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: 81
36
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

It also points to the fact that creation was more probable for starting things because unlike evolution it didn't need something else in existence to draw from...


Yah, nothing but an infinitely more complex and impossible God figure that is.

But other than that nothing else was needed.





posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

although things may evolve that does not mean that evolution is the answer for man or the origins of anything other then point out the fact that things progress...

I imagined at things are relate because only so many building blocks are used...

It makes as much sense as saying my cousin and I are the same because we are related...


You can argue science with science.

You can't argue science with "I don't believe".



I don't agree with this line of reasoning, for the fact science is exactly the same as religion. Two inverse sides of the debate trying to prove things as facts, yet skewed to their own unobjective viewpoints. There is a lot of science that can be debunked, just as there is a lot of religion that can be debunked. The key is not being a puppet that believes everything that they hear.
edit on 11-8-2015 by TheChrome because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

Genetic manipulation of genes which is allowed for by creation can just as easily be responsible...


"Genetic manipulation of genes" either natural or unnatural.

Ya, it's called evolution.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs



Maybe you've never heard of "Thou shalt not bear false witness"? Remember the story of Jesus getting upset with the people selling stuff inside of the holy temple? Why do you suppose he did that? Because greed and monetary gain shouldn't be part of spirituality. The same thing applies to lying. In modern times, Jesus would be calling out people LIKE YOU because lying and being intentionally dishonesty to promote a believe system that advocates honesty and empathy is counter intuitive.


No dude that's a lie, and a dream in your own mind.
It's statements like that which show how futile and hopeless it is to engage in this with you.....goes off and searches for ignore button.
edit on 11-8-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I'm glad that you can agree that is a possibility...

it's kind of funny how creation can be claimed as a logical explanation of evolution by allowing it to take place by design...

yet evolution can't agree to creation being responsible, yet it is indeed fact all that exists or all of creation if you will allows for evolution...

this is indeed fact or there would be zero evidence of evolution because there would be none to find, and yet there is some evolution taking place...



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, for the fact science is exactly the same as religion. Two inverse sides of the debate trying to prove things as facts, yet skewed to there own unobjective viewpoints. There is a lot of science that can be debunked, just as there is a lot of religion that can be debunked. The key is not being a puppet that believes everything that they hear.


No, their methods are completely different. Science can be independently verified and tested. Religion isn't.

If there is some bit of science that can debunked it is dropped or changed. If there is some bit of science that can be debunked but hasn't yet been, then go do it and become famous and rich for it then. What's stopping you??? Scientists gladly debunk others work because it's a good thing to remove the false material as it does nobody any good. So if you can do it, then go do it.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

just my opinion but I believe science will one day prove God not religion...

But then again I perceive God as the original scientist...

nor does religion lay claim to needing proof...



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: TheChrome

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, for the fact science is exactly the same as religion. Two inverse sides of the debate trying to prove things as facts, yet skewed to there own unobjective viewpoints. There is a lot of science that can be debunked, just as there is a lot of religion that can be debunked. The key is not being a puppet that believes everything that they hear.


No, their methods are completely different. Science can be independently verified and tested. Religion isn't.

If there is some bit of science that can debunked it is dropped or changed. If there is some bit of science that can be debunked but hasn't yet been, then go do it and become famous and rich for it then. What's stopping you??? Scientists gladly debunk others work because it's a good thing to remove the false material as it does nobody any good. So if you can do it, then go do it.


You never got back with me about the prophecy I listed.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

just my opinion but I believe science will one day prove God not religion...

But then again I perceive God as the original scientist...

nor does religion lay claim to needing proof...


That would pretty cool if it did although I'm not sure how it could if God is at all like the description given so far. Timeless, Space less, outside our universe and beyond comprehension. That would be a difficult thing to measure study with those features.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

Yah, I know sorry about that. I was researching about prophesies and was overwhelmed with it all. I'm not even sure what is considered official prophesy and what isn't. Everyone seems to have a different opinion about everything and nobody seems to be consistent. I thought there was a basic list or something but it's not quite that simple. It's going to be a while before I am even capable of taking on that task. It's all quite confusing.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

although things may evolve that does not mean that evolution is the answer for man or the origins of anything other then point out the fact that things progress...

I imagined at things are relate because only so many building blocks are used...

It makes as much sense as saying my cousin and I are the same because we are related...


You can argue science with science.

You can't argue science with "I don't believe".



I don't agree with this line of reasoning, for the fact science is exactly the same as religion. Two inverse sides of the debate trying to prove things as facts, yet skewed to their own unobjective viewpoints. There is a lot of science that can be debunked, just as there is a lot of religion that can be debunked. The key is not being a puppet that believes everything that they hear.


No.

Someone better at science will explain it.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

I can agree with that statement and it is also evidence of the closed system we exist in...

And why we can't interact with God and more so how it could be possible for him to interact with us...

because we are the ones held in check by the boundaries he would have to be beyond or in other words be able to manipulate at will...


edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: Add

edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: ...



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Aloysius the Gaul

I'm glad that you can agree that is a possibility...

it's kind of funny how creation can be claimed as a logical explanation of evolution by allowing it to take place by design...

yet evolution can't agree to creation being responsible,


evolution says nothing about creation at all - it is not concerned with creation.


yet it is indeed fact all that exists or all of creation if you will allows for evolution...


huh?



this is indeed fact or there would be zero evidence of evolution because there would be none to find, and yet there is some evolution taking place...


double huh??



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: mOjOm

just my opinion but I believe science will one day prove God not religion...

But then again I perceive God as the original scientist...

nor does religion lay claim to needing proof...


I do understand your concept.

I can accept that we are in a very advanced virtual reality game designed by a very advanced programmer. The programmer is completely outside the game.

But, who created her?



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheChrome

I don't agree with this line of reasoning, for the fact science is exactly the same as religion.


In what way?


Two inverse sides of the debate trying to prove things as facts, yet skewed to their own unobjective viewpoints.


It cannot be both exactly the same and an inverse.


There is a lot of science that can be debunked, just as there is a lot of religion that can be debunked. The key is not being a puppet that believes everything that they hear.


Actually there is a lot of bunk that can be debunked.

Science is not an entity - it is a method for determining an explanation as to why something exists or behaves in the way it does.

"Science" is the examination of something using the following steps:

1/ Formulation of a question
2/ Creation of a hypothesis to answer the question
3/ Predicting the logical consequences of the hypothesis
4/ testing to see if the real world gives the results as predicted
5/ analysis of the results to decide what the testing shows and what to do next
6/ replication of the test and results independently of the original

that is the essence of the method of scientific enquiry.

In addition these days we often add 2 steps external to the core method:

External review - often called peer review - other people prominent in the area of enquiry examine the steps above to give some confidence that they have been conducted properly and give accurate results

Data recording and sharing - this allows lots of people to check the results over a long period of time.

as far as I can tell religion sticks to steps 1 and 2.

edit on 11-8-2015 by Aloysius the Gaul because: quote tag



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: TheChrome

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Annee

although things may evolve that does not mean that evolution is the answer for man or the origins of anything other then point out the fact that things progress...

I imagined at things are relate because only so many building blocks are used...

It makes as much sense as saying my cousin and I are the same because we are related...


You can argue science with science.

You can't argue science with "I don't believe".



I don't agree with this line of reasoning, for the fact science is exactly the same as religion. Two inverse sides of the debate trying to prove things as facts, yet skewed to their own unobjective viewpoints. There is a lot of science that can be debunked, just as there is a lot of religion that can be debunked. The key is not being a puppet that believes everything that they hear.


No.

Someone better at science will explain it.


I find it funny in these forums, that no one knows that I am a Mechanical Engineer, and have a higher IQ than most of these supposed scientists.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

this is not so important to me...

Here's why...

Outside of our box could be completely diff I'm rather certain it is...

So this is why I am free to assume no need for our creator to have need of creation because of not existing within our limitations or being bound by them...

then again I can still assume there are others in the same realm of our creator existing beyond our boundaries...

But if I assume that it would not change the fact that our creator is our creator or our God is our God and not the others...

I can't help but assume the others would be busy creating their own universes...

You were once religious you know he is a jealous God he said so himself so it is written...

then again the Bible does speak of others beyond our experience of course referred to as Angels or the Fallen ones... I just call them aliens now... Of the extra dimensional kind...
And none of them are considered by the bible forgive me it all I have for reference are higher than God in said realm...

So when people start talking about the gods this is what I start leaning toward...


edit on 11-8-2015 by 5StarOracle because: Add



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: TheChrome

so what?

There are plenty of hi IQ people who choose to believe in religion, occult, chemtrails, and other nonsense......IQ dose not correspond with anything except hi IQ, and at least Annee is honest enough to acknowledge her limitations and let someone else explain something



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle

You were once religious you know he is a jealous God he said so himself so it is written...


But that makes no sense at all. An infinite God like you speak of couldn't be jealous. Why would he be???

That's what I don't get with all you devout Religious people. You say stuff that is clearly illogical and unreasonable and opposes basic common sense. But you say it like as if it makes sense even though you can't even explain how or why it would be that way.

Just saying, "Well, God is beyond our understanding" isn't a valid reason. If fact if that is your reasoning behind the things you keep saying then that reason alone is why you couldn't possibly know if the things your saying are true or not.

How can you not see this??? You keep saying God this and God that...Bla Bla, He can do this and does this and he's jealous and etc...etc...etc. While saying how we can't possibly comprehend him, how he's beyond space and time and specifically outside our universe. Well if that's true then you can't be experiencing him either and everything you're saying is complete BS you just pull out your butts!!! Which explains why it keeps contradicting other things you say again and again....

I mean do you people ever listen to yourselves and try and verify the things you say. Or go through them and try to put them all together without having any contradictions??? It can't be done.



posted on Aug, 11 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aloysius the Gaul
a reply to: TheChrome

so what?

There are plenty of hi IQ people who choose to believe in religion, occult, chemtrails, and other nonsense......IQ dose not correspond with anything except hi IQ, and at least Annee is honest enough to acknowledge her limitations and let someone else explain something



You are correct. IQ means nothing. And I would not normally talk about such things. If you think all things coming from the scientific community are true and factual because they are smart, think again. I posted that comment for a reason. You should not blindly follow all things that you are told. Rather, do research and examine whether there is truth and facts behind the scenario.




top topics



 
36
<< 78  79  80    82  83  84 >>

log in

join