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.

 

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God, WSJ

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

A book of propaganda wow that's funny. I know its ATS and for some people anything goes but also for some people that's blasphemy.




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

Speaking as a scientist .... No, no it does not. One should not confuse "we can't explain it yet" as "it must be god" or "therefore aliens".

Also the Wallstreet Journal is NOT a scientific publication, and thus is not a necessarily reliable source for anything scientific.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
If I am not mistaken Sagan wrote in his Cosmos book, and in depth, about how life that we perceive here on earth may not be anything we can fathom on another planet.
He stresses and explains that life on THIS planet came to being under it's own circumstances, and other planets may harbor life under it's own, and so on.

What Sagan was trying to get across is that life like our own, or a planet that we can actually say, move to or live on. Is very slim. But other life in the universe is almost inevitable.
As for the 'intelligent design', it's such a washed out concept, full of straw man arguments and falsehoods proven wrong time and time again.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
If you use probability that even a tiny portion of a percentage there could be God, then some point there will be God. Once there is God by probability, God's all powerfulness means God is there forever, eradicates all past, and becomes without beginning or end and there can never be another as God would not allow it.
Yes probability proves God, thanks for pointing that out.


How can you justify god having a probability higher than 0 when there is absolutely no objective evidence for god whatsoever? That is one warped and twisted version of probability you have there.


This also puts the full weight of proof to be provided by the atheist, showing that beyond doubt there is zero probability of God. If this is not accomplished then probability proves there will given enough time be God, and after that well, God forever and ever.


So for god to be true, there only needs to be 1 tiny sliver of a percentage probability and that somehow proves he infinite but for him to be false he needs to be proven 100% wrong absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt? LMAO! Maybe some people are just mathematically challenged. No evidence means no evidence. Burden of proof is on YOU to show god is probable at all. Without evidence you can't say that.


edit on 6-1-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
If you use probability that even a tiny portion of a percentage there could be God, then some point there will be God. Once there is God by probability, God's all powerfulness means God is there forever, eradicates all past, and becomes without beginning or end and there can never be another as God would not allow it.
Yes probability proves God, thanks for pointing that out.


How can you justify god having a probability higher than 0 when there is absolutely no objective evidence for god whatsoever? That is one warped and twisted version of probability you have there.


This also puts the full weight of proof to be provided by the atheist, showing that beyond doubt there is zero probability of God. If this is not accomplished then probability proves there will given enough time be God, and after that well, God forever and ever.


So for god to be true, there only needs to be 1 tiny sliver of a percentage probability and that somehow proves he infinite but for him to be false he needs to be proven 100% wrong absolutely beyond the shadow of a doubt? LMAO! Maybe some people are just mathematically challenged. No evidence means no evidence. Burden of proof is on YOU to show god is probable at all. Without evidence you can't say that.



If you cannot prove God's existance is improbable, then God's probability to exist proves God's existence, since given any probability, over enough time it will happen. Monkey composing Shakespeare.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: American-philosopher
a reply to: IkNOwSTuff

A book of propaganda wow that's funny. I know its ATS and for some people anything goes but also for some people that's blasphemy.



Yeah, but only because their propaganda book says it is



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs


It's not about statistics, it's about objective evidence. There is absolutely none for god, so it isn't about something just feeling more likely. It IS more likely, based on the evidence. Now that doesn't mean god is wrong, of course, but the outlook isn't looking so good considering 150 years of science and not a single objective piece of evidence to support any god or any creation event.


Statistics is in reference to the OP article.

Now if you want to see evidence for god what would that be? You want foot prints? DNA? IF you don't know what to look for you won't find anything. And I'm pretty sure creating the big bang leaves the same fingerprints as a big bang randomly happening. So what is this evidence that you want?

What I am talking about is complex systems look like god to some people and to others it looks like a lot of time/selection.. But how can you possibly know which one is more likely. (to know which one is more likely you have to see what happened before the universe got here) That's a crazy assumption to me. They are both impossible until you explain the beginning. And yet here we are.

And did you just say no evidence for a creation event? What is the Big bang exactly if not a creation event (not saying conscious creation here)

You may be very much misunderstanding my angle in all of this.


Like I always say. I get flak from the religious and the atheist.. Oh me...



What if the "Unified Field" is actually information... That's the only fingerprint you could find for god.. IS this a "computer" program.. IS this reality based on laws? If it's based on laws, are these laws natural, or created, and how could you know the difference??
edit on 6-1-2015 by KnightLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
It's a pointless argument which never gets resolved. Anyone claiming to have the answers is only fooling themselves. No one wants a belief system pushed on them, not matter which side; and don't get bent out of shape when someone doesn't agree with you.
edit on 6-1-2015 by newWorldSamurai because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1
This is where math and philosophy merge. With infinite time and space, every permutation has a probability of 100%.


Depends on if the idea of infinite universes or even the idea of infinity exists. I'm not a big fan of merging philosophy and science/math. Philosophy is a great spring board to form new hypotheses and ideas, but many people forget to leave Philosophy at the door when they start sciencing forming confirmation biases which creates flawed science. That's not to say that I don't enjoy a good mental exercise of, "what if?" now and then. I just know to leave my hopes and dreams at the door when I look at the evidence about reality.


At some point our capacity to get our heads around any of this using the models we know reaches a limit. We have no context for what we don't know or have experienced.


True. Or maybe not. We can't know if there is a limit to our ability to create models that more accurately simulate the universe. I reason that it is more likely that there is no limit, but the gaps between precision get smaller and smaller with each new model. Think limit as a function goes to infinity. It never quite reaches exactly modeling the universe but gets infinitely close to doing so.


That said, our belief and calculation of the probabilities at time t = 0 does not mean they're accurate. If we believe that event 1 has probability of p > 0, and we collect data for 10 trillion years and event 1 hasn't happened, we will still don't know if our original assumption were correct or not.


My point was that t can range from 0 to infinity and sample size s can range from 0 to infinity. If say that probability p is a number between 0 < p < 1 and we are trying to find the odd that we keep rolling a bad result consecutively we can model such a thing with the function p ^ n where n is an integer greater than 0. Then take the limit as n goes to infinity and look at the answer. The function goes to 0. ALWAYS. Which means that given a large enough sample size and a large enough time span, a probability that is greater than 0 WILL occur.

But keep in mind, that is all math. By no means am I trying to suggest that the universe is old enough or large enough for all possible probabilities to have occurred. We do know for a fact that the odds of life arising in the universe is greater than 0, so we can reason therefore that it can happen again. We also know the odds of rational thought arising in the universe is greater than 0, so we can also reason that it can happen again.


Kind of the paradox of infinity and where are models are pushed to the limit.


Yes, the gap between math and science does create a paradox.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
If you use probability that even a tiny portion of a percentage there could be God, then some point there will be God. Once there is God by probability, God's all powerfulness means God is there forever, eradicates all past, and becomes without beginning or end and there can never be another as God would not allow it.
Yes probability proves God, thanks for pointing that out.


So where can you prove that the probability of god existing is greater than 0? The only probabilities that we know for a fact that are greater than 0 are events that humans have detected or are detecting occurring in the universe.

Also, god creates a kind of paradox for probability. If you want to argue along infinite possibilities then yes god is probable, but then god is supposed to be without limit. Yet infinite possibilities also says that no god is also possible. How can an infinite god and a no god co-exist? Do they rule over separate universes? Doesn't the idea of an infinite god mean that it rules over everything? Yet we just showed that there must exist a universe with no god as well. How does that work? Your reasoning creates a huge paradox. Therefore you should stick to discussing probabilities that we already know can happen.


This also puts the full weight of proof to be provided by the atheist, showing that beyond doubt there is zero probability of God. If this is not accomplished then probability proves there will given enough time be God, and after that well, God forever and ever.


No it doesn't. You cannot shift the burden of proof onto the atheist. For one, YOU are the one making the claim of god's existence. Therefore YOU need to provide the evidence of said existence. The only thing that an atheist is accountable for is the evidence that a god doesn't exist, because that is the claim he is making. But it isn't possible to prove a negative such as this.

You are accountable for your burden of proof (yet no evidence), and an atheist is accountable for his burden of proof (yet no evidence). Therefore the question remains unanswered with a big fat, "I don't know". Agnosticism, which is what I believe.

Though the atheist does have two compelling arguments going for him, the Null Hypothesis and Occam's Razor. The null hypothesis being the idea that without evidence that a claim is true, you default to the idea that it is wrong and Occam's Razor being that the idea with the least amount of assumptions is likely the correct one. Both are similar arguments, but different enough to warrant being separate ideas. But neither of them DISPROVE god, just say that one existing is unlikely due to the lack of evidence or the requirement of more assumptions over other ideas.
edit on 6-1-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Um, which science would that be...? "Science" is saying many things nowadays. They'd have to agree first what IS the universe, then have at it whether there's life elsewhere in it.

Some scientists say it is a 'kind' of a hologram, behaves as such, and have a few experiments to back up their theory.

We worry way too much about things that are out of our grasp, intellectually, physically and matteroffactly - and we get into each other's throat over these.

Instead let us practice tolerance toward each other so at least the probable alien wanderer upon seeing us here can attest yes, there is intelligent life in the universe and o my how beautiful it is.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Great, another "low probability of life developing correlates to intelligent design" threads... There are so many flaws in that reasoning it isn't even funny.

By the way, your OP is wrong, science isn't saying that design is inevitable. SOME scientists are saying that it is possible. There is a difference there..


I fail to see where my OP stated anywhere that ID is "inevitable". In fact, after re-reading my whole OP nowhere does it say ID is "inevitable.

My main point was that the WSJ was running this, which I found odd.

Your anger at anything God related may be clouding your comprehension.
Why do you always come across with such vitriol Krazy. You are one of the few I tend to scroll past at times because it usually comes across as blind rage against anything that dares to mention or imply God.

If you really want to have your points considered and are serious about contributing to a discussion, it might help to tone it down a bit and be a little less demeaning.


edit on 1 6 2015 by stosh64 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: ColeYounger


I don't understand these atheists who foam at the mouth and get terribly offended at the very mention of God. Are they that weak and insecure?

I don't understand these religious people who foam at the mouth, and get offended at the very mention of no-god. Are they that weak and insecure?



I agree with not understanding those on BOTH sides that foam and get offended. Are ideas that scary? From either side?

I see some here, on both sides, like this.

Kind of hard to try and deny ignorance like that.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am not claiming anything.
Probability allows for God.
Probablility allows for a flying spaghetti monster too unless it can be shown to have no probability.
Probablility allows a 5 billion year old ball of debris to form under the right conditions with a magnetic iron core, just the right distance from a yellow star, having just the right size moon and position, the star system in just the right spot in a galaxies arm, for life to form for just a short blip of time on that ball of stardust. The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. You can only fit 3 earth life times into the timeling of the universe, with life only appearing in the last 2.2 billion years on earth. Intelligent life only a tiny fraction of that time.

There is a probablility that life existed elsewhere, but there is also a probability that no two rises of intelligent life ever happened in the same era of the universes existence, leaving every instance of intelligent life alone in the universe.


edit on 6-1-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



The paradox is only a figment of imagination.
While the probabilities are rolling along waiting for God to poof into existence there is no God. Once probability hits the jackpot poof there is God. Once God is rolled out of probability, being all powerful, God erases the past and manifests the future becoming with no beginning or end. Once there is God, God removes the probability for another God because God can, if there were two, that would not make God, God.
edit on 6-1-2015 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Probability allows for God.
Probablility allows for a flying spaghetti monster too unless it can be shown to have no probability.

You don't understand how probability works.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Probability allows for God.
Probablility allows for a flying spaghetti monster too unless it can be shown to have no probability.

You don't understand how probability works.


Is there a magic guru science guy who decides what has a probability or not?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I am not claiming anything.
Probability allows for God.
Probablility allows for a flying spaghetti monster too unless it can be shown to have no probability.
Probablility allows a 5 billion year old ball of debris to form under the right conditions with a magnetic iron core, just the right distance from a yellow star, having just the right size moon and position, the star system in just the right spot in a galaxies arm, for life to form for just a short blip of time on that ball of stardust. The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago, the earth is 4.5 billion years old. You can only fit 3 earth life times into the timeling of the universe, with life only appearing in the last 2.2 billion years on earth. Intelligent life only a tiny fraction of that time.

There is a probablility that life existed elsewhere, but there is also a probability that no two rises of intelligent life ever happened in the same era of the universes existence, leaving every instance of intelligent life alone in the universe.


Yes, that is why we try to focus on the probabilities that humans have shown to have happened before, using objective evidence to prove that they happened. There is no objective evidence for god/intelligent designer. Therefore it is useless to talk about its probability of existence. For all we know, it could be 0% or it could be 100%. There is no telling either way.


The paradox is only a figment of imagination.
While the probabilities are rolling along waiting for God to poof into existence there is no God. Once probability hits the jackpot poof there is God. Once God is rolled out of probability, being all powerful, God erases the past and manifests the future becoming with no beginning or end. Once there is God, God removes the probability for another God because God can, if there were two, that would not make God, God.


That's not how infinite probabilities work. Infinite probabilities mean that any possibly imagined or unimagined probability has a chance of happening. So just like there is a probability that a god could appear one day, infinite probabilities also says that some day it won't exist again. There is also a probability that both could happen simultaneously. Your way of looking at it is ridiculous. Just because the possibility exists, doesn't mean it is worth talking about. Prove that the probability is greater than 0 first THEN maybe it will be worth discussing or investigating more thoroughly.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: stosh64

The article was about how ID has science backing it. You posted it. Didn't you agree with it? Or were you just fishing for responses without giving an opinion? You certainly didn't say you disagreed with it.

As for the rest of you post? Sorry.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You haven't proven the probability of God is zero yet atheists make it their main dogma of their religion.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I already told you that I'm agnostic. So I don't care what atheists think. I just said that they had two compelling arguments in their favor. The best compelling argument in favor of intelligent design is that you can't prove god doesn't exist. In either case, nothing is proven definitively so the answer as far as I'm concerned is "I don't know."




top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join