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.

 

Proofs of Design with Witnesses - Final Proof Cannot be Argued

page: 11
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Ask God if you really want the truth?


I'll have to mention that next time I see him at the super market.


Who designed the ultimate designer isn't pertinent information if
indeed a designer does exist. So it's not like the question can be
answered anyway.


Actually that's very pertinent because creationists (including the OP) are arguing that purpose cannot arise from purposeless and all kind of other metaphorical nonsense to suggest that god MUST exist. If perceived "purpose" requires a designer than god would require one as well, otherwise you can't make that argument.
edit on 13-10-2014 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar

I got a kick out of Tzar. He almost seemed discouraged that I
didn't pursue his indoctrination with more diligence.


Excellent thread IMO OP!
SnF


more discouraged that you didnt even try to meet my challenge with any substance.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: TzarChasm

"
okay...assuming your evidence is all correct and points conclusively to some sort of divine intelligence...what created that intelligence? you said once that purpose cant come from purposelessness. you keep posting threads where the organization of information indicates design. so who designed god? who created god? lemme guess, he is exempt from that rule? no SPECIAL PLEADING please. "

Word

The question is not what created God (Father, Mother, Son). The question is what created the letters. Apart from knowing them, you cannot investigate them.


so you are only interested in the firework display, not the man behind the curtain? dont you want to know who could be capable of creating such a perfect being? or are you insistent on believing god doesnt have to be created?



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar

What's up Peter, I was being facetious with Tsar for asking a
question no one knows the answer too. And has nothing to do
with the existence of a designer as was claimed in the OP. Who
designed the ultimate designer isn't pertinent information if
indeed a designer does exist. So it's not like the question can be
answered anyway. As Tsar already knows full well. So the answer
to your question is, no you don't have to answer anything. But at
least the answer to any question about evolution one may have?
Is ready available.

a reply to: TzarChasm


i dont think you tried very hard..


And this displeases you?


way to be childish randy.

"And has nothing to do
with the existence of a designer as was claimed in the OP. Who
designed the ultimate designer isn't pertinent information if
indeed a designer does exist."

it does indeed actually. the fact that god is described as being a "higher intelligence" suggests an organization to his essence (be it body, mind, or otherwise) that simply could not have spawned on its own (see what i did there?). AlephBet claims to have found the solution to how we can see the designer in the code he designed, ie the human species. my response is then "well show us the designer's code as well so that we know more about this mysterious figure". what designed the code that designed our code? and thats where both alephbet and yourself apparently want to draw the line. its enough that you have attempted to prove the creator but way too much to try and isolate his exact nature. even though that could only help your case. but if you want to make excuses to avoid it go right ahead. cant stop you.

edit on 13-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: peter vlar

What's up Peter, I was being facetious with Tsar for asking a
question no one knows the answer too. And has nothing to do
with the existence of a designer as was claimed in the OP. Who
designed the ultimate designer isn't pertinent information if
indeed a designer does exist. So it's not like the question can be
answered anyway. As Tsar already knows full well. So the answer
to your question is, no you don't have to answer anything. But at
least the answer to any question about evolution one may have?
Is ready available.

a reply to: TzarChasm


i dont think you tried very hard..


And this displeases you?


way to be childish randy.

"And has nothing to do
with the existence of a designer as was claimed in the OP. Who
designed the ultimate designer isn't pertinent information if
indeed a designer does exist."

it does indeed actually. the fact that god is described as being a "higher intelligence" suggests an organization to his essence (be it body, mind, or otherwise) that simply could not have spawned on its own (see what i did there?). AlephBet claims to have found the solution to how we can see the designer in the code he designed, ie the human species. my response is then "well show us the designer's code as well so that we know more about this mysterious figure". what designed the code that designed our code? and thats where both alephbet and yourself apparently want to draw the line. its enough that you have attempted to prove the creator but way too much to try and isolate his exact nature. even though that could only help your case. but if you want to make excuses to avoid it go right ahead. cant stop you.


the point being that if all organized matter and thought must come from organized matter and thought, you are following an endless string of creators that goes...where? this also suggests that we ourselves will one day become gods...and then our own creations will become gods in their turn...and so on and so forth. so where is OUR worship, eh?

edit on 13-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Invariant symmetry is a pattern of perfection, ideally suited to life. It's the foundation of the strong unclear force. Without it, there could be no elements, matter or unity of information. It's like saying a computer screen doesn't need a computer to run the Sims. I won't define invariant symmetry. The Wiki and many other websites do it nicely.

Invariance is symmetry under transformation, which is translational symmetries and the changing states of matter. With DNA, you have the same in the form of transcription. What is being transcribed? The original image. It was already there. You cannot argue this. It is a principle set in stone from our current understanding of the universe. What changes is part of something unchanged. God just happened to say this about Himself from the beginning. It simply cannot be argued. The will of nature is to give. This is the very proof we need to then know that the Father of nature is the Aleph Bet and Word created from letters. It's all right there, staring you in the face. It's all around you in nature. Invariance and symmetry are images of an archetype that is preexistent.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet


All I know is that is we are made in the 'original image' of gad, then she must really have a bad back, sore hips, a sore neck, indigestion, etc.



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet


Invariance is symmetry under transformation, which is translational symmetries and the changing states of matter. With DNA, you have the same in the form of transcription. What is being transcribed? The original image.


what is the original image? and dont tell me what i can and cannot argue, you are very irritating when you do that.


It is a principle set in stone from our current understanding of the universe. What changes is part of something unchanged. God just happened to say this about Himself from the beginning. It simply cannot be argued.


you are quite immature when you say insistently it cant be argued, like we care whether we have your permission. and something that is unchanged cannot change in part or it is in fact changed.


The will of nature is to give. This is the very proof we need to then know that the Father of nature is the Aleph Bet and Word created from letters. It's all right there, staring you in the face. It's all around you in nature. Invariance and symmetry are images of an archetype that is preexistent.


invariance, symmetry, archetype, preexistent. four words you have failed to define in TERMS WE CAN UNDERSTAND.

(since when did you become a physicist? lol)

ALSO: you failed to answer my other question - who/what created god? if organized matter and thought had to come from god, where did god come from?
edit on 13-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet
you failed to answer my other question - who/what created god? if organized matter and thought had to come from god, where did god come from?


I asked that on page three. I saved you a spot in line, waiting.

ETA:
I went back to double check if Aleph had responded to that question, he did. Honestly I have a hard time making sense of the way he posts though...

edit on 13-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 08:07 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

I am curious what your opinion on other religions is? Why are their creation claims any more or less credible than the one you believe in? Are you 100% sure there aren't "proofs" in the words in their texts? What about religions older than Abrahamic ones? Don't you think they would be "closer to the truth" since they would come earlier on the time-line of human existence? If not, why not?

edit on 13-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
For those of you who have enjoyed the debate, I have found higher related truth that knocks this thread into overdrive. You cannot argue this thread and you will not be able to argue the sequel to it: Guage Symmetries Suggest Originating Symmetries



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Invariance in Symmetry - In physics, a symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is preserved or remains unchanged under some transformation. WIKI

Bible

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

Archetype - an original that has been imitated.

Bible

Genesis 1

26 Then God said, “Let us make humankind[c] in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth,[d] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

27 So God created humankind[e] in his image,
in the image of God he created them;[f]
male and female he created them.

Preexistence - To exist before (something); precede.

Jeremiah 1:5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

Psalm 139:16: Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.

Isaiah 46:10: Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.

1 Corinthians 15

It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

John 1:18: No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.

He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all. And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony. (John 3:31-32)

John 6:46: Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

John 5:37-38: And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

John 8:23: And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

Zechariah 12:1: Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him…

John 6:41-42: The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

John 1:34: And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."

John 1:49: Nathanael answered and said to Him, "Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel !"



Genesis 2:7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Job 10:8-9: Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me. Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again?

Job 33:4: The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.

Job 33:6: Behold, I am according to thy wish in God's stead: I also am formed out of the clay.

Psalms 103:14: For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

Do these match the science of both involution and evolution?

Read this new thread on the topic: NEW THREAD



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Rumi knew Jesus and knew the secrets of water, light, the sea, ocean and dew. He knew the truth behind the symbols. The Tao is the image of Genesis. Dhammapada defines the divine law of love. The Greek Philosophers knew the truth of unity with multiplicity. It's all there, but you can't know unless you have the first image of Word, or the Letters: A Riddle and a Mystery to Solve - You must Solve it. ATS already did.

Jesus said no one would come to the Father (Aleph Bet) but by Him (WORD). The answer to the Riddle is in the letters and words of Hebrew. It defines DNA. Simple truth is subtle. You just had an epiphany.


edit on 13-10-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

Thanks for the link. You came up in a conversation the other day…and I meant to read what you've written.
tetra



posted on Oct, 13 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet

No epiphanies here,

I'm sorry but I don't see how you answered any of the questions in my post. In fact your reply read more like an advertisement for your threads.

Again,

What's your opinion on other religions? Why are their creation claims any more or less credible than the one you believe in? Are you 100% sure there aren't "proofs" in the words in their texts? What about religions older than Abrahamic ones? Don't you think they would be "closer to the truth" since they would come earlier on the time-line of human existence? If not, why not?

In your own words please, no riddles or links to riddles.

edit on 14-10-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

In my reply, I listed Islamic Rumi, Buddhism and Tao. Mankind knew the shadows of the mystery in former times, then entered a state of inconscience. We are now rediscovering something we already once knew. In every culture, the remnants of Babel are left. Much of what I have found in the Bible comes from examining the shards of truth left in other texts. Overall, there is one story being told. The quality of communication is the response the Son of God gets from us throughout history. Babbling language was his own choice. Clouds serve a purpose. They defuse the light or we would wither.

The book of Enoch gives you the earliest snapshot into the early truths. Eastern texts also reflect he same. The I Ching is based on a 64 bit code, just like DNA. One is the mathematical construct of the mind and the other the construct of life. They are parallel.
edit on 14-10-2014 by AlephBet because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 09:20 AM
link   
a reply to: AlephBet


Invariance in Symmetry - In physics, a symmetry of a physical system is a physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is preserved or remains unchanged under some transformation. WIKI

Bible

Malachi 3:6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.


one is talking about a law of physics, the other is talking about a person. they are not synonymous...unless you can prove that the laws of physics are an actual person?


Archetype - an original that has been imitated.


okay. so heres what i got from that - "Invariance and symmetry are images of an archetype that is preexistent. "

translated: "physical or mathematical feature of the system (observed or intrinsic) that is preserved or remains unchanged under some transformation are images of an imitation of the original that is preexistent."

i dont see where you are getting this "original" model or how it is preexistent. not to mention that i fail to see how invariant symmetry proves design.

i would also like to have a look at these books that you have written. can you post a link?
edit on 14-10-2014 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Rumi knew Jesus and knew the secrets of water, light, the sea, ocean and dew. He knew the truth behind the symbols. The Tao is the image of Genesis. Dhammapada defines the divine law of love. The Greek Philosophers knew the truth of unity with multiplicity. It's all there, but you can't know unless you have the first image of Word, or the Letters: A Riddle and a Mystery to Solve - You must Solve it. ATS already did.

Jesus said no one would come to the Father (Aleph Bet) but by Him (WORD). The answer to the Riddle is in the letters and words of Hebrew. It defines DNA. Simple truth is subtle. You just had an epiphany.



THAT thread...no one solved anything. people simply guessed what you wanted to hear following a VERY predictable theme in which your clues only loosely fit the solution and read more like the conclusion was set in place long before the evidence was ever compiled to support it. a rope bridge with quite a few of its slats missing and nothing but an insistent AlephBet dragging your hand the whole way and letting you dangle if you refuse to comply.



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlephBet
you failed to answer my other question - who/what created god? if organized matter and thought had to come from god, where did god come from?


I asked that on page three. I saved you a spot in line, waiting.

ETA:
I went back to double check if Aleph had responded to that question, he did. Honestly I have a hard time making sense of the way he posts though...


ah...but no. he didnt answer your question. he did everything EXCEPT answer it. i know how that feels...



posted on Oct, 14 2014 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Childish, facetious, what ever.


the point being that if all organized matter and thought must come from organized matter and thought, you are following an endless string of creators that goes...where? this also suggests that we ourselves will one day become gods...and then our own creations will become gods in their turn...and so on and so forth. so where is OUR worship, eh?


It's a good point. But it doesn't show why the information you seek
should be there. In fact it doesn't even show that it isn't in the
code.


edit on Rpm101414v16201400000025 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
19
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join