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.

 

Logical Flaws In Progressive Creationism, Concerning Order Of Events.

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UB2120

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

and what created this god?

God, the first source and center, is the only uncaused cause. The only being in all creation who does not depend on another for his existence.


so god can be without cause but the big bang cant. makes perfect sense.

/tzarchasm


Something outside time and space initiated what we call the Big Bang, the creation of everything. That being is God.


more assumptions. we dont know what such a "place" entails, if anything lives there, what laws govern its interactions both within and outside of that "place", etc. pure theory based on speculation and little else.
edit on 18-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jukiodone
a reply to: TzarChasm

I havent got time to revisit this now but yes- as far as I remember- the suggestion was that the crystaline structure of the surface of the material provided a "physical interaction" that acted as a catalyst to generate what we know as RNA.

Mind shattering implications if true and the guy with the theory is better qualified to comment than most.



i think i found the article you were remembering.

www.theguardian.com...


Professor Steven Benner, a geochemist, has argued that the "seeds" of life probably arrived on Earth in meteorites blasted off Mars by impacts or volcanic eruptions. As evidence, he points to the oxidised mineral form of the element molybdenum, thought to be a catalyst that helped organic molecules develop into the first living structures.


i know you said this was a just a theory so i wont be too critical.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

You're under the assumption that even god exists. But not only that, you're exempting your god from the very premise you propose. Baseless assumptions + faulty logic = bad argument.


Nope....Not an argument and not an assumption. Maybe to you but I know the truth and God made us, there is no need to question who made God because he is not in human form as we are...That is where your logic is flawed and that is fine with me...You can believe whatever you would like but it may be hard for you to explain that to him when you meet Jesus after this life is over. The way into heaven is through Jesus Christ, you people can believe what you would like, talk about God not being real all you want, at the end of the day (or our lives) you will know the truth and might be a little upset when your entire belief system throughout this life is wrong...If I am wrong, nothing will change, if you are wrong there are horrible times ahead. I don't want that to happen, but the people against God have a very closed mind to the subject. No biggie to me either way.
edit on 9/18/2014 by Chrisfishenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Chrisfishenstein

are you going to answer the special pleading allegation?


Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.


"everything has to have a creator"

what exactly is the condition that allows for god to be exempted from this rule? if our form suggests a creator, his qualities DEMAND a creator. an entity like that doesnt happen by accident does it?

edit on 18-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




and what created this god?


That question is illogical. Why? If something is eternal can it logically have a beginning? No.




so god can be without cause but the big bang cant. makes perfect sense.


Can you describe to me what a point of infinite density looks like? No, because the very word infinity means that the number in question is so large that we as humans cannot even fathom it. Is matter eternal? No, therefore matter had a beginning and anything that has a beginning has a cause.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
That question is illogical. Why? If something is eternal can it logically have a beginning? No.


The universe is eternal, then. At least we have evidence that it exists. Prove me otherwise.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


That question is illogical. Why? If something is eternal can it logically have a beginning? No.


your assumption is illogical. i declare the universe is eternal and therefore it needs no creator. see how easy that was?


Can you describe to me what a point of infinite density looks like? No, because the very word infinity means that the number in question is so large that we as humans cannot even fathom it. Is matter eternal? No, therefore matter had a beginning and anything that has a beginning has a cause.


anything except god of course.


Special pleading (also known as stacking the deck, ignoring the counterevidence, slanting, and one-sided assessment) is a form of spurious argument where a position in a dispute introduces favourable details or excludes unfavourable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.


can you suggest a good experiment to determine whether this god had a beginning?
edit on 18-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: UB2120

All religious philosophy, sooner or later, arrives at the concept of unified universe rule, of one God.


Tell that to the Hindus.


Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged.


You got any scientific evidence to back any of this up? No, is the short answer.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




You got any scientific evidence to back any of this up? No, is the short answer.


Well he really wasn't making a scientific point, but rather a philosophical one. Once two people of different religions really get into an honest discussion with one another Science doesn't answer the BIG QUESTIONS the majority of us want to know. In the end it will come down to two world views:

Everything that is, is the product of CHANCE or Everything that is was created by someone or something


Science cannot tell you which one is right. Why are we here? Do we have intrinsic worth? Is there a God? Does objective morality exist? Does Absolute Truth Exist? All of these questions come down to philosophy in the end. You can argue about the mechanisms of the universe all day, but that will get you no where in deciding whether or not there is an agent behind those mechanisms.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Describe to me a point of infinite density. What is that in reality?



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Show me objective evidence for your god. Like I say, we know the universe exists. Claiming that it mustve been created by your personal god due to some logically defunct ontological arguments doesn't cut it.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




your assumption is illogical. i declare the universe is eternal and therefore it needs no creator. see how easy that was?


Yet we know that matter in this reality came into existence after the first planck time. Meaning the matter we study is not eternal so that is not logical.

"Can you describe to me what a point of infinite density looks like?"




anything except god of course.


I don't think the singularity was God. Lawrence Krauss(atheist) describes it as absolutely nothing. No space, no time, no matter. So now we have gotten as far as either of us can know using Science. Now we are into philosophy CHANCE OR DESIGN.




can you suggest a good experiment to determine whether this god had a beginning?


Once again you do no understand the nature of time and nature of God if you think that is a logical question. Time has physical properties and is known as the 4th dimension. As you move up in a dimension the one below it no longer has an effect. For example we are 3 dimensional beings. We can manipulate the 1 and 2 dimensions as they are in a sense below us. God exist within a dimension that is in a sense above all other dimensions including time. In order to have a start and a end something must exist in a realm in which the 4th dimension encompasses it . God does not fit this category. This is not special pleading. Justification has been given and that justification is mathematically logical. I explained this in a very linear way its very important to understand that we are really dealing with spheres encompassing spheres encompassing spheres rather that higher and lower but I explained it that way for simplicities sake.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




Show me objective evidence for your god. Like I say, we know the universe exists. Claiming that it mustve been created by your personal god due to some logically defunct ontological arguments doesn't cut it.


Well we know that DNA exist to, but we dont know its origins either. Logical ontological arguments can show that Intelligence is most likely behind those mechanisms. It takes some degree of faith friend. The thing you probably don't realize is that you base you view of the world on faith just as much if not more than me.



posted on Sep, 18 2014 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


Yet we know that matter in this reality came into existence after the first planck time. Meaning the matter we study is not eternal so that is not logical.

"Can you describe to me what a point of infinite density looks like?"


the first planck time that we are able to measure. not the first planck time that has ever existed. there are theories that this universe bounced back from a previous one. the big bounce theory.

a point of infinite density would probably look like a ball.


I don't think the singularity was God. Lawrence Krauss(atheist) describes it as absolutely nothing. No space, no time, no matter. So now we have gotten as far as either of us can know using Science. Now we are into philosophy CHANCE OR DESIGN.


lawrence krauss is wrong. infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense...yeah, totally sounds like nothing. and using an ignorant atheist to defend creationism! clever.
edit on 18-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   
You still haven't got a clue when it comes to the ToE, making this entire thread complete nonsense.

Watching Kent Having videos does not equate to "years of study".



posted on Sep, 19 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Ontological arguments for your personal god are illogical and not based on evidence. In propose that you should be worshiping Zeus as there's as much evidence for him as there is for your personal god. Do you deny Zeus?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped




Ontological arguments for your personal god are illogical and not based on evidence. In propose that you should be worshiping Zeus as there's as much evidence for him as there is for your personal god. Do you deny Zeus?


How so? What is illogical about them?



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm




the first planck time that we are able to measure. not the first planck time that has ever existed. there are theories that this universe bounced back from a previous one. the big bounce theory. a point of infinite density would probably look like a ball.


Regardless if its the first planck time ever or the first that we can measure we have found that space matter and time all came into existence AFTER that planck time, so the point still stands that this matter is not eternal.

A point of infinite density would look like a ball? Your still giving it far to much substance.

I dont think you are really grasping how large (or in this case small) infinity really is. The highest place value in mathematics that most humans are aware of is a googolplex. There is another number far higher called Graham's number. What the number 10 is to a googolplex; a googolplex is the number 10 to Graham's number. This number is unfathomable, and yet it is no closer to infinity than the number 1. So if you are going to tell me that it wasn't absolutely nothing but something infinitely small you are going to have to prove to me that infinitely small isn't nothing in reality, because the truth is you don't know what was there or if anything was there. I am sure Krauss is more qualified to make speculations about the singularity than either of us regardless of his ignorance.


You should just wait friend. You don't truly want to know my God, but he will reveal himself in time. The time is near.



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm




the first planck time that we are able to measure. not the first planck time that has ever existed. there are theories that this universe bounced back from a previous one. the big bounce theory. a point of infinite density would probably look like a ball.


Regardless if its the first planck time ever or the first that we can measure we have found that space matter and time all came into existence AFTER that planck time, so the point still stands that this matter is not eternal.

A point of infinite density would look like a ball? Your still giving it far to much substance.

I dont think you are really grasping how large (or in this case small) infinity really is. The highest place value in mathematics that most humans are aware of is a googolplex. There is another number far higher called Graham's number. What the number 10 is to a googolplex; a googolplex is the number 10 to Graham's number. This number is unfathomable, and yet it is no closer to infinity than the number 1. So if you are going to tell me that it wasn't absolutely nothing but something infinitely small you are going to have to prove to me that infinitely small isn't nothing in reality, because the truth is you don't know what was there or if anything was there. I am sure Krauss is more qualified to make speculations about the singularity than either of us regardless of his ignorance.


You should just wait friend. You don't truly want to know my God, but he will reveal himself in time. The time is near.


a point of nothing cannot be dense or hot, let alone infinitely dense and infinitely hot. do use your common sense and stop trying to redefine scientific concepts. maybe if you took the time to actually learn what these things mean, you wouldnt need to depend on non-answers so much.

edit on 20-9-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: UB2120

All religious philosophy, sooner or later, arrives at the concept of unified universe rule, of one God.


Tell that to the Hindus.


Universe causes cannot be lower than universe effects. The source of the streams of universe life and of the cosmic mind must be above the levels of their manifestation. The human mind cannot be consistently explained in terms of the lower orders of existence. Man’s mind can be truly comprehended only by recognizing the reality of higher orders of thought and purposive will. Man as a moral being is inexplicable unless the reality of the Universal Father is acknowledged.




You got any scientific evidence to back any of this up? No, is the short answer.


The Hindu religion already knows this. Just as the western religions recognize the three persons of the Trinty (God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit), the Hindu's have the Trimurti (Vishnu, Rama and Krishna). Just as the western religions recognize God the Father as the first source and center so is Vishnu generally regarded as the head God.

We, as a species, need to look at what is similar among religions instead of focusing on the differences. Just because I call God the Universal Father and someone else calls him Vishnu doesn't mean it is a different God. It's more that we have different view points or angles. God is too big to be completely defined by any one religion. There are limits to human comprehension and God is infinitely more than we can ever comprehend.
edit on 20-9-2014 by UB2120 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join