The idea that Jesus may have reincarnated on other planets to save those beings would make more sense if he had bothered to show up in East Asia, the Americas, and Australia.
Most Christians believe that Christ saved Humanity as a whole when He assumed a human incarnation, so I don't know why he would need to incarnate again in Australia.
Mormons think he went to America and talked to the Indians but that's not based on anything. The right time and place for him to incarnate was the Holy Land during the early Roman Empire. Besides, Native American Indians and Aborigines were largely aware of the one God
No one needs to be saved or forgiven because the way people are in every single way is not their fault. The only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible and no one can righteously be forced to be at fault for being a way that isn't their fault.
2 trillion galaxies filled with thousands of trillions of planets... the fate of which will all soon be determined on the plains surrounding the small fortress of Megiddo. Comes off as just a bit arrogant to say the least, which is one of the main points of the atheist position. That same arrogance is a major reason we are facing the imminent collapse of our planet's biosphere.
Regarding the "favorite ring" analogy: A gram of gold has about 10^21 atoms. The universe is about 132,450,226,616,131,200,000,000 km across or about 10^27 m across. A human is on the scale of 10^1 meters. A 1cm diameter ring with ~1g of gold to me is 10^-2. Me to the universe is 10^-26. A single gold atom to me is about 10^-23. Therefore, a better comparison would be having 1,000 gold rings and losing 1 atom.
Dr. Rauser, could you perhaps explain what kind of universe you would expect to observe if there wasn't a god? I'm curious, because much of the discussions I hear about the universe and God's existence from apologists seems to concern them making sense of how the universe, as we observe it, COULD be consistent with his existence. That's essentially what you're doing here. But I'm curious, in your view, what type of universe would you need to observe to conclude that a god doesn't exist?
Idk about gods but without God, we'd have a disordered universe, if at all. Up would be down, black would be white, etc. The fact that there's anything at all and we're far to intricate to not have a creator, leads Occams Razor to conclude there is at least a higher power.
@@paradisecityX0 There's a few fallacies in that line of thinking. First, you assume that disorder is inherently the default state to order. And I don't understand how you conclude that. Second, some of the "order" you mention simply isn't there (e.g., there is no "up" and "down" in space). Third, there actually is plenty of disorder and non-uniformity throughout the universe (e.g., seasons are far from consistent and orderly on Earth). We tend to just focus on the orderly parts of it. Fourth, even on disorder, you can still have order come out of it, even if rarely. Consider how, for example, violent explosions produce chaos, but can also compress carbon into diamond crystals, which are very orderly. It's a mathematical certainty that, given enough time, within even pure chaos, it will occasionally throw up pockets of order. And fifth, if the premise is that the universe is orderly, and something must exist externally to it to account for its orderliness--in this case God--you must then explain what accounts for that external source's orderliness. After all, by your logic, whatever caused the orderliness of the universe must itself be orderly. It can't be a disordered chaos that accounts for the universe's orderliness. For you it appears that cause is God. So what accounts for God's orderliness? If you say that it's just a brute fact of his existence, then you could just say the universe being orderly is a brute fact of its existence. Once you grant that it's possible for something to be ordered without an external cause for that order, then you can no longer claim that to be impossible of the universe. You could, in theory, point to something about the universe that indicates it's orderly when it shouldn't be, but you can't argue just from the fact it's ordered that therefore something external to it must account for it.
@adamtaylor278 In order for your claim to have any merit, you must have an idea of what is orderly to seem something unordered. As the Prime Mover, God set the universe in motion. Chaos is a side effect but it doesn't encompass all of existence. And don't tell me you're gonna use the "Who created God?" fallacy because that's the worst argument against theism
@@paradisecityX0 By "order" I mean in the general sense of recognizable patterns being observed. By "disorder," I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) you are envisioning a universe in which no such patterns exist. There is literally no regularity to the universe whatsoever. But if that's what you would expect to be the case, then it doesn't really address the question I posed to Dr. Rauser. If there were literally no order in the universe, then it follows there would be no life in said universe, much less intelligent life, since we can agree that at least some order would be needed for us to exist. But such a universe is irrelevant to us. My question to Dr. Rauser is what type of universe would he expect to OBSERVE if there were no god. But the universe you're proposing wouldn't have us in it, by definition. Thus, we could never observe such a universe anyway. What I'm asking is, what type of universe that we could actually observe would have to exist that would make you think a god didn't exist? You could of course say that it's impossible for life to exist without God, but then it pretty much makes any arguments about "orderliness" irrelevant. All the argument boils down to then is just saying, "intelligent life exists, therefore God exists." And that's it. Personally, I see no metaphysical reason why life couldn't exist in a godless universe. "Chaos is a side effect but it doesn't encompass all of existence." No, it doesn't. But it does mean the universe is not entirely ordered. And any hypothesis involving God must account for why we observe both order and disorder, and why we observe the levels that we do. Whereas we already have a perfectly viable explain on a godless hypothesis - that you can have chaos throughout the universe, that will occasionally throw up pockets of orderliness. For example, relevant to Dr. Rauser's video, consider how vast the universe is any how many planets there are. The vast majority of those planets lack life. But on a godless view, you should then expect life to be rare in the universe, just occasionally showing up in small pockets. Lo and behold, that's exactly what we observe with regard to Earth. "And don't tell me you're gonna use the "Who created God?" fallacy because that's the worst argument against theism" That isn't exactly the argument I would make. What I did say is that if you grant that God exists and that he himself is an orderly being (i.e. he's not pure chaos), and you accept his orderliness is a brute fact of his existence, then you could just as easily say the orderliness of the universe is a brute fact of its existence. And on that point, I think a godless universe scenario actually is the simpler explanation. Since on theism, you posit two orderly beings, God and the universe. Whereas on atheism, you simply have one orderly being, the universe.
Either God exists or we already observe such a universe. The question implies some yet broader frame of reference within which "God" can be swapped out for something else, but this is an obvious contradiction.
This is sort of like reverse flat Earth theory. Instead of saying the flat Earth is real, it's like they're saying the flat Earth isn't real, but if God exists we should expect it to be. Not a compelling argument to me, but I can see why it could be to some people given certain assumptions. Your analysis of it is pretty good.
It's also off by a couple dozen orders of magnitude. 1cm diameter ring is 10^-9 to the Earth. Earth is 10^-5 to the solar system (or at least the diameter of Pluto's orbit), which is 10^-22 to the Milky Way, which is 10^5 to the universe (at least, diameter, note the universe is 3D and not a relative plane (still feels low, but good enough for the point)). So, the Earth to the universe is 10^-32. To a human, the ring is about 10^-2. The difference in the gap between us and the ring vs Earth and the universe is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 30 zeroes and 10 commas.
Had another thought. A gram of gold has about 10^21 atoms. The gap between Earth and the universe is 1,000,000,000 bigger than the gap between a single gold atom and the ring. So, a fairer comparison would be if his wife had a billion rings, and lost one atom of gold from them. *edit: I think I got some units mixed up somewhere, but don't feel like checking. Either way, a closer comparison would be losing one atom of gold out of that gold ring.
@stormburn1 I'm starting to get a bit disappointed with Randall. He recently played the definitions when discussing faith and now this. I thought he was a higher calibre of apologist, but sadly not.
That's cute but the meme at the beginning clearly refers to the potentially infinite number of celestial bodies in the universe(s), not size. Your wife told you that's her favorite ring, then she bought an infinite pile of rings including infinte similar if not identical rings, for seemingly no reason but to just leave around the house and in your yard and everywhere you look you just find new rings, would you still think that ring is special?
it might be more expected tbh if God wants to leave behind some evidence for his existence. So many people look at the vast universe and say it must’ve been created.
Yeah, but that's just motivated reasoning imo. Like, why look at the 99.999999999999999% of the universe that lacks life and take the speck-of-a-speck-of-a-speck as the purpose? If we're going off intuition, why shouldn't be conclude the universe was created for not-life and life was just a byproduct, an imperfection or blemish?
Am I alone, as a Christian, in regretting that we tend to speculate about things infinitely above our pay-grade, and wind up sounding not only unconvincing but rather silly?
As an atheist, that's kind of how I view all theological talk (and cosmology stuff that reaches outside the universe excepting "fun sci-fi" and the actual math/science). If there's no empirics to back it up and we're just playing within the space outlined by empirics, it's fun, but not particularly profound or helpful.
It's actually very profound and helpful. Theology is like evolution in that those who dismiss it don't understand it. The materialist empericism is a narrow and naive way of viewing reality. There's clearly more out there
@@paradisecityX0 Can you point to anything theology actually allows us to do that wouldn't also apply to science fiction authors? I know the claim is that it adds understanding, but that "understanding" doesn't seem to add any utility. There's no predictive power to test it.
10^82 atoms, 10^24 planets, and you call that big ? well, small self-replicated RNA created by random chance is with 10^-1018. I love mathematics. "God is a mathematician of a very high order"
100 billion people aren't going to be raised at Christ's coming and then live a life of infinite time with infinite possibilities no one wants .You'll disappear in all that change.!
Yahweh is the Hebrew version of the one God, not a god. The early Israelites viewed Yahweh as the Great God of thunder and storm, depicted as the divine warrior. The cariacature you have in your mind is oversimplified. They obviously didn't have the bigger picture. The Greek Philosophers had a greater sense of what God is but still incomplete. God (whether you call It Yahweh, El Shaddai, Illah, Mulungu, the Brahman, Shangdi, Ahura Mazda, the Great Spirit, etc.) is the Prime Mover; the uncreated creator of all that is and source of all life -- the eternal force behind the laws of physics and probability. God, is the bigger, grander, more beautiful ultimate truth -- the one who brought about the vast cosmos full of beautiful galaxies & countless worlds, ignited the evolutionary process, created dinosaurs, etc.
What could be more grander and beautiful than Christianity? That the almighty creator of the universe loves you and came to earth in human form (and probably other worlds in whatever other forms) to give you easy access to salvation -- and changed history more than any other historical figure in the most profound ways
@@paradisecityX0 Well i guess its a matter of perspective; as far as im concerned the hindu(better known as sanatana dharma in india) conception of reality is more grand and beautiful. You don't follow the eternal, nameless, formless creator of the universe, you worship the isrealite storm god yahweh and his son Jesus. Also, how are you supposed to know how probable it is that jesus incarnated on other planets when the bible doesn't have a single thing to say about other worlds, this is just pure christian fanfiction; indeed the bible makes it seem like humans are at the center of the universe. Like someone said elsewhere in the comments, Jesus couldn't even be bothered to show up in the americas or old austrailia, so why assume he went to other planets? lastly, for reasons i cannot fathom your god is extremely averse to the idea of post mortem reconciliation. Lol and you think thats a beautiful thing?
Not in the slightest. It's only a problem for those who thinl humanity is at the center of the universe. There are over 300 billion stars -- just in our galaxy. Around half of which are orbited by planets and on average, two of every star's planets are suitable for life. There's no question that the universe is home to a myriad of life forms. Even still, the heavens declare the glory of God
Joshua 10:13 "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." How exactly does the sun stop in the middle of the sky if it's not implied the Earth is fixed and that the sun is circling it? Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in." The "almighty creator" of the universe chose some random corner of the universe to place his throne and not the center of the solar system, let alone the universe? This habit of retroactively awkwardly fitting the bible to loosely match modern scientific discoveries is insanely insidious
Taking ANE imagery (used by the biblical writers mostly for poetic and polemical purposes) at face value is even more ridiculous. They weren't relaying modern scientific discoveries to begin with (science wasn't even a thing until several centuries ago). As a fundamentalist, you probably think that's what they were trying to do. Couldn't be further from the truth. The Book of Nature is that which is revealed from science (the slow revelation of God's blueprint).
@@paradisecityX0I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not even christian, but the fact you can't even tell is hilarious. It's all the literal word of god until it isn't, then it's hyperbole, allegory, written by man, divinely inspired, and every other excuse in the book if it sounds ridiculous, antiquated and antithetical to an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god.
You're a fundie-atheist. You carry fundamentalist understanding of the texts and behavior as a non believer. The fact you don't even know that, or the difference between God and a god is even more hilarious. If Yeshua bar Miryam was who he said he was, he's the Word of God -- the Logos. Ridiculous non-sequitur on your part -- the Bible is a compilation of different texts of various genres by different people of various cultural backgrounds. Inspired but not dictated by God (gods are not omniscient or omnibenevolent) -- you gonna let those assumptions go if you wanna catch up. Biblical scholarship and hermeneutics should help you a great deal
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
The idea that Jesus may have reincarnated on other planets to save those beings would make more sense if he had bothered to show up in East Asia, the Americas, and Australia.
@@greenleaf239 What are you basing this on?
Most Christians believe that Christ saved Humanity as a whole when He assumed a human incarnation, so I don't know why he would need to incarnate again in Australia.
Mormons think he went to America and talked to the Indians but that's not based on anything. The right time and place for him to incarnate was the Holy Land during the early Roman Empire.
Besides, Native American Indians and Aborigines were largely aware of the one God
I don’t see why?
Its the same species
That's just beautiful, thank you!
My cat is called MIA.. a small but most worthy interlocutor.
No one needs to be saved or forgiven because the way people are in every single way is not their fault. The only way the way people are would be their fault is if they willingly chose to come into existence and if they created themselves and made themselves be exactly the way that they want to be, but that's not possible and no one can righteously be forced to be at fault for being a way that isn't their fault.
2 trillion galaxies filled with thousands of trillions of planets... the fate of which will all soon be determined on the plains surrounding the small fortress of Megiddo. Comes off as just a bit arrogant to say the least, which is one of the main points of the atheist position. That same arrogance is a major reason we are facing the imminent collapse of our planet's biosphere.
Regarding the "favorite ring" analogy: A gram of gold has about 10^21 atoms. The universe is about 132,450,226,616,131,200,000,000 km across or about 10^27 m across. A human is on the scale of 10^1 meters. A 1cm diameter ring with ~1g of gold to me is 10^-2. Me to the universe is 10^-26. A single gold atom to me is about 10^-23.
Therefore, a better comparison would be having 1,000 gold rings and losing 1 atom.
Dr. Rauser, could you perhaps explain what kind of universe you would expect to observe if there wasn't a god? I'm curious, because much of the discussions I hear about the universe and God's existence from apologists seems to concern them making sense of how the universe, as we observe it, COULD be consistent with his existence. That's essentially what you're doing here. But I'm curious, in your view, what type of universe would you need to observe to conclude that a god doesn't exist?
Idk about gods but without God, we'd have a disordered universe, if at all. Up would be down, black would be white, etc. The fact that there's anything at all and we're far to intricate to not have a creator, leads Occams Razor to conclude there is at least a higher power.
@@paradisecityX0 There's a few fallacies in that line of thinking. First, you assume that disorder is inherently the default state to order. And I don't understand how you conclude that. Second, some of the "order" you mention simply isn't there (e.g., there is no "up" and "down" in space). Third, there actually is plenty of disorder and non-uniformity throughout the universe (e.g., seasons are far from consistent and orderly on Earth). We tend to just focus on the orderly parts of it. Fourth, even on disorder, you can still have order come out of it, even if rarely. Consider how, for example, violent explosions produce chaos, but can also compress carbon into diamond crystals, which are very orderly. It's a mathematical certainty that, given enough time, within even pure chaos, it will occasionally throw up pockets of order. And fifth, if the premise is that the universe is orderly, and something must exist externally to it to account for its orderliness--in this case God--you must then explain what accounts for that external source's orderliness. After all, by your logic, whatever caused the orderliness of the universe must itself be orderly. It can't be a disordered chaos that accounts for the universe's orderliness. For you it appears that cause is God. So what accounts for God's orderliness? If you say that it's just a brute fact of his existence, then you could just say the universe being orderly is a brute fact of its existence. Once you grant that it's possible for something to be ordered without an external cause for that order, then you can no longer claim that to be impossible of the universe. You could, in theory, point to something about the universe that indicates it's orderly when it shouldn't be, but you can't argue just from the fact it's ordered that therefore something external to it must account for it.
@adamtaylor278 In order for your claim to have any merit, you must have an idea of what is orderly to seem something unordered. As the Prime Mover, God set the universe in motion. Chaos is a side effect but it doesn't encompass all of existence. And don't tell me you're gonna use the "Who created God?" fallacy because that's the worst argument against theism
@@paradisecityX0 By "order" I mean in the general sense of recognizable patterns being observed. By "disorder," I assume (and correct me if I'm wrong) you are envisioning a universe in which no such patterns exist. There is literally no regularity to the universe whatsoever. But if that's what you would expect to be the case, then it doesn't really address the question I posed to Dr. Rauser. If there were literally no order in the universe, then it follows there would be no life in said universe, much less intelligent life, since we can agree that at least some order would be needed for us to exist. But such a universe is irrelevant to us. My question to Dr. Rauser is what type of universe would he expect to OBSERVE if there were no god. But the universe you're proposing wouldn't have us in it, by definition. Thus, we could never observe such a universe anyway. What I'm asking is, what type of universe that we could actually observe would have to exist that would make you think a god didn't exist?
You could of course say that it's impossible for life to exist without God, but then it pretty much makes any arguments about "orderliness" irrelevant. All the argument boils down to then is just saying, "intelligent life exists, therefore God exists." And that's it. Personally, I see no metaphysical reason why life couldn't exist in a godless universe.
"Chaos is a side effect but it doesn't encompass all of existence."
No, it doesn't. But it does mean the universe is not entirely ordered. And any hypothesis involving God must account for why we observe both order and disorder, and why we observe the levels that we do. Whereas we already have a perfectly viable explain on a godless hypothesis - that you can have chaos throughout the universe, that will occasionally throw up pockets of orderliness. For example, relevant to Dr. Rauser's video, consider how vast the universe is any how many planets there are. The vast majority of those planets lack life. But on a godless view, you should then expect life to be rare in the universe, just occasionally showing up in small pockets. Lo and behold, that's exactly what we observe with regard to Earth.
"And don't tell me you're gonna use the "Who created God?" fallacy because that's the worst argument against theism"
That isn't exactly the argument I would make. What I did say is that if you grant that God exists and that he himself is an orderly being (i.e. he's not pure chaos), and you accept his orderliness is a brute fact of his existence, then you could just as easily say the orderliness of the universe is a brute fact of its existence. And on that point, I think a godless universe scenario actually is the simpler explanation. Since on theism, you posit two orderly beings, God and the universe. Whereas on atheism, you simply have one orderly being, the universe.
Either God exists or we already observe such a universe. The question implies some yet broader frame of reference within which "God" can be swapped out for something else, but this is an obvious contradiction.
This is sort of like reverse flat Earth theory. Instead of saying the flat Earth is real, it's like they're saying the flat Earth isn't real, but if God exists we should expect it to be. Not a compelling argument to me, but I can see why it could be to some people given certain assumptions. Your analysis of it is pretty good.
Who's the old guy in the thumbnail?
Sorry, but the ring analogy falls right into the false equivalency fallacy.
It's also off by a couple dozen orders of magnitude. 1cm diameter ring is 10^-9 to the Earth. Earth is 10^-5 to the solar system (or at least the diameter of Pluto's orbit), which is 10^-22 to the Milky Way, which is 10^5 to the universe (at least, diameter, note the universe is 3D and not a relative plane (still feels low, but good enough for the point)). So, the Earth to the universe is 10^-32.
To a human, the ring is about 10^-2. The difference in the gap between us and the ring vs Earth and the universe is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. That's 30 zeroes and 10 commas.
Had another thought. A gram of gold has about 10^21 atoms. The gap between Earth and the universe is 1,000,000,000 bigger than the gap between a single gold atom and the ring.
So, a fairer comparison would be if his wife had a billion rings, and lost one atom of gold from them.
*edit: I think I got some units mixed up somewhere, but don't feel like checking. Either way, a closer comparison would be losing one atom of gold out of that gold ring.
@stormburn1 I'm starting to get a bit disappointed with Randall. He recently played the definitions when discussing faith and now this. I thought he was a higher calibre of apologist, but sadly not.
That's cute but the meme at the beginning clearly refers to the potentially infinite number of celestial bodies in the universe(s), not size.
Your wife told you that's her favorite ring, then she bought an infinite pile of rings including infinte similar if not identical rings, for seemingly no reason but to just leave around the house and in your yard and everywhere you look you just find new rings, would you still think that ring is special?
The size of the universe is never ending.
Le silence eternel de ces espaces infinis effrayait monsieur Pascal
Amen!!
it might be more expected tbh if God wants to leave behind some evidence for his existence. So many people look at the vast universe and say it must’ve been created.
Yeah, but that's just motivated reasoning imo. Like, why look at the 99.999999999999999% of the universe that lacks life and take the speck-of-a-speck-of-a-speck as the purpose? If we're going off intuition, why shouldn't be conclude the universe was created for not-life and life was just a byproduct, an imperfection or blemish?
Am I alone, as a Christian, in regretting that we tend to speculate about things infinitely above our pay-grade, and wind up sounding not only unconvincing but rather silly?
As an atheist, that's kind of how I view all theological talk (and cosmology stuff that reaches outside the universe excepting "fun sci-fi" and the actual math/science). If there's no empirics to back it up and we're just playing within the space outlined by empirics, it's fun, but not particularly profound or helpful.
It's actually very profound and helpful. Theology is like evolution in that those who dismiss it don't understand it. The materialist empericism is a narrow and naive way of viewing reality. There's clearly more out there
@@paradisecityX0 Can you point to anything theology actually allows us to do that wouldn't also apply to science fiction authors? I know the claim is that it adds understanding, but that "understanding" doesn't seem to add any utility. There's no predictive power to test it.
The size of the universe isn't a big issue; the issue is the fact that the bible gets everything wrong about it's claims concerning the universe.
The idea of Jesus being the "creator" of The Multiverse is totally absurd. WRONG.
10^82 atoms, 10^24 planets, and you call that big ? well, small self-replicated RNA created by random chance is with 10^-1018. I love mathematics.
"God is a mathematician of a very high order"
Theists just want to keep living on a small island of ignorance in the midst of dark seas of infinity.
@francescocarlini7613 Says one who thinks we're all insignificant specks of stardust in an uncaring universe filled with random tragedy
@paradisecityX0 Exactly. I am right and you are wrong. Simple as that.
@francescocarlini7613 Projection is not an argument, try again my nihilistic little friend
Jesus is not a cosmic deity. Chthulu is.
100 billion people aren't going to be raised at Christ's coming and then live a life of infinite time with infinite possibilities no one wants .You'll disappear in all that change.!
doesnt make any difference for me.
I just hope the ultimate truth of the universe is more grand, more beautiful and bigger than some middle eastern war god called Yahweh.
Yahweh is the Hebrew version of the one God, not a god. The early Israelites viewed Yahweh as the Great God of thunder and storm, depicted as the divine warrior. The cariacature you have in your mind is oversimplified. They obviously didn't have the bigger picture. The Greek Philosophers had a greater sense of what God is but still incomplete. God (whether you call It Yahweh, El Shaddai, Illah, Mulungu, the Brahman, Shangdi, Ahura Mazda, the Great Spirit, etc.) is the Prime Mover; the uncreated creator of all that is and source of all life -- the eternal force behind the laws of physics and probability. God, is the bigger, grander, more beautiful ultimate truth -- the one who brought about the vast cosmos full of beautiful galaxies & countless worlds, ignited the evolutionary process, created dinosaurs, etc.
@@paradisecityX0 ok ether way, i still hope the ultimate truth, whatever name you want to give it is more grander and beautiful than christianity
What could be more grander and beautiful than Christianity? That the almighty creator of the universe loves you and came to earth in human form (and probably other worlds in whatever other forms) to give you easy access to salvation -- and changed history more than any other historical figure in the most profound ways
Well, we at least know the answer is 42. Just don't know how to phrase the question yet.
@@paradisecityX0 Well i guess its a matter of perspective; as far as im concerned the hindu(better known as sanatana dharma in india) conception of reality is more grand and beautiful. You don't follow the eternal, nameless, formless creator of the universe, you worship the isrealite storm god yahweh and his son Jesus. Also, how are you supposed to know how probable it is that jesus incarnated on other planets when the bible doesn't have a single thing to say about other worlds, this is just pure christian fanfiction; indeed the bible makes it seem like humans are at the center of the universe. Like someone said elsewhere in the comments, Jesus couldn't even be bothered to show up in the americas or old austrailia, so why assume he went to other planets? lastly, for reasons i cannot fathom your god is extremely averse to the idea of post mortem reconciliation. Lol and you think thats a beautiful thing?
So Jesus got crucified an infinite number of times? Okay.
No
Not in the slightest. It's only a problem for those who thinl humanity is at the center of the universe. There are over 300 billion stars -- just in our galaxy. Around half of which are orbited by planets and on average, two of every star's planets are suitable for life. There's no question that the universe is home to a myriad of life forms. Even still, the heavens declare the glory of God
Joshua 10:13 "So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day."
How exactly does the sun stop in the middle of the sky if it's not implied the Earth is fixed and that the sun is circling it?
Isaiah 40:22 "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in."
The "almighty creator" of the universe chose some random corner of the universe to place his throne and not the center of the solar system, let alone the universe?
This habit of retroactively awkwardly fitting the bible to loosely match modern scientific discoveries is insanely insidious
Taking ANE imagery (used by the biblical writers mostly for poetic and polemical purposes) at face value is even more ridiculous. They weren't relaying modern scientific discoveries to begin with (science wasn't even a thing until several centuries ago). As a fundamentalist, you probably think that's what they were trying to do. Couldn't be further from the truth. The Book of Nature is that which is revealed from science (the slow revelation of God's blueprint).
@@paradisecityX0I'm not a fundamentalist, I'm not even christian, but the fact you can't even tell is hilarious.
It's all the literal word of god until it isn't, then it's hyperbole, allegory, written by man, divinely inspired, and every other excuse in the book if it sounds ridiculous, antiquated and antithetical to an omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent god.
You're a fundie-atheist. You carry fundamentalist understanding of the texts and behavior as a non believer. The fact you don't even know that, or the difference between God and a god is even more hilarious. If Yeshua bar Miryam was who he said he was, he's the Word of God -- the Logos. Ridiculous non-sequitur on your part -- the Bible is a compilation of different texts of various genres by different people of various cultural backgrounds. Inspired but not dictated by God (gods are not omniscient or omnibenevolent) -- you gonna let those assumptions go if you wanna catch up. Biblical scholarship and hermeneutics should help you a great deal
_"There's no question that the universe is home to a myriad of life forms."_
so where is everybody?
Rauser wrote a book on Heaven? That’s the kind of travel journal I could get behind :)
Multiple incarnations= Jesus-Krishna syncretism, therefore polytheism
Hinduism makes so much more sense