Novel argument about God's existence

Debate Room
1

Hi guys.

One of the things that I have repeated over and over in this forum is that theists always seem to be repeating the same arguments (in one form or another) in support of God’s existence.

We hear the Kalam cosmological argument, the argument from incredulity, Pascal’s Wager, the argument from personal experience, the Big Bang means that the Universe came from nothing, and so forth.

You guys have also heard me complain that we never get to hear any novel arguments, or anything that’s different.

Well . . . I came across an interesting claim about God’s existence and the afterlife that’s different from the usual bullshit that our run-of-the-mill apologists try to sell us, and I thought you guys might be interested.

Clifford Stone was a non-comissioned officer in the military, and he claims to have participated in retrieving alien technology and extraterrestrial bodies from wrecked UFOs.

He claims that living aliens have communicated with him, and that their technology is so advanced that they empirically proved God’s existence (although the God that they describe is quite different from what we think of when we discuss God), and that they can communicate with the dead.

Please see below:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.goodreads.com/author/list/1373316.Clifford_Stone&ved=2ahUKEwi7rsawlqKTAxV_p7AFHaNTEgw4ChAWegQIPhAB&usg=AOvVaw3bGI4LatJpkD7FX9syu7ab

Supposedly, there are rigid constraints on what one is allowed and/or not allowed to discuss with the dead, because many societies have destroyed themselves with this technology.

I haven’t read the details, but I suppose that if there was objective confirmation that Paradise awaits us when we die, then mass suicide might cause a civilization to die out . . . or, perhaps, that there wouldn’t be any incentive to find cures for disease or starvation.

Life would become simply a waiting room, and I imagine that a civilization with this mindset would die out from simple apathy, so maybe this technology provides a solution for Fermi’s Paradox?

None of my points mean that I believe in any of this, but I thought the novelty of the argument that “aliens confirm God’s existence through advanced technology” might be interesting to everyone.

Also, I do actually believe that advanced extra-terrestrial life exists in the Cosmos, but I never entertained the idea that technology could become so advanced that we could communcate with the dead . . . although I was reminded of an excellent science fiction novel called Traitor to the Living by Phillip José Farmer (which was published in 1973).

Is this an argument from authority fallacy, or something more unique?

What are your thoughts?

2

I see no substantial difference between this argument and the argument through miracles and magic, i.e. that some random person have “personally experienced” miracles or other sort of magic, therefore god.

1 Like
3

I agree, 20 characters.

4

It’s “god talks to me” once removed… or by proxy.

It’s hearsay, so to speak, so inadmissible :wink:

1 Like
5

Ok, I agree. I just thought it was interesting because I haven’t seen this specific argument on this forum before.

Maybe I should have started this thread in Random fun?

1 Like
6

I’d never heard the argument that advanced aliens were able to detect god, though the concept of God just being a technologically advanced alien seems pretty common. It’s an interesting twist. It all seems vaguely familiar with the parts about it being dangerous to have real contact with god since we are apparently too fragile, stupid and/or unworthy. I believe some early Christians did commit suicide to skip the pain and suffering of this world and jump straight to paradise, so that’s not new either.

1 Like
7

It seems this believer has learned not to make testable (laughable) claims about proving God is real (or submitting ridiculous formal proofs and getting laughed at), and switched to a story that discusses a proof that no one can read/check (making it immune to criticism).

1 Like
8

Yes, to keep early Christianity from devolving into a suicide cult, the notion that suicide is a sin (special case of the sin of murder) was tossed in.

I don’t think it’d be as much of a practical problem today because this was IIRC more of an issue in the first couple of centuries when it was still popular to think that Jesus was going to return super-imminently – particularly within the lifetime of any still-living alleged witnesses to his earthly ministry. But after 2,000 years, that notion doesn’t get much traction anymore. Now, “no man knows the day or the hour”.

1 Like
9

That phrase could just as well describe a testimony of personal experience of god, but the sleight-of-hand is making it about aliens (which might possibly exist) and claiming aliens have “proven” god when we could not, and have some practical application of that proof.

It’s almost as if these folks lay awake nights thinking of ways their beliefs could be validated. And if they have to hope for space aliens to do it for them, that says something about how unlikely their beliefs are.

2 Likes
10

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Does the book qualify as such?

:red_question_mark:

1 Like
11

No, it most patently does not.

Please don’t think that I believe this shit . . . I posted this as an intellectual curiosity.

I do think it says more about apologetics (in general) that they are resorting to aliens to get asses parked on pews so that churches can make more money.

12

Not a problem, Kevin.

I didn’t think you believed it any more than my question was aimed specifically at you.

Both of us were simply putting something out there, without anyone particularly in mind.

Oh and btw, I DO agree with your final comment.

Anything that keeps the gravy train rolling is more than acceptable!

Cheers,

Walter.

1 Like
13

So essentially, “I have an imaginary friend the talks to me, but you can’t hear that and you can’t talk to them either… trust me!”

Smells like utter bollocks to me…

2 Likes
14

Unfalsifiable bollocks at that…like claiming to have an invisible pet mermaid, that can’t be detected in any material or empirical or any objectively verifiable way, you just “know” it is real.

Even religious apologists, wouldn’t lend credence to such claims in any other context than religious apologetics, and then…only to the one version of the one deity they imagine to be real…

2 Likes
15

Doesn’t sound like it tbh, it just sounds like unevidenced rhetoric.

1 Like
16

Interesting idea, but to me it still ends up falling into the argument from authority category. The claim basically boils down to “advanced aliens proved God exists,” but since we don’t have any verifiable evidence of those aliens, their technology, or the experiments they supposedly ran, we’re still relying entirely on the testimony of one person—Clifford Stone.

Even if we assume extraterrestrial civilizations exist somewhere in the universe (which is very plausible), that doesn’t automatically make their conclusions about metaphysics correct. A technologically advanced species could still be wrong about philosophical questions like the existence of God or an afterlife.

It’s definitely a more creative angle than the usual arguments like the Kalam Cosmological Argument or Pascal’s Wager, but without independent evidence it’s basically a sci-fi hypothesis rather than a logical argument.

That said, your point about it relating to the Fermi Paradox is interesting—if a civilization actually proved an afterlife existed, it really might change their behavior in unpredictable ways.

6 Likes
17

Welcome Alice. Enjoy yourself here.

1 Like
18

I don’t buy that argument.

1 Like
19

I agree, and I think the word testimony flatters the claims as well.

The problem here is that the main Abrahamic religions centre around humans being the entire reason for their creation myths, apologists often using arguments that are based on life emerging being implausible without magic and a deity, so intelligent or conscious life elsewhere in universe would be at odds with the core idea of those creation myths.

I absolutely agree, what’s the point of methods (like science) producing advanced technologies that work, and then basing beliefs on subjective religious claims. Lets not forget many religions and religious people deny scientific facts in favour of unevidenced archaic superstitions.

Again I agree, though an afterlife would not in and of itself of course represent objective evidence a deity exists, something many religious apologists seem unable to grasp.

Welcome to AR.

1 Like
20

Hello there alicesphere. :smiley:

It sounds like you are well versed in the various arguments used by Christian apologists.

Good to have you aboard.

:+1:

Walter.

1 Like