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.

 

If God created everything, why does religion contradicts so many things??

page: 14
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Of course they don't "know", nobody was around to verify the beginning of the universe. But you are incorrect, one of the greatest discoveries of science in the 20th century was that the universe is indeed finite.


Personal testimony is not the best form of evidence, physical evidence that can be repeatedly collected and verified is a lot stronger when it comes to forming a conclusion.

People lie and make stuff up....all the time and always have done.




posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

So first you claim that we "know" that the universe had a beginning, then you say, "Of course, we don't know". Then you say that we "know" that the universe is finite.


Joseph Silk: Head of Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not. To give you an example, imagine the geometry of the Universe in two dimensions as a plane. It is flat, and a plane is normally infinite. But you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus [like the shape of a doughnut]. The surface of the torus is also spatially flat, but it is finite. So you have two possibilities for a flat Universe: one infinite, like a plane, and one finite, like a torus, which is also flat.
www.esa.int...



posted on Feb, 4 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
Personal testimony is not the best form of evidence, physical evidence that can be repeatedly collected and verified is a lot stronger when it comes to forming a conclusion.


This is true.

But in my other thread, you have completely dismissed my observations in the real world based on statistical data as nonsense.


I doubt you can be trusted as you seem to pursue a double standards in that regards.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




So first you claim that we "know" that the universe had a beginning, then you say, "Of course, we don't know". Then you say that we "know" that the universe is finite.


I think you misunderstood, I said science doesn't know if the Big Bang was the cause of the beginning of the universe.




No. We do not know whether the Universe is finite or not.





The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.


"The Beginning of Time" ~ Stephen Hawking



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




Personal testimony is not the best form of evidence, physical evidence that can be repeatedly collected and verified is a lot stronger when it comes to forming a conclusion.


Nobody has verified the Big Bang, all models have failed. The current model theory requires anti-gravity forces that have never been observed to exist, it's only a hypothesis.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Tangerine




It's absurd to claim that physics, for example, is a religion.


Of course, because Physics isn't a belief that forms one's views of the purpose of life. Nor does it attempt to explain the meaning of life.
------------




Atheism most certainly isn't a belief that forms one's views on the purpose of life nor does it attempt to explain the meaning of life. I see that we agree that atheism is not a religion.

edit on 5-2-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: windword






Of course they don't "know", nobody was around to verify the beginning of the universe.



You mean Moses wasn't around to verify the beginning of the universe he described in Genesis?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Nobody has verified the Big Bang, all models have failed. The current model theory requires anti-gravity forces that have never been observed to exist, it's only a hypothesis.



Note that scientists have no direct evidence of present day, expansion drift.

They have only derived such conclusion through the optical phenomenon called "red-shifting" of more distant galaxies which they deduced to be cause by retreating galaxies at speeds of significant % to the speed of light.

But red-shifting can also be caused by gravitational forces and presence of extra gravitational forces which scientists assumed to be invisible matter called "dark matter". Gravity behaves quite differently at incredibly large scales and is more like molasses (fluid) than orderly curvatures of space frames.

More recent theories suggest our whole Universe is nestled inside a black hole, the largest we could possibly realize.

My own analysis correlates with the radius of our observable Universe and the calculated Schwarzschild radius of the whole mass of our Universe at 13.7 billion light years. Our whole Universe may in fact be the whole mass of the black hole we live in.

This recent theory explains everything more clearly. But if the truth is that our whole universe is the inside of a black hole then we could just be one black hole (Universe) out of many in an even much larger Universe that we have no awareness of to the fact that the event horizon of our own black hole universe may be scattering light coming from outside.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

All you have shown is that physicists don't agree on the origin of the universe, and that some assume that it MUST have had a beginning. No one has proven that the universe did or did not have a beginning or that it ends. Just like no one has proven that God exists.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: johndeere2020
This is true.

But in my other thread, you have completely dismissed my observations in the real world based on statistical data as nonsense.


I doubt you can be trusted as you seem to pursue a double standards in that regards.


'my observations in the real world based on statistical data'

You made claims that were not reflected in any of the links you posted, you basically abused the sources you did post and attempted to deceive anyone reading your misogynistic thread.

In my opinion you cannot be trusted to hold a genuine and honest discussion about anything.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Prezbo369
Nobody has verified the Big Bang, all models have failed. The current model theory requires anti-gravity forces that have never been observed to exist, it's only a hypothesis.


Yet there is verifiable evidence for the BB, evidence that has been collected many times. Nobody is taking someones word for it, that'd be very silly.

How it exactly occurred is currently unknown, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence strongly suggests that it did.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Prezbo369
'my observations in the real world based on statistical data'

You made claims that were not reflected in any of the links you posted, you basically abused the sources you did post and attempted to deceive anyone reading your misogynistic thread.

In my opinion you cannot be trusted to hold a genuine and honest discussion about anything.





I mentioned about a big difference in the customers of establishments like strip clubs in terms of gender.

That's 20% for males vs 4% for females.

You'll have to be blind if you did not see it page 31 of this survey:

www.aeaweb.org...


Anyone who will open that link will see that you're the one lying and deceiving people, not me.


In fact, just look around you, do we see equal numbers of men and women who would pay for sex?? No, because there's a lot less women who'd do such thing. Sex is not what drive women.


I know guys like you, who are skillful at falsely accusing people and destroying their reputation online. Many of them are just paid by other organizations to do the dirty work for them. Are you one of them? Better quit that job now, it's won't be good for your soul I'm telling you.



You see this is the problem of religion. It turns the truth into a lie and the lie into truth. I bet you are a Christian too or a Judaist or a Muslim....



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   

edit on 2/6/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Tangerine




Gnostics were the only ones who had actually read the book. The rest pretended they'd read it and didn't see the whopping contradictions.


What book..there was no formalized canon of scripture until into the 13th century AD. Gnostics didnt need books per se for gnosis

Yes. Gnosis is a 'state of awareness' requiring no books.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: veteranhumanbeing




God does not 'create' evil; it just allows for its manifestation (its up to the human to self determine the consequences of utilizing this negative form of energy;


If youre referring to the god of the old testament, sure "it" did. In its omniscience Jehovah took a nap or went off to attend to other "worldly matters" in the same Eden it created for Adam. Somehow its creation "the serpent" was beyond Jehovahs omniscience and then things went sour. I like how Jehovah bitches about adam to his fellow creators that "now we better chuck them out of Eden in case they try the Tree of Everlasting life".

I try to wrap my head around this. I thought Adam already was perfect. Why have a tree of Life within reach? Was this Tree needed for earthlings and or the Elohim to extend their lifespan or to mitigate the effects of the gravity of Earth upon these spacefaring Elohim So many questions so few answers

Why would Jehovah have to run by the Elohim his next course of action? This is why I believe the Gnostics were considered heretics and ruthlessly hunted down. They rightfully stated that this earth is controlled by the "demiurge"

I am not speaking of any books written by the human that describe a God they have never physically encountered as that is impossible. Adam was a metaphor the tree of knowledge was a metaphor (never existed) just concepts to explain whatever fairy tale needed explaining (to keep the potential naysayer rebel/rabble happy). The Gnostics knew the sacred truths and these were derived from Egyptian Mystery School teachings. The Qabala originally belonged to this school; and was 'borrowed' re-interpreted by the Hebrew faith (the meaning is the same; credit given here), an explanation of different states of awareness using paths; starting from the 'matter plane' Malkuth to the 'immaterial ethereal' Kether. These early (yet to be known as Christians) were schooled in Qumran and were originally vilified as being the "Essenes". Here is a huge fallacy; the Jews were never enslaved by the Egyptians (they were embraced). I know this will be very difficult to believe if you are a believer in the old testaments (what you are being told). I will give an example. The original Ancient Maya hieroglyphs depicting human sacrifice were warnings "do not do these things"; but were miss interpreted as to mean DO THIS. They were highly advanced and knew their creator (those first ancient ones that arrived with a fully formed civilization also left in mass in 0 AD leaving the temples to the Classic and later periods etc. to maintain; so you may see the problem here).
edit on 6-2-2015 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369




How it exactly occurred is currently unknown, but that doesn't change the fact that the evidence strongly suggests that it did.


No, all previous model hypothesis have been falsified. The current hypothesis requires anti-matter forces (Gravitons) that have never been observed to exist.




In physics, the graviton is a hypothetical elementary particle that mediates the force of gravitation in the framework of quantum field theory. If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless (because the gravitational force appears to have unlimited range) and must be a spin-2 boson.


Graviton ~ Wiki



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




All you have shown is that physicists don't agree on the origin of the universe, and that some assume that it MUST have had a beginning.


Correct, they don't agree on the origin (and rightly so, it cannot be observed and tested with the scientific method), but something that is ETERNAL (infinite) had no origin! As stated previously, if the universe were infinitely old it would be at heat death. So they do know the 4th dimension is finite, spacetime has finite boundaries on BOTH the macro and microcosm. Planck is famous for discovering this. Not all scientists agree because science is VERY SLOOOOOOOOOOOOW at affirming truth. Hell, it took scientists 50 years to agree that light had a speed limit to it and wasn't instantaneous. It took Physicists 25 years to finally agree with Trever Norman and Barry Setterfield that the speed of light isn't a constant, it's slowing down.


edit on 7-2-2015 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:03 AM
link   
a reply to: johndeere2020




They have only derived such conclusion through the optical phenomenon called "red-shifting" of more distant galaxies which they deduced to be cause by retreating galaxies at speeds of significant % to the speed of light.


You know that there are serious doubts to the red shift theory today right?



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine




Atheism most certainly isn't a belief that forms one's views on the purpose of life nor does it attempt to explain the meaning of life. I see that we agree that atheism is not a religion.


Sure it does, "there is no purpose to life", is a viable answer to the question.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 12:23 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical




Sure it does, "there is no purpose to life", is a viable answer to the question.


That's one response that an atheist may have, another might be that the purpose to life is nothing more than to eat, drink and be merry.

What more does a believer have in the way of purpose except an added belief that their purpose is to please their creator?




top topics



 
9
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join