Questions for Those Not Fully Convinced of the Existence of God

I am an evangelical Christian who believes in the doctrines of God's existence, His creation of the universe out of nothing and His omnipotent and omniscient nature as taught in Scripture, articulated in the pronouncements of the early Church councils, and held in common by orthodox Christian churches. What I want to discuss with those who do not hold such opinions is the basis of their not fully accepting or rejecting these positions. (I recognize that Orthodox Jews and devout Muslims hold to a basically similar view of God, even though they reject the Christian concept of the Trinity.)

The questions I would want to pose to those readers who do not share my views of God:

Putting aside the supernatural God theory, it is not beyond the realms of possibility there are other lifeforms in the universe that are sufficiently advanced that some Earth native would consider them to fit their preconception of 'gods'.

This is funny. In the quest to ridicule others in their questionable beliefs (which you failed in this case), you exhibit a comical belief in the demonstrably foolish notion that their may be "sufficiently advanced" lifeforms in the universe, from which they form their preconception of 'gods'.

While mocking the zealots who are really into SETI, it amazed me that they were bragging about their mastery of math, science and computer algorithms yet were totally blinded by the fact that their math and science shouts loudly against their presumptions. I would like to ask you the same things so I can see how you react.

I recognize that not all SETI zealots believe that Earth has really been visited by aliens, but you seem to find it reasonable that it must have happened in order to give these various ancient cultures common themes in their polytheism. (Of course, Occam's Razor in view of the biblical origin of such corruptions could never be accepted)

So how many planets are allegedly within this galaxy that are known to be able to support life? Answer: None other than Earth. The guess that there are plenty of other places is bound in the same kind of goofy absurd math that says that complex proteins and fundamental life forms came about by random chance. But lets ignore science and math for this moment and just cater to our emotional desires to have a "savior" out there in the form of little green men in spaceships.

Let's stipulate that in this solar system, that out of the 200 billion stars, 200 "Earths" exist. The Milky way stretches 100,000 light years across, but for our discussion, I will be generous and say that the nearest advanced life bearing planet is only a mere 100 light years away. That means that SETI people are expecting receive transmissions that are 100 years old, and to answer them back would take another 100 years before the "they" receive it. Don't make plans on playing chess via radio-telescope. Actually, if a translatable message came across, and an appropriate response could be formed, who would care two hundred years from now what the question and answer was - it better be pretty profound - not just a "How are you?"

But our civilizations on earth, in question are supposed to have actual contact with beings who live next-door, just 100 light years away. That means that those who are forming their mythological gods twenty-five hundred years ago would have been visited by people who embarked on their journey to earth well before the first man was even on this planet. I have to ask, out of 200 billion stars in the Milky Way alone, how did some group of people 100 light years away decide on visting an uninhabited earth? We weren't exactly sending out welcome messages to all our neighbors, and I don't care how good your telescope is, it isn't going to get sub one-meter resolution on terrestials.

So lets'abandon all reason and say that they knew that man would eventually be "evolved" here on earth and they wanted to be the first ones to come and corrupt us with their ways. Since they aren't still here, you got to wonder why they came in the first place - we are not talking a trivial voyage here. Lets consider the numbers now:

Let's say that they opted to travel at c/10, (one tenth the speed of light). This is very generous for many reason, number one being that some space debris of just 0.1 gram impacting at a tenth of the speed of light, calculated from the the spacecraft's reference frame is mv^2 or 4.5x10^10J. The combustion energy of TNT is 4,520 kJ/kg or 4.52 x10^9 J/ton. So 4.5x10^10J is equivalent to 9.95 tons of TNT. Therefore, the impact energy of a 0.1gram object hitting a spacecraft travelling at c/10 would be the equivalent to an explosion of about 10 tons of TNT. That would seem to require some really strong shielding. Better take it easy on the throttle.

Talking about throttle, one just can't get around fuel mileage. Now instead of worrying about solar winds, let's assume that getting up to speed is where the energy is going to be used. Just to start things off, lets say that a 10kg object is to be accelerated to the speed of c/10. Using the non-relativistic formula of mv^2, we are looking at 4.5 x10^15J of power, or approximately the whole world's electricity production for a month. But who flies 10 kilogram spaceships across 100 light years of space? Let's think about life aboard this thing. Since our green men are starting from the neighborly distance of 100 light years, travelling at c/10 would mean that their flight to get here is a mere one thousand years - and I thought a flight to Australia was long. So the Green Adam & Eve, in the span of 1000 years would have been long dead, and so would the many generations of their spawn. Dozens of generations of green men would have never known life outside the confines of their spaceship. So how large a craft are we talking about? One the size of a US destroyer? And how many tons of weight is that? If you tried to accelerate that bad boy up to c/10 we are talking about more energy required than has ever been produced on this earth since man set his first fire. Nevermind the energy that would be required to sustain 1000 years of life on board the ship. One hell of a mean-time-before-failure too, especially when considering the odds of plowing into that 0.1 gram space particle when covering 946 trillion kilometers.

But wait! There is still more! When they do get here, from all accounts, they just stop in for a few minutes and then buzz off. How much energy do you think it would take to stop that spaceship travelling at c/10? That's right, the same amount of energy needed to get it up to that speed in the first place. And after that simple 1000 years trip, they just stop in, say "Hi", abduct a few humans for anal examinations and other wierd experiments, then turn around and zip right back for another 1000 years of travel. So where does one store all that fuel?

Ok, I see that hand in the back. Let's consult Spock and Scotty and have them tell us about matter/anti-matter. I tell you what. I will give you a 100% efficient matter/anti-matter engine that will propel our destroyer sized spaceship up to c/10, slow it down to an orbit speed, then speed it up again to c/10 then back down to whatever speed is necessary for their planet 2000 years from now. I would love to see the engine that could move a 10,000 ton object up to speed, slow it down and do it all from matter/anti-matter. If the engine wasn't 100% efficent (impossible), then what wouldn the 1.8x10^20J of power from e=mc^2 conversion of one ton of matter generate profound amount of heat? We are talking about 1000 years of the world's power generated at current levels being consumed in whatever time is needed to accelerate the craft up to c/10. That is one hell of a heat sink if the efficiency was an impossible 99%.

Do you get my point yet? Anyone who simply performs some simple back of the envelope calculations will quickly see that "space aliens" is so absurd that it is insulting to whoever even suggests it.

But from accounts, they visited several times. Let's think about the absurdity in this whole proposition. The space aliens, don't hang around, but send numerous sorties out to blow over 2000 years in total travel so that one generation out of dozens would actually toy with mortals by making crop circles. Two thousand years for a prank. Just as one group leaves, another one arrives. This doesn't sound too brilliant does it? Or did they fly all this way in a massive city-sized ship like in the movie Independance Day, or are they in a Death Star mother-ship that is posing as one of Jupiter's moons? Run the numbers for a hundred million ton space ship. That's a massive engine.

One of the main reasons why the so-called "Age of the Universe" has been extended over the past few decades, is that more time is needed to help disguise the absurd probabilities required to evolve life on earth. Since the age of 4.3 billion years (who knows, it is probably different now) was pegged to satisfy geologists and biologists and their obvious difficulties, what kind of fiddling around do we have to do to get our greatly advanced life forms up and running so that they would have the technology to build indestructable spacecraft that can operate at full speed for thousands of years between tune-ups just so they can amaze and entertain the first homo sapiens?

But I guess if a person is bound and determined to believe that there is no God, science, reason and common sense must be chucked first.

The irony.

Theists believe that an eternal, self-existent God created the universe. In the words of R. C. Sproul, a contemporary Calvinist theologian. "If something exists, there must be a God."

Historically, theists, who include Christians, Jews, and Muslims, have used a number of arguments to support the existence of God. These are:

Teleolgical: This argument states that the order in the universe is evidence of intelligent design. Therefore, there must be a designer.

Cosmological: Because the universe is an orderly arrangement, every effect must have a cause, and the universe is an effect. Therefore, God must be that cause. (Argument favored by Augustine.)

Ontological: If God exists, we must conceive of him as a necessary being. By definition, a necessary being cannot not exist. Therefore, a necessary being must exist. (Argument favored by Anselm.)

Moral: All people have a sense of right and wrong. This concept must have come from something outside of them, a moral absolute.

Sense of the Divine: Everyone has an innate sense of the divine built within them. The seeking of humans for the divine cause people to try to fill the void by seeking God. (A position held by Pascal, Calvin, and Augustine.)

The "Wager" Argument: If one says there is no God and there is, there will be drastic consequences. If one says there is a God and there is not, there are no consequences. Therefore, one should believe there is a God. (Favored by Pascal)

I am asking all those who are not 100% sure of the existence of a Supreme Being as defined by theists to respond to these arguments for the existence of God.

First, I didn't state nor do I believe aliens have visited or will visit Earth.

If that were only true. You stated:

it is not beyond the realms of possibility there are other lifeforms in the universe that are sufficiently advanced that some Earth native would consider them to fit their preconception of 'gods'

Clearly you open up the possibility that this is the cause of so many "preconceptions of gods". So now why do you contradict yourself, (or ridicule your original statements) by saying "I put that belief in the same basket as most religious beliefs - wishful thinking" Yesterday it was "not beyond the realms of possibility", today it is "religious...wishful thinking".

When you get it sorted out in your own mind, let me know. I feel like I am trying to have a surreal conversation with Cybil.

Secondly, I didn't say that I personally would believe any alien lifeform is my 'saviour'.

This is true, and I am pleased to see that you distance yourself from that crowd. If one stops to try and consider why people want to believe in the existance of alien life-forms, ultimately it is this expressed hope that "we will learn something from them." This "something" is almost always some "universal love" or "solve all the problems in the world" or some other Messianic hopes that since in all of Man's history we have just been at war and strife, that somehow an advanced culture will bring perfect eternal peace and prosperity to all mankind.

I also admire your scepticism and consider it healthy. I just hope that you are fair and consistent in just as though the odds of extraterrestial life are statistically zero, yet you leave open a window of faith in their existance, that you would also show the same deference to a Creator God, who through Occam's Razor would seem to be the most obvious and natural consideration.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.