Which Has The Most Evidence Aliens or God?

This thread isn't going anywhere due to the diversity of believes. A million people could look at this thread and not all million of them will have the same answer.

First of GOD is one, and Jesus is in no way comparable to GOD. Jesus historically speaking (bible) had a physical body, where us GOD never did, at least from what we all understand (if you are religious).

Yes I agree that no-one have been abducted by GOD but I don't believe that's what he does. .... You know what, just as I was typing away, I realized something, if anyone believes in NDE (Near Death Experiences) and the light and voice that people say they see and hear, wouldn't that be categorized as an abduction in its lamest terms? Sure nothing like the aftermath of those abducted by Aliens but then again I don't believe GOD does any type of experiments on us, he put us here and knows what we are and are capable of doing, he doesn't need to experiment with us.

To get back on track, with regards to evidence of GOD vs ALIENS (UFOS)...I would have to say UFOs of course, considering the vast majority of sightings and such.

Again, this is a never ending argument on who's got more credibility in this subject.

Originally posted by marg6043
Interesting that we have some that claim been abducted by aliens, but can we find anybody that claims God abducted him or her?

I am actually very interesting to weigh both and see,

Alien abductions Vs God abductions

Now that would be interesting.

Enoch was one in the bible that was abducted-
Moses was approached by God, not abducted though.

So far
Bible=1
Aliens= alot of cases.

Originally posted by TheEnlightenedOne
This is hard to answer, for two reasons:
1) Neither one have concrete evidence

Well, I would actually say that there is MUCH MORE evidence of aliens that God reagarding the question in favor here.
UFO's of believed ET origin is observed, and have been observed thruout time, so I would say that the evidence in comparison to the question the OP is raising points more against the possibility of ET existence than God.

A lot of people are born into this world and start believing in God without anything else than the Bible.

But, WHAT IF, God and aliens might be the same thing? What if Jesus actually wasn't human but an entity of ET origin? Now I do realise what a sensational this could be, but in comparison to a lot of other claims beeing made today I wouldn't call it an exception to it.

And sorry if this point have allready been made. Didn't have the time to read the whole post since I'm in a sort of hurry and have to run now.

reply to post by MREALE


Well that is correct, as per bible story, I was referring to modern time abductions, see is now in modern times that we have see so many cases of people claiming alien abductions.

So it will be interesting if somebody have a story to tell in which they have been physically abducted by a God entity as the God in the bible.

Is many that claim been abducted physically by aliens so I find the issue quite intriguing.

Great question..for me they are not mutually exclusive…God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent…all powerful, all knowing and everywhere, respectively. Below are the classic philosophical arguments for His existence…and I, too believe in other forms of life in this great big universe…awful waste of space, and all…
Pascal’s Wager is an argument for belief in God based not on an appeal to evidence that God exists but rather based on an appeal to self-interest. It is in our interests to believe in God, the argument suggests, and it is therefore rational for us to do so. The claim that it is in our interests to believe in God is supported by a consideration of the possible consequences of belief and unbelief. If we believe in God, the argument runs, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite reward in heaven while if he does not then we have lost little or nothing. If we do not believe in God, the argument continues, then if he exists then we will receive an infinite punishment in hell while he does not then we will have gained little or nothing. Either receiving an infinite reward in heaven or losing little or nothing is clearly preferable to either receiving an infinite punishment in hell or gaining little or nothing. It is therefore in our interests, and so rational, to believe in God.
The Ontological Argument is an argument that attempts to prove the existence of God through abstract reasoning alone. The argument begins with an explication of the concept of God. Part of what we mean when we speak of “God” is “perfect being”; that is what the word “God” means. A God that exists, of course, is better than a God that doesn’t. To speak of God as a perfect being is therefore to imply that he exists. If God’s perfection is a part of the concept of God, though, and if God’s perfection implies God’s existence, then God’s existence is implied by the concept of God. When we speak of “God” we cannot but speak of a being that exists. To say that God does not exist is to contradict oneself; it is literally to speak nonsense.
The Cosmological Argument is the argument from the existence of the world or universe to the existence of a being that brought it into and keeps it in existence. It comes in two forms, one modal (having to do with possibility and the other temporal (having to do with time). The modal cosmological argument, the argument from contingency, suggests that because the universe might not have existed (i.e. is contingent), we need some explanation of why it does. Wherever there are two possibilities, it suggests, something must determine which of those posibilities is realized. As the universe is contingent, then, there must be some reason for its existence; it must have a cause. In fact, the only kind of being whose existence requires no explanation is a necessary being, a being that could not have failed to exist. The ultimate cause of everything must therefore be a necessary being, such as God. The temporal, kalam cosmological argument begins by arguing that the past is finite. The idea that the universe has an infinite past stretching back in time into infinity is, the argument notes, both philosophically and scientifically problematic; all indications are that there is a point in time at which the universe began to exist. This beginning must either have been caused or uncaused. It cannot have been uncaused, though, for the idea of an uncaused event is absurd; nothing comes from nothing. The universe must therefore have been brought into existence by something outside it. The kalam argument thus confirms one element of Christianity, the doctrine of Creation.
The Teleological Argument is the argument from the order in the world to the existence of a being that created it with a specific purpose in mind. The universe is a highly complex system. The scale of the universe alone is astounding, and the natural laws that govern it perplex scientists still after generations of study. It is also, however, a highly ordered system; it serves a purpose. The world provides exactly the right conditions for the development and sustenance of life, and life is a valuable thing. That this is so is remarkable; there are numerous ways in which the universe might have been different, and the vast majority of possible universes would not have supported life. To say that the universe is so ordered by chance is therefore unsatisfactory as an explanation of the appearance of design around us. It is far more plausible, and far more probable, that the universe is the way it is because it was created by God with life in mind.
The Moral Argument is the argument from the existence or nature of morality to the existence of God. Two forms of moral argument are distinguished: formal and perfectionist. The formal moral argument takes the form of morality to imply that it has a divine origin: morality consists of an ultimately authoritative set of commands; where can these commands have come from but a commander that has ultimate authority? The perfectionist moral argument sets up a problem: how can it be that morality requires perfection of us, then morality cannot require of us more than we can give, but that we cannot be perfect? The only way to resolve this paradox, the argument suggests, is to posit the existence of God.
The Argument from Religious Experience is the argument that personal religious experiences can prove God’s existence to those that have them. One can only perceive that which exists, and so God must exist because there are those that have experienced him. While religious experiences themselves can only constitute direct evidence of God’s existence for those fortunate enough to have them, the fact that there are many people who testify to having had such experiences constitutes indirect evidence of God’s existence even to those who have not had such experiences themselves.
The Argument from Miracles is the argument that the occurrence of miracles demonstrates both the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. If the Bible is to be believed, then Jesus’ ministry was accompanied by frequent miraculous signs that his claims and his teachings were endorsed by God the Father. His resurrection from the dead was, of course, the greatest of these, and is still taken by many today to be a solid foundation for their faith. Miracles typically involve the suspension of the natural operation of the universe as some supernatural event occurs. That can only happen, of course, given the existence of some supernatural being.



[edit on 31-7-2008 by OldThinker]

reply to post by easynow


If the existence of aliens were a fact how would it be proof of a creator more than it would be proof that the scientific theory behind life just happened again on another planet?

Scientific theories are based on both science and theory.

Theories about god are based purely on theory.

Everything I have read in the bible seems strangely constrained to what a human of the time would know of the world and the universe.

I also find it convenient when religious people continually insist that you "don't test god"

Why would god be so hesitant to prove his existence and strengthen and affirm the faith of all his children?

Also, snakes cannot talk.

reply to post by OldThinker


excellent post imo,

how do you feel about the possibility that our belief in God may be part of out DNA ?

could the creator have installed this in us so we automatically envision him ?

just thought i would ask your opinion because i liked your thinking

reply to post by fatdeeman



read the post above yours and you will have the answer

Darwins theory is flawed...for a second line

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Nohup, can you prove to me,certifiably, that you are sitting at your computer typing? Can you prove anything with any degree of certainty? Nope. You can't. All you, I or anyone else knows is what your senses transmit to you. "Senses" will fool you. Be careful now.

When offered this challenge, I generally like to respond by paraphrasing the sociologist Emile Durkheim, who basically said that while the true nature of reality and existence remains sketchy, for practical purposes, it doesn't matter whether something is "real" or not, if it has real consequences.

So it doesn't matter if I am "really" typing at this computer. I sent a message, you responded to it. Action lead to effect. That's all that's necessary. It ultimately and practically doesn't matter if I'm real or not, since we are both acting as if I do.

The problem with determining the existence of "God," however, is not one of a reality - even a practical reality - where there is something that creates an effect, it's one of definition. God has proven itself to be an undefinable concept, and therefore not really even a concept. It's a (------------------------). Do you believe that a (--------------------) exists? Why? How can you believe something that you can't define, and therefore can't comprehend? And in that same way, how can you point to evidence of a (---------------------), when you don't even know what a (----------------------) is?

Does God exist? I don't even know what people are talking about when they say "God," and if they take a moment to think about it, neither do they.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by Nohup]

Although I consider myself non religious I do sometimes imagine some guy sat at his computer or whatever designing human dna and that when we look at dna we are seeing the structure that someone once designed!

I don't believe in a god but I have never thought it was totally impossible for god to exist, it's just to me the evidence seems to be stacked against gods existence.

Maybe a long time ago I would have felt differently, before science explained so much, I wonder what I would have made of things like thunder and lightning and earthquakes etc.

Maybe a lot of it was a way for people to get their heads around all the things they could not understand or explain?

One day I may be proven wrong and to stop being wrong is no bad thing!

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by fatdeeman

 

read the post above yours and you will have the answer

Darwins theory is flawed...for a second line

It seems a lot less flawed than some theories going around........

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by OldThinker

 

excellent post imo,

how do you feel about the possibility that our belief in God may be part of out DNA ?

could the creator have installed this in us so we automatically envision him ?

just thought i would ask your opinion because i liked your thinking

That's a very interesting theory but it wouldn't explain how so many people do not believe in god.

Religion seems to have a lot more to do with teaching, either self teaching or being taught by other people.

I'm pretty sure if you raised a child and never told him about god he would not believe in god or even envision him.

On the other hand a heck of a lot of people do believe in god and have done for many thousands of years.

I guess none of us are qualified to say at the end of the day.

The dna thing is an interesting thought though, and just instincts in general.

It might sound ignorant but I didn't appreciate instincts until I got a pet kitten and saw all the things it knew how to do with no outside influence, even simple things like cleaning itself right up to mating behaviour etc

I think instincts are one of those things that science can't really explain.

reply to post by fatdeeman

Although I consider myself non religious I do sometimes imagine some guy sat at his computer or whatever designing human dna and that when we look at dna we are seeing the structure that someone once designed!

the Flagellum motor is evidence supporting creationism.







[edit on 31-7-2008 by easynow]

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by fatdeeman

 

Although I consider myself non religious I do sometimes imagine some guy sat at his computer or whatever designing human dna and that when we look at dna we are seeing the structure that someone once designed!

the Flagellum motor is evidence supporting creationism.

[edit on 31-7-2008 by easynow]

That theory requires that the Flagellum be irreducibly complex which is completely untrue.

It is fascinating though, proving that it isn't irreducibly complex still doesn't make it any less mind boggling to me!

[edit on 31-7-2008 by fatdeeman]

reply to post by TheHunted


Aliens. I think you should point out that there is no conclusive evidence for either, which makes this debate a little pointless. The biggest thing that leads people to be believers on either of these matters is not evidence, but faith.

I have seen something strange and vague in the sky. Was it a UFO? Yes, because I have never been able to identify it. Does that mean it wasn't really and odd looking man made craft at an angle, or something secret our government created? No. It could have been a whole lot of things, but I think any sort of personal experience in this matter helps you to become curious about the other evidence and slowly convinced that something other worldly may be visiting us.

I have yet to have God speak to me, show me visions, or grant me a miracle. So far I have first hand experienced what I consider a UFO, as have others, as have others spoken of contact with aliens. I have yet to meet someone who has credibly spoken with God. I know people who have over come what seems like the impossible, but with several explanations, not through the means of an angel or miracle.

So I'm on the fence about God, I think it is strange how perfectly we have ended up here, but I don't think there is any evidence more tangible than UFO or alien evidence that God is out there.

Here's another little simple argument, that helped me believe in God...

I have a watch, a nice one...it has 'design', it works well and someone engineered/built it...please look at yours.

The design (watch) had a 'designer...'

Oh......how much more complex...I am, you are...it is only logical, that we had a designer...

I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BELIEVE WE JUST HAPPENED...STATISTICALLY I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT...

Great dialog, folks

OT

God in our DNA? I'll investigate.

Originally posted by Nohup
Since "God" cannot even be properly defined enough to attribute any evidence to Him/It/Whatever, I would have to say that "aliens," as defined as intelligent biological species not originating on Earth, has much more evidence in its favor.

Of course, there's still no good proof of aliens, and we have no idea what the odds are of there being any, since we don't know how life forms in the first place.

But at this point there is more evidence for aliens than ---------?????????

and Aliens have been defined !
any there is evidence of aliens ?
but they can not be your gods !

Originally posted by OldThinker
Here's another little simple argument, that helped me believe in God...

I have a watch, a nice one...it has 'design', it works well and someone engineered/built it...please look at yours.

The design (watch) had a 'designer...'

Oh......how much more complex...I am, you are...it is only logical, that we had a designer...

I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BELIEVE WE JUST HAPPENED...STATISTICALLY I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT...

Great dialog, folks

OT

God in our DNA? I'll investigate.

Good analogy
I Believe in god because I don't like the odds:
if He exists and i do believe in him im rewarded
but not believing in god and finding out he really does exist, well thats another matter
the odds here are catastrophic

It is not logical to not believe in GOd
it doesn't compute

only a dogmatic view would make you not see
the Logical choice

[edit on 31-7-2008 by solo1]

God's true existence will only be revealed, when we our physical forms die, we have achieved full intellectual potential, which surpasses our own technology, or we can be disclosed on all information having to do with aliens and ufos. If and when aliens are revealed publicly to the world , then many many questions will be answered which we could not hope to achieve in thousands of years. Lets aim at discovering the truth about aliens and ufos, once revealed then we will have some hope in answering the mystery of God. We are way to young in our own existence to discover the truth of the universe and god without assistance from "aliens" . Why not ask the question of what is outside the physical universe?... time and space only exist in the universe, outside of it they have no meaning.....

But surely if your only reason for belief is the fear of what happens if you don't believe then you don't truly believe of your own free will.

I consider myself open minded and if I end up in hell for not believing in god then he will be hearing from my legal representatives because at no point in my life has he ever made himself known to me let alone informed me of the penalties of not believing in him.

Sometimes I read things he has done to people to test their faith only to turn around and say "Just joking, you don't really have to kill your child I was just testing" and I think what kind of a$$hole does that to a person?

Even if he does exist he sounds like a nasty piece of work sometimes!

[edit on 31-7-2008 by fatdeeman]