If intelligent life was discovered on another planet, what implications would that have for your faith?

[Lochias]

Because one explanation is perfectly naturalistic, possible, and completely within the bounds of what’s plausible and reasonable, while the other claim requires an omnipotent being who is not known to even exist.

Look at it like this: let’s say that the socks in your sock drawer keep going missing. You do an investigation into this phenomenon, and narrow it down to two possibilities. Either the missing socks are caused by you losing them - dropping them behind the washing machine, tangled with other clothes, etc, or they are being stolen by leprechauns. Obviously one of these explanations is far more likely to be the correct one, because it is 100% within the bounds of reality and what’s known to be true. The other requires us to conjure up a race of sentient, magical, sock-stealing creatures who no one has ever seen before, let alone proven.

But that example is useless, because there’s no logical, philosophical, spiritual or physical reasons to believe that leprechauns exist. As much as you might like to, you can’t lump God in with make-believe fairy-tale creatures because of the preponderance of evidence for God’s existence, direct and indirect.

And…finding another race of beings who were on a completely different planet, different culture, different biological make-up, but still believed in a religion eerily like Catholicism…and you’re still willing to go with the astronomically tiny odds that say that two different cultures of people just happened to make up the same religion at the same time?

Sorry, friend…that’s more blind faith than any religious person will ever, ever have. That’s religion without logic, right there, and it reveals a bit about just how much you DO want something to believe in that’s bigger and more mysterious than you.

 

[Poseidon]

But that example is useless, because there’s no logical, philosophical, spiritual or physical reasons to believe that leprechauns exist. As much as you might like to, you can’t lump God in with make-believe fairy-tale creatures because of the preponderance of evidence for God’s existence, direct and indirect.

And…finding another race of beings who were on a completely different planet, different culture, different biological make-up, but still believed in a religion eerily like Catholicism…and you’re still willing to go with the astronomically tiny odds that say that two different cultures of people just happened to make up the same religion at the same time?

Sorry, friend…that’s more blind faith than any religious person will ever, ever have. That’s religion without logic, right there, and it reveals a bit about just how much you DO want something to believe in that’s bigger and more mysterious than you.

No, I think you misunderstand me. I did not say that I would never believe that it’s possible that Catholicism independently arose on to different planets. I simply said that I would try to exhaust every logical explanation I could think of before I accepted the (seemingly) illogical explanation that Catholicism is true. If it really could be proved without a doubt that that was the explanation then I would have to seriously reconsider Catholicism (I would not immediately accept it, because I have objections to it that I would still have even if it were proven true - my questions would remain unanswered).

And I’m confused about your last statement. What do you mean that it “reveals a bit about just how much you DO want something to believe in that’s bigger and more mysterious than you.” ?

 

[Lochias]

No, I think you misunderstand me. I did not say that I would never believe that it’s possible that Catholicism independently arose on to different planets. I simply said that I would try to exhaust every logical explanation I could think of before I accepted the (seemingly) illogical explanation that Catholicism is true. If it really could be proved without a doubt that that was the explanation then I would have to seriously reconsider Catholicism (I would not immediately accept it, because I have objections to it that I would still have even if it were proven true - my questions would remain unanswered).

No, I think I got that, though maybe I didn’t make my response clear enough. I guess my point is, I find it highly illogical that, in the face of a literally alien culture having the same overall religion as Catholics do, that you’d still find it seemingly illogical at all. I think Occam’s Razor would state that assuming that there is a God would, in fact, be the simplest solution in this instance.

And I’m confused about your last statement. What do you mean that it “reveals a bit about just how much you DO want something to believe in that’s bigger and more mysterious than you.” ?

The fact that the vast logical and mathematical unlikelihood of finding out that Catholicism came into being on two different planets and still being fake requires a faith larger than just about anyone’s I’ve ever known…it seems like you’re casting around for hard-to-prove statements (in this context, at least) just as much as any religious person I know.

 

[Poseidon]

The fact that the vast logical and mathematical unlikelihood of finding out that Catholicism came into being on two different planets and still being fake requires a faith larger than just about anyone’s I’ve ever known…it seems like you’re casting around for hard-to-prove statements (in this context, at least) just as much as any religious person I know.

Okay, I see your point. However, when looking at improbabilities, you must understand that to me the truth of Catholicism (or Christianity in general) seems like one of the most improbable things imaginable. So pretty much any naturalistic explanation seems more likely to me, even if it is highly improbably in and of itself.

 

[Lochias]

Okay, I see your point. However, when looking at improbabilities, you must understand that to me the truth of Catholicism (or Christianity in general) seems like one of the most improbable things imaginable. So pretty much any naturalistic explanation seems more likely to me, even if it is highly improbably in and of itself.

Ok, noted.

What makes you see Catholicism as improbable? Is there a main point you could start from, if you feel like discussing it?

 

[Poseidon]

Ok, noted.

What makes you see Catholicism as improbable? Is there a main point you could start from, if you feel like discussing it?

Well that’s a subject for an entirely new thread! Or I suppose you could PM me and I’d be happy to discuss it.

 

[Lochias]

Well that’s a subject for an entirely new thread! Or I suppose you could PM me and I’d be happy to discuss it.

Oh, I think I’d prefer a new thread, at least in terms of this discussion…I’m still relatively new to explaining the RCC, and I’d like others to be able to weigh in with opinions more experienced than mine.

If it’s a topic you’d like to open, start ze thread, and I’ll weigh in on it there, eh? In the meantime, you’re always welcome to PM me, too…if I don’t know the answers, I’ll find 'em out for you as best I can.