It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Faith VS Science & Athiests

page: 7
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 





The important difference being... We CAN SEE the EVIDENCE of evolution everywhere.... We do not see the evidence of a god


For that, you would have to assume that God is somehow separate from the creation.


I deleted the rest of my post. Too much rambling...
edit on 9-4-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 09:53 PM
link   
I would believe neither in faith nor science if you put it that way.
Neither evolution theory nor god being very accurate to me, however having some significance -

Please don't believe in one category fully, denying the others.
Instead take information from all of them and think on your own. Don't be blind.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


It says that the world was completely flooded and that a man parted a sea with a staff, both are claims that contradict science because the geological record contradicts the first account and the second one violates the laws of physics. We can play this game all day too. But miracles aside, there is also no archaeological record of millions of people crossing the desert, leaving Egypt.


Well I would say the geological record has evidence for both sides of the flood, quick example are the numerous polystrata forest surrounding the world. To view a Miracle of an Omnipresent God as a Scientific contradiction Science would have to show that God is not real. So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe? I won't ask for proof because that would be an impossible task.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


It says that the world was completely flooded and that a man parted a sea with a staff, both are claims that contradict science because the geological record contradicts the first account and the second one violates the laws of physics. We can play this game all day too. But miracles aside, there is also no archaeological record of millions of people crossing the desert, leaving Egypt.


Well I would say the geological record has evidence for both sides of the flood, quick example are the numerous polystrata forest surrounding the world. To view a Miracle of an Omnipresent God as a Scientific contradiction Science would have to show that God is not real. So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe? I won't ask for proof because that would be an impossible task.



posted on Apr, 9 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Oh please. I started reading your link and the first thing it does to call its statements facts is source the bible. In fact that is the ONLY thing it sources. How can you determine the validity of the bible by using the bible as your only source?


Because the Bible is not one book. It is a collection of books and letters. It was written by people who lived, and many parts claim to be eye witness accounts. You see people like to forget that the Bible is a collection of sources from antiquity. The link provides the argument for both sides. It was not bias. I posted it so you could form an educated opinion rather than just dismissing the information.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe?

There are a few things to consider.


First there is the grand contradiction. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably good God, that absolutely contradicts the existence of evil. There is no God.


Then there is imperfection. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably perfect God, that absolutely contradicts the demonstrably imperfect universe he created, and the existence of entropy. There is no God.


Then there is Hiddenness. This notion argues that the existence of a truly perfect, good, and loving God would be unanimously believed by every reasonable person. However, all throughout history, there have been reasonable non-believes. Thus, the conclusion is that God does not exist.


And finally the subtle contradictions. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably powerful God who created all the universe and the laws of science that keep it running, he'd not allow very-basic scientific errors in his Word. There is no God.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 01:52 AM
link   
The devil is nothing more than a scapegoat.

Maybe that's where the image of the baphomet comes from.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   

SkepticOverlord

ServantOfTheLamb
So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe?

There are a few things to consider.


First there is the grand contradiction. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably good God, that absolutely contradicts the existence of evil. There is no God.


Then there is imperfection. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably perfect God, that absolutely contradicts the demonstrably imperfect universe he created, and the existence of entropy. There is no God.


Then there is Hiddenness. This notion argues that the existence of a truly perfect, good, and loving God would be unanimously believed by every reasonable person. However, all throughout history, there have been reasonable non-believes. Thus, the conclusion is that God does not exist.


And finally the subtle contradictions. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably powerful God who created all the universe and the laws of science that keep it running, he'd not allow very-basic scientific errors in his Word. There is no God.



Actually there is a God, but he's in fact infinitely 'more' than immature
human beings at present times can comprehend!

Question from human beings, and the answer given by the spiritual world:

".......
May we receive more comprehensive and more concrete knowledge of the appearance and personal characteristics of our God and Father than we can imagine from Toward the Light and the First and Second Supplements? And how are we to understand the expression “God’s flaming Being”?


No exact, detailed description of God—of our Father’s appearance and of His personal presence — can
be given. Earthly languages lack the words, none possessing expressions that can describe the
appearance of this exalted, pure and glorious figure. And no earthly artist can with brush and palette
conjure forth even the faintest suggestion of the form of His body or His countenance.

A flaming Being is God! For the ethereal rays of the Light issue from His body and they glorify its radiant
beauty. Youthfulness, purity and beauty in their most sublime form are expressions of His personal
presence. His countenance bespeaks infinite but sorrowful love. Grief and pain dwell in the depth of His
unfathomable look, for He carries the suffering and grief of all creation in His mind. With yearning, with
sorrow and with pain, He gazes into the vastness of space. His eye seeks the Earth, He beholds suffering
and struggling humanity. His Thought follows the much-missed and so distant beings who are His beloved
children. And when He sees that they go in the ways of Darkness, when He hears their quarrels, when He
sees their unworthy conduct in mutual intolerance, in hostility, anger and hatred, His eye is veiled with
shame and sorrow for the children to whom He gave eternal spiritual life, to whom He gave thought and
will, and whose minds He endowed with a spark of the purity, love and beauty of His own Being. But
when He also sees that some of His children follow the ways that He has indicated for the journeying of
their earthly life, He rejoices profoundly and a loving smile dawns over His sorrowful and solemn
countenance.

Humanity! If you knew how your Father grieves over you, if you knew the depth of His agonizing sorrow
for you, if you knew the anguish of His mind called forth by your unworthy conduct, by your wicked, ugly
and unlawful thoughts and actions, then would you be ashamed! If you knew the horror and revulsion
that fill His Being on observing your conduct, when with weapons at hand, with explosive substances and
with poisons you war with one another, destroy peoples, realms and nations, corrupting all that is
splendid, pure and good both in your own minds and in the minds of others, then would your shame
deepen yet more! Then would you grieve over yourselves, then would you turn in thought and in mind
toward your distant yet so near Father. Then would you answer Him when He calls. Then would you
beseech Him to lead you in the ways and paths that lead to Him, that lead to His Kingdom. Yes, then
would you fully show your Father that you love Him, that you are worthy of His love and care. And then
would your Father rejoice over you! The anguish, the suffering, the sorrow that now impress His
countenance, and oppress His mind would vanish, and from His deep and boundless love He would bless
you, He would in spirit and in truth be your Father, God, Protector and Supreme Leader, both in your
earthly life and in the worlds of the spheres, indeed, wherever you should walk.

Our God and Father is calling you—day and night. At all times His voice is calling!

Humanity, give Him your answer!

Do you not hear Him?
......."


Read more here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cheers






edit on 10-4-2014 by djeminy because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2014 by djeminy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 






First there is the grand contradiction. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably good God, that absolutely contradicts the existence of evil. There is no God.


If there is such a thing as Good there must be such a thing as Evil. How else is one to recognize what is good? However, I do not believe you would say free will is Evil. God did not create Evil merely the potential for it. I would say the Judea/Christian World View best describes why Evil exist, and the nature of it. There could be a God.




Then there is imperfection. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably perfect God, that absolutely contradicts the demonstrably imperfect universe he created, and the existence of entropy. There is no God.


Genesis 3
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;
In [a]toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,

Romans 8
19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

Here is your reason for the imperfect state of the world you see. There could be a God.




Then there is Hiddenness. This notion argues that the existence of a truly perfect, good, and loving God would be unanimously believed by every reasonable person. However, all throughout history, there have been reasonable non-believes. Thus, the conclusion is that God does not exist.


Once again, all we know of the world is the world in a fallen state even so we can still see the characteristics of God present.


Romans 1
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Everything we learn about this world gives us more insight to the character of God. All matter has a resonant frequency(God spoke the earth into existence so sound was the source of creation) and God creates light first? why? On a basic level all things are quanta, or tiny bits of energy(light). Do you find these things a coincidence? There could be a God.





And finally the subtle contradictions. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably powerful God who created all the universe and the laws of science that keep it running, he'd not allow very-basic scientific errors in his Word. There is no God.


Oh there are basic scientific errors in the Bible? Like what? It describes the Earth as sphere in Isaiah far before it was known. It says God hung the earth on Nothing. Most religions credit the earth to being held up by something physical(Ex. Hinduism and Greek Mythology).
It says the universe had a beginning. Those are a few that I know it is spot on with, what does it disagree with?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:15 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
Well I would say the geological record has evidence for both sides of the flood, quick example are the numerous polystrata forest surrounding the world. To view a Miracle of an Omnipresent God as a Scientific contradiction Science would have to show that God is not real. So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe? I won't ask for proof because that would be an impossible task.


No, such forests are merely proof that the shoreline has changed due to various ice ages. Furthermore the flood myth has no explanation for why kangaroos and other marsupials are only found around Australia. Did Noah drop them off there?



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   

SkepticOverlord

ServantOfTheLamb
So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe?

There are a few things to consider.


First there is the grand contradiction. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably good God, that absolutely contradicts the existence of evil. There is no God.


Then there is imperfection. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably perfect God, that absolutely contradicts the demonstrably imperfect universe he created, and the existence of entropy. There is no God.


Then there is Hiddenness. This notion argues that the existence of a truly perfect, good, and loving God would be unanimously believed by every reasonable person. However, all throughout history, there have been reasonable non-believes. Thus, the conclusion is that God does not exist.


And finally the subtle contradictions. If we have an all-powerful and omnipotent and unquestionably powerful God who created all the universe and the laws of science that keep it running, he'd not allow very-basic scientific errors in his Word. There is no God.


1) no evil in heaven

2) no imperfection in heaven

3) just to them, you mean?

4) that's just to keep science guys busy.


it irks me when people call for heaven on earth. it will never happen.
crap, i lost my train of thought, had a guy here fixing my lock.

we have to play by the rules here on earth, believers or not.

rules that we make ourselves. (laws)
we have been given many gifts and many challenges.

do we pass the muster?









posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 03:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I don't think that is evidence of the lack of a creator, imagine a simulation, simulations are done to see how a system evolve in time, our simulations are very basic but in theory you could simulate something so complex as the universe in it entire existence, someone has to program the simulation and run it (a creator) there could be no evidence of the creator inside the simulation because the creator is not contained in it, but still someone clearly created the simulation.

A simulator have no control over the simulation once it started, he just want to see the result anyways, so in any case all you give is just evidence against what is said in religion not about a god (creator).

Again empiric evidence is lacking either way so god/no god is not science, for more than people want to try to use a logic method to it.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 04:26 AM
link   
sorry if I put this huge post but it was interesting !


Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) was one of the most patient and tolerant teachers of his time. He used to take his classes every day. After his lectures he would listen and reply to the objections of his critics. He had asked his critics, who attended his classes, not to interrupt him during his lectures. They were quite free to ask him any question or raise any objection after the classes were over.
Once Abu Shakir, one of his opponents, said to him: “Would you allow me to say something and ask some questions?”
“Yes, you can”, replied Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq.

Said Abu Shakir: “Is it not a myth that there is Allah? You want people to believe in a thing which does not exist. If there was Allah, we could have felt his existence through our senses. You may say that we can feel His presence by the help of our inner senses, but our inner senses also depend upon our five outer senses. We cannot conjure up an image of anything in which some of our senses were not involved.


Read More Here.
edit on 4/10/2014 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by 168617
 

If you had spent that time studying science books you would know that neither of those books have any science in them.

edit on 10-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Visitor2012
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 





The important difference being... We CAN SEE the EVIDENCE of evolution everywhere.... We do not see the evidence of a god


For that, you would have to assume that God is somehow separate from the creation.


I deleted the rest of my post. Too much rambling...
edit on 9-4-2014 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)
you are already assuming that god is real. With no evidence that is what you are left with. An assumption.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:30 AM
link   

rupertg
The devil is nothing more than a scapegoat.

Maybe that's where the image of the baphomet comes from.
the image of baphomet was rendered by alphonse levi.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Annunak1
 


Thank you for sharing a conversation that can only have taken place in a medieval university, when qualitative value judgments were mistakenly believed to be objective universal qualities.



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:07 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


It says that the world was completely flooded and that a man parted a sea with a staff, both are claims that contradict science because the geological record contradicts the first account and the second one violates the laws of physics. We can play this game all day too. But miracles aside, there is also no archaeological record of millions of people crossing the desert, leaving Egypt.


Well I would say the geological record has evidence for both sides of the flood, quick example are the numerous polystrata forest surrounding the world. To view a Miracle of an Omnipresent God as a Scientific contradiction Science would have to show that God is not real. So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe? I won't ask for proof because that would be an impossible task.

no one can prove that unicorns dont exist. Should we believe in the chance that they are real?

The point being, first off. You cannot prove a negative. (Have you really never heard his before?) you cannot prove that something like a unicorn, doesn't exist. What would that evidence look like? Please stop saying things like. "You cant prove that god doesn't exist". Because it goes without saying. There are lots of things that we cannot prove exists. Especially things that dont exist.

Do you really think you have stumbled on some lost secret that nobody has ever thought of before?

That somehow physical evidence is a hindrance to knowledge?

Do you think that you have figured something out about religion or spirituality, that no one has thought of?

Do you think that you have figured something out that no scientist could devise an experiment to test?

Do you think that science itself couldn't fathom an answer to some question that you just seem to know the answer to?

If you really want to make an impact on the entire world, think of a physical experiment to prove your claims once and for all. No scientist will be able to refute your physical evidence of supernatural forces.





edit on 10-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-4-2014 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


It says that the world was completely flooded and that a man parted a sea with a staff, both are claims that contradict science because the geological record contradicts the first account and the second one violates the laws of physics. We can play this game all day too. But miracles aside, there is also no archaeological record of millions of people crossing the desert, leaving Egypt.


Well I would say the geological record has evidence for both sides of the flood, quick example are the numerous polystrata forest surrounding the world. To view a Miracle of an Omnipresent God as a Scientific contradiction Science would have to show that God is not real. So now what evidence do you have against a creator of the universe? I won't ask for proof because that would be an impossible task.



And I would say that you are wrong until you produce said evidence. So you don't think I'm demanding evidence and not providing my own, here's my evidence that a global flood couldn't have happened.



This here is Old Tjikko. It is a tree that is 9550 years old. If a global flood had happened, that tree would have been dead. For further reading, here is Pando a clonal tree colony (kind of like a forest that is all one tree) that is over 80,000 years old. So even if you try to push the date of the global flood back, I have an example of an organism that is older that would have died out from a flood. Now, in case you have more counters to these two pieces of evidence and since the global flood myth isn't the purpose of this thread, I leave you with a link that breaks down many parts of the flood myth and shows how they are impossible (like that a wooden ship described with the dimensions given in the bible would be structurally unsound). Problems with a Global Flood

As for your miracle bit, you have to actually prove that a miracle happened as described before science has a chance to contradict it. I also never claimed that science can show that a god isn't real or was even trying to do so. I just said that the bible has scientific inaccuracies in it. I'm agnostic, a god or gods could possibly exist, I am not nor is anyone else knowledgeable enough to make that claim, therefore the answer is "I don't know." No other answer is required, why people insist on making up answers (like the Christian religion) is beyond me.
edit on 10-4-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 10 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

Krazysh0t
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Oh please. I started reading your link and the first thing it does to call its statements facts is source the bible. In fact that is the ONLY thing it sources. How can you determine the validity of the bible by using the bible as your only source?


Because the Bible is not one book. It is a collection of books and letters. It was written by people who lived, and many parts claim to be eye witness accounts. You see people like to forget that the Bible is a collection of sources from antiquity. The link provides the argument for both sides. It was not bias. I posted it so you could form an educated opinion rather than just dismissing the information.


So? I understand it is more than one book, but literally EVERY single account described in the bible is described years if not centuries or millenniums after the fact. Even the gospels about Jesus were written after all was said and done, one of them 80 some years afterwards. How hard is it to recite stories about events a week or month after they happened, let alone years afterwards? You also used a good word in your post that belies the flimsiness of the bible as proof. You said they CLAIM to be eye witness accounts. I can claim things too, like that I'm Carlos Santana, but it doesn't make it true. We need FURTHER evidence to corroborate these claims, otherwise they are just claims. The miracles performed in the bible were pretty nuts, how come besides the bible, we don't hear about some man walking on water in Roman records or curing the sick miraculously? There aren't even records of his crucification and the stories about Herod when Jesus was born don't line up with the Roman records, not to mention there is no record of Herod going around slaughtering all the newborns. It is true that, for SOME reason the Romans decided not to write these things down and the accounts in the bible are speaking some truth, but we are back to the whole eye witness testimony thing. Well here's the thing about that, go find a fisherman and ask him to describe the biggest fish he's ever caught to you. Now once a week for the next month or so ask him to do that again. See how big that fish gets.




top topics



 
8
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join