Can you assume that intelligent life in other planets would create a similar belief in what humans call religion?
yes, I can assume that...
evidence from this world would seem to support that, there are hundreds of religions, each from different areas of the earth, when an intelligent being cannot explain something it seems, human nature at least to come up with a best fit theory.
Religious stories (at the time they were created) were the best fit theories.
it is reasonable to assume that a part of intelligence is inquisitiveness and imagination.
and a key part of religion is inquisitiveness imagination and a lot of unexplained things.
If science can be used to back religion why can't science be used to "disprove" it?
Science CAN be used to back religion, science CAN be used to disprove it.
just like how science has proved the Turin shroud to be a fake
just how science proves time and time again that buried wood found in Turkey is not the arc.
You failed exactly where I said you'd fail, because you have a scientific mind, not a religious one.
Science deals in facts and theories, (provable or evidence backed theories).
when a religious person says that God created the universe that's a believe system. but it does not ignore other possibilities.
when a scientist says that the universe was created by a big bang, they say that the other theory is wrong.
and that's the problem, nowhere in the bible does it say that the universe was not created in a big bang, nor does it deny that a massive explosion might have been the way in which a God (any God) would go about creating life.
This is assuming they make no reference to other forms of life, correct?
it was in direct response to finding life on other planets, reference to life is inferred.
Science paper a says it's impossible for life to exist outside earth
science paper b says, of course there is life outside earth (think of the mathematical probability that we are the only form of life in the universe).
bible, says nothing...
The point is, if we prove A, b is wrong, prove B then A is wrong. the only one that can remain the same and unchanged is the bible.
because it says nothing. or whatever it does say is so vague that it's open to a million interpretations.
The big bang is one of the theories. Stephen Hawking just wrote a new book where spontaneous creation of universes is completely backed by physics. Considering I haven't read it, I can't say whether I believe he is correct or not, nor do I have the stature to do so.
All I'll say is this, the bing bang theory has been disproved.
the physics does not support an explosion like we know now.
so then they figured out a theory about the first expansion, (I think it's called expansion theory). which was sort of tagged onto the big bang theory, that accounts for the at first slow rate of explosion in the big bang,
then that didn't work, so a few more things were tagged in.
Stephen Hawking's new book essentially disproves the existence of a good. Again, haven't read, can't confirm.
no, it doesn't
it makes mathematical calculations that show how the universe was created.
it does not say anything about the existence of God.
because there is no way to actually disprove a god.
you can tell me that the universe was created by a super concentration of energy all massed into one place.
a priest can say OK, well God put that energy there.
if you don't understand that then you're really missing the point...
nowhere in the bible does it say that go created a field then he put a little hedge row around it, then an old oak tree in the middle, didn't like the original colour so changed it to green, dug a tiny hole and popped a field mouse into it, it just says, god pretty much created everything.
The order that things were created roughly agrees with science...
I can't tell you that, nor can anyone else.
just the same as a scientist can't tell you what created the energy or the circumstances to cause the big bang.
What if all these scientific speculations came before any religious texts. Would your stance still be the same?
you don't understand, based with no better idea, religion WAS the scientific explanation.
Since you felt free to state your opinions, I'll say one thing regarding my opinions. What factual evidence is there to prove religion, something that is utterly ambiguous, compared to science? How can you take a religious text and say that it is better than science when both are human made?
I never said better, nor more accurate. I think my words were fantastically woolley. there isn't a hard and fast fact in the bible. which is why it stand for so long unchanged, there's not a lot that could be changed.
Like I said.
if you say the big bang created the universe, all a religious person need do is tell you that's the way that God creates universes...
kind of like when you make a cake, you don't build it crumb by crumb adding in each little bubble of air and spraying in moisture, you throw all the ingredients together and lob it in the oven.
