, not confirm it.

Everyone knows the Roswell corpse was a fact? According to whom? And what about the video of that alien creature being interrogated? What's your take on that? Someone dressed up as an alien?

Due to the evidence I have provided, it would be fallacious of you to say that those paintings were definitely fantasy figures. And let us not forgot that there is just not one example of depictions of aliens. They are around the world.

You really should look up what constitutes good scientific evidence.

Oh, they COULD be accurate pictures of aliens, we don't KNOW. So the "evidence" is perfectly useless. Bring us an actual grey alien, and then we will be able to compare. Until then, the pictures are just that. Pictures.

I was not intending to provide scientific proof of that. How do you use scientific proof in this case? You can't tell me you know it is a scientific fact that man went to the moon (if you believe that). However, you trust they did. So why can't I have faith like you do?

Now, there was no global flood that covered the whole earth. It appears as if it could have been due to a large earthquake that the waves reached all the continents. What the stories around the world seem to infer is that these cultures go these stories from the same source. What that is, I don't know.

Maybe you can provide a source for the science behind the Bible flood?

I said it appears as if it COULD have been. I'm not stating a fact.

Infinite amounts of things COULD have been. So what?

I'm exploring the possibilities.

So, no, there is no science behind the Biblical flood.

Good, we have progress. I agree, there are lots of CLAIMS and STORIES that just are FICTIONAL. The Bible flood, and aliens are examples of fiction gone out of hand. People really do want to believe strange things.

You don't believe in the Bible flood, because, as you say, there is no science for it, however, you choose to believe in alien visitation even though science for that also doesn't exist.

What do you mean science says that it doesn't exist? You don't believe in cover-ups? Do you really believe the elite of this world wants the world to know they are in contact with them? It's strange that you know say aliens are fictitious but earlier on say it could be aliens.

You aren't being consistent in your methodology. Use the same skepticism you use for the story about the Biblical flood on alien visitations, and you will be on the right track. Right now, I just see that you are being gullible when it comes to the alien claims.

Why would I want to believe in aliens? Have you ever watched the program, "Ancient Aliens"? It's very compelling. There are just too many unanswered questions.

I don't know what a "god is", either. I'm an agnostic and an atheist.

You can't be both. An agnostic is someone who thinks it is not possible to know if God exists or not. So they are neutral. Atheists aren't. They just don't believe. They state it as a fact that God doesn't exist.

I can and am both an atheist and an agnostic.

You might be interested in learning how. I am not alone. Most atheists that I hang around with and discuss with are also agnostics.

Agnosticism, as you say, is about KNOWLEDGE of god... the "a" in the front of the "gnostic" means that there is NO knowledge... Agnostics aren't neutral about knowledge concerning gods.. we say we DON'T or CAN'T know anything about gods.

That's the epistemological part ...the not knowing about gods.... and it's not a neutral position.

Atheism is about BELIEF in god. There is no BELIEF in the theistic god in atheism. And you are wrong to think that atheist must state as a fact that gods do not exist. Some do, and some like me, don't. Most critical thinking atheists are like me... agnostics and atheists, both.

So, I used to be a theist. I believed in a theistic god.
Then I became an agnostic, when I understood that I really could not pretend to myself that I could KNOW anything about gods.
Then, since I didn't KNOW anything about gods, I found it quite ridiculous to BELIEVE in any gods, so I stopped doing that.

Now, of course, these two positions are OPEN in the sense that as soon as I can know and do know about gods, then I will no longer be an agnostic. And, of course, I will believe in the gods I know about, so ..out goes atheism too. But that all depends on good EVIDENCE... and I don't have that now, so... agnostic and atheist.

Now, if you are one of "those" who will keep insisting that I can't possibly BE an agnostic and an atheist at the very same time, I will tell you that you are a bit behind the times. This isn't 1869 anymore, when the term "agnostic" was coined. Words do change over time. Its of no use for you to argue about the meaning of some words that the people who USE them don't agree on.

But this is a completely different topic. Maybe you can start a new thread on the meanings of "agnostic" and "atheist"...

I understand now what you are saying.

I am not alluding that the flood story in the Bible happened or that there were Arks and things. However, it is proving that all the cultures around the world got their stories from the same source. That source was probably an explanation to them why the catastrophe happened. What that source is, I don't know.

That doesn't follow at all. Just because people from around the world experience the world in similar fashions..( i.e. there are floods all around the world )... doesn't mean they got their FLOOD stories from some "same source". In any case, you don't have any evidence that they did. I wonder why you even bother to bring that up in a debate?

The evidence is how remarkably close the stories are.

Aliens aren't little green men. Surely you should know that?

Oh boy.... I don't believe in aliens visiting the planet, green, beige, orange, polka dot or BLUE..... doesn't matter the color. You are joking, about the color, yes?

You were the one who mentioned little green men.

Quote:

"A little green man in a nice shiny space ship would do. But I don't just consider every claim to be a piece of evidence. I had given you links to what constitutes good scientific evidence. You may consider looking those up."

We don't have any evidence for aliens, no matter WHAT the color, so it's no use to pretend to us that you KNOW what their color is. Show us an alien.. and we will know the color right off.. no arguments.

Show me there is a flag waving on the moon and I will believe you.

What is credible evidence to you???

Try these for starters:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evidence.html
http://theconversation.com/scientific-e ... t-it-14716
http://www.alliance4usefulevidence.org/ ... ce-WEB.pdf
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/coreofscience_01
http://www.livescience.com/21456-empiri ... ition.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

I URGE you to take a look at the above pages... they are very helpful.

I get what the articles are saying.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 184 by Claire Evans]

It is strange that all caves around the world have depiction of these aliens who look exactly alike? What I was hoping that you would be open to the idea that it could be aliens.

Strangeness isn't evidence.

It's just the vast majority of those who claim to have seen these aliens have not see these cave paintings.

I don't have any evidence that the above claim is true. And even if it were true, the coincidence that some people can "see" isn't evidence. You may indeed "see" aliens when you look at the cave paintings, others don't "see" them at all.

Telepathic creativity. You will only get a revelation of aliens when it is the time. Some Russian is not going to be the one to do it.

Ok, then all the rest of us will just have to wait until it is the time for what you call
"telepathic creativity". Right now, the rest of us don't HAVE this ability, and so your claims fall flat.

Everyone knows the Roswell corpse was a fact? According to whom? And what about the video of that alien creature being interrogated? What's your take on that? Someone dressed up as an alien?

Only the conspiracy theorists think the "Roswell corpse" wasn't a fake.

I was not intending to provide scientific proof of that. How do you use scientific proof in this case? You can't tell me you know it is a scientific fact that man went to the moon (if you believe that). However, you trust they did. So why can't I have faith like you do?

We don't need faith when we have sufficient evidence.

Only the conspiracy theorist believes the moon landing was a hoax. I have BEEN to N.A.S.A. ... it would be a VERY large, elaborate hoax if wasn't true. I think it would have cost LESS to actually GO to the moon and back than make everything up and keep the secret for so many years.

I'm exploring the possibilities.

We should always start with what we really CAN know for sure, instead of the weirdest ones first.

What do you mean science says that it doesn't exist? You don't believe in cover-ups? Do you really believe the elite of this world wants the world to know they are in contact with them? It's strange that you know say aliens are fictitious but earlier on say it could be aliens.

The evidence we get for the flood and for alien visitation is non existent to extremely poor. That is not enough to warrant any belief in either.

Why would I want to believe in aliens? Have you ever watched the program, "Ancient Aliens"? It's very compelling. There are just too many unanswered questions.

Just because some TV show asks questions it doesn't mean that aliens visit the planet. They want to sell commercials. They know their market. A whole LOT of people WANT to believe in aliens.

It's very compelling to those who already have a compelling reason to believe the unsubstantiated claims some people make.

That doesn't follow at all. Just because people from around the world experience the world in similar fashions..( i.e. there are floods all around the world )... doesn't mean they got their FLOOD stories from some "same source". In any case, you don't have any evidence that they did. I wonder why you even bother to bring that up in a debate?

The evidence is how remarkably close the stories are.

Floods are the same all around the world. It's too much water. It's a bad thing.
People suffer and that get's noticed. There have been floods as long as we have had water on Earth.

There have been volcanoes too, and also earthquakes, and storms, and tornadoes too, and thunder and lightning. It's not uncommon for people all over the world experiencing the planet in the very same way. And if they write stories about the weather, what happens during a flood, for example, would be the SAME all around the world, too.

Same weather pattern, same kind of story.

Show me there is a flag waving on the moon and I will believe you.

You can go look for yourself:

http://www.space.com/13485-moon-skywatc ... sites.html
http://www.space.com/26591-apollo-11-la ... from-space
http://ca.askmen.com/top_10/entertainme ... pened.html
http://www.universetoday.com/111188/how ... isnt-fake/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... heory.html
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon ... tive-proof

.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 184 by Claire Evans]

It is strange that all caves around the world have depiction of these aliens who look exactly alike? What I was hoping that you would be open to the idea that it could be aliens.

Strangeness isn't evidence.

What I achieved was getting you to acknowledge that it MAY be aliens.

It's just the vast majority of those who claim to have seen these aliens have not see these cave paintings.

I don't have any evidence that the above claim is true. And even if it were true, the coincidence that some people can "see" isn't evidence. You may indeed "see" aliens when you look at the cave paintings, others don't "see" them at all.

I know deep down inside that you think it looks more like aliens than anything else.

Telepathic creativity. You will only get a revelation of aliens when it is the time. Some Russian is not going to be the one to do it.

Ok, then all the rest of us will just have to wait until it is the time for what you call
"telepathic creativity". Right now, the rest of us don't HAVE this ability, and so your claims fall flat.

I don't believe it was telepathic creativity. I was surmising that if you believe it was creativity, which I don't, then it must be telepathic because they all drew the same characters that look exactly alike.

Everyone knows the Roswell corpse was a fact? According to whom? And what about the video of that alien creature being interrogated? What's your take on that? Someone dressed up as an alien?

Only the conspiracy theorists think the "Roswell corpse" wasn't a fake.

That's not fact. That's a cop out. I want you give evidence why it is likely it is a fake. And it's interesting why you won't address the video of the alien interrogation. Why won't you?

I was not intending to provide scientific proof of that. How do you use scientific proof in this case? You can't tell me you know it is a scientific fact that man went to the moon (if you believe that). However, you trust they did. So why can't I have faith like you do?

We don't need faith when we have sufficient evidence.

Only the conspiracy theorist believes the moon landing was a hoax. I have BEEN to N.A.S.A. ... it would be a VERY large, elaborate hoax if wasn't true. I think it would have cost LESS to actually GO to the moon and back than make everything up and keep the secret for so many years.

I tend to believe they did land on the moon but there were possibly some scenes that were recreated. I believe there was a lot of censorship as well. I have footage of what are UFOs. See 00;51 m



Buzz Aldrin confirms he saw UFOs. 00:15



The point I'm trying to make is that the presence of UFOs were kept secret for a long time but is coming out now. So you can't tell me secrets can't be kept. I bet you didn't know Aldrin confirmed UFOs.

And:


https://books.google.co.za/books?id=Qb- ... n.&f=false

And just because you can't conceive of a cover-up, doesn't mean it is proof the moon landing wasn't a hoax.

I'm exploring the possibilities.

We should always start with what we really CAN know for sure, instead of the weirdest ones first.

There are relatively few things we can know for sure. Life is very deceptive.

What do you mean science says that it doesn't exist? You don't believe in cover-ups? Do you really believe the elite of this world wants the world to know they are in contact with them? It's strange that you know say aliens are fictitious but earlier on say it could be aliens.

The evidence we get for the flood and for alien visitation is non existent to extremely poor. That is not enough to warrant any belief in either.

It's good enough for me that you say it could be.

Why would I want to believe in aliens? Have you ever watched the program, "Ancient Aliens"? It's very compelling. There are just too many unanswered questions.

Just because some TV show asks questions it doesn't mean that aliens visit the planet. They want to sell commercials. They know their market. A whole LOT of people WANT to believe in aliens.

It's very compelling to those who already have a compelling reason to believe the unsubstantiated claims some people make.

But have you ever watched it? I think the most compelling part to me is how certain structures have been built. For example, the pyramids of Giza. It is laughable that people think slaves picked up those stones and got it right up to the top. 100 ton block hoisted up 40 feet?

That doesn't follow at all. Just because people from around the world experience the world in similar fashions..( i.e. there are floods all around the world )... doesn't mean they got their FLOOD stories from some "same source". In any case, you don't have any evidence that they did. I wonder why you even bother to bring that up in a debate?

The evidence is how remarkably close the stories are.

Floods are the same all around the world. It's too much water. It's a bad thing.
People suffer and that get's noticed. There have been floods as long as we have had water on Earth.

There have been volcanoes too, and also earthquakes, and storms, and tornadoes too, and thunder and lightning. It's not uncommon for people all over the world experiencing the planet in the very same way. And if they write stories about the weather, what happens during a flood, for example, would be the SAME all around the world, too.

Same weather pattern, same kind of story.

It's go nothing to do weather patterns, etc. I'm talking about how the stories correspond each other in such detail. Say there were just 4 different people on 4 different continents. They all experienced the same natural disasters. Tell me, what are the chances that they would all have a story where the gods were angry with them, sent a flood, a person gets into an Ark with animals? If kids in a classroom wrote those stories, they'd be accused of cheating!

Show me there is a flag waving on the moon and I will believe you.

You can go look for yourself:

http://www.space.com/13485-moon-skywatc ... sites.html
http://www.space.com/26591-apollo-11-la ... from-space
http://ca.askmen.com/top_10/entertainme ... pened.html
http://www.universetoday.com/111188/how ... isnt-fake/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... heory.html
http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon ... tive-proof

I've gone through these and none of the sources show a video clip, which is what I want, of an American flag on the moon.

.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 186 by Claire Evans]

Strangeness isn't evidence.

What I achieved was getting you to acknowledge that it MAY be aliens.

Don't overestimate that achievement:

I have as much confidence that it "may" be aliens as that it "may" be fairies. That is.. almost none whatsoever.

0.000000000000000000000001 percent probability. The same probability that I give for Santa and the tooth fairy.

And by the way, I had that confidence before our lively debate.

I don't have any evidence that the above claim is true. And even if it were true, the coincidence that some people can "see" isn't evidence. You may indeed "see" aliens when you look at the cave paintings, others don't "see" them at all.

I know deep down inside that you think it looks more like aliens than anything else.

You must imagine looking deeper inside of me that I do. When you can give us evidence that you can do that, we will pay attention.

Ok, then all the rest of us will just have to wait until it is the time for what you call
"telepathic creativity". Right now, the rest of us don't HAVE this ability, and so your claims fall flat.

I don't believe it was telepathic creativity. I was surmising that if you believe it was creativity, which I don't, then it must be telepathic because they all drew the same characters that look exactly alike.

Then you surmise wrong. Even if they look all alike, it doesn't meant they represent aliens. Characters with one head, two legs and two arms might more reasonably be of stylized people with one head, two arms and two legs.

We KNOW that people exist, and that people can draw other people. We do NOT know that aliens visited the planet. So, it's more reasonable to think that cave paintings of human formed characters are of PEOPLE... and not of beings from other planets that match our science fiction stories.

Only the conspiracy theorists think the "Roswell corpse" wasn't a fake.

That's not fact. That's a cop out. I want you give evidence why it is likely it is a fake. And it's interesting why you won't address the video of the alien interrogation. Why won't you?

I won't address all the videos you might find interesting and post. I am not your personal debunker. If you want to offer us what you consider the best piece of evidence, I will take a look.

Make it your best, and make it only one, and I promise to take a good look.
But I have spent enough time on this already. I am not interested in alien visitations, and this is WILDLY off topic in a Christian debate web site.

So, if you send us ONE more video link that confirms your beliefs, I promise to look at it. Make it a good one.

I have looked at the tabloid quality "evidence" for alien visitations, read books about "ancient aliens" and so forth for DECADES now. This is very old stuff... no critical thinker pays it any attention anymore. It might be new to you. But not to me. Like I say, I'm pretty old.

But anyone can go on the internet and find serious considerations of alien visitations. Good luck with your research.

I tend to believe they did land on the moon but there were possibly some scenes that were recreated. I believe there was a lot of censorship as well. I have footage of what are UFOs. See 00;51 m

The video says "What NASA doesn't want you to know"... and... that's NASA footage. NASA DOES want you to know. and there is no alien on that video. Buzz saw something he could not identify.. debris? A light reflection? ... OR AN ALIEN SHIP?... debris or a light can't explain it to you, so it must be an alien? ... ok. Debris and lights arent perfectly NORMAL in your world, so it's GOT to be something from another planet.

But that conclusion isn't warranted by the facts. We know better. And if we don't know already, critical thinking will help us find OUT. You may want to spend a little time surveying the critical sites.. what do the critics of alien visitations say?

Have you done the research on that side of the issue, or only on the side that confirms your bias?

Buzz Aldrin confirms he saw UFOs. 00:15



The point I'm trying to make is that the presence of UFOs were kept secret for a long time but is coming out now. So you can't tell me secrets can't be kept. I bet you didn't know Aldrin confirmed UFOs.

You shouldn't bet about what you don't know. I have followed the Buzz Aldrin story and ALL of it, for decades. It was in all the news.

A UFO isn't evidence for aliens. Unidentified objects are just that ... not identified. So, Buzz saw something he couldn't identify. Big deal. It was identified later... it wasn't an alien anything.

Here is what Aldrin says about his UFO sighting:

On Apollo 11 in route to the moon, I observed a light out the window that appeared to be moving alongside us. There were many explanations of what that could be, other than another spacecraft from another country or another world"it was either the rocket we had separated from, or the 4 panels that moved away when we extracted the lander from the rocket and we were nose to nose with the two spacecraft. So in the close vicinity, moving away, were 4 panels. And I feel absolutely convinced that we were looking at the sun reflected off of one of these panels. Which one? I dont know. So technically, the definition could be unidentified.

( bold mine )

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805591- ... w-tv-show/

And just because you can't conceive of a cover-up, doesn't mean it is proof the moon landing wasn't a hoax.

I an conceive of hoaxes very well. There are real cover-ups and real conspiracies, and people do, in fact, keep secrets. But we should only believe in such things when we have the evidence for them. NOT BEFORE.

Tthe alien visitation idea is so grand, so unsupported, that it defies reason. Believe what you want, but if you want to convince anyone else of a hoax or a cover-up, you will need better evidence than you have given so far. As soon as we DO get good evidence of a hoax, then it will be time to believe it. As you say, it's almost impossible to keep such GRANDIOSE secrets these days.

But so far, if it is a grand cover-up of aliens visiting the planet, they sure are doing a great job at it.

You seem to want others to prove your theories WRONG.. but its never up to anyone else to do that. IF you want to make a claim, fine, but then the burden of the proof lies with YOU, and not for anyone else to prove you wrong.

You can go look up "shifting the burden of the proof" on the internet. Your research there will help explain why that's just not going to be a productive tactic for you in a debate, or for yourself in knowing that what you believe in is true or not.

You should demand good evidence to know if what someone says is true or not. Right now, you seem to be relying on very poor evidence indeed to confirm your bias towards alien visitations. And for a critical thinker, that just fails.

We should always start with what we really CAN know for sure, instead of the weirdest ones first.

There are relatively few things we can know for sure. Life is very deceptive.

That's why it's so important to learn about critical thinking. There's a lot of BS out there..

We should not believe whatever anyone says unless there is a good reason and good evidence for support. Alien visitations is a wild claim that needs a lot of evidence for support that we don't have. People do believe weird things. Life, as you say is very deceptive.

Science and critical thinking are the best methods for knowing what is true, and what is false. So far, science has not confirmed your alien theory, so... for now, that's that. Maybe when those Russians finally DECIDE to give us the convincing evidence we now lack, we will be able to change our minds. But now is not the time to believe in aliens visitations, sorry.

You are deceiving yourself by not being critical enough of the claims being made by the alien believers.

The evidence we get for the flood and for alien visitation is non existent to extremely poor. That is not enough to warrant any belief in either.

It's good enough for me that you say it could be.

Santa Clause "could be". So what? It's still HIGHLY unlikely. I don't bother myself with the existence of things that are most probably NOT true. Bring us the evidence we need .. and then we can talk. Right now, you are dreaming, and that's fun. But all it is so far is wishful thinking and a bit of gullibility on your part.

Learning a bit about critical thinking would help you see how you are making leaps of logic that aren't at all warranted. Critical thinking can show you how your "good enough" is a mistake.

Your criteria for what constitutes good evidence isn't "good enough", right now, so your evaluation of the data isn't going to be "good enough", either. Sorry.

Just because some TV show asks questions it doesn't mean that aliens visit the planet. They want to sell commercials. They know their market. A whole LOT of people WANT to believe in aliens.

It's very compelling to those who already have a compelling reason to believe the unsubstantiated claims some people make.

But have you ever watched it? I think the most compelling part to me is how certain structures have been built. For example, the pyramids of Giza. It is laughable that people think slaves picked up those stones and got it right up to the top. 100 ton block hoisted up 40 feet?

This might help with the pyramids:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_ ... techniques

I am old. I have "watched" many silly TV shows and read many silly books in my time. People believe weird things, and these kinds of shows attract a certain kind of credulous audience who are more likely to also be credulous about the products sold in the commercials that go along with the other wild claims.

It's good for business if people are credulous and gullible. It sells products. You are being duped. Some TV shows profit from gullibility. It's their "job". Marketing works.

Right now, I would say that you are vulnerable to any wild claim someone might make. You would profit greatly by studying critical thinking for a while. Then, the alien visitation claims would not seem so convincing to you.

But if the Russians ever do give us convincing evidence .. then that's another matter. But since we don't have that yet, it's not good to pretend that it exists.

Floods are the same all around the world. It's too much water. It's a bad thing.
People suffer and that get's noticed. There have been floods as long as we have had water on Earth.

It's go nothing to do weather patterns, etc. I'm talking about how the stories correspond each other in such detail. Say there were just 4 different people on 4 different continents. They all experienced the same natural disasters. Tell me, what are the chances that they would all have a story where the gods were angry with them, sent a flood, a person gets into an Ark with animals? If kids in a classroom wrote those stories, they'd be accused of cheating!

Natural disasters are common, and follow certain patterns, weather patterns, for example, and then geological patterns. That's why there is a similarity in the stories about them. Natural disasters are similar. Nothing magical is happening. It's just the way the world works.

When there are people, there are angry gods. When there is the planet Earth, there are floods. And where there is water.. there are boats. People and animals can get into boats. Boats are made for that.

You infer some spectacular magical coincidence in these common occurrences. I see people doing what people do when there is a flood. Get in boats, believe in angry gods, and carry freight. Then, some clever people write stories about all of that.

Yes, we do love our stories, don't we?

Oh, and by the way, just because some kids write the same kind of stories in a classroom does NOT mean that any of them were cheating. If you would accuse them of that, you would be wrong, UNLESS you had the evidence that they had cheated. Coincidences do happen.

You need to show us that coincidences COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, and that the kids DID cheat, otherwise you are unjustly accusing them. Similarly, you would have to demonstrate that people CAN'T draw similar figures on caves that have nothing to DO with aliens FIRST, before saying that it "must be" aliens.

The most likely conclusion about the cave paintings is that they were of people or imaginary beings. We know those are extremely LIKELY kinds of drawings, because of the overwhelming evidence of all the OTHER drawings of people and imaginary beings we have. A drawing of an imaginary being does not constitute EVIDENCE for the imaginary being.. its only evidence of the IMAGINATION.

Show me there is a flag waving on the moon and I will believe you.

I've gone through these and none of the sources show a video clip, which is what I want, of an American flag on the moon.

.

Then your bias has been confirmed, and you can keep believing whatever it is you want. However:

Others don't have your bias, and so...if you want us to believe in alien visiting the planet, show us some good evidence.

The evidence you have given us so far is very poor, indeed.
I will attend to only one more link.. so make it good.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 186 by Claire Evans]

Strangeness isn't evidence.

What I achieved was getting you to acknowledge that it MAY be aliens.

Don't overestimate that achievement:

I have as much confidence that it "may" be aliens as that it "may" be fairies. That is.. almost none whatsoever.

0.000000000000000000000001 percent probability. The same probability that I give for Santa and the tooth fairy.

And by the way, I had that confidence before our lively debate.

It's kinda strange. So many astronauts believe in UFOs but you don't.

Eugene Cernan was the Commander of Apollo 17. In a Los Angeles Times article in 1973, he said this about UFOs:

"I've been asked (about UFOs) and I've said publicly I thought they were somebody else, some other civilization."

I don't have any evidence that the above claim is true. And even if it were true, the coincidence that some people can "see" isn't evidence. You may indeed "see" aliens when you look at the cave paintings, others don't "see" them at all.

I know deep down inside that you think it looks more like aliens than anything else.

You must imagine looking deeper inside of me that I do. When you can give us evidence that you can do that, we will pay attention.

You know what you feel.

Ok, then all the rest of us will just have to wait until it is the time for what you call
"telepathic creativity". Right now, the rest of us don't HAVE this ability, and so your claims fall flat.

I don't believe it was telepathic creativity. I was surmising that if you believe it was creativity, which I don't, then it must be telepathic because they all drew the same characters that look exactly alike.

Then you surmise wrong. Even if they look all alike, it doesn't meant they represent aliens. Characters with one head, two legs and two arms might more reasonably be of stylized people with one head, two arms and two legs.

We KNOW that people exist, and that people can draw other people. We do NOT know that aliens visited the planet. So, it's more reasonable to think that cave paintings of human formed characters are of PEOPLE... and not of beings from other planets that match our science fiction stories.

Not actually. These people said they came into contact with people from the stars. They are called, "Star People"

Only the conspiracy theorists think the "Roswell corpse" wasn't a fake.

That's not fact. That's a cop out. I want you give evidence why it is likely it is a fake. And it's interesting why you won't address the video of the alien interrogation. Why won't you?

I won't address all the videos you might find interesting and post. I am not your personal debunker. If you want to offer us what you consider the best piece of evidence, I will take a look.

Make it your best, and make it only one, and I promise to take a good look.
But I have spent enough time on this already. I am not interested in alien visitations, and this is WILDLY off topic in a Christian debate web site.

So, if you send us ONE more video link that confirms your beliefs, I promise to look at it. Make it a good one.

I'm afraid that's a cop out. You don't even say that you believe it is someone dressed up as an alien. You are right, we are going seriously off topic. I suggest we resume this debate in a private message.

I have looked at the tabloid quality "evidence" for alien visitations, read books about "ancient aliens" and so forth for DECADES now. This is very old stuff... no critical thinker pays it any attention anymore. It might be new to you. But not to me. Like I say, I'm pretty old.

But anyone can go on the internet and find serious considerations of alien visitations. Good luck with your research.

You have not been looking hard enough.

I tend to believe they did land on the moon but there were possibly some scenes that were recreated. I believe there was a lot of censorship as well. I have footage of what are UFOs. See 00;51 m

The video says "What NASA doesn't want you to know"... and... that's NASA footage. NASA DOES want you to know. and there is no alien on that video. Buzz saw something he could not identify.. debris? A light reflection? ... OR AN ALIEN SHIP?... debris or a light can't explain it to you, so it must be an alien? ... ok. Debris and lights arent perfectly NORMAL in your world, so it's GOT to be something from another planet.

A NASA footage was included to boost the argument. Buzz said he dare not mention it to Houston. Why? It was following him. Debris and light reflections don't follow people.

But that conclusion isn't warranted by the facts. We know better. And if we don't know already, critical thinking will help us find OUT. You may want to spend a little time surveying the critical sites.. what do the critics of alien visitations say?

I tend to pay attention to what people, like astronauts, have to say. After all, they are the best to know.

Have you done the research on that side of the issue, or only on the side that confirms your bias?

I've just researched the debunking of the moon landing hoax.

Buzz Aldrin confirms he saw UFOs. 00:15



The point I'm trying to make is that the presence of UFOs were kept secret for a long time but is coming out now. So you can't tell me secrets can't be kept. I bet you didn't know Aldrin confirmed UFOs.

You shouldn't bet about what you don't know. I have followed the Buzz Aldrin story and ALL of it, for decades. It was in all the news.

A UFO isn't evidence for aliens. Unidentified objects are just that ... not identified. So, Buzz saw something he couldn't identify. Big deal. It was identified later... it wasn't an alien anything.

Here is what Aldrin says about his UFO sighting:

On Apollo 11 in route to the moon, I observed a light out the window that appeared to be moving alongside us. There were many explanations of what that could be, other than another spacecraft from another country or another world"it was either the rocket we had separated from, or the 4 panels that moved away when we extracted the lander from the rocket and we were nose to nose with the two spacecraft. So in the close vicinity, moving away, were 4 panels. And I feel absolutely convinced that we were looking at the sun reflected off of one of these panels. Which one? I dont know. So technically, the definition could be unidentified.

( bold mine )

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/805591- ... w-tv-show/

When did Aldrin say this? It was out of his own mouth that he dared not mention what he saw. Obviously, he did speak about it in his old age. In fact, it was Armstrong that said the CIA was behind the cover up.

The video I showed you was of orbs. Orbs actually have intelligence.


ORBS have been also investigated by Dr Klaus Heinemann PHD of NASA and UCLA, experimental physicist, under controlled conditions using multiple cameras showed that orbs have intelligence when asked to appear on camera under the direction of the photographer.


KLAUS HEINEMANN, PhD, was born and educated in Germany and holds a Ph.D. in experimental physics from the University of Tbingen. Dr. Heinemann worked for many years in materials science research at NASA, UCLA, and as research professor at Stanford University. He is the co-author, along with Mcel Ledwith, of The Orb Project.





And this explains why orbs follow people. In fact, I've had an experience with one when I was 12.

And just because you can't conceive of a cover-up, doesn't mean it is proof the moon landing wasn't a hoax.

I an conceive of hoaxes very well. There are real cover-ups and real conspiracies, and people do, in fact, keep secrets. But we should only believe in such things when we have the evidence for them. NOT BEFORE.

The alien visitation idea is so grand, so unsupported, that it defies reason. Believe what you want, but if you want to convince anyone else of a hoax or a cover-up, you will need better evidence than you have given so far. As soon as we DO get good evidence of a hoax, then it will be time to believe it. As you say, it's almost impossible to keep such GRANDIOSE secrets these days.

It is hard to keep a grandiose secret this day. You get many people say that aliens exist, like astronauts and the like, yet people don't believe it. Are they all liars?

Behind the scenes, high ranking air force officers are soberly concerned about the UFOs. But through official secrecy and ridicule, many citizens are led to believe that the unknown flying objects are nonsense. Former Head of CIA, Roscoe Hillenkoetter, 1960

The FBI have only recently allowed documents on aliens to be released to the public. Pg 22 is of interest.

https://vault.fbi.gov/UFO/UFO%20Part%201%20of%2016/view

But so far, if it is a grand cover-up of aliens visiting the planet, they sure are doing a great job at it.

It's starting to unravel.

You seem to want others to prove your theories WRONG.. but its never up to anyone else to do that. IF you want to make a claim, fine, but then the burden of the proof lies with YOU, and not for anyone else to prove you wrong.

You can go look up "shifting the burden of the proof" on the internet. Your research there will help explain why that's just not going to be a productive tactic for you in a debate, or for yourself in knowing that what you believe in is true or not.




You should demand good evidence to know if what someone says is true or not. Right now, you seem to be relying on very poor evidence indeed to confirm your bias towards alien visitations. And for a critical thinker, that just fails.

I give my proof then you dismiss it and then it's up to you to say why you are.

There are relatively few things we can know for sure. Life is very deceptive.

That's why it's so important to learn about critical thinking. There's a lot of BS out there..

That is true.

We should not believe whatever anyone says unless there is a good reason and good evidence for support. Alien visitations is a wild claim that needs a lot of evidence for support that we don't have. People do believe weird things. Life, as you say is very deceptive.

Not according to the FBI.

Science and critical thinking are the best methods for knowing what is true, and what is false. So far, science has not confirmed your alien theory, so... for now, that's that. Maybe when those Russians finally DECIDE to give us the convincing evidence we now lack, we will be able to change our minds. But now is not the time to believe in aliens visitations, sorry.

You are deceiving yourself by not being critical enough of the claims being made by the alien believers.

I must admit I give way to credence on those who should actually know.

Just because some TV show asks questions it doesn't mean that aliens visit the planet. They want to sell commercials. They know their market. A whole LOT of people WANT to believe in aliens.

It's very compelling to those who already have a compelling reason to believe the unsubstantiated claims some people make.

But have you ever watched it? I think the most compelling part to me is how certain structures have been built. For example, the pyramids of Giza. It is laughable that people think slaves picked up those stones and got it right up to the top. 100 ton block hoisted up 40 feet?

This might help with the pyramids:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_ ... techniques

There is a problem with this. No large ramps have ever been discovered and no lifting equipment either. Primitive tools aren't enough. These are all hypotheses that have never been proven. We can go over more in a pm.

Floods are the same all around the world. It's too much water. It's a bad thing.
People suffer and that get's noticed. There have been floods as long as we have had water on Earth.

It's go nothing to do weather patterns, etc. I'm talking about how the stories correspond each other in such detail. Say there were just 4 different people on 4 different continents. They all experienced the same natural disasters. Tell me, what are the chances that they would all have a story where the gods were angry with them, sent a flood, a person gets into an Ark with animals? If kids in a classroom wrote those stories, they'd be accused of cheating!

Natural disasters are common, and follow certain patterns, weather patterns, for example, and then geological patterns. That's why there is a similarity in the stories about them. Natural disasters are similar. Nothing magical is happening. It's just the way the world works.

When there are people, there are angry gods. When there is the planet Earth, there are floods. And where there is water.. there are boats. People and animals can get into boats. Boats are made for that.

You infer some spectacular magical coincidence in these common occurrences. I see people doing what people do when there is a flood. Get in boats, believe in angry gods, and carry freight. Then, some clever people write stories about all of that.

Yes, we do love our stories, don't we?

Oh, and by the way, just because some kids write the same kind of stories in a classroom does NOT mean that any of them were cheating. If you would accuse them of that, you would be wrong, UNLESS you had the evidence that they had cheated. Coincidences do happen.

What would be more fantastic is if all those kids where on different continents. I won't convince you otherwise.

You need to show us that coincidences COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, and that the kids DID cheat, otherwise you are unjustly accusing them. Similarly, you would have to demonstrate that people CAN'T draw similar figures on caves that have nothing to DO with aliens FIRST, before saying that it "must be" aliens.

I know that it has to be proven but the teachers would not help feel suspicious. Likewise with the paintings. It does raise eyebrows.

The most likely conclusion about the cave paintings is that they were of people or imaginary beings. We know those are extremely LIKELY kinds of drawings, because of the overwhelming evidence of all the OTHER drawings of people and imaginary beings we have. A drawing of an imaginary being does not constitute EVIDENCE for the imaginary being.. its only evidence of the IMAGINATION.

Why would they say they have met these imaginary beings?

Show me there is a flag waving on the moon and I will believe you.

I've gone through these and none of the sources show a video clip, which is what I want, of an American flag on the moon.

.

Then your bias has been confirmed, and you can keep believing whatever it is you want. However:

Others don't have your bias, and so...if you want us to believe in alien visiting the planet, show us some good evidence.

The evidence you have given us so far is very poor, indeed.
I will attend to only one more link.. so make it good.

You are the one who says I must give evidence. The truth is, you have no idea whether the flag is on the moon or not so you just have faith.

So let's continue this conversation in a private message. You and I should have been banned already.