Debate here if you deny Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh

[Apatheist]

Here's one for you then: if this life is followed by a blissful heavenly paradise existence for eternity, why bother with organic life and the physical universe at all? Why don't our souls get born straight into the afterlife? There would be no pain, no war, no cancer, no arguments, and most importantly of all - no evil. Not even an opportunity for anything other than what the creator wants us to be, and how we want to be, so why give us the opportunity to fail? Why waste 70-odd years going through this when we can go straight to a non-corporeal existence which makes us (and presumably the creator) blissfully happy for eternity?

[Apatheist]

We've got away from my question, to which I really would be interested in an answer, from those of any faith.
Does your faith tell you whether there can, or cannot, be life on other planets?

[jusplay4fun]

We've got away from my question, to which I really would be interested in an answer, from those of any faith.
Does your faith tell you whether there can, or cannot, be life on other planets?

That is not a question Faith, especially my Faith, gives answers to, UNLESS you want to discuss "faith" in

1) little Green Men;
2) Flying Saucers;
3) ETs;
4) Roswell, NM is the site of a supposed alien crash landing;
5) Area 51, and those things;
6) and many more such conspiracy theories.

From the Science perspective, try the Drake Equation, which I reference already, and there are NOW nuances and revisions.

In case you missed it:

Re: Debate here if you deny Jesus is the Creator of the universe born in flesh
Post by jusplay4fun » Wed Mar 11, 2026 7:38 am

I added to my original post. Please check it again.

After posting, I realized that I did not, so I reflected on that and simply added my answer to your question to my original post in response.

Let me put that HERE:

Apatheist, Let me look at this question you posed:

I have one fundamental question for you: do you believe that this is the only planet in the entire universe with life on it?
If so, what will it do to your belief system if life is discovered on another planet?

If not, did/will Jesus visit those planets too, and would it be in the same white guy/beard/flowing robes garb, even if they're small furry blue creatures with 50 arms each who invented the underarm deodorant before the wheel? Would he end up being crucified again to save them from their sins?

I do not really KNOW. I see arguments can be made for both SOLO and other life (ET) outside Earth.

a) A silicon based life form is much less likely to be diverse.
b) Carbon can bond with 4 other atoms AND form long Chains and those chains can branch.
c) The biggest impact, imo, is the long DNA molecule, not possible without Carbon.

from AI:
To understand the chemical formula for typical DNA molecules, consider the following points:

DNA is composed of nucleotides, each containing a sugar, phosphate group, and nitrogenous base.
The sugar in DNA is deoxyribose, which has the formula C5H10O4.
The phosphate group contributes PO4, which is part of the backbone structure.
The nitrogenous bases include adenine (C5H5N5), thymine (C5H6N2O2), cytosine (C4H5N3O), and guanine (C5H5N5O).
The overall empirical formula for DNA can be approximated as CxHyNzOw, where x, y, z, and w vary based on the specific sequence of nucleotides.

That is the Chemistry, in a nutshell. Now for some Physics: The Drake Equation. On the cursory level, THE ODDS say there HAS to be extra-terrestial (ET) life outside Earth.

This may be of interest to you:
https://science.nasa.gov/universe/exopl ... -equation/

And we have had little "Proof" or evidence of ETs. And, despite the ODDS that there MIGHT be life as such, there are other and newer arguments mades as we learn about exo-Planets and find more, seemingly nearly each day:
The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

Fermi paradox

Main article: Fermi paradox
A civilization lasting for tens of millions of years could be able to spread throughout the galaxy, even at the slow speeds foreseeable with present-day technology. However, no confirmed signs of civilizations or intelligent life elsewhere have been found, either in this Galaxy or in the observable universe of 2 trillion galaxies.[91][92] According to this line of thinking, the tendency to fill (or at least explore) all available territory seems to be a universal trait of living things, so the Earth should have already been colonized, or at least visited, but no evidence of this exists. Hence Fermi's question "Where is everybody?".[93][94]

A large number of explanations have been proposed to explain this lack of contact; a book published in 2015 elaborated on 75 different explanations.[95] In terms of the Drake Equation, the explanations can be divided into three classes:
Few intelligent civilizations ever arise. This is an argument that at least one of the first few terms, R∗ · fp · ne · fl · fi, has a low value. The most common suspect is fi, but explanations such as the rare Earth hypothesis argue that ne is the small term.
Intelligent civilizations exist, but we see no evidence, meaning fc is small. Typical arguments include that civilizations are too far apart, it is too expensive to spread throughout the galaxy, civilizations broadcast signals for only a brief period of time, communication is dangerous, and many others.
The lifetime of intelligent, communicative civilizations is short, meaning the value of L is small. Drake suggested that a large number of extraterrestrial civilizations would form, and he further speculated that the lack of evidence of such civilizations may be because technological civilizations tend to disappear rather quickly. Typical explanations include it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy itself, it is the nature of intelligent life to destroy others, they tend to be destroyed by natural events, and others.
These lines of reasoning lead to the Great Filter hypothesis,[96] which states that since there are no observed extraterrestrial civilizations despite the vast number of stars, at least one step in the process must be acting as a filter to reduce the final value. According to this view, either it is very difficult for intelligent life to arise, or the lifetime of technologically advanced civilizations, or the period of time they reveal their existence must be relatively short.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation

Until other intellgent ET life is found, the relevant question(s) about Christ becomes MOOT, right??

Last point for now: I recall reading a sci fi story on the point about Christ: Did he DIE only once for EVERYONE or was his Death repeated on each Planet. I cannot recall the name of the short story or its author.

[Apatheist]

We've got away from my question, to which I really would be interested in an answer, from those of any faith.
Does your faith tell you whether there can, or cannot, be life on other planets?

That is not a question Faith, especially my Faith, gives answers to, UNLESS you wan to discuss "faith" in

That's fine. If it doesn't give you an answer, that's all I wanted to know on that, thanks.

How about the question as to why we're not born straight into a blissful existence?

[jusplay4fun]

We've got away from my question, to which I really would be interested in an answer, from those of any faith.
Does your faith tell you whether there can, or cannot, be life on other planets?

That is not a question Faith, especially my Faith, gives answers to, UNLESS you wan to discuss "faith" in

That's fine. If it doesn't give you an answer, that's all I wanted to know on that, thanks.

How about the question as to why we're not born straight into a blissful existence?

It seems we are moving on; OKAY.

To answer your newest question, I could cite Bible verses, but you can do that, too. Let me instead go in at least two directions here:

1) God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.

All this (above) certainly involves Free Will.

The simple answer is that God wants us to love Him because we CHOOSE to do so, not because He made us to BLINDLY follow him. I see a parallel with a relationship with someone as I think about your question. When we court and date, we want someone to choose to LOVE us (me) for me and not be FORCED to do so.

another line of my thinking:
2) I see so many parallels as a Parent (and now grandfather). Having children and now grandchildren, I can appreciate beings who have Free Will and minds of their own. I said years ago that having children is one of the most enjoyable things in Life. That is also one of the most difficult and frustrating. Overall, I am HAPPY that I have children. YES. Was it easy? NO. And the biggest reward is having grandchildren. And having been a father who spent much time trying to earn the "daily bread" I missed many interactions with my young children. I get to enjoy that NOW as a grandfather and I have been amazed HOW quickly and how young the little ones WANT THINGS THEIR way. My children and grandchildren have Free Will and they exercise that OFTEN.

And being a grandparent, my children are the primary care givers and my role is supportive and I do not make the decisions how to raise the grandchildren. I am merely the advisor and helper.

I will end this, for now, with the evaluation that you ask a very deep and profound question. I had to reflect on the question to offer, hopefully, a worthy response.

[Lionz]

Apatheist,

I don’t think it’s a coincidence if dinosaurs were accurately portrayed across the world in ancient times. You might have a better point regarding artwork if I did not also reference several written accounts and photographs and point out history related to the words dragon and dinosaur as well.

Don’t doubt I have read an English version of Ezekiel a number of times and also deep dived the Tanakh in Hebrew using the Masoretic Text as well. I guess there is a deception concerned with what Haim said that’s going to get more public in coming months even if I also guess that the Creator uses some high technology Himself. Are you familiar with Genesis 6:4 and 1 Enoch and the whole concept of nephilim? I guess life can exist on other planets, yes. Do you know that the brightest star in the night sky is binary and has a 50 year Biblical jubilee cycle? Just look into it on Wikipedia or any mainstream source.

As far as indoctrination, weren’t we both indoctrinated to be Darwinists in school for over a decade? I’m something like a non-Pauline Messianic Jew and wasn’t raised in a church going type family and you have false assumptions about me maybe. I’m not sure exactly why He has done what He has done, but eternity might be even more paradise like after experiencing what we have.

[jusplay4fun]

Apatheist,

I don’t think it’s a coincidence if dinosaurs were accurately portrayed across the world in ancient times. You might have a better point regarding artwork if I did not also reference several written accounts and photographs and point out history related to the words dragon and dinosaur as well.

What is your point, Lionz? that dragons = dinosaurs? VERY Doubtful, other than being reptilian

Lionz said

Don’t doubt I have read an English version of Ezekiel a number of times and also deep dived the Tanakh in Hebrew using the Masoretic Text as well. I guess there is a deception concerned with what Haim said that’s going to get more public in coming months even if I also guess that the Creator uses some high technology Himself. Are you familiar with Genesis 6:4 and 1 Enoch and the whole concept of nephilim? I guess life can exist on other planets, yes. Do you know that the brightest star in the night sky is binary and has a 50 year Biblical jubilee cycle? Just look into it on Wikipedia or any mainstream source.

Again, What is your point(s) here, Lionz? And so what about Sirius? it is binary yes, and so..?? 50 year cycle, and so ...??

This has been much debated and there is no resolution in site. After 49 years, the 50th year (by inclusive reckoning) is the also the 49th year by non-inclusive reckoning. However, many cite the prophecy of Dan 9 as evidence that the Jubilee cycle was 49 years long. –

MORE:

The Book of Enoch is not recognized as the inspired Word of God or a part of the Biblical Canon.

and more here:
https://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-s ... bible.html

and, Lionz said:

As far as indoctrination, weren’t we both indoctrinated to be Darwinists in school for over a decade? I’m something like a non-Pauline Messianic Jew and wasn’t raised in a church going type family and you have false assumptions about me maybe. I’m not sure exactly why He has done what He has done, but eternity might be even more paradise like after experiencing what we have.

[Apatheist]

Apatheist,

I don’t think it’s a coincidence if dinosaurs were accurately portrayed across the world in ancient times. You might have a better point regarding artwork if I did not also reference several written accounts and photographs and point out history related to the words dragon and dinosaur as well.

Dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. People may have interpreted the fossils and come up with dragons, but even the 19th century interpretations have turned out to be incorrect.
Photographs of ancient art are not photos of the creatures themselves, come off it.

Don’t doubt I have read an English version of Ezekiel a number of times and also deep dived the Tanakh in Hebrew using the Masoretic Text as well. I guess there is a deception concerned with what Haim said that’s going to get more public in coming months even if I also guess that the Creator uses some high technology Himself. Are you familiar with Genesis 6:4 and 1 Enoch and the whole concept of nephilim? I guess life can exist on other planets, yes. Do you know that the brightest star in the night sky is binary and has a 50 year Biblical jubilee cycle? Just look into it on Wikipedia or any mainstream source.

As I've said elsewhere, I've been on an astronomy show twice. I'm well aware that the brightest star in the night sky is Sirius and is binary; THEY, however, don't have any sort of "biblical cycle" at all. The stars happen to orbit roughly every 50 years, so what? That's due to their relative mass and gravity. It's 50 years since I came top of my year in a physics exam. There were 50 years between violence in France in 1968 and 2018. There were 50 years between the Eiffel tower and WWII. At one point, the Hubble constant for the expansion of the universe was measured at about 42, which we know to be the answer to life, the universe and everything. Even Douglas Adams said that the coincidence "needn't detain us". Just because two completely unrelated items have similar numbers, it doesn't mean anything whatsoever - apart from the fact that you appear to be clutching at very thin, small straws to try to justify your beliefs.
All I wanted to know was whether your faith precludes life on other planets - you confirm that it doesn't, so thank you for doing that. It seems that the trope of finding life elsewhere blowing apart religions is misplaced - although I'd still like to hear from Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus or Buddhists (if there are any here) to know what they think.

As far as indoctrination, weren’t we both indoctrinated to be Darwinists in school for over a decade? I’m something like a non-Pauline Messianic Jew and wasn’t raised in a church going type family and you have false assumptions about me maybe. I’m not sure exactly why He has done what He has done, but eternity might be even more paradise like after experiencing what we have.

Ah, so this life is horrible to make us appreciate the next one even more? I suppose that's possible. Cruel and evil, but possible.

[jusplay4fun]

Apatheist,

I don’t think it’s a coincidence if dinosaurs were accurately portrayed across the world in ancient times. You might have a better point regarding artwork if I did not also reference several written accounts and photographs and point out history related to the words dragon and dinosaur as well.

Dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. People may have interpreted the fossils and come up with dragons, but even the 19th century interpretations have turned out to be incorrect.
Photographs of ancient art are not photos of the creatures themselves, come off it.

Don’t doubt I have read an English version of Ezekiel a number of times and also deep dived the Tanakh in Hebrew using the Masoretic Text as well. I guess there is a deception concerned with what Haim said that’s going to get more public in coming months even if I also guess that the Creator uses some high technology Himself. Are you familiar with Genesis 6:4 and 1 Enoch and the whole concept of nephilim? I guess life can exist on other planets, yes. Do you know that the brightest star in the night sky is binary and has a 50 year Biblical jubilee cycle? Just look into it on Wikipedia or any mainstream source.

As I've said elsewhere, I've been on an astronomy show twice. I'm well aware that the brightest star in the night sky is Sirius and is binary; THEY, however, don't have any sort of "biblical cycle" at all. The stars happen to orbit roughly every 50 years, so what? That's due to their relative mass and gravity. It's 50 years since I came top of my year in a physics exam. There were 50 years between violence in France in 1968 and 2018. There were 50 years between the Eiffel tower and WWII. At one point, the Hubble constant for the expansion of the universe was measured at about 42, which we know to be the answer to life, the universe and everything. Even Douglas Adams said that the coincidence "needn't detain us". Just because two completely unrelated items have similar numbers, it doesn't mean anything whatsoever - apart from the fact that you appear to be clutching at very thin, small straws to try to justify your beliefs.
All I wanted to know was whether your faith precludes life on other planets - you confirm that it doesn't, so thank you for doing that. It seems that the trope of finding life elsewhere blowing apart religions is misplaced - although I'd still like to hear from Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus or Buddhists (if there are any here) to know what they think.

As far as indoctrination, weren’t we both indoctrinated to be Darwinists in school for over a decade? I’m something like a non-Pauline Messianic Jew and wasn’t raised in a church going type family and you have false assumptions about me maybe. I’m not sure exactly why He has done what He has done, but eternity might be even more paradise like after experiencing what we have.

Ah, so this life is horrible to make us appreciate the next one even more? I suppose that's possible. Cruel and evil, but possible.

Let us hope and have FAITH that the life AFTER this one is BETTER than this one, this current one marked by cruelty, evils, sins, and many imperfections.

And while we are still HERE in this one, let's try to make this world a wee bit better and let's try to help those in need.

[Lionz]

@jusplay4fun

What do you think dinosaurs were called prior to 1852?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dragon

Consider the whole concept of tannaniym as well.

http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/8577.html

I don’t think it’s a coincidence if the brightest star in the night sky is binary with a 50 year cycle, but not everything I say is a hard hitting debate point and you can take from the so called Dog Star what you will maybe. Do you really want to debate if Leviticus 25:10-11 says the Jubilee year is the 50th year or not? Let’s deep dive Daniel 9:24-27 if you want, but how relevant is that really?

Apatheist,

Look at what I sent again if you think it was just photos of ancient art and don’t ignore what has been reported throughout history as well.

Don’t be too quick to just trust what academia tells you if the devil is the prince of this world. There might be about 10 distinct dinosaur kinds that a small child can categorize for you. Long Neck and Trihorn and Mohawk Back and T Rex and Raptor and Unihorn and Flare Neck and Spikey Turtle and Water Dino and Flying Dino? Where are missing links between dinosaur kinds if dinosaurs are said to be extinct and their fossil record should theoretically be a cross section of what they looked like throughout their whole history? If we have a general picture painted of dinosaur history with fossil remains and yet we essentially have 10 piles of bones representing 10 distinct looking groups of creatures, then what does that tell you about if they all have a common ancestor or if they were created by a Creator into 10 or so different kinds from the jump?

As far as astronomy and alien talk is concerned, just remember what I laid out earlier when stuff blows up. A url of aliens.gov was actually just registered by the Executive Office of the President since the last time I posted here maybe. Let’s have a talk focused on Genesis 6:4 and 1 Enoch and nephilim if you’re primed to believe whatever mainstream media and scientific consensus says.

https://x.com/UAPWatchers/status/2034271197521661962

“And while we are still HERE in this one, let's try to make this world a wee bit better and let's try to help those in need.” Creator be praised for you. Let’s try to indeed. (Late Edit?: I guess jusplay4fun said that and not you, but Creator be praised for you both . Apatheist, I recommend Job and a wheat and tares parable if you find life horrible.)

[mookiemcgee]

I think the biggest question's I'd have for a young earth creationist, would be beyond just life on earth and really the earth itself. Do you still believe that a Pangea type landmass used to exist at some point? If so how long ago, if not how do you account for the way landmasses with entire oceans between them look so clearly like they at one point fit together?

This is honestly just me trying to understand and not some attempt at trolling you. I can't really wrap my head around how you'd get from Pangea to what we have now in 5000-6000 years.

Click image to enlarge.

[Lionz]

Mookie,

Hey and welcome. Don’t worry too much about stepping on my toes and asking hard questions.

Consider below if you are convinced earth was a lopsided island planet with land mostly confined to one hemisphere. What’s just about Africa and the Americas when it comes to how neatly things fit together like a puzzle?







And consider here if you want evidence for things shifting quickly with land in a mud or putty like state:

[Apatheist]

Things fitting together neatly depends on the water level - you have to look at the whole plate, not just the bit above the current waterline.
For me, the big giveaway is the Himalayas. We can measure how fast India is approaching Eurasia; wind that back to see how far it must have come.
Those pictures don't actually prove anything. At the moment of shifting, it's dramatic, but you're not seeing the thousands or millions of years that it's taken to build up to that point.
Also, in your third picture, why does Australia have a sad face on it?

As for what to believe, frankly I don't find the bible any more credible than what the mainstream media tells us. Both contain exaggerated misperceptions of what may actually be going on. I don't just read tabloids - who are often wildly inaccurate and lazy with their research (or just plain wrong). What if the bible was just the tabloid version of history, written with a particular political agendum?

Just because Leviticus mentions a fifty year cycle isn't evidence of anything to do with a binary star. Why doesn't it tell us that there's a binary star that we can use to time the cycle? Oh, that's right, it's because all the religious people were convinced that everything orbited the Earth, so a binary star wouldn't exist, would it?
It's as much the stuff that the bible, if it were genuinely an explanation, doesn't tell us that convinces me it's entirely man-made and nothing whatever to do with a creator of the universe.

As for Genesis 6:4 - and how it relates to Bigfoot, ConfedSS - AI says:
Key Aspects of Genesis 6:4:
The Nephilim: Often translated as "giants" or "fallen ones," they were considered heroic or famous warriors of antiquity, rather than strictly large in stature.

[jusplay4fun]

Several things to address:

1) I posted that:

And while we are still HERE in this one, let's try to make this world a wee bit better and let's try to help those in need.

Thanks for acknowledging, Lionz.

2) It is good to get the thoughts, ideas, questions, and contributions of Mookie, another good thinker who is fair-minded.

3) about Mookie's point about Plate Techtonics, the idea of a "plastic" or somewhat malleable crust of the earth:
The Geologist figured out relatively early on, (by 1850 or so, as I best recall) that the Earth is VERY OLD. They realize that the formation of the White Cliffs of Dover (built up by the SHELLS of BILLIONS or TRILLIONS of sea creatures, then the UPLIFT of that part of the sea floor), the Build-up of mountains, the erosion of places like the Grand Canyon and other such canyons, the complex formation of Applachian Mountains in the USA, are all a bit of evidence of the LONG TIME need for such Geologic Events.

Geologists argued for a long time line (Billions of Years) vs, the Argument of Chemists and Physicists, like Ernest Rutherford as recently as the early 20th Century, for the Earth being only PERHAPS a few Million years old. Most still had in their minds the 6000 year Calendar of Bishop Ussher and other Christian religious leaders.

On October 23, 4004 BC, at least according to the calculations of Archbishop James Ussher, the world was created. This date, derived from a meticulous study of the Bible and historical records, represents Ussher’s attempt to establish a timeline for the creation of the universe as described in the Book of Genesis. Ussher, an Irish Anglican Archbishop and scholar, published his chronology in the 17th century, offering one of the most well-known and influential timelines for biblical events. His work, “Annals of the Old Testament, Deduced from the First Origins of the World,” remains a significant point of reference for discussions of biblical literalism and creationist theories.

https://thisdayofhistory.com/2025/10/22 ... ne-bishop/

So I generally agree with most of Mookie's points on this matter. I have to re-read to be sure I got ALL of it.

There is more to discuss for me, but let me post only this for now as I get ready to celebrate properly the Lord's Day.

[Apatheist]

There is more to discuss for me, but let me post only this for now as I get ready to celebrate properly the Lord's Day.

Sunday gets its name from Old English Sunnandæg, meaning "sun's day". This is a direct translation of the Latin dies solis, which honored the Sun god Sol, a practice originating from Babylonian and Roman astrological systems that assigned the first day of the week to the Sun.

[mookiemcgee]

Mookie,

Hey and welcome. Don’t worry too much about stepping on my toes and asking hard questions.

Consider below if you are convinced earth was a lopsided island planet with land mostly confined to one hemisphere. What’s just about Africa and the Americas when it comes to how neatly things fit together like a puzzle?

could I try and nutshell what i understand you believe to be based on your reply, and then you can correct me if I've missunderstood:

You are open to the possibility we moved from something pangea like to what we have now, just on a very advanced timeline compared to traditional scientific belief in part due to the earth's land being incredibly soft near it's creation 5-6k years ago?

[jusplay4fun]

There is more to discuss for me, but let me post only this for now as I get ready to celebrate properly the Lord's Day.

Sunday gets its name from Old English Sunnandæg, meaning "sun's day". This is a direct translation of the Latin dies solis, which honored the Sun god Sol, a practice originating from Babylonian and Roman astrological systems that assigned the first day of the week to the Sun.

imo, not relevant

[Apatheist]

There is more to discuss for me, but let me post only this for now as I get ready to celebrate properly the Lord's Day.

Sunday gets its name from Old English Sunnandæg, meaning "sun's day". This is a direct translation of the Latin dies solis, which honored the Sun god Sol, a practice originating from Babylonian and Roman astrological systems that assigned the first day of the week to the Sun.

imo, not relevant

Just observing that there's more than one god that's credited for things. The day was hijacked by more modern religions for their own purposes.
What's your view of Scientology?

[jusplay4fun]

There is more to discuss for me, but let me post only this for now as I get ready to celebrate properly the Lord's Day.

Sunday gets its name from Old English Sunnandæg, meaning "sun's day". This is a direct translation of the Latin dies solis, which honored the Sun god Sol, a practice originating from Babylonian and Roman astrological systems that assigned the first day of the week to the Sun.

imo, not relevant

Just observing that there's more than one god that's credited for things. The day was hijacked by more modern religions for their own purposes.
What's your view of Scientology?

Why not deal with what I posted, the "tougher questions"? rather than throw out what is, to me, trivial matters, such as Scientology? Deal with what I posted about fasting and sacrifice, for starters. Have you tried? more than once? and only, if ever, as a child? Those are tougher questions, I think, Apatheist; it seems to me that you avoid these questions.

I do not view Scientology as a serious matter here, tbf. I know little about it since I do not view it as a serious matter and have thus NOT done any serious investigation of it. L. Ron Hubbard? Tom Cruise? John Travolta? what did I miss? is it a cult? As I ponder your question, I think I did look into this some 20 years ago, and I decided that it it NOT a serious religion.

I happened to visit Salt Lake City and Temple Square there. While there, I was approached by lovely young ladies who wanted to CONVERT me to their faith. Did any of that change my view of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints? No.

Asking me about Scientology is like asking me about them, the Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints): both are not important, overall. Granted: Mormons are good citizens (as a general statement) and have much influence in Utah and Idaho and parts of Wyoming, too. They are world-wide and have many converts and many who practice actively. I can say very little about Scientology.

Sunday has many meanings. Are you offering red herrings here?

[Apatheist]

There is more to discuss for me, but let me post only this for now as I get ready to celebrate properly the Lord's Day.

Sunday gets its name from Old English Sunnandæg, meaning "sun's day". This is a direct translation of the Latin dies solis, which honored the Sun god Sol, a practice originating from Babylonian and Roman astrological systems that assigned the first day of the week to the Sun.

imo, not relevant

Just observing that there's more than one god that's credited for things. The day was hijacked by more modern religions for their own purposes.
What's your view of Scientology?

Why not deal with what I posted, the "tougher questions"? rather than throw out what is, to me, trivial matters, such as Scientology? Deal with what I posted about fasting and sacrifice, for starters. Have you tried? more than once? and only, if ever, as a child? Those are tougher questions, I think, Apatheist; it seems to me that you avoid these questions.

I dealt with that at the time, on the other thread in which you raised it. As I said there:

As for the fasting and stuff - no, never done it for any reason. I did once reduce what I was eating to lose a bit of weight, but just reduced, not fasted.

Is that clear enough? It's not a tough question at all. I don't see fasting and sacrifice as being of any benefit to me; if it makes you feel good or part of something, that's fine, carry on. My parents were not religious, and grew up during the war and rationing, when one ate whatever one had, as there was no guarantee of another meal.

I do not view Scientology as a serious matter here, tbf. I know little about it since I do not view it as a serious matter and have thus NOT done any serious investigation of it. L. Ron Hubbard? Tom Cruise? John Travolta? what did I miss? is it a cult? As I ponder your question, I think I did look into this some 20 years ago, and I decided that it it NOT a serious religion.

I happened to visit Salt Lake City and Temple Square there. While there, I was approached by lovely young ladies who wanted to CONVERT me to their faith. Did any of that change my view of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints? No.

Asking me about Scientology is like asking me about them, the Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints): both are not important, overall. Granted: Mormons are good citizens (as a general statement) and have much influence in Utah and Idaho and parts of Wyoming, too. They are world-wide and have many converts and many who practice actively. I can say very little about Scientology.

Sunday has many meanings. Are you offering red herrings here?

Not a red herring at all. You referred to it as the "Lord's day" - I'm pointing out that it was already ascribed to a different god by an earlier religion, and is therefore classified along with December 25th and other stories as being "things that already existed from other religions that were hijacked by newer ones because they fitted a convenient narrative" (Dec 25th being the date of an existing prophecy). That led me to think about Scientology, which purports to be a new explanation, much like Christianity did 2000 odd years ago. If you think that the Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and co were wrong because they hadn't been shown the true meaning - well, who's to say whether Scientology is to Christianity what Christianity was to them?

[jusplay4fun]

So you skipped a meal or a few to lose weight, but did not really FAST, not as I defined it and not as intended for religious or spiritual reasons. SO you cannot intelligently discuss it, imo.

There are only 7 days of the week, as currently defined, so OF course other religions can and have attributed signficance to some or all those days. BTW: most days of the week in English are named after NORSE gods, but that fact CHANGES NOTHING about the signficance of the Sabbath for Jews, and Muslims, or Sundays for Christians. Jews and Muslims have a Lunar Calendar and that too is NOT significant.

Scientology is not worth discussing; your comments do not offer a cogent reason to change my opinion of it.

And recently I have read things that suggest December 25 has reasons for the DATE of Chrismas (the birth of the Christ) NOT Related to pagan holidays.

We are dealing with SMALL matters in recent discussion and have not tackled the bigger and TOUGHER questions. Scientology and the matter of Sunday as discussed here avoid those BIG questions.

Plate techtonics is a BIG matter; I am not sure there was a question posed; Lionz may have raised one or more.

Evolution and Intelligent Design offer BIG questions; I am not sure that discussion is completed, before we got sidetracked by matters that I see are basically NOT significant. Fine tuning of the universe is another BIG question; your refutation is not satisfactory, again imo.

You, Apatheist, said:

At the end of the day, I've no idea how or why we came into existence, and as you may infer from my username, I'm not going to waste time worrying about it or trying to work it out. My single belief is that we will not find out before we die, if at all; and I cannot bring myself to worship any "designer" that would create people that have had to go through what humans have to endure, especially the torment of cancer. Saying "it's just to test us" is a pretty lazy and naïve cop-out because it undermines the actual religious argument.

I think your answer there is a pretty lazy and naïve cop-out, tbf. You do not want to waste time so you will not pursue the matter? That is intellectually a poor argument. So is NOT

trying to work it out

You basically said "I do not agree, so I will ignore these matters." And that is NOT the same as Scientology, as discussed here so briefly. I presented arguments and evidence to support most of my points. My opinion on Scientology is not worth discussion, based on what we have here so far.

[Apatheist]

So you skipped a meal or a few to lose weight, but did not really FAST, not as I defined it and not as intended for religious or spiritual reasons. SO you cannot intelligently discuss it, imo.

I'm not sure why you're taking this antagonistic approach, I thought we were having a sensible and honest discussion.
I've been very clear: I have never skipped a meal for religious or spiritual reasons, because I see no need to, nor any benefit to anyone in doing so.
I reduced what I ate - from 3 sandwiches to 2 - when I felt I was a bit heavy.
I will clarify for completeness that the only time I've not eaten when I otherwise would have done is on medical requests prior to a gastric procedure, eg endoscopy or colonoscopy. However part of the recovery procedure was to eat, so I caught up and in total had the same number of meals.
My side of the debate is that religious fasting achieves nothing.
If it makes you feel that you're doing something worthwhile, that's fine, you're fully entitled to, but it won't do anything for me other than make me hungry and risk affecting my blood sugar levels.

There are only 7 days of the week, as currently defined, so OF course other religions can and have attributed signficance to some or all those days. BTW: most days of the week in English are named after NORSE gods, but that fact CHANGES NOTHING about the signficance of the Sabbath for Jews, and Muslims, or Sundays for Christians. Jews and Muslims have a Lunar Calendar and that too is NOT significant.

Scientology is not worth discussing; your comments do not offer a cogent reason to change my opinion of it.

I was just curious as to what your opinion of it was. Personally I think they're barking mad. I raised it because it's a more recent attempt at creating a religion.

And recently I have read things that suggest December 25 has reasons for the DATE of Chrismas (the birth of the Christ) NOT Related to pagan holidays.

Since you like your AI quotes:
December 25 was not originally a Christian holiday, but it became a popular date for celebrating the birth of Jesus in the 4th century, potentially to align with or replace Roman pagan festivals like Sol Invictus and Saturnalia. While some early Christians calculated this date through theological means (nine months after March 25), many festive traditions like yule logs and evergreen decorations have roots in European pagan solstice celebrations.
Key Details Regarding December 25
Roman Sol Invictus: In 274 AD, the Roman Emperor Aurelian established December 25 as the birth of Sol Invictus (the "Unconquered Sun"), celebrating the winter solstice.
Saturnalia: This Roman festival of feasting and gift-giving was held between December 17–23, often merging with the celebrations of the 25th.
Christian Adoption: Around 336-354 AD, the Church in Rome began celebrating Christmas on December 25th.

We are dealing with SMALL matters in recent discussion and have not tackled the bigger and TOUGHER questions. Scientology and the matter of Sunday as discussed here avoid those BIG questions.

Plate techtonics is a BIG matter; I am not sure there was a question posed; Lionz may have raised one or more.

Evolution and Intelligent Design offer BIG questions; I am not sure that discussion is completed, before we got sidetracked by matters that I see are basically NOT significant. Fine tuning of the universe is another BIG question; your refutation is not satisfactory, again imo.

You, Apatheist, said:

At the end of the day, I've no idea how or why we came into existence, and as you may infer from my username, I'm not going to waste time worrying about it or trying to work it out. My single belief is that we will not find out before we die, if at all; and I cannot bring myself to worship any "designer" that would create people that have had to go through what humans have to endure, especially the torment of cancer. Saying "it's just to test us" is a pretty lazy and naïve cop-out because it undermines the actual religious argument.

I think your answer there is a pretty lazy and naïve cop-out, tbf. You do not want to waste time so you will not pursue the matter? That is intellectually a poor argument. So is NOT

trying to work it out

You basically said "I do not agree, so I will ignore these matters." And that is NOT the same as Scientology, as discussed here so briefly. I presented arguments and evidence to support most of my points. My opinion on Scientology is not worth discussion, based on what we have here so far.

Plate tectonics I agree with. That to me indicates that those who believe the planet to be a few thousand years old are wrong.
We can also see stars forming out there in the cosmos, at different distances and different ages. In order to think that the universe ("heaven and earth") is only a few thousand years old, one has to disagree with the speed of light being 186000 mph. Since that's measurable, that has no credibility.

As for the eternal verities - it's just realism. I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying? I don't believe I'm capable of jumping across the Atlantic, so I'm not going to try - not lazy, just sensible.
There's an old prayer, which I prefer to see more as a guiding principle, which goes:
Give me the courage to change what I cannot accept, the fortitude to accept what I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference.

This comes into the second category. I do not believe that we as a species are capable of understanding it all. No-one thus far, in my view, has got a credible explanation; I, as a scientist, will look at a theory and see if and where it falls down, then reject the theory. I won't just accept it because someone, with no scientific knowledge or verifiable insight, says that's how it is.

One very obvious example of this is the "Star of Bethlehem". The description given in the bible, taking it absolutely at face value, describes perfectly the behaviour of a comet. It's clearly a comet, but whoever wrote the story didn't understand what a comet is or how it behaves. There's documented corroboration from observers in other parts of the world of a comet at that time (but not December 25th 0AD, of course).

It's not just about disagreeing - it's about realising that what's put forward as evidence of something simply doesn't hold water. Regarding this inconvenient evidence as insignificant or irrelevant is one way of not letting it upset your belief system I suppose, but it's not how I test a theory.

Anyway, it appears we're never going to agree on this - please don't descend into making it a matter of "intelligence" and insults.

[Pack Rat]

Anyway, it appears we're never going to agree on this - please don't descend into making it a matter of "intelligence" and insults.

Good luck with that.

I feel compelled to help pack rat learn; I mean, he knows SO LITTLE; e.g.,

https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 8&t=242467

Kent State is NOT Ohio State.

This COULD be a full-time retirement job, helping poor rat as well as correcting grammar and spelling for ConFedSS. BUT all that is TOO MUCH work.

Do you have some sort of asshole Tourette’s that makes you just post douchey shit uncontrollably?

Can you seriously not help yourself?

[jusplay4fun]

Unlike others, I am not here to insult others.

You obviously know Science, Apatheist, and re-read that you have been on Science show, I assume that you are a Scientist with good credentials. In fact, you make that claim twice. Good. I assume you are here to explore these questions; I am not sure you find my answers worth reading.

ALSO: I am suprised that Lionz, who started this thread, has been rather quiet on many recent posts here.

Apatheist, I am challenging to offer something intelligent to discuss, unlike the drivel posted and impotent insults offered by others. I find your question about Scientology a mere distraction and avoiding more important topics and questions. If you have not tried to Fast for Religious reasons, and you continue to attack, deny, and denigrate religious matters, then really there is NO POINT to discuss this, other than as a POSSIBLE intellectual discussion of "what if"? It seemed to me that that is all you want. You do not give religious matters any real consideration, other than it is "NOT for me."

If it is not for me, then fine. If you want my opinion on Scientology, I gave it. But I see that as similar to ask me about Mormons, which I did. (And both are religions that began in recent years (especially compared to Judaism, Christianity, the Muslim faith, or Taoism, the Hindu faith, the Shinto faith, Confucianism, and many others).

You ask me my views on things and I give them. I challenge you to be more open-minded, and your reply is basically it "ain't for me." I am not sure this discussion is worth pursuing. But let us try to go forward and further, as this is good for me to push me to understand this better, the confluence of Religion and Science. (btw: I am now reading another two books on this confluence.)

You say we cannot know it all. You said:

I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying?

Science, which you seem to put much "faith" in, CANNOT answer that question as to WHY we're here. Religion can, and does. You asked me, and I gave you TWO answers.

To answer your newest question, I could cite Bible verses, but you can do that, too. Let me instead go in at least two directions here:

1) God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.

All this (above) certainly involves Free Will.

The simple answer is that God wants us to love Him because we CHOOSE to do so, not because He made us to BLINDLY follow him.

My other answer compared God to being a parent (or grandparent); you can go back and read that.

I do not see where you replied to any of this answer, Apatheist. If you did, please show me.

Let's discuss your points here:

This comes into the second category. I do not believe that we as a species are capable of understanding it all. No-one thus far, in my view, has got a credible explanation; I, as a scientist, will look at a theory and see if and where it falls down, then reject the theory. I won't just accept it because someone, with no scientific knowledge or verifiable insight, says that's how it is.

and
NO ONE is capable of understanding it all. Anyone who claims otherwise is not someone I trust. The point is that NOT even Science can help us human to be

capable of understanding it all.

You seem to put much "faith" in Science. But Science and Religion are two different ways to explore the unknown. One does NOT exclude the other, imo. You seem to reject Religions, all of them, and instead accept only Science for answers. That is fine. But realize the limitations of Science. Are you familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? Let me ASK YOU a question: do you understand any philosophical implications of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle?

and

the speed of light being 186000 mph.

As a scientist, I am surprised that you claim the speed of light in non-metric units (mph). I assume you are aware that
1) Science uses SI units, and that we NOW know that
2) Science says that

The speed of light in vacuum, often called simply the speed of light and commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant exactly equal to 299792458 m⋅s−1[2]. It is exact because, by international agreement, a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 second.

We know it that precisely.

btw: I do acknowledge that the value of 186,000 mph is one I learned many years ago. Perhaps you rounded c for convenience, but as a citizen of the UK, I would expect you to use SI and not the old British Imperial system. Perhaps this is ALL a minor point.

Let's explore other matters that you, Apatheist, raise:

I'm not sure why you're taking this antagonistic approach, I thought we were having a sensible and honest discussion.

We are, but you largely seem to ignore my answers or ask me more questions that I consider trivial ("Scientology" and meaning of Sunday, when I plan to go to Sunday Services). Antagonistic? Well, that is your interpretation. But I like to engage in serious discussion and will challenge others, including you, to do so. It seemed to me that you were avoiding such discussions. Hence my challenge to you. One more example: we discuss fasting and you basically say "it ain't for me" and give NO possible credence to the notion that it can be spiritually beneficial. And sorry if I did not recall you answer my question about it in another thread. BUT my point still stands: you basically dismiss it without trying to experience it from the religious perspective of self-control and sacrifice (self-denial to control physical wants and needs). I mentioned that Muslims practice sacrifice, but that apparently did not impress you. You said:

My side of the debate is that religious fasting achieves nothing.

Okay then, we move on.

RE: "Star of Bethlehem" you said:

One very obvious example of this is the "Star of Bethlehem". The description given in the bible, taking it absolutely at face value, describes perfectly the behaviour of a comet. It's clearly a comet, but whoever wrote the story didn't understand what a comet is or how it behaves. There's documented corroboration from observers in other parts of the world of a comet at that time (but not December 25th 0AD, of course).

First, and perhaps most importantly, I doubt we will ever know definitively while in this world what the "Star of Bethlehem" was. Second, I do not see any Scientific consensus that the "Star of Bethlehem" was a comet. There is some evidence that it may have been a confluence of planets; there are other possible explanations. And most scientists do not believe that the date of the birth of Jesus, the Christ, was zero AD. I explored such matters earlier this year:
https://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewt ... 2#p5373752

I have explored these matters for many years, and have shared some of my ideas on some of these matters. The above is one such example.

I will also say that the Bible is not a book of History and the Bible is not a book of Science. Anyone who claims that the Bible is Science or History does not, imo, really understand the Bible. The Bible does give SOME insights into Science and into History, but is not meant to be the FINAL authority on either.

What drives Science (and it is a rather modern invention; I will claim here that Science really began with Galileo and others who lived in and around that time period) is a desire to KNOW and to understand nature. Religion has offered insights into both for sometime, and still offers some insights into KNOWLEDGE. Many who live now totally reject the Bible. I do not. BUT I do know and acknowledge the limitations of the Bible; that does not mean that its insights are meaningless.

On another topic, you said:

As for the eternal verities - it's just realism. I don't think anyone CAN know why we're here, so why bother trying?

So why are we discussing such topics, Apatheist? Why do we bother NOW?

I think you are engaging in an activity that humans have explored since we could THINK. This fundamental question of why we humans are HERE, on earth, NOW, has vexed humans for our entire existence, imo. We are exploring that question, so why shut out reasonable ideas that may offer insights?

Let's continue to explore; you posted:

There's an old prayer, which I prefer to see more as a guiding principle, which goes:
Give me the courage to change what I cannot accept, the fortitude to accept what I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Are you aware that:

The Serenity Prayer is a prayer or invocation by the petitioner for wisdom to understand the difference between circumstances ("things") that can and cannot be changed, asking courage to take action in the case of the former, and serenity to accept in the case of the latter.

The prayer has achieved very wide distribution, spreading through the YWCA and other groups in the 1930s, and in Alcoholics Anonymous and related organizational materials since at least 1941. Since at least the early 1960s, commercial enterprises such as Hallmark Cards have used the prayer in its greeting cards and gift items.

History
A version of the prayer was originally composed by Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr in the early 1930s. Initially popularized by one of his colleagues, the prayer began to spread widely without reference to the original author.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serenity_Prayer

It is a good prayer, a reasonably modern one, and I agree with it. When I first learned years ago that is it used by AA, I was surprised, but, in hindsight, this fact gives the prayer more significance.

I will wait for your replies, Apatheist. Bastante para Hoy.

[Lionz]

Apatheist,

“For me, the big giveaway is the Himalayas.”

Uniformitarianism might always rely on assumptions about a starting point or a constant rate of change or both. Consider how rapidly things might have sped up if there was a catastrophic geologic event.

“Also, in your third picture, why does Australia have a sad face on it?”

Map text that’s mostly indecipherable or something.

“What if the bible was just the tabloid version of history, written with a particular political agendum?”

66 plus books written by 40 plus people over many centuries with warnings related to the devil being the prince of this world/tempting Christ with the kingdoms of earth and people believing vain things due to governments conspiring together?

“Oh, that's right, it's because all the religious people were convinced that everything orbited the Earth, so a binary star wouldn't exist, would it?”

Doesn’t even mainstream cosmology suggest that everything including the sun is moving in the heavens? And how familiar are you with the morning star and what it does in earth’s sky every eight years? It’s like the Creator is playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers or something.





“The Nephilim: Often translated as ‘giants’ or ‘fallen ones,’ they were considered heroic or famous warriors of antiquity, rather than strictly large in stature.”

I recommend looking into what was widely reported as recently as the 1800s by newspapers like New York Times if you don’t think literal giants existed in the past. Click individual images here if you want links directly to the New York Times:

http://www.sydhav.no/giants/newspapers.htm



@jusplay4fun,

I suggest looking more into young earth creationism and a literal global flood and how much evidence supports these things.

Do you think this represents millions of years of history and that dirt suddenly changed colors every million years or so with no water erosion for hundreds of thousands of years at a time?



Well consider what happens to sediment during liquefaction. The following images don’t contain my own words and you can do your own experiments with sand toys purchased from Amazon maybe:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BTPK6LQK/re ... V9kZXRhaWw









@Mookie

I guess the earth itself has expanded and got larger and that it wasn’t just a lopsided Pangea island planet with land confined to one hemisphere, but yes I guess things moved and expanded more rapidly at one or more point in the past. Consider images I sent and how neatly even Australia fits into the western side of South America if you referenced an image that doesn’t account for that.