Aliens Don't Exist and If They Did, It's Irrelevant

[Churchwork]

We don't know that god has another thousand worlds that he has given the same promises to as he has here on Earth.

We know life can't exist on another planet because there is not enough interatomic interactions in the history of the universe and because Hugh Ross has taken 800 variables required for life, and there is no enough planets in the universe to make it possible. Even if there was life on another planet or another universe, it really doesn't change the fact the ultimate cause needs be uncaused with a mind.

A finite world such as ours doesn't amount to more than 0.0000...000% of god's infiniteness. Put about a billion more zeros where those three dots are and it is still too much.

Indeed.

To claim we are god's main purpose would be to bring him down into the finite realm of our world.

Not at all. First he created the angels and 1/3 fell away which was an eternal choice without redemption, and they knew it. So God created man who was redeemable after the fall, but only a small fraction of souls will be saved, because the vast majority are like those fallen angels who want to be eternally separated from God. How vain though since God is in control of all worlds and all dimensions. There is no escaping His design.

We are His perfect creation. Nobody knows all the things He has planned for us, and He loves us so much that He gave His only begotten to Son to pay for the sons to be the perfect and necessary ransom to meet His justice and love.

And all your biblical citations were irrelevant to the point also.

I am glad you couldn't show it.

"Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not" (1 John 3.1).

The Bible say you don't know me, you can't, because your spirit is dead to God. You're as cold as ice.

"All who claim me as their God will come, for I have made them for my glory. It was I who created them" (Is. 43.7).

Christians are for His glory. He calls the most beautiful thing on earth, the pearl of great price, the Church body of Christ. If you can't sense this, just know you have a conscience that is millions of miles away from one that is regenerated and quickened with God's life for His Holy Spirit to indwell.

Why do you say that god can make nothing perfect other than this world? Don' t you believe that god is omnipotent?

God is omnipotent, but He can't violate His righteousness. It would be evil of God to create a world ensemble less than this one. And He can't create one better than this one because this is the best.

[Mystermenace]

Nobody knows all the things He has planned for us,

I claim that you don't know all the things he has planned for the rest of the universe either.

[Churchwork]

I claim that you don't know all the things he has planned for the rest of the universe either.

That's nice but not sure how that helps you deal with your never ending problem that you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs, and your timeless spaceless imaginary cause for the universe from nothing has no mind as God does, so God trumps your idol since a mind is needed to create a mind.

[Mystermenace]

That's nice but not sure how that helps you deal with your never ending problem that you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs,

Everyday a million and one people believe things that are false. A million of them don't blame it on god. When they figure it out, they blame it on being wrong.

and your timeless spaceless imaginary cause for the universe from nothing has no mind as God does, so God trumps your idol since a mind is needed to create a mind.

"a mind is needed to create a mind" is a quaint claim, but without any reasoning to support it, it doesn't hold much sway.

You like to quote the bible as rebuttal. You should stick to what the bible says and not what you want it to say. Otherwise, someone has to decide what the biblical words will mean when some biblical words are needed, and then you have a cult, not a religion.

[Churchwork]

God never asked you to blame him. How silly. The fact that people are wrong all the time does not address your problem you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

The reasoning for why a mind is needed to create a mind is because the lesser can never produce the greater. This has been said so many times. I think you deserve an infraction for wanting a reason when it was already given.

Again, you are accusing but where is the evidence to support your accusation as valid? You've not shown where I am not in concordance with the Bible. When I accuse I give a reason, but you do not. You're like Satan the great accuser who also doesn't need a reason. You take after your father the Devil. A chip off the old block.

Quoting the Bible is good since the proof is in the Bible, the very proof you are unable to overturn. Praise the Lord!

[Mystermenace]

God never asked you to blame him. How silly. The fact that people are wrong all the time does not address your problem you still can't find a naturalistic explanation for the origin of the disciples' beliefs.

The naturalistic explanation is that they were wrong in their beliefs. I have already stated this. You need to infract yourself.

The reasoning for why a mind is needed to create a mind is because the lesser can never produce the greater. This has been said so many times. I think you deserve an infraction for wanting a reason when it was already given.

It has been said many times and I asked you to explain what analysis reached that claim but you ignored my request and consistently repeat it like it is self-evident. It is not. You need to infract yourself.

Again, you are accusing but where is the evidence to support your accusation as valid? You've not shown where I am not in concordance with the Bible. When I accuse I give a reason, but you do not. You're like Satan the great accuser who also doesn't need a reason. You take after your father the Devil. A chip off the old block.

I have shown where you are not in accordance with the truth and with science. You say that I do not give reasons but you do not present a single example of this. You need to infract yourself. That's three infractions, you need to ban yourself.

The policy that those who debate can shut down an opponent by banning them can best be described as cowardly and anti-intellectual. It exemplifies an environment that precludes an open-minded exchange of ideas.

If you can't handle debate then that should be made clear on the home page and don't invite debaters from other forums to join. Moderator-debaters are the nemesis of informed, articulate members who wish to engage in dynamic, unencumbered debate.

[Parture]

The naturalistic explanation is that they were wrong in their beliefs. I have already stated this. You need to infract yourself.

This is not a valid response for you need to account for how they could be wrong. Since you fail to do so and only self-assert, that's worthy of an infraction such as self-declaration.

It has been said many times and I asked you to explain what analysis reached that claim but you ignored my request and consistently repeat it like it is self-evident. It is not. You need to infract yourself.

Since many times it has already been said that we observe nothing in which the lesser can produce the greater that is the reason you keep avoiding. You deserve an infraction for circumventing.

I have shown where you are not in accordance with the truth and with science. You say that I do not give reasons but you do not present a single example of this. You need to infract yourself. That's three infractions, you need to ban yourself.

Since you are unable to reproduce your alleged claim, then you are just blowing smoke, again, deserving of an infraction for belligerency.

The policy that those who debate can shut down an opponent by banning them can best be described as cowardly and anti-intellectual. It exemplifies an environment that precludes an open-minded exchange of ideas.

You are not permanently banned, only temporarily banned for these repetitive errors. It is the hope that you will reflect on these mistakes you make over and over again to come to the table to discuss more openly next time. It is important that in a debate one party not become abusive as are you doing with these obstinate behaviors. To continue in such a debate persisting in these antics is cowardly on your part and unintellectual not only for you but anyone in discussing with you.

If you can't handle debate then that should be made clear on the home page and don't invite debaters from other forums to join. Moderator-debaters are the nemesis of informed, articulate members who wish to engage in dynamic, unencumbered debate.

You are note engaging or dynamic but a dullard. The debate is viable as long as you abide in the board etiquette. After all we wouldn't want a forum of just mindless zombies such as yourself for that is really boring.