Bad news for god

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
Qu@si's picture
Bad news for god

The discovery of Kepler-452b is not likely to see the public swoon with a collective rendition of Kumbaya. But this Earth 2.0 is a huge if under-appreciated discovery, not because Kepler-452b is unique but for just the opposite reason; there are likely thousands or millions or even billions of such earth-like planets in the universe. The discovery of just one such world is good evidence for many more: after all, we know of 100 billion galaxies each with as many as 300 billion stars (big variation per galaxy). Astronomers estimate that there are about 70 billion trillion stars. Math wizardry is not necessary to conclude we did not by chance find the only other possibly habitable planet among that huge population of stars.

With this discovery, we come ever closer to the idea that life is common in the universe. Perhaps you are not convinced. That is OK; let me speculate what would happen should we ever find evidence of life beyond earth even if you think such discovery unlikely. I would like here to preempt what will certainly be a re-write of history on the part of the world’s major religions. I predict with great confidence that all will come out and say such a discovery is completely consistent with religious teachings. My goal here is to declare this as nonsense before it happens. I am not alone in this conclusion that religion will contort to accommodate a new reality of alien life.

Let us be clear that the Bible is unambiguous about creation: the earth is the center of the universe, only humans were made in the image of god, and all life was created in six days. All life in all the heavens. In six days. So when we discover that life exists or existed elsewhere in our solar system or on a planet orbiting another star in the Milky Way, or in a planetary system in another galaxy, we will see a huge effort to square that circle with amazing twists of logic and contorted justifications. But do not buy the inevitable historical edits: life on another planet is completely incompatible with religious tradition. Any other conclusion is nothing but ex-post facto rationalization to preserve the myth. Let us see why more specifically.

From Genesis 1:1, we get:

God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of god he created him; male and female he created them.

Nothing in that mentions alien worlds, which of course the ancients knew nothing about. Man was told to rule over the fish on the earth, not on other planets. But god would have known of these alien worlds, so it is curious he did not instruct the authors to include the language.

share your thoughts theistic friends.

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Religion, almost by

Religion, almost by definition, insists that life is not exclusive to this planet, nor intelligence exclusive to mankind.

Even if you ignore all the ancient religions, which conspiracy theorists enjoy interpreting as alien encounters. You still have Mormons which seem to believe there are many gods, each in charge over their own life-filled planet or galaxy. Jehovah's Witnesses, which see angels more as extraterrestrial that can interbreed with humans. I'm pretty sure plenty of cults are based on the notion that there is life out there: Heaven's Gate? Scientology?

I think not finding life in the universe, is worse for religion than finding it.

Sapporo's picture
The evidence for life in this

The evidence for life in this universe is only problematic if you believe your god is omnibenevolent and capable of creating something perfect.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
Not sure what omnibenevolence

Not sure what omnibenevolence has to do with that.

Sapporo's picture
If god is capable of

If god is capable of perfection but allows suffering, then it is not benevolent.

John 6IX Breezy's picture
What does that have to do

What does that have to do with finding life?

Sapporo's picture
Simply, life being imperfect

Simply, life being imperfect disproves a benevolent and all-powerful being.

faith in God follower's picture
God has a reason for the

God has a reason for the suffering; If we didn`t have our share of suffering then we wouldn`t need God God is ever present with humanity when they suffer. We learn sympathy and other factors that come in through our suffering. We meet Jesus at the cross and during his life time.

Tin-man's picture
@AB Re: "God has a reason

@AB Re: "God has a reason for the suffering; If we didn`t have our share of suffering then we wouldn`t need God..."

Without going into much detail (as tempting as it may be to do so), if that absolutely asinine and completely ludicrous statement you just made is true, then your god is a total DICK. And you have done nothing but hurt your own case as to why he/it should be worshipped.

Once again, do you even remotely realize some of the ridiculous nonsense that you type sometimes? *shaking head with confused look*

faith in God follower's picture
What I`m sharing with you is

What I`m sharing with you is something that we all experience in this life. We get to know what Jesus suffered by suffering ourselves. We can find Jesus and his love and concern for us by praying to him and reading his word. Wouldn`t you say that when you see a person suffer you will empathize with them That is God in total control of the given situation. .There he is in the center of all of it.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
more word soup without

more word soup without meaning. Your god must be a total wanker..cause suffering to babies, toddlers and children, bone cancer? Just what the fuck will they learn?What an arsewipe. Your god tortured and killed himself to prove what, plagues are good? Gastric ulcers are a lesson? Diptheria is a bonus? Your god cause untold suffering and that is ok with you?

If your tantrum prone evil prick of a god is at the centre of anything I want no part of it.

Tin-man's picture
@AB. Re: "...when you see

@AB. Re: "...when you see a person suffer....God is in total control of the situation....he is in the center of it all."

Ummm... Yeah, you aren't making this any better for yourself, ol' boy. Are you sure you are here to argue FOR God? Because at the moment you are building a pretty damn good case AGAINST him. In which case, I suppose we should all thank you, because you are actually doing the work for us. *smile*

Kataclismic's picture
And of course, if an alien

And of course, if an alien species had a religion that said they were modeled in God's image we just say that God is formless anyway. So everything is modeled after God's image, even intestinal worms.

JoC's picture
Actually, the first chapters

Actually, the first chapters of Genesis don't give a chronological or even scientific account of have the world came to be. It was meant to impart theological truths like, we were created by God in his image and likeness which means we have intrinsic dignity.

If you read the myths of neighboring cultures, they usually involve violence among the gods and people and beasts resulting from that war or battle. These myths depict man as being an accident and thus wouldn't have more value than say a pig or a chicken.

As to calling it now where religious groups will say that this doesn't conflict with their beliefs, many have already said this and quite publicly. From what I know, a pope has even said that saying categorically that we're the only life in the universe is actually putting a limit on God's creative power.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Actually, the first chapters

"Actually, the first chapters of Genesis don't give a chronological or even scientific account of have the world came to be *Applause* Now you are making sense", but then Uh oh you give a now infamous JoC tautology "It was meant to impart theological truths like, we were created by God in his image and likeness which means we have intrinsic dignity."
How do you know this JoC, does your YHWH have little chats to you? Does your Jesus have a cosy fireside where he relates to you the "true" way to read the books? c
"It was meant to impart theological truths like, we were created by God in his image and likeness which means we have intrinsic dignity." Read that to yourself JoC, how does a created creature have dignity? Intrinsic or otherwise? It is a merely poor copy of the original, so it cannot have "dignity" That particular word is not even in the collection of stories. Does your god have an arsehole? Does he poop? Do bacteria live in his gut? Are we copies? In the image? or just a cameo version imitation of the real thing? In which case if it is in the negative we were not created in "the image" but just as a cosmetic work around.

I swear, you are getting more and more dumb JoC with every post. Stick to parroting your stories. Every time you want to show us that you actually think, you embarrass yourself.

JoC's picture
I was under the impression

I was under the impression this is a "Debate forum". You know debate? Calm discussion about ideas? You asked me how I know these things but did so in a very rude manner. You're name says, "Old man" but you really need to learn some manners.

Maybe then we can have a calm discussion about this.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Maybe you could start

Maybe you could start actually answering the questions posed? Like on this and every forum you post you ignore and avoid the questions viz:
How do you become the authority on "reading" the bible?
how does a created creature have dignity?
Are we a true copy?
Does your god poop?

I lose my rag with apologists who run and hide in corners then pretend they have an insight that they plainly do not. If you do not have answers then be polite and say so, if you have answers then give them. Ignoring reasonable questions in a debate is rude in the extreme.
If you want polite reasonable debate then trot out answers not platitudes and bullshine about "context" and " you're not reading it right" without a skerrick of explanation on how you became the sole arbiter of translation.

JoC's picture
Yeah. Coz the questions you

Yeah. Coz the questions you posed are really the important ones. I'll answer the three which make some sense.

How do you become the authority on "reading" the bible?

- Me? Of course it's not me. I never said it was me. If you look back on the early Church fathers. They had this notion that the first chapters of Genesis are NOT to be taken literally. Agustine actually spoke on this. Am I the authority of this? No. I know however, that the Church is so I look to the early Church fathers or even to the Church that still stands today. (I'm guessing you'll just brush this off as BS, and that's fine.)

how does a created creature have dignity?
- Notice in the creation story, only man and woman are created in God's image and likeness. That's how.

Are we a true copy?
-No. Of course not. Have you studied art, literature, or architecture of any kind? And looked at say an unknown painting by Van Gogh. You'd look at the style, the expressions, everything about it and conclude, "This is very Van Gogh." You can see the artist through his art. The same way you can see any creator through their creation. Not a true copy. But you see them none the less.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
1. Okay so now you are

1. Okay so now you are denying your "divine right" to the correct reading of your book and laying it on some poor old african 5th century chook Augustine... you do mean Augustine of Hippo? The same whose "readings" of various parts of the texts you revere were rejected by both the Catholic and Orthodox church? Can you not fond a better source to hide behind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo

2. You haven't answered the question, is a mere pale copy of an original, a created being be "the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect"

3. If they are perfect created copies of god, without the powers, does god have intestines?

4. Answer the question. In context. Nowhere in your creation fantasy, your original statement or my response is "art" mentioned. You will denude the oceans of red herrings if you carry on.

If you cannot answer the questions as they are asked you make yourself look foolish.

Ensjo's picture
the first chapters of Genesis

the first chapters of Genesis don't give a chronological or even scientific account of have the world came to be.

Even if the actions and their order were invented, the author was trying to tell a story to explain what he thought was a fact: the ancient Hebrew cosmology, the flat Earth covered by a solid firmament under the waters of the primeval ocean. He described how his god Yahweh created the world as he believed it was.

Just like the "tower of Babel" is a fiction story invented to make sense of the observed fact that there are different languages on the Earth.

JoC's picture
Flat earth? Sure. That's how

Flat earth? Sure. That's how it sounds. But let me ask you this. If say an afterlife exists, how important is it that we know the earth is round? How important is it that we know how the universe began or how life came about?

Then I ask you these:

How important is it that man knows he as intrinsic dignity? How important is it that we know that we should treat other people with respect because of that dignity they have?

Genesis isn't trying to tell us how the heavenly bodies go, it's setting the stage to tell us how to go to heaven.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - Flat earth? Sure. That

JoC - Flat earth? Sure. That's how it sounds. But let me ask you this. If say an afterlife exists, how important is it that we know the earth is round?

It is extremely important, because if there is an afterlife we'd like to know about it (how to qualify for it, or whatever). Your mythology would apparently be the source of that information because of its supposed source (god). However, we know your mythology is highly inaccurate, it is full of ridiculous mistakes, and therefore not from the source.

In short: even if you convinced me there was an afterlife tomorrow, the bible would still be garbage.

JoC's picture
Let me put it another way

Let me put it another way then, Nyar as you clearly don't understand my point yet again.

Can a person who believes that the earth be flat be a morally good person? Is being a good person dependent on knowing that the earth is round? Is being a good person dependent on knowing that every person's life and dignity be treated with respect?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Good grief, its a whole shoal

Good grief, its a whole shoal of red herrings fattened on false analogy.

Sapporo's picture
"God" not knowing the nature

"God" not knowing the nature of the Earth is fatal to the claim that it is a truthful and omniscient creator. You cannot trust a liar who claims to be objectively moral and who claims to have knowledge of some afterlife.

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.