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.

 

Good evidence for Atheism and Theism.

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

benrl
But its is still silly to start ruling out things when we are not even sure where consciousness comes from, let alone a unified theory,

Didn't say anything about ruling anything out
But I think history has taught us to stop demanding there must be a deity behind all unanswered questions and simply investigate.
God is a lazy shortcut to thinking in regards to how the physical universe works. Gives you an answer without having to go through the process of seeking it.




posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Who can solve the mystery of Oak Island? A puzzle isn't evidence of a creator god.


edit on 12-4-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I'm out. This is a troll thread, pure and simple. Have fun guys.
edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
So you have brought up the problem of evil as evidence against something you know nothing about. Does that sound informed to you?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:15 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:17 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

Grimpachi
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I already said in my previous reply that there is no "evidence" for some creator deity.


Perhaps you do not understand that the one making claims of the existence for something is the one who must provide evidence of its existence. The non believer does not need to provide evidence of non existance as that is illogical.

It seems your entire premise falls under a logical fallacy.


And I have provided some already. However what you are telling me is I must back up my world view that is an absolute, but you can pass that judgement upon your own world view.

My premise is not flawed. No one has an argument that is why. My parents have also admitted to delivering those Gifts therefore it is still improbable that Santa is real.


First off you were having the conversation about Santa with someone else. Try to keep things strait when replying.

Your premise is based of a logical fallacy you have simply switched the words proof with evidence and asked us to prove a negative.

As far as what you have provided as evidence...well...the bible is not evidence of anything except that man has imagination. As far as DNA encoding and sequences you have yet to demonstrate that those things could not come about naturally without the help or direction of some deity. So no you have not provided any evidence of a deity so far.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 




Natural and artificial selection account for none of what I described. You just showed exactly why it is evidence of a mind. It is a fact that the genetic code holds a semiotic dimension within. Regardless of the physical and chemical processes involved information with meaning is still conveyed between a signifier and an interpreter.

So chemical reactions are evidence of "god" (pick your favorite)??

reply to post by AfterInfinity
 




I'm out. This is a troll thread, pure and simple. Have fun guys.

I'm with you.

This thread is just one of a million variations on a theme.

And in the end pointless.
edit on 4/12/2014 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   

windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Do you see "the observer" as being evidence of a god? Since we are all observers, does that make us gods?



No. I believe that because matter on an atomic level reacts differently to being observed by Humans that this shows something has interfered outside the system is at work. I believe it shows that something keeps us in this system, and that much of what we see is probably a grand illusion or hologram.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Grimpachi

ServantOfTheLamb

Grimpachi
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I already said in my previous reply that there is no "evidence" for some creator deity.


Perhaps you do not understand that the one making claims of the existence for something is the one who must provide evidence of its existence. The non believer does not need to provide evidence of non existance as that is illogical.

It seems your entire premise falls under a logical fallacy.


And I have provided some already. However what you are telling me is I must back up my world view that is an absolute, but you can pass that judgement upon your own world view.

My premise is not flawed. No one has an argument that is why. My parents have also admitted to delivering those Gifts therefore it is still improbable that Santa is real.


First off you were having the conversation about Santa with someone else. Try to keep things strait when replying.

Your premise is based of a logical fallacy you have simply switched the words proof with evidence and asked us to prove a negative.

As far as what you have provided as evidence...well...the bible is not evidence of anything except that man has imagination. As far as DNA encoding and sequences you have yet to demonstrate that those things could not come about naturally without the help or direction of some deity. So no you have not provided any evidence of a deity so far.


What you are failing to understand is that I have not just swapped those words. It is not impossible to show something is improbable. I am not asking for certainty I am asking for numbers. For example what is the probability of an explosion bringing a finely tune environment such as this?

PS and which side of the argument does this probability lie upon? Theistic or Atheistic. If it is statistically impossible, then creation itself would be considered a miracle. If the explosion turned out to do pretty much the same thing everytime then it would be on the Atheistic side of the argument.
edit on 12-4-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   

AnteBellum
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 




Once again this is not what I believe. I believe that God is probable and therefore choose to put my faith in Him. Why do I think He is probable because of the Laws of Logic and Reason and Science, and because I have experienced Him. Now, while personal experience is not proof it is a good reason for personal faith.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Grimpachi

ServantOfTheLamb

Grimpachi
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


I already said in my previous reply that there is no "evidence" for some creator deity.


Perhaps you do not understand that the one making claims of the existence for something is the one who must provide evidence of its existence. The non believer does not need to provide evidence of non existance as that is illogical.

It seems your entire premise falls under a logical fallacy.


And I have provided some already. However what you are telling me is I must back up my world view that is an absolute, but you can pass that judgement upon your own world view.

My premise is not flawed. No one has an argument that is why. My parents have also admitted to delivering those Gifts therefore it is still improbable that Santa is real.


First off you were having the conversation about Santa with someone else. Try to keep things strait when replying.

Your premise is based of a logical fallacy you have simply switched the words proof with evidence and asked us to prove a negative.

As far as what you have provided as evidence...well...the bible is not evidence of anything except that man has imagination. As far as DNA encoding and sequences you have yet to demonstrate that those things could not come about naturally without the help or direction of some deity. So no you have not provided any evidence of a deity so far.


How do you account for information with meaning without the input of a mind? You are no asking me to prove there is no mind behind DNA. How am I to prove a negative. You are to show me that it can arise without the input of a mind.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
what is the probability of an explosion bringing a finely tune environment such as this?

PS and which side of the argument does this probability lie upon? Theistic or Atheistic. If it is statistically impossible, then creation itself would be considered a miracle. If the explosion turned out to do pretty much the same thing everytime then it would be on the Atheistic side of the argument.
edit on 12-4-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)


Well, I would say 100% considering its here.

But on a cosmological scale, not very high..probably why most of what we see so far is dead husks, gas giants, and other lifeless crap planets.

But here is where it happened to work perfectly, right distance, right materials to allow for all this stuff. Granted, took over 4 billion years of smashing around and all sorts before intelligent life popped up, but it got there eventually. A god would have made quick work of this..maybe I donno..6 days or so.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 


No its not chemical reactions. It is the fact that the chemical reactions produce information that carries meaning. This argument is hard for you to grasp because it means you might have to admit you could be wrong. I have no problem admitting that I could be wrong. THat is why you see me using the word probable instead of speaking in absolutes as do many of us.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:40 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
You are to show me that it can arise without the input of a mind.

Evolution 101



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

SaturnFX

ServantOfTheLamb
You are to show me that it can arise without the input of a mind.

Evolution 101


The link immediately starts off with Abiogenesis as the creation of life. Um major problems with that, and closer to hypothesis rather than theory. Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis attempts to answer how life got started, and Evolution tells us what happens after life got started. Now if you can show me proof of Abiogenesis you are getting somewhere.




According to the theory of evolution, taken in the broad sense, living matter arose at some point in the past from non-living matter by ordinary chemical and physical processes. This is called abiogenesis. Creationists often attempt to calculate the probability of this occurring, which is difficult to do. However, it is possible to give an estimate based on reasonable assumptions. Amino acids and nucleic acids are the building blocks of life, and they come in two forms, which spiral left and right. All life consists of only one of these forms. Since both forms are generated equally by inorganic chemical processes, it seems hard to imagine that life could have originated having only one of these forms. Recently it has been claimed that meteorites have an excess of one form over another. But due to racemization, these forms tend to equalize over time, so we can expect that in a primitive earth, there would have been essentially equal numbers of both forms. Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at journals.at-home.com...). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero. And we are not even considering what proteins the DNA generates, or how the rest of the cell structure would get put together! So the real probability would be fantastically small. Biologists are hypothesizing some RNA-based life form that might have had a smaller genome and might have given rise to a cell with about 256 genes. Until this is demonstrated, one would have to say that the problem of abiogenesis is very severe indeed for the theory of evolution.


www.cs.unc.edu...



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

SaturnFX

ServantOfTheLamb
Now you should be able to give a similar deduction as to why God is not probable.
edit on 12-4-2014 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)

Well, ultimately, from what we see through scientific inquiry, a deity creator is not necessary.
The list of questions are becoming less and less.

Long ago, there must be gods, because what could cause such storms. it surely must be Thor striking the anvil and casting his bolts
Then we learned about weather
There must be Gods because why else would they be riding golden chariots of fire across our sky and giving us light for the day
Then we learned about astronomy
etc.

We stuff "god" into everything we have yet to understand...and then we understand them and realize no deities required..natural process.


I believe in Science and God. Just because Science can explain something(most of which works in a very precise fine-tuned way which implies intelligence imo) doesn't mean it was not created by God.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:51 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

AnteBellum
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 




Once again this is not what I believe. I believe that God is probable and therefore choose to put my faith in Him. Why do I think He is probable because of the Laws of Logic and Reason and Science, and because I have experienced Him. Now, while personal experience is not proof it is a good reason for personal faith.


Providing proof that personal faith is irrational is a fool's errand. To ask it of us is a fool's request. Personal faith isn't about what's logical, it's about what we are comfortable with.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb
The link immediately starts off with Abiogenesis as the creation of life. Um major problems with that, and closer to hypothesis rather than theory. Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis. Abiogenesis attempts to answer how life got started, and Evolution tells us what happens after life got started. Now if you can show me proof of Abiogenesis you are getting somewhere.

The evidence of Abiogenesis is of course..life.
Without abiogenesis, there is no evolution into the cellular. This is the best hypothesis of the possible, and it is quite tidy and encompassing.
Without it, then your delving into supernatural origins (which yes, I know your wanting), but abiogenesis has evidence (life) where it would make little sense for a supernatural entity to start at cellular verses just simply start by creating full complex beings.

btw, I try to stay away from the word "proof" as it is subjective. When you go into a courtroom, you present evidence..even if the evidence is solid. it is only considered proof after judgement is made and it swayed someone in one direction or another. So far, all evidence seems to lead to abiogenesis that set off complexity eventually. No evidence of supernatural origins on this level...still a work in progress of course...but roadsigns point to that being the likely scenario.

Where is a Tardis when you need one.



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   

ServantOfTheLamb

windword
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Do you see "the observer" as being evidence of a god? Since we are all observers, does that make us gods?



No. I believe that because matter on an atomic level reacts differently to being observed by Humans that this shows something has interfered outside the system is at work. I believe it shows that something keeps us in this system, and that much of what we see is probably a grand illusion or hologram.


Okay, but if god is consciousness, and is consciously manipulating our reality by "interfering" and we are conscious and we manipulate our reality by interfering, then aren't we the same as god?



posted on Apr, 12 2014 @ 02:58 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



I am not asking for proof, but rather just something we see in the natural world that implies there is no design, and that it is improbable that a God exist.


Cancer. Please show me where God is in that. Or child molestation. Or a shootout at the local school. Or a shootout at the movie theater. Or a bombing at a marathon. Or planes crashing into towers full of innocent people. Or an aerial strike slaughtering thousands of men and women at harbor. Rape. Murder. Disease. Abuse. Starvation. Negligence. Should I go on? There's about 500,000 years worth of stupid, violent, unnecessary and very damaging stuff that's happened without any discernible cause or justification. Stuff that, should a god exist, would force any reasonable thinking individual to call into question that entity's regard for our well-being.
edit on 12-4-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)


And what? Because your society is screwed that must mean there is no God? Maybe your society shouldn't of turned from God in the first place and things might be a bit different. God is the Bible, Allah is the Qu'ran, I'm pretty sure both books could produce something better than what is called the United States of America in the state it's in right now.
edit on 12-4-2014 by 168617 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join