Hypothetical Question for Christians (involving aliens)

[Angrboda]

It would seem in that case that you have an example of the Liar's Paradox, and neither conclusion would be safe.

that's not how a liars paradox works.
Liar paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox#p-search]
In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar's paradox is the statement of a liar who states that he or she is lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying" or "everything I say is false". If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar is lying. In "this sentence is a lie" the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. It is still generally called the "liar paradox" although abstraction is made precisely from the liar himself. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.
If "this sentence is false" is true, then the sentence is false, but if the sentence states that it is false, and it is false, then it must be true, and so on.

What the bible shows is the nature of the Anti Christ in that He will lie cheat and whatever it takes to win favor and discredit the processess of salvation. to invalidate it to break the will of the people to seek salvation so no more get saved. A liar's paradox make the statement that everything I say is a lie. if that were the truth then you would have a liar's paradox.

Neither party neither situation is offering a lie. The original OP's situation Tib's aliens never heard of Jesus, which again is what I believe our jobs would be after we spend 1000 years with God learning. kinda of a go out into all of the universe and seek and save the lost.

Situation 2 my was an example of how the anti christ could slip under our radar simply because we over compartmentalize by placing religion with mysticism  by identifying god ONLY in the land of magic rather than in the known/knowable universe. a simple label could keep all of you terrible smart people from see the events of revelation unfold as described. just because when you hear the word antichrist you think of a devil, or some other mystical being, rather than an ill intentioned alien or just an oblivious one.

Again lying is not the key to the alien's message here. it is your inability to identify and categorize God correctly is the issue.

Your complaint would be arguably correct if I had indeed referred to the classical liar's paradox, however I did not do so, and so your rebuttal is simply an example of you choosing to take one interpretation of my meaning over possible others. As a matter of record, the label and the idea of the liar's paradox has been used to refer to everything from the original statement of the liar's paradox in ancient Greece to any statement or set of statements that is self-referential in such a way that two equally valid interpretations can lead to opposite conclusions about the statement or statements' truth content. This can be seen from the variety of its representation in the philosophical literature ranging in discussions from the classical paradox which you cite to discussions of such things as the the strengthened liar's paradox, the deflationary theory of truth, and particular examples such as the discussion of it in Graham Priest's work on dialetheism. In a sense, your choosing to focus on a very literal interpretation having basis in the original liar's paradox to the exclusion of broader meanings such as exist in the literature is an example of the genetic fallacy. Moreover since I was attempting to draw attention to an ambiguity in the interpretation of the truth content of the alien's culture and beliefs posed by your statement, a literal correspondence to the classical liar's paradox isn't essential anyway, as that was not my point, and your choosing to interpret it that way was just an error on your part. Broadly speaking, I was noting that, if one phrased your comment as something along the lines of, "My beliefs are true because their beliefs are false if my beliefs are true," then one encounters an ambiguity or paradox in the evaluation of the combined truth content that seems asserted by the conflict between your culture and theirs. So, no, I don't think I necessarily erred in my remark, and even if I did, your hyper-literal focus on the nature of the classical liar's paradox does not in any way demonstrate that I did.

I don't know if there's such a thing as a perfect idiot, but if there is, you're certainly in the running.

idk did you see the last post I answered about a liar's paradox? that person was a little too eager to use a term with the word liar in it or she/it was not able to grasp it's full meaning.. I'd ay so long as that person draws breath I think I'm fairly safe from be a 'perfect' idiot..

If one is going to criticize another based upon a belief that one is ultimately more correct than they are, one had best be certain that one is indeed correct, lest they in hindsight appear to have been merely foolish and egotistical. I think someone here may have been a little too eager to use a term they didn't understand and in hindsight appears to have been an idiot, the outstanding question is just who that person was.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Glob..

One of these days you'll need to explain what that word means and why you start out by saying it.

Language after all works because both the speaker and recipient understand the meaning of the words being used,.

Arthur C Clarke was a brilliant futurist and writer, but he is probably most widely known for the third of his famous three laws, " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable

Would an alien who could change the whether, speak through a brning bush cause the plagues seeming hold the sun in place be seen as God 2000 or better yet 6000 years ago? do you think they knew to look for magic or technology? or as Mr.Clark says the two become one in the same?

(Seriously have you not seen thor, star trek or stargate yet?) What about prometheus? the idea there is "god" or "engineers for you science types" What if the universe was created through means we can understand/technology rather than through our ancestors ascribed to ? Does that make the  of a creator any more plausible?

God or engineer= Alien as He is not from here, the bible tells us that. which makes him literally an alien. to which I ask why is tib's alien in the OP plausible and calls for NO scrutiny from you and God despite a realistic look through scientific classification as a alien is summarily dismissed?

Actually I have long argued that a god cannot exist because if you managed to define what a god is then you'd have something else ... such as an alien.

This is why I find it amusing that you are so willing to call your god an alien.

[Succubus]

That you are using concepts created by science fiction writers as evidence for god tells me you have, or are about to, lose the plot completely.

As I see it the fact that the film Prometheus was even made is proof that an all wise god does not exist.

[Drich]

Glob..

One of these days you'll need to explain what that word means and why you start out by saying it.

Language after all works because both the speaker and recipient understand the meaning of the words being used,.

Arthur C Clarke was a brilliant futurist and writer, but he is probably most widely known for the third of his famous three laws, " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable

Would an alien who could change the whether, speak through a brning bush cause the plagues seeming hold the sun in place be seen as God 2000 or better yet 6000 years ago? do you think they knew to look for magic or technology? or as Mr.Clark says the two become one in the same?

(Seriously have you not seen thor, star trek or stargate yet?) What about prometheus? the idea there is "god" or "engineers for you science types" What if the universe was created through means we can understand/technology rather than through our ancestors ascribed to ? Does that make the  of a creator any more plausible?

God or engineer= Alien as He is not from here, the bible tells us that. which makes him literally an alien. to which I ask why is tib's alien in the OP plausible and calls for NO scrutiny from you and God despite a realistic look through scientific classification as a alien is summarily dismissed?

Actually I have long argued that a god cannot exist because if you managed to define what a god is then you'd have something else ... such as an alien.

Glob explained:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K29aT6WTDNM

i used the word glob as it is used in the show.. as an expression when another character has done something wrong or made a big mess of themselves or a situation. It's kind like asking for God to help you work through a mess.

This is why I find it amusing that you are so willing to call your god an alien.

The reason it is amusing is because you limit God to a very narrow cartoonish view of that word. 
In truth what i am saying is God fits the definition of the word. as such it puts Gd back in the realm of reality. it makes the thing God has done plausible in the minds of people who can fathom a technical way for God to do what He has done.

---

That you are using concepts created by science fiction writers as evidence for god tells me you have, or are about to, lose the plot completely.

As I see it the fact that the film Prometheus was even made is proof that an all wise god does not exist.

Ah, no.. 

Prometheus was a film meant to crush both sides of the argument. The faith side and the evolutionary side. however the faith side takes a far less of a hit when you take into consideration when you get a full script.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ONSFeRy9iQ

The engineers seem to be angels and they worship God or a God.. Don't confuse this for any form of Christianity. All I am saying is that faith/God plays a bigger role in the original script. It was too religious for FOx and that is why there were so many rewrites. in the original draft God Jesus all play a huge role, down to the reason why the alien ship was going to earth 2000 years ago with the load of black goo set to wipe out all life.

Again Im not saying God is restrained by the box or definition of the word Alien. I am saying A big part of His persona fit this definition, which in turn makes just about everything attributed to God possible if we can imagine a race with a technology greater than ours or a race/being who is able through whatever means manipulate time space/matter.

[Angrboda]

...As a matter of record, the label and the idea of the liar's paradox has been used to refer to everything from the original statement of the liar's paradox in ancient Greece to any statement or set of statements that is self-referential in such a way that two equally valid interpretations can lead to opposite conclusions about the statement or statements' truth content.  This can be seen from the variety of its representation in the philosophical literature ranging in discussions from the classical paradox which you cite to discussions of such things as the the strengthened liar's paradox, the deflationary theory of truth, and particular examples such as the discussion of it in Graham Priest's work on dialetheism....

An example from the literature:

Ever since Pilate asked, "What is truth?" (John XVIII, 38), the subsequent search for a correct answer has been inhibited by another problem, which, as is well known, also arises in a New Testament context. If, as the author of the Epistle to Titus supposes (TitusI, 12), a Cretan prophet, "even a prophet of their own," asserted that "the Cretans are always liars," and if "this testimony is true" of all other Cretan utterances, then it seems that the Cretan prophet's words are true if and only if they are false. And any treatment of the concept of truth must somehow circumvent this paradox.

The Cretan example illustrates one way of achieving self-reference. Let P(x) and Q(x) be predicates of sentences. Then in some cases empirical evidence establishes that the sentence '( x ) (P(x) => Q(x))' [or '(3.) (P(x) ˄ Q(x))', or the like] itself satisfies the predicate P(x) ; sometimes the empirical evidence shows that it is the only object satisfying P(x). In this latter case, the sentence in question "says of itself" that it satisfies Q(x). If Q(x) is the predicate 'is false', the
Liar paradox results. As an example, let P(x) abbreviate the predicate 'has tokens printed in copies of the Journal of Philosophy, November 6, 1975, p. 691, line 5'. Then the sentence:
    ( x ) (P(x) => Q(x))
leads to paradox if Q(x) is interpreted as falsehood.

Outline of a Theory of Truth, Saul Kripke

I guess Drich knows better than one of the most important philosophers of the past 200 years.

[Huggy Bear]

Just wondering how our resident Christians would respond.

The hypothetical is: Peaceful aliens (i.e. intelligent non-humans from another planet, let's say outside of our solar system) make first contact. After getting to know them, the subject of religion comes up. They have a concept of religion, but none of their religions are compatible with Christianity. On top of this, their species made all the advancements that humans did (e.g. invention of writing, the wheel, agriculture, etc.) millennia before we did.

My question is, how would you react, especially with regard to their intelligence, and that their religions are incompatible with Christianity. Would it make you doubt Christianity, or that humans are "special" and made in God's image?

Technically extraterrestrial beings exist in the bible, also known as angels. They are intelligent, they too worship the creator but are not Christian, nor does scripture state that they were made in the image of God.

So who's to say this alien isn't an angel in your scenario? Seeing how the word 'angel" simply means 'messenger'.

[The Grand Nudger]

The well truly has no bottom, lol.