Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Aliens to destroy mankind!

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 4:37:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
R: At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

Okay Anna, you want to play that way? Go ahead, explain how that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Or you can admit that you're just having a temper tantrum and behaving like a spoiled child because you can't handle losing a debate.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 4:47:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 4:37:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
R: At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

Okay Anna, you want to play that way? Go ahead, explain how that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Or you can admit that you're just having a temper tantrum and behaving like a spoiled child because you can't handle losing a debate.

(1) an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence proving that they "created" humans
(2) such "proof" would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter and energy cannot be "created".

By the way, I can easily admit when I haven't handled a point very well (or in your words, "lost a debate"). I know full well when the evidence is against me. I know practically nothing about the theorized different state of matter invoked in the creation of hydrogen atoms. I do not need to point it out, because everyone can see it. I also know full well that you made a fool out of yourself on I Kings 2: 42 by claiming that the addition of an emphatic to a sentence (or warning) totally alters the inherent meaning of it. Likewise, I do not really need to point that out because anybody who read the exchange can see it.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 4:56:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 4:47:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:37:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
R: At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

Okay Anna, you want to play that way? Go ahead, explain how that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Or you can admit that you're just having a temper tantrum and behaving like a spoiled child because you can't handle losing a debate.

(1) an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence proving that they "created" humans
(2) such "proof" would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter and energy cannot be "created".

By the way, I can easily admit when I haven't handled a point very well (or in your words, "lost a debate"). I know full well when the evidence is against me. I know practically nothing about the theorized different state of matter invoked in the creation of hydrogen atoms. I do not need to point it out, because everyone can see it. I also know full well that you made a fool out of yourself on I Kings 2: 42 by claiming that the addition of an emphatic to a sentence (or warning) totally alters the inherent meaning of it. Likewise, I do not really need to point that out because anybody who read the exchange can see it.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the meaning of "abiogenesis", since it means producing life from non-life and therefore has nothing to do with bringing forth matter/energy from non-existence.
As for 1 Kings 2:42, I'm sorry that you're completely incapable of understanding that a statement such as "the day you leave you will know" is a reference to the day you will attain knowledge... But that's still what it means and even if you hold your breath, stomp your feet, or refuse to eat your dinner, that's what it will continue to mean.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 5:04:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

It is besides the ethical point is raising that you are blatantly dodging. Is it right or not?

And not necessarily, no, at least not on a zero energy hypothesis.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 5:13:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 4:56:57 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:47:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:37:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
R: At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

Okay Anna, you want to play that way? Go ahead, explain how that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Or you can admit that you're just having a temper tantrum and behaving like a spoiled child because you can't handle losing a debate.

(1) an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence proving that they "created" humans
(2) such "proof" would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter and energy cannot be "created".

By the way, I can easily admit when I haven't handled a point very well (or in your words, "lost a debate"). I know full well when the evidence is against me. I know practically nothing about the theorized different state of matter invoked in the creation of hydrogen atoms. I do not need to point it out, because everyone can see it. I also know full well that you made a fool out of yourself on I Kings 2: 42 by claiming that the addition of an emphatic to a sentence (or warning) totally alters the inherent meaning of it. Likewise, I do not really need to point that out because anybody who read the exchange can see it.

Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the meaning of "abiogenesis", since it means producing life from non-life and therefore has nothing to do with bringing forth matter/energy from non-existence.
As for 1 Kings 2:42, I'm sorry that you're completely incapable of understanding that a statement such as "the day you leave you will know" is a reference to the day you will attain knowledge...

The passage does not SAY that, does it?

""Know for certain that on the day you go out and go to any place whatever, you shall die" does not say "on the day you leave, you'll figure it out".

Any decent translation reads the same:

"Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die" (KJV)

"Know for a certain, on the day you go out, and travel anywhere, that you shall surely die." (NASB)

"Know for a certain, on the day you go out, and walk abroad any where, that you shall surely die" (American KJV)

"'If you ever leave and go anywhere, know for sure that you will certainly die" (NET)

"Know for certain, on the day thou goest out and walkest abroad anywhere that thou shalt surely die" (Jubilee Bible)

"Know for certain, that on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, thou shalt surely die" (American Standard)

It takes a warped mind to read those translations and conclude, "the day you leave you will come to the knowledge" as if the servant wouldn't have known it before he left. I can't help you any on it. You seem incapable of saying, "Oh, I screwed it up. It really doesn't say what I said it said".

But that's still what it means and even if you hold your breath, stomp your feet, or refuse to eat your dinner, that's what it will continue to mean.

Sure, Beastt, sure. "Know for a certainty, if you jump off the Golden Gate bridge, you will surely die" REALLY means that "After you jump, you will 'gain the knowledge' that you will die." I can hardly believe that a man who quotes and applies laws of physics can't understand a simple sentence.

Yet watch Beastt in action:

"Know for certain, that on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, thou shalt surely die" (ASV)

"Know for certain, that on the day thou goest to the bridge, and jumpeth off, thou shalt surely die"

1. Are the two sentences parallel?
2. Does the second sentence state that the man will "gain the knowledge that he will die" AFTER he jumps from the bridge?

Could you explain how the addition of an emphatic changes the meaning of Gen 2: 17?

"for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
"know for certain, in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Now all that's going to happen is that we'll see you refuse to answer, then claim that you know what you're talking about. Watch and see.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 5:16:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 5:04:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

It is besides the ethical point is raising that you are blatantly dodging. Is it right or not?

Certainly I had no intention of answering the point that he was trying to make.

And not necessarily, no, at least not on a zero energy hypothesis.

They don't? You need to tell them that. I've seen them do it hundreds of times on here. Who is it that is constantly citing the 1st Law of Thermodynamics here on the religion forum? And why?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 5:20:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 5:16:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 5:04:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

It is besides the ethical point is raising that you are blatantly dodging. Is it right or not?

Certainly I had no intention of answering the point that he was trying to make.

Then why bother responding at all? Seems like unnecessary flame baiting to me if you aren't even going to try to address the OP. Not cool.

And not necessarily, no, at least not on a zero energy hypothesis.

They don't? You need to tell them that. I've seen them do it hundreds of times on here. Who is it that is constantly citing the 1st Law of Thermodynamics here on the religion forum? And why?

I don't know, why should I know? I only speak for myself. It's got nothing to do with religion though.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 5:30:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 5:20:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 5:16:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 5:04:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

It is besides the ethical point is raising that you are blatantly dodging. Is it right or not?

Certainly I had no intention of answering the point that he was trying to make.

Then why bother responding at all? Seems like unnecessary flame baiting to me if you aren't even going to try to address the OP. Not cool.

The OP states, "Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment."

This is posted in the "Religion" forum? You are correct. The purpose of the OP is to bait.. Most of them are, in fact. Very rarely in here will one see "religion" actually discussed.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 5:33:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

I am not a theist but the scenario you paint is somewhat problematic. If by abiogenesis you mean the creation of the very first living thing billions of years ago, then transplanting humans to Earth makes no sense. Also any evidence of such abiogenesis would be hard to accept as proof after the passage of such a vast amount of time. There is no way I can think of that the aliens could convince our scientific community that they had not fabricated the evidence after the fact.

If you meant that the aliens had literally created human beings, then this contradicts the evidence - our close DNA relationship to other life on Earth, the fossil record, etc.

Putting these issues aside, my answer would be that it was not moral. For the same reason that it is not moral for parents to kill their child whom they created. In one case the creation is technological and in the other it is biological, but they are both creation.
ethang5
Posts: 4,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 7:21:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

I will try to answer Beastt. I think I see what you are trying to ask. I don't know what your intent is, but I've seen atheists ask this question before (the one behind your little scenario) and I think it is a valid question worth answering.

So as to avoid the charge of dodging, I will answer first, then after show you where your analogy fails.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away?

Of course it would depend on my moral code. If I believed that the aliens, by being creators, authorized them to do whatever they wanted with their creation, then yes, though I may dislike being destroyed, and even fight against it, my moral code would say they had the authority to destroy us and that they commit no moral infraction in doing so.

Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

If my moral code did not think simple creation gave the aliens such authority, I would fight against destruction and condemn them as immoral for attempting to destroy us.

Now, the First question is, Does Christian doctrine teach that God has the moral authority to destroy humanity BECAUSE He is creator?

The Second question is, Does a creator of sentient beings ever have the moral authority to destroy his creation?

These are excellent questions. And in us debating our way to an answer, we will see the problem Christians always try to point out to atheists. If you say there is no objective morality, then there is no moral reason anyone should follow any morality, and no logical reason to call ANY action "immoral".

Beastt, I know your question is an attempt to show Christians that their morality is wrong, but it does exactly the opposite!

I know the atheists will say the aliens do not have the moral right to destroy the human race. But why not? Who's morality condemns the aliens? Why is the morality which condemn them superior to the morality which approves them? No objective morality means just that, that no morality is superior! According to atheists, though they may fight being destroyed, their morality cannot logically condemn the aliens. The only thing atheists can say is, "I do not personally like the human race being destroyed, and will fight against it." Atheists cannot logically say, "Destroying the human race is morally wrong."

The aliens would respond, "By whose moral code?"
Atheists - "Ours."
Aliens - "So? Why should I respect your code? My code says it's fine."

Since atheists believe all moral codes are subjective and equal, the aliens, in destroying us all, are simply following a different moral code which is equal in "goodness" to all others.

Now to the questions.
Does Christian doctrine teach that God has the moral authority to destroy humanity BECAUSE He is creator?
The answer is "No." God's actions are justified because moral authority abides IN Him. He is the source of all morality and the standard by which all other moralities are judged or gain their authority. He possessed ALL moral authority BEFORE He
*For those with poor reading comprehension, this does not mean that ANYTHING God does is moral.

God's authority comes from His divinity. He is unlike the aliens in that the aliens are created beings just like us, and ultimate authority does not dwell in them. They may have "created" us, but they used the material, power, and laws of another to do so. God can create things out of nothing using His own power only, self defining the laws under which these created things and their environment will operate.

Does a creator of sentient beings ever have the moral authority to destroy his creation?

The answer is then, Not Always. The fact that only God can create sentient beings is beside the point. But God does have the authority. No matter how much a being may dislike being destroyed, the point remains that God violates no legitimate, authoritative morality in doing so.

For those who would insist God is morally wrong, the question remains,
"By whose morality is He wrong? and "What obligates Him to follow that morality?"
Kerfluffer
Posts: 123
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 7:47:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The position of the aliens has even less authority over our lives than our biological parents do.

We Christians and some other theists not only believe that God has far more authority than aliens - he didn't just create the first man, but also the entire universe - but also that He is good and loving. If our God wants to kill us, our faith demands that we trust in His plan. We also believe that one day creation will be restored the way it should be, and all the pain and suffering in the world will only feel like a bad dream that does not matter any more.

The same will not apply if aliens are our creators.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:20:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 7:21:08 AM, ethang5 wrote:

I know the atheists will say the aliens do not have the moral right to destroy the human race. But why not? Who's morality condemns the aliens? Why is the morality which condemn them superior to the morality which approves them? No objective morality means just that, that no morality is superior! According to atheists, though they may fight being destroyed, their morality cannot logically condemn the aliens. The only thing atheists can say is, "I do not personally like the human race being destroyed, and will fight against it." Atheists cannot logically say, "Destroying the human race is morally wrong."

The aliens would respond, "By whose moral code?"
Atheists - "Ours."
Aliens - "So? Why should I respect your code? My code says it's fine."

Since atheists believe all moral codes are subjective and equal, the aliens, in destroying us all, are simply following a different moral code which is equal in "goodness" to all others.

It doesn't matter what morality the aliens may or may not have. The question as posed is whether we would accept the decision as just and do nothing, or object and fight. The answer is obvious. We would follow our morality and condemn them.

Atheists don't believe that all moral codes are equal. I'm not sure where you get that from. The morality that is 'superior' is always the one we have grown up in. How could it be otherwise? We are all products of our environment and upbringing. Hopefully as societies evolve over time they produce moral codes which balance the needs of individuals against the needs of the whole population.

This reminds me of the clash between western culture and the Japanese culture during WW2. The Japanese were condemned for their ill-treatment of allied prisoners during the war. By their moral code though, they were disgusted that allied troops surrendered instead of immediately committing suicide. To the Japanese this was shameful behaviour and they treated POW's accordingly. Was one moral code superior to another? No, just different. Because the western powers won, our moral code is now accepted and the abuse of prisoners during the war is regarded as a human rights violation. An atheist in the USA or Japan would now say the ill-treatment was wrong according to current morality. They can say that logically because it is self-evident.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:30:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Along the same lines as answers already given, we have to put creation into context, because what you're implying is a question of ethics and responsibility (in this case by the creator).

When someone breeds dogs, they are not creating puppies in a laboratory, however, they are responsible for the life existence of the newly born pups. These living animals would not be alive had it not been for the actions of the breeder. If the breeder decided that he wanted to take the life breath away from the puppies, the breeder could be convicted of a crime if the methods were inhumane (he could instead take them to the SPCA who might eventually take their lives). Now if one of those puppies grew to become a vicious animal, or becomes rabid, the owner might be justified in taking the life from that dog.

To take it a step further, if we developed a Hitlerian type society that seeks to create a sort of super race, this society may not create humans in the abiogenes sense, but would still be creating life that may even involve science/laboratory assistance. If any of these members of a super race should become criminal enough to require execution, what's the difference if their creation was by mere selective breeding, or some more advanced method of creation not requiring breeding? What is the difference between the dog breeder and the alien race employing abiogenesis to create life?

Let's have some fun with the alien race. Let's say the alien race is subject to some sort of alien empire that they are held accountable to. The overseeing alien race might encourage creating other intelligent life forms, but may also employ a code of ethics requiring the prohibiting of abuse including intentional killing. However, would the overseers be out of line if they made exceptions like the created race posing fatalistic dangers for other created intelligent life forms on nearby planets?

In the case of God, we're talking about an authority that not only gives physical life, but a life existence that continues on after the death of the physical body. So part of the problem you might have is whether or not you are open to the existence of a soul, which I'm kind of assuming you don't. We're talking about an authority who presents His law to mankind. Who gives warnings, and the consequences of not heeding the warnings.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 8:50:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 7:47:28 AM, Kerfluffer wrote:
The position of the aliens has even less authority over our lives than our biological parents do.

Why is that? The act of creating the entire human race is a far greater deal than our individual creation. By your reasoning, God should have lesser authority over us than our biological parents no matter how powerful he may be.

We Christians and some other theists not only believe that God has far more authority than aliens - he didn't just create the first man, but also the entire universe - but also that He is good and loving. If our God wants to kill us, our faith demands that we trust in His plan.

So you are implying that aliens (somewhat powerful) don't have the moral authority to terminate us but God (more powerful) does. How does that work? What is the threshold at which power overcomes morality? (The aliens could be good and loving too).

We also believe that one day creation will be restored the way it should be, and all the pain and suffering in the world will only feel like a bad dream that does not matter any more.

If you believe this then it shouldn't matter to you if aliens wipe out humanity, right? In fact, the morality of your own death or the total genocide of all human beings doesn't concern you at all if you really believe what you are saying.

The same will not apply if aliens are our creators.

Why couldn't the aliens be agents of your God?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 9:32:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 5:30:22 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 5:20:54 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 5:16:12 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 5:04:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

It is besides the ethical point is raising that you are blatantly dodging. Is it right or not?

Certainly I had no intention of answering the point that he was trying to make.

Then why bother responding at all? Seems like unnecessary flame baiting to me if you aren't even going to try to address the OP. Not cool.

The OP states, "Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment."

This is posted in the "Religion" forum? You are correct. The purpose of the OP is to bait.. Most of them are, in fact. Very rarely in here will one see "religion" actually discussed.
The OP makes it sufficiently clear that the method used was "abiogenesis" and not "creation" from nothing. So either post on topic or stop posting. This is not the place for you to have your childish temper tantrum.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 9:37:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 5:04:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that by they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

It is besides the ethical point is raising that you are blatantly dodging. Is it right or not?

And not necessarily, no, at least not on a zero energy hypothesis.
Dodging is all Anna ever does. And when she's destroyed on some point she hoped to make, she then takes it upon herself to try to disrupt all subsequent discussions by posting off-topic relentlessly. Then she accuses her opponents of dodging her.

Apparently her parents never told her "no", and she can't handle losing as an adult.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 9:51:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 5:33:57 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

I am not a theist but the scenario you paint is somewhat problematic. If by abiogenesis you mean the creation of the very first living thing billions of years ago, then transplanting humans to Earth makes no sense.

Nothing about the term "abiogenesis" implies the first living things, nor is it specific to Earth. "Abiogenesis" means life from non-life. It is the production (I'll avoid the word "creation" for Anna's sake), of biological life, from non-biological matter.

Also any evidence of such abiogenesis would be hard to accept as proof after the passage of such a vast amount of time. There is no way I can think of that the aliens could convince our scientific community that they had not fabricated the evidence after the fact.
And because you don't know of any such method, that means a more advanced civilization of more intelligent beings couldn't either?

If you meant that the aliens had literally created human beings, then this contradicts the evidence - our close DNA relationship to other life on Earth, the fossil record, etc.
Which would not be a problem for them and has little to nothing to do with the question being asked.

Putting these issues aside, my answer would be that it was not moral. For the same reason that it is not moral for parents to kill their child whom they created. In one case the creation is technological and in the other it is biological, but they are both creation.
Okay, my fault for accidentally using the word "creation" but anyone familiar with what "abiogenesis" means should have no problem with this. And I've made that point with Anna already, and she completely ignored it because she wants to throw her little temper tantrum and hound me on a completely unrelated matter where I was able to show her that she has misinterpreted a verse from 1 Kings, and then misinterpreted a follow-up verse just as badly.

The OP specifies "abiogenesis" and the DNA issue is only an issue if you don't take into account that it's an alien race who could certainly fashion their biological design to fit with the pre-existing species on Earth. "Abiogenesis" does not mean the "first life", it simply means "life from non-life".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 9:58:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race

I'd say that humanity would have a right to fight back because who would take that right away? Sure we'd get owned in like 10 seconds but damned if we aren't scrambling the jets and arming the bombs during that time.

To flip your question on you a bit, what if multiple alien species arrived on Earth in an attempt to enlighten us to their true faith, for which these species have identical origin stories for the faith they share, only to pleasantly find that some people on Earth also already believe in the religion, confirming for them and earthian believers that it is the true faith. Would you accept this religion what ever it was?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:08:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 7:21:08 AM, ethang5 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

I will try to answer Beastt. I think I see what you are trying to ask. I don't know what your intent is, but I've seen atheists ask this question before (the one behind your little scenario) and I think it is a valid question worth answering.

So as to avoid the charge of dodging, I will answer first, then after show you where your analogy fails.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away?

Of course it would depend on my moral code. If I believed that the aliens, by being creators, authorized them to do whatever they wanted with their creation, then yes, though I may dislike being destroyed, and even fight against it, my moral code would say they had the authority to destroy us and that they commit no moral infraction in doing so.

Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

If my moral code did not think simple creation gave the aliens such authority, I would fight against destruction and condemn them as immoral for attempting to destroy us.

Now, the First question is, Does Christian doctrine teach that God has the moral authority to destroy humanity BECAUSE He is creator?

The Second question is, Does a creator of sentient beings ever have the moral authority to destroy his creation?

These are excellent questions. And in us debating our way to an answer, we will see the problem Christians always try to point out to atheists. If you say there is no objective morality, then there is no moral reason anyone should follow any morality, and no logical reason to call ANY action "immoral".

Beastt, I know your question is an attempt to show Christians that their morality is wrong, but it does exactly the opposite!

I know the atheists will say the aliens do not have the moral right to destroy the human race. But why not? Who's morality condemns the aliens? Why is the morality which condemn them superior to the morality which approves them? No objective morality means just that, that no morality is superior! According to atheists, though they may fight being destroyed, their morality cannot logically condemn the aliens. The only thing atheists can say is, "I do not personally like the human race being destroyed, and will fight against it." Atheists cannot logically say, "Destroying the human race is morally wrong."

The aliens would respond, "By whose moral code?"
Atheists - "Ours."
Aliens - "So? Why should I respect your code? My code says it's fine."

Since atheists believe all moral codes are subjective and equal, the aliens, in destroying us all, are simply following a different moral code which is equal in "goodness" to all others.

Now to the questions.
Does Christian doctrine teach that God has the moral authority to destroy humanity BECAUSE He is creator?
The answer is "No." God's actions are justified because moral authority abides IN Him. He is the source of all morality and the standard by which all other moralities are judged or gain their authority. He possessed ALL moral authority BEFORE He
*For those with poor reading comprehension, this does not mean that ANYTHING God does is moral.

God's authority comes from His divinity. He is unlike the aliens in that the aliens are created beings just like us, and ultimate authority does not dwell in them. They may have "created" us, but they used the material, power, and laws of another to do so. God can create things out of nothing using His own power only, self defining the laws under which these created things and their environment will operate.

Does a creator of sentient beings ever have the moral authority to destroy his creation?

The answer is then, Not Always. The fact that only God can create sentient beings is beside the point. But God does have the authority. No matter how much a being may dislike being destroyed, the point remains that God violates no legitimate, authoritative morality in doing so.

For those who would insist God is morally wrong, the question remains,
"By whose morality is He wrong? and "What obligates Him to follow that morality?"

First, thank you for being the first to actually attempt an answer, rather than dodging and derailing the thread. That said, your answer employs special pleading - that God is a special case because he is the standard by which morality is measured, and while you believe that, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim.

The reality here is that it does depend upon one's system of morality. However, standard human concepts of morality should come into play here and would do so, in any fair and honest response. The fact of the matter is that humans have developed a morality and following legal code, whereby when you provide someone with something, it is a gift and in transferring ownership to them, you relinquish rights to that gift. If someone gives you a car (assuming you're considered to be legally an adult), the car becomes your property. Should they change their mind at some point in the future, they cannot morally or legally just repossess the vehicle as you now have full rights and ownership of the vehicle.

And the same should obviously apply to life as uniquely and intimately the property of the living. For without that life, one truly has nothing. When you give life, you are no longer the owner of that life, and have no right to take it back. If this can be applied to a car, a stereo, or piece of jewelry, certainly under human standards of morality, it can be applied to one's very life. And if God's standard of morality suggests that he retains ownership after giving you life, then he is as warped in his sense of morality on that count, as he is in regard to slavery, rape, infanticide, genocide and numerous other fronts.

Do you believe that slavery, rape, infanticide and genocide are moral practices? If not, then you already disagree with "God's morality".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:13:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 9:58:48 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race

I'd say that humanity would have a right to fight back because who would take that right away? Sure we'd get owned in like 10 seconds but damned if we aren't scrambling the jets and arming the bombs during that time.

To flip your question on you a bit, what if multiple alien species arrived on Earth in an attempt to enlighten us to their true faith, for which these species have identical origin stories for the faith they share, only to pleasantly find that some people on Earth also already believe in the religion, confirming for them and earthian believers that it is the true faith. Would you accept this religion what ever it was?

That would depend on whether or not they could provide conclusive objective evidence to show that the religion was true. If they had no evidence that it was true, then I would not accept it as true. If they could provide conclusive objective evidence that it was true, then I would have to see how the concepts of morality in that religion lined up with my concepts of morality. There are some areas where I might accept that my ideas of morality are subject to change. There are other areas where they most certainly are not subject to change.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:18:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 4:47:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:37:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
R: At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

Okay Anna, you want to play that way? Go ahead, explain how that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Or you can admit that you're just having a temper tantrum and behaving like a spoiled child because you can't handle losing a debate.

(1) an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence proving that they "created" humans
(2) such "proof" would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter and energy cannot be "created".

By the way, I can easily admit when I haven't handled a point very well (or in your words, "lost a debate"). I know full well when the evidence is against me. I know practically nothing about the theorized different state of matter invoked in the creation of hydrogen atoms. I do not need to point it out, because everyone can see it. I also know full well that you made a fool out of yourself on I Kings 2: 42 by claiming that the addition of an emphatic to a sentence (or warning) totally alters the inherent meaning of it. Likewise, I do not really need to point that out because anybody who read the exchange can see it.

Anna, Physicists have never proved any of their theories as the Truth. God has made sure that His people won't find Him during this age. He's much smarter than you think He is.
Brendan21
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 10:22:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 10:13:06 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/18/2014 9:58:48 AM, Brendan21 wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race

I'd say that humanity would have a right to fight back because who would take that right away? Sure we'd get owned in like 10 seconds but damned if we aren't scrambling the jets and arming the bombs during that time.

To flip your question on you a bit, what if multiple alien species arrived on Earth in an attempt to enlighten us to their true faith, for which these species have identical origin stories for the faith they share, only to pleasantly find that some people on Earth also already believe in the religion, confirming for them and earthian believers that it is the true faith. Would you accept this religion what ever it was?

That would depend on whether or not they could provide conclusive objective evidence to show that the religion was true. If they had no evidence that it was true, then I would not accept it as true. If they could provide conclusive objective evidence that it was true, then I would have to see how the concepts of morality in that religion lined up with my concepts of morality. There are some areas where I might accept that my ideas of morality are subject to change. There are other areas where they most certainly are not subject to change.

Hmm, interesting. So assuming that they could indeed provide conclusive evidence, essentially proving their religion, you would still reject the religion if it did not match your moral concepts? Personally, if a religion could be actually proven to me, it would blow me away to the point where all my prior beliefs and morals would seem meaningless, even if I already had a religion.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 1:38:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 10:18:01 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:47:56 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:37:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
R: At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

Okay Anna, you want to play that way? Go ahead, explain how that violates the First Law of Thermodynamics. Or you can admit that you're just having a temper tantrum and behaving like a spoiled child because you can't handle losing a debate.

(1) an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence proving that they "created" humans
(2) such "proof" would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter and energy cannot be "created".

By the way, I can easily admit when I haven't handled a point very well (or in your words, "lost a debate"). I know full well when the evidence is against me. I know practically nothing about the theorized different state of matter invoked in the creation of hydrogen atoms. I do not need to point it out, because everyone can see it. I also know full well that you made a fool out of yourself on I Kings 2: 42 by claiming that the addition of an emphatic to a sentence (or warning) totally alters the inherent meaning of it. Likewise, I do not really need to point that out because anybody who read the exchange can see it.

Anna, Physicists have never proved any of their theories as the Truth. God has made sure that His people won't find Him during this age. He's much smarter than you think He is.

Excuse me, but if God wants people to believe he exists, then assuring that no one can find him isn't what one would call "smart". It's actually dumb... closer to "retarded". But it makes sense that retarded people should have a retarded God. I'll wait for a God who is smarter than a fifth grader.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 2:31:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth.

I wouldn"t believe their claim, because they couldn"t give any good reason for that.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 2:41:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 9:37:59 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/18/2014 5:04:11 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that by they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

It is besides the ethical point is raising that you are blatantly dodging. Is it right or not?

And not necessarily, no, at least not on a zero energy hypothesis.
Dodging is all Anna ever does. And when she's destroyed on some point she hoped to make, she then takes it upon herself to try to disrupt all subsequent discussions by posting off-topic relentlessly. Then she accuses her opponents of dodging her.

Apparently her parents never told her "no", and she can't handle losing as an adult.

I haven't dodged. I told you that I apparently know very little about the hypothetical (or as you put it, "theorized") intermediate state of matter in which energy is hypothetically converted into a hydrogen atom. I do not have a problem with that. Along with it, I totally conceded that you made a fool out of yourself on I Kings 2: 42 by claiming that when the servant crossed the Kidron, only then would he "gain the knowledge" that he would die. When asked how in the world an emphatic such as "know for certain" or "be thou sure" or "be forewarned" totally changes the meaning of a passage, you pick up your playthings and go home.

You seem to want to "admit" every one else's shortcomings, yet pass over your own mistakes.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
slo1
Posts: 4,312
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2014 3:02:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/18/2014 4:57:07 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:50:28 AM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/18/2014 4:29:28 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/18/2014 2:18:48 AM, Beastt wrote:
This is a little thought experiment for theists.

Suppose for a moment that an alien race contacted mankind and demonstrated conclusive evidence "proving" that they created humans in an abiogenesis experiment, and then transplanted us to Earth. These aliens then inform us that they consider the experiment to be a failure, and therefore, intend to destroy the human race to clear the planet for their next experiment.

Do you see this as just and righteous because they gave us life and can therefore, take it away? Or would you see this as wrong and fight back against the aliens in hoping to prevent them from causing the extinction of the human race?

We'd tell them that they violated the First Law of Thermodynamics, a comment which they would see as evidence of the failure of their experiment.

You are completely dodging the question & point with a point that's not even conceivably valid.

Which point is not valid? It is my impression that atheists claim that any and all creation theories of a necessity violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics

You heard that once from a person who supports theism and believed them. The earth is considered an open system, meaning energy and matter is constantly being added to the system. Abiogeneisis does not propose to create energy.

Trust me when I say life even if created intelligently would not survive on earth if it were a closed system, meaning the sun was not adding energy into it. The process to maintain life requires energy to not violate the laws of themodynamics.

So here we are, you can either correct your incorrect belief or you can maintain a belief that is incorrect to internally strength your belief in God. Trust me when I also say, you don't have to hold an incorrect belief to justify your belief in God.

Abiogenesis does not violate the laws of thermodynamics because if it did, maintaining life would also violate it as well and we would not be here having this discussion.