You see Rodolfo, this is basically the same logic you're using? My point is that there probably is life somewhere out there, and i doubt we'll find god on venus or in alpha centari. But until evidence is found to support, the burden is on those making the claim to bring proof. That's just how logic works.
And when we find some kind of life-form outside of our planet (or solar system), the first thing we'll hear religious people say is that it's proof god exists, because he "put it there for us to find".
No. More along the lines of the world (universe) is Man's domain to rule over. I consider myself an Objectivist. If I can see it and experience it for myself, I can believe it. What I see is a lot of religious people who see certain things as evidence (of a scientific kind, actually) of the work of god. I see a lot of scientists who see certain things as evidence to support their world view. I don't know if the two are incompatible or not. Just as with a microbe not of this world being good enough to make me believe, some tangible act of god would make me believe, too. I wouldn't consider that if we found life it were a sign god exists. It would have to be him appearing in a burning bush in front of me, or that sort of thing.
I believe it would be illegitimate, because it comes off as someone who is unwilling to allow anything that proves them wrong as anything more than something that they can change into being proven they are right. I'm not saying that life outside off of this planet (or out of our solar system) would disprove god, but it's difficult to take someone serious when they constantly re-arrange the parameters of the argument. Anytime you just go "see? that proves god's existence" as your answer, it's stupid. Because it's much easier to say it doesn't prove GE (shortened for ease of typing..yes, I realize this sentence explaining the abbreviation is actually longer to type out), because you actually have proof of life outside of our planet. There is no mention of G providing life outside of here. Sure, G made the "Heavens and the Earth", but there's nothing said about 8.8 light years away from here, that G made a mistake and only made microbes on a comet heading our way in 80K years. Think of the reverse. It would be like if science changed the test it used to validate (or invalidate) a hypothesis, or changed the rules of what is considered a passing test. It invalidates the scientific argument. I'm certain that someone else could've worded this a lot clearer.
Well science is based on changing what they think is true, but yeah science doesn't have a "holy book that is infallible"
they add the color, like they used to do with movies back in the day. The color in those is supposed to be based on chemical composition or something. There's also no Santa
You do know that people who believe in God seem to believe that God can do ANYTHING he wants. Nothing is impossible as they say. It has nothing to do with science, science isn't supposed to be all knowing and all powerful. It isn't the same thing at all. So, nothing that a religious person truly believes can be illegitimate. It seems unfair that they can change their argument based on anything they see fit but them's the breaks.
