The obsession with intelligent aliens from other plants, and what they can do for us, resemble the topics that religon tries to answer. So this thread already went religious in the first post, in that perspective.
I've not seen anyone discussing "what they can do for us" here, it's mostly been discussion of "can/do they even exist". Which is superficially similar to religion, I guess, in that the same question can be asked about central figures in religion, too. Doesn't make the inquiries the same, since I can also ask "Does a table even exist?" but that doesn't make table discussions the same as religious ones.
The term "religion" is often used when we talk about the abrahamic religions. The word "religion" is of western origin. But if religion means a monotheist God that is the creator, it does not fit buddhism, hinduism, dao, paganism and other supernatural beliefs around the world and modern New Age, that ufology is a part of. So the everyday use of the word "religion" and what it really does mean can be a bit different. What it means on AD is a bit vague, and what's banned, too.
Reba wasn't the first one that brought up abrahamic religions in this thread, it was a secular poster, and it's only fair to let Reba defend herself. I don't get the logic if a thread only gets locked once a christian decide to defend her faith from secular claims. This thread is also pretty calm compared to some of the cochlear threads, btw.
I (and I think others, but I can only speak for myself) was using "religion" to cover any form of supernatural belief, with "supernatural" meaning "something that (through any mechanism whatsoever) defies the laws that govern nature".
I will admit that this is a tricky definition, given that science isn't required to adhere to a pre-defined set of laws, it's merely a process that tries to discover
what those laws are. However, to make it palatable (and disprovable), I'll say that if it is somehow discovered that the universe or anything that exists is non-deterministic, then that would also be "supernatural". (This means at the simplest level - many people don't think that humans and human behavior is deterministic, but humans and human brains and human bodies are all made up of deterministic particles.)
In regards to the rest of that, while I would agree and lump all of those categories in with "religion", it's more of an American tendency to only categorize monotheistic-style beliefs as "religion", of which scientific theories do not fall under. To that point, I don't think "religion" specifically had been mentioned prior, but I'm likely just as guilty as anyone else for responding and propagating (side note: I
always misspell that word) the topic. Wait, shit. I did it again, just now.
Because some scientists believe time and space is infinite, just like God, the only difference is it's more of a "it's always has been, always will be" philosophy with them without the idea of a creator. It's not hypocritical nor wrong because not even Christians can answer what came before the creation of the universe.
Your question of "why is God necessary" has an implicit assumption that Occam's razor should be applied when considering different explanations. Reba, I'm pretty sure, would reject the entire premises Occam's razor.
I didn't think Reba would make this thread go down but I can't say the same for the other posters. Let us keep this civil.
I think I've stayed civil.
If not... sorry.
Not just Christians believe that "before the creation of the universe" there had to be a Creator.
Christians tend to be pinpointed when discussing creationism, because they're the primary proponents of it in the US, and because most of those who reject it are more familiar with Christianity than with other faiths which are also proponents because they locally hear and see more of Christianity.
For myself, any arguments that reject Christian creationism also reject all other forms of supernatural creationism, until you start getting metaphysical and claim that a natural process/reaction such as the Big Bang is "the creator" or other such ballyhoo. (Side note: Apparently 'ballyhoo' is a real word, recognized by my spell checker. How awesome is that?)
That's one theory.
In the first chapter of Genesis, God quietly and calmly creates the universe without any banging or clatter.
How...
refined.
There is an answer to that question in the Bible but I don't think anyone wants me to post that here and now.
Well, I'd be fine with it, but my response to it might come from the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Oddly enough, people seem to think that the Bible taught that the earth was flat and other "anti-scientific" beliefs. It did not, and does not. Somehow, certain cultures and religious leaders got the notion of the flat earth and all that other stuff. It wasn't biblical. Great scientists and explorers of history were also men of strong faith in the Bible, and they saw no conflict.
You agree that it (or your interpretation, at least) teaches creationism, rather than evolution, right? That's "anti-scientific" enough for me.
Someday they'll finally all know the right answer.
That's a nice thought, and maybe if we manage to build self-refining general artificial intelligence, that might be possible, but at least with our current tools, we certainly don't have the accuracy possible to know the exactly "right answer". On top of that, while we may eventually know enough to define the functions and equations that define how our existence... exists/works (couldn't think of a better word, sorry), it may end up being so finely tuned that it would require a computer larger than the existing universe to actually "calculate".
I have no desire to see this end up in flames.
Given enough time, the germs on your dirty socks could become intelligent life forms. I'm thinking on scale of a hundred million years.