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.

 

Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

page: 15
36
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: tothetenthpower

Wow bro... Harsh. I'm not sure that's quite what your grandma meant...

But hey. If you want to be a dick about your dead grandma that's cool too.


It's not being a dick, my grandmother was a smart woman, but she didn't care for science or to be told about new discoveries.

She was happy that her faith could explain everything for her, and that's great.

For her.

That's all I'm pointing out. Some people will be happy with those explanations and trust that it is true. For whatever reason.

Good for them. I've said it many times I'm jealous of people who have faith, it must be a beautiful thing. I don't and until something occurs that makes me believe, I will continue to subscribe to the side that sits squarely on the fence.

ETA: My line about observations way back then wasn't about my grandmother, I meant about Carl Sagan's time.

~Tenth
edit on 8/3/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:12 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower




My grand mother used to say that the wind was Jesus blowing you kisses. That's how she came to terms with a scientific phenomena she didn't understand.


So you're telling me your grandma didn't understand wind, and actually thought it was the kiss of Jesus?

Ok.
edit on 3-8-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: arimass101
People your avoiding from debating me from this question: "Either the universe had a creator or the universe had always existed. Which is more logical?" This is the root of the tree. Everything else are branches. You cant have branches if you dont have a root.


To that point, my opinion and belief is : there is no creator in the traditional sense or at least in the sense you're portraying. By that I mean some intelligent, conscious, biased individual who somehow created everything.

To me, what makes sense, is physics and science. Because the universe is cold, harsh and above all, "impartial" -- as in, there is no love lost if you die by an earthquake, tornado, volcano, or some horrible group of religious morons, it only strengthens my belief that there IS no being running the show.

If there was, he would be the most sadistic sadist I've ever known. Now, "freewill" and all that gets thrown in -- but freewill doesn't explain why our eyes only see a fraction of the dangerous wavelengths that otherwise cause us harm. Why WOULDNT you, as a creator, let us see gamma rays, xrays, UV -- the things that cause us harm?

Why are children meant to suffer? WHy do innocent people die while the cruel are rewarded? If a kind and caring being, as portrayed in religious doctrine suggest, why let this happen?

Because it DOESNT exist. The universe is what it is. Now, Science doesnt have all the answers -- but it is trying to figure them out and when we are wrong, we change our belief to reflect what is observed.

Religious views of the universe with a one-being creator do not allow that.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Well you must admit it is quite reason able as the world we live in has very large moments of sh!t for a good many people...



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme




To that point, my opinion and belief is : there is no creator in the traditional sense or at least in the sense you're portraying. By that I mean some intelligent, conscious, biased individual who somehow created everything.
To that point, my opinion and belief is : there is no creator in the traditional sense or at least in the sense you're portraying. By that I mean some intelligent, conscious, biased individual who somehow created everything.


Biased. There's your first problem.



To me, what makes sense, is physics and science. Because the universe is cold, harsh and above all, "impartial" -- as in, there is no love lost if you die by an earthquake, tornado, volcano, or some horrible group of religious morons, it only strengthens my belief that there IS no being running the show.


Poor argument and doesn't address the root issues at all. You can't possibly impose your own morality on something capable of creating the entire universe and expect to use said morality as justification for why creation cannot have occurred.



If there was, he would be the most sadistic sadist I've ever known. Now, "freewill" and all that gets thrown in -- but freewill doesn't explain why our eyes only see a fraction of the dangerous wavelengths that otherwise cause us harm. Why WOULDNT you, as a creator, let us see gamma rays, xrays, UV -- the things that cause us harm?


Your argument is so poorly thought out that you haven't considered the consequences of humans being able to view all the wavelengths of light, or how it would have impacted our species.



Why are children meant to suffer?


They aren't. Why do we care more about Cecil the Lion or building bombs than we do about starving children across the world? Maybe you could answer me that?



WHy do innocent people die while the cruel are rewarded?


Because people are assholes.



Because it DOESNT exist. The universe is what it is. Now, Science doesnt have all the answers -- but it is trying to figure them out and when we are wrong, we change our belief to reflect what is observed.

Religious views of the universe with a one-being creator do not allow that.


Do not allow what? Change? You should probably do some more research.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Yes, yes she did.

Mind you she was born in 1902 or somewhere near there I believe.

So that probably had something to do with it.

~Tenth
edit on 8/3/2015 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Yes, yes she did.

Mind you she was born in the first 1902 or somewhere near there I believe.

So that probably had something to do with it.

~Tenth


I'm fairly certain she was using that as a metaphor. It's hilarious to me that you took it literally and think that someone born in 1902 didn't understand the concept of wind simply because they were a Christian.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph


I'm fairly certain she was using that as a metaphor. It's hilarious to me that you took it literally and think that someone born in 1902 didn't understand the concept of wind simply because they were a Christian.


Well it's nice to see that you knew my grandmother more than I did. No it was not a metaphor to her.

This is the same woman that would shove us under the table with bowls of puff wheat and draw crosses in her windows during thunder storms (with holy water) to keep the devil out. She was a very, very devout woman.

Nothing wrong with that mind you. But that's what it was.

~Tenth



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: tothetenthpower

LMAO

Ok. She literally thought the wind was Jesus. You win, bro.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: arimass101
People your avoiding from debating me from this question: "Either the universe had a creator or the universe had always existed. Which is more logical?" This is the root of the tree. Everything else are branches. You cant have branches if you dont have a root.


To that point, my opinion and belief is : the second option; the universe always existed as it is more logical. I cannot see how there is a creator in the traditional sense or at least in the sense you're portraying. By that I mean some intelligent, conscious, biased individual who somehow created everything.

To me, what makes sense, is physics and science. Because the universe is cold, harsh and above all, "impartial" -- as in, there is no love lost if you die by an earthquake, tornado, volcano, or some horrible group of religious morons, it only strengthens my belief that there IS no being running the show.

If there was, he would be the most sadistic sadist I've ever known. Now, "freewill" and all that gets thrown in to the debate-- but freewill doesn't then explain biological weaknesses, like why our eyes only see a fraction of the dangerous wavelengths that otherwise cause us harm. Why WOULDNT you, as a creator, let us see gamma rays, xrays, UV -- the things that cause us harm? To me that is a result (failing if you will) of evolution and how mutations work.

Why are children meant to suffer? WHy do innocent people die while the cruel are rewarded? If a kind and caring being, as portrayed in religious doctrine suggest, why let this happen?

Because it DOESNT exist. The universe is what it is. Now, Science doesnt have all the answers -- but it is trying to figure them out and when we are wrong, we change our belief to reflect what is observed.

Religious views of the universe with a one-being creator do not allow that.
edit on 3-8-2015 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2015 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   
Soooo... I'm assuming there is no proof?

Apologies if I'm wrong, but I don't have the time to read the whole thread yet.

I know it's cheating, but could someone give a quick lowdown please?

Many thanks in advance!



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:14 AM
link   
a reply to: OpenEars123

No, there is no proof. Accordingly the morning news is not reporting this amazing discovery.

Thread summary for you: Just several posters engaging the OP in debate only to be ignored and then the OP spamming "why can't anyone debate me?"

I think that sums it up.

edit on 3-8-2015 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:18 AM
link   
So basically, you're saying that God exists because you really, really, REALLY, believe in him.

Thats deep.



a reply to: arimass101



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: arimass101

You seem to know for sure god is male?

is his sex influenced by your preconvictions and society ?

God as a divine being is a man made concept and only done so that humans can relate to things they dont understand
however god is simply the source of consciousness that has always existed and existed before the 3rd dimension came into being.

It's not a person or being its just consciousness , our collective consciousness ( well in my opinion )



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: zazzafrazz

Would have been much more interesting if ATS had a bikini babe "this week in news", I admit. Something to bring up with the boss, perhaps...

>_>



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: arimass101

You seem to know for sure god is male?

is his sex influenced by your preconvictions and society ?

God as a divine being is a man made concept and only done so that humans can relate to things they dont understand
however god is simply the source of consciousness that has always existed and existed before the 3rd dimension came into being.

It's not a person or being its just consciousness , our collective consciousness ( well in my opinion )


This is a legit question. The abrahamic concept of God was only delineated as a male because of the way his followers viewed creation. Mostly, that there was a single creator that they viewed in a fatherly fashion. Capable of love, severity, discipline, etc.

I'm not convinced there is any evidence for God's genitalia anywhere in the Bible. I haven't read the Quran though, so I'll leave that up to someone else.

Either way, "neolithic goat herders" do not solve the original problem.
edit on 3-8-2015 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: arimass101

I see a bunch of words, but I don't see any evidence... Where is the objective and testable evidence of god?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: arimass101

I see a bunch of words, but I don't see any evidence... Where is the objective and testable evidence of god?


YEAH! # YOU OP, I'M TIRED OF CARRYING YOUR THREAD FOR YOU.

It was fun, but it's your turn, junior.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: arimass101


Lets together debate the existence of god from the the question that I wrote above: "Either the universe had a creator or the universe had always existed. Which is more logical?"


That sounds like a false dilemma to me. Why limit yourself to those 2 choices exclusively? You claimed you could prove god, but haven't said a single thing to suggest he exist. It's kinda hard to prove something that cannot be defined as per you.

Which is more logical?

1. Evidence for the universe being eternal. Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

2. Evidence for the universe being created. Zero. Plus you can't argue your case without assigning human defined characteristics to the god that you claim has none. If god existed first, where did he come from?

I'll go with option 1, although what we have discovered is far from the complete picture, so it could be something else entirely when you think about other dimensions.



Why was this moved to Creationism? This has nothing to do with religion and evolution??


Debating the existence of god isn't origins and creationism? Really?


My god only about 3 of you tried to debate from the question I asked and none replied to my arguments. Whats up!!??


There is no debate. You presented a false dichotomy and used it to very loosely suggest god is more logical than not. Plus you haven't responded to any of the points offered by the folks that did address it, so.....
edit on 3-8-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   


The true essence and nature of God cannot be grasped at all. It has no analogy, neither with any concept that exists among created things, nor with any idea that the imagination can conceive or the intellect comprehend. There are no words or descriptions which are truly fitting and proper to use in relation to God.


Therefore God does not exist.

Your own words.

Jude



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join