First Contact: A Different Order Of Reality

[IWantGod]

When people think of First Contact they think of meeting aliens that are not very much different from ourselves. But there is also the possibility of making First Contact with a different order of reality with a different order of intelligence.

Lets assume that Aquinas succeeded in proving the existence of an intelligent uncaused cause.

From a philosophical perspective what is the likely hood that this being would or already has communicated with us.

Can you think of any good reason to think that we have had First Contact

 

[michaelhager]

Nope… But I can’t think of any good reason why we have not.
It could go either way but both have very interesting theological implications.

God created the heavens and the Earth. We believe that our God created EVERYTHING. That means all of the observable and observable, infinite universe.

How do we know that in all of that, he created us alone on this tiny planet?
How do we know that he didn’t create life on another planet as well?
If he did, would Christ have to die again and again on any other planet?
Or, if He did, how do we know that perhaps the first parents on another planet never disobeyed God and live there still in His presence in their own Eden?

It can turn into mind boggling speculation. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of something we cannot observe, so we tend to speculate. But let us further speculate that we eventually observe the assistance of intelligent life other than us. Many will proclaim that s proof that religion has been wrong all along, but that in itself does not affect our faith. If God Created EVERYTHING, then why not others as well?

We will probably never know for sure in this life.

Keep the faith!
God Bless!

 

[tafan2]

Well, if we take Aquinas’s proof of God’s existence as an assumption, His characteristics of His simplicity, infinity, omniprescense, unity, etc follows rather logically. So a good reason to thing He has communicated with us is His Goodness. He created us and He wants us to be with Him and to know Him.
I consider it very likely that He would have wanted to communicate with us. And his Revelation is also consistent and reasonable, which is further evidence that is the case.

 

[IWantGod]

So a good reason to thing He has communicated with us is His Goodness. He created us and He wants us to be with Him and to know Him.

I was thinking along the same lines. In creating us he is communicating his goodness, as much as he is sharing his reality with us. And in giving us an intellect that has the capacity to know, it seems reasonable to think that it is because he want’s to communicate with us.

I think Jesus Christ is first contact.

 

[tafan2]

Certainly Jesus is not the first contact. Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden. God communicated directly with Noah, Abraham, Moses and many others.

 

[IWantGod]

Certainly Jesus is not the first contact. Adam and Eve walked with God in the Garden. God communicated directly with Noah, Abraham, Moses and many others.

We have no objective records that suggests the existence of Adam and Eve and their experience. I take that on faith alone.

But we do seem to have objective records of Jesus Christ which suggest that he actually existed. Third party references to his existence (i’m no expert, i just trust the majority rulings of historians). Also we have a historical dynamic at play between Judaism and the emergence of Christianity. And it will be my argument that Christianity should not exist if what is documented in the new testament never happened. On the back of that i will argue that this is the most likely point of first contact.

By first contact i mean God revealed himself to many people, not just an individual.

 

[Brian_K]

I think of First Contact as consciousness itself. I was designed and created by something wholly Other (God, of course) and I know this because I don’t recall designing myself. The fact that we are aware that we “are” (“Let there be light”) is the Contact because we have to mentally step outside of ourselves to observe ourselves.

This feels like it makes sense but I’m not sure if it does rationally.

 

[tafan2]

God’s revelation in the old testament was certainly to many people, the people of Israel.

 

[IWantGod]

God’s revelation in the old testament was certainly to many people, the people of Israel.

Fair enough. Lets just say, out of the many times that God has revealed himself, Jesus was the first contact event that could be critically reasoned about without faith. Meaning those who do not have direct knowledge of the events in question can analyse the evidence and the likelihood of it being true after the event.

 

[tafan2]

Again, I disagree. The Jewish people, first of all, had a really good understanding of God, being the creator of all things, being one. Furthermore, they had a pretty good understanding of man. If one says that we can analyze the events of Jesus’s lifetime and determine it is true without faith, I see no reason why one cannot say the same thing about the God of the old testament. Take the story of the Exodus. If one would have been alive at the time, and had witnessed the events and what Moses did, one could have said it was true. There is nothing more astounding in the story of the Exodus than in the resurrection.

 

[IWantGod]

If one would have been alive at the time, and had witnessed the events and what Moses did, one could have said it was true.

But we wasn’t there. So either we accept those stories as true events in history by faith alone, or we look for objective reasons to think it really happened.

Jesus is by far the best reason to think that the religion of Israel wasn’t just another religion. Do you deny that?

 

[tafan2]

But if you are arguing that we can believe the Gospel as true events based on history (without faith), that is not because of “God’s first contact”, but simply because we happen to have better historical records to analyze.
The discussion is “God’s first contact”, which is admittedly your term, so I will allow you to define it. But your definition has been moving on this thread. My understanding is the latest is that we can look at what happened and analyze the events as true or false without faith. So the only way that can happen for the Gospel stories is due to a better historical record. But can you now define the First Contact solely based on the history we have available today?

 

[IWantGod]

But if you are arguing that we can believe the Gospel as true events based on history (without faith), that is not because of “God’s first contact”, but simply because we happen to have better historical records to analyze.

I don’t think it’s just that, i think it’s because he was with us in a way he wasn’t before. God walked among us in the form of Jesus Christ and it wasn’t just Jewish people who where witnesses to it. The only other possible time this has taken place before is in the garden of Eden.

For us, as Christians, we know by faith that the uncaused-cause has communicated with us more than once in human history. But for an outsider, looking at it objectively, Jesus Christ is the most credible possibility of first contact. But then again, if you accept that then it must follow true that God has contacted humans before, thus begins the journey of discovery for the outsider.

 

[tafan2]

Ok, if the criteria is that first contact is now what is most credible for a person outside the faith. But those folks would likely tell you its not credible.

I think you should go back to the definition implied by the original post. First Contact is simply when He first communicated with us. Obviously that would be Adam and Eve. Anything else becomes way to subjective. Nevertheless, have a good day, God bless.

 

[IWantGod]

Ok, if the criteria is that first contact is now what is most credible for a person outside the faith. But those folks would likely tell you its not credible.

Well all you are saying here is that outside of the faith people won’t find the evidence credible. But i don’t know that to be true, and hence the existence of this thread. I’m sure there are people who would say that it’s not credible but one can still ask the question of whether or not they should find the evidence credible.

I think you should go back to the definition implied by the original post.

But that would be a straw-man of my original intentions.

 

[tafan2]

But that would be a straw-man of my original intentions.

What were your original intentions?

 

[IWantGod]

What were your original intentions?

From a philosophical perspective what is the likely hood that this being would or already has communicated with us.

Looking at it objectively, to me, it would seem that Jesus is the most likely true contact with the uncause-cause. Through the eyes of my faith i know differently, that God has contacted humans on several occasions, or at least more than once. But i am approaching this through reason, through an objective process.

Anything about this you find particularly unwarranted?

 

[tafan2]

I fail to see how someone can accept as fact the claim of Jesus being God’s son without accepting that some level of divine revelation of the Old Testament is also true. The Gospel story would make zero sense.

I also fail to see how we can/should argue for the faith, through reason while denying what we know to be true, ie trying to convince someone that the first divine revelation was the incarnation.

Your whole line if reasoning is flawed.

 

[IWantGod]

I fail to see how someone can accept as fact the claim of Jesus being God’s son without accepting that some level of divine revelation of the Old Testament is also true. The Gospel story would make zero sense.

Well, in enquiring about Jesus, you would necessarily end up learning about history, you would learn about Judaism, but you wouldn’t simply assume that anything Judaism taught was true. You would look for any objective reason to think it was true, like Jesus Christ. But what makes Jesus seem likely to be an encounter with God is the emergence of Christianity out of Judaism and conflicting opinions about the nature of Jesus.

The claim is that Jesus was the messiah. The son of God. This is in direct contradiction to what the people of Judaism expected from a messiah. Whoever it is they thought a true messiah was, Jesus was not it. So why does Christianity exist?

 

[IWantGod]

Your whole line if reasoning is flawed.

I am approaching this objectively. If you refuse to see any possibility of knowing other than through the lens of what you already believe to be true and refuse to approach it objectively then you are basically saying that it is impossible for an outsider to judge the information objectively and arrive at the belief that Jesus is Christ without first believing in Judaism.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true.

I think for some reason you are feeling compelled to imagine fault where none exists. But i can’t imagine why?

I will admit however that when approaching the claim the Jesus is God, you will obviously become aware that there is a history of contact between God and Israel, so it would not strictly be first Contact, but this thread was meant to be a bit of fun philosophy. I wasn’t actually trying to make a truth claim about Christianity when i said Jesus is first contact. Just saying in case that’s what it is that’s concerning you.