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.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 24
42
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: edmc^2


No, but I made an INFERENCE based on logical, methodical and scientific analysis of the evidence.


in simple terms, your "work" is a disgrace to science. this entire thread stands testament to that fact.


In any case, even the physical evidence has more than enough power to give evidence that the universe is a creation by an intelligent creator - Yahweh/Jehovah God.


youve made your point, your powers of cognitive flexibility are indeed astounding and baffling.


Also, it's not because it's easy to say "God did it" or just because it seems to be unexplainable in a scientific way. That's too simplistic and lazy. It's even comparable to the blind faith exhibited by those who say "we don't know who created the universe, but it's not God."


you get too caught up in the ad hominem and witticisms and forget to attach all that science-y looking stuff that promises to magically make your case watertight. by the power of greyskull and whatnot.



Ha! That's a laugh TzarChasm. Apparently you don't know what the word infer means even a scientific one as opposed to an assumption.

In fact, you can't even contest the evidence I presented. So what grounds are you standing on other than blind faith?

You said, you don't know what created the universe but are convince is not God. Yet you present no evidence but just assumptions. You seem to have great faith in science but you can't back up your assumptions with scientific evidence.

And you call yourself scientific. Who then is a disgrace to science here? Isn't the one whose evidence is based on blind faith?

So again, since you claimed that I'm a "disgrace to science", prove your point. Attack and destroy my evidence point by point.

I've already proven to you by means logic, observation, experimentation, and experience that life can only come from life. Show me that the opposite is truth, otherwise your ad hominem "disgrace to science" attacks are empty and your finger is pointing at you.




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
Barcs, I gather you always like to antagonize people. Not sure why.


Antagonize? You are the one that made a thread based on assumptions that attacks science and education. I'm telling you that your assumptions are assumptions. I get that this bothers you, but you are using an intellectually dishonest premise to assume your pre-determined conclusion.

Plus you are wrong about Occam's razor. Simple means less assumptions when referencing science, nice try with the quote mines. The more you assume, the more faulty a viewpoint is. Since your viewpoint requires assumptions based on assumptions, you have nothing to stand on, logically. You still can't prove the premise of your inference, which makes the entire thing invalid.



Sure I can prove the premise of my inference because it's based on sound logic and repeatable scientific evidence.

Since only life can beget life, based on sound logic and repeatable scientific evidence I can infer then that life on earth can only come from a pre-existing life.

Since a law requires a lawmaker and lawgiver, based on sound logic and repeatable scientific evidence I can infer then that the laws of the universe must have come from an intelligent lawmaker / lawgiver.

Since a mind requires a brain, based on sound logic and repeatable scientific evidence I can infer then that the a mind must belong to someone with a brain, a head a body, therefore a person.

Try to prove me wrong based on your sound logic if you even have one.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Ha! That's a laugh TzarChasm. Apparently you don't know what the word infer means even a scientific one as opposed to an assumption.



deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.


thats what infer means. what you have been doing is making an explicit statement and sifting through evidence until it fits.

perhaps this thread will give you a clearer idea of what im talking about, because there is certainly none of what you have described (as per the definition of "inference").


In fact, you can't even contest the evidence I presented. So what grounds are you standing on other than blind faith?


this whole thread has been one long, arduous, detailed objection to the evidence you presented. its not our fault you dont take the hint easily.


You said, you don't know what created the universe but are convince is not God. Yet you present no evidence but just assumptions. You seem to have great faith in science but you can't back up your assumptions with scientific evidence.


im not stupid enough to claim to be able to change your mind.


So again, since you claimed that I'm a "disgrace to science", prove your point. Attack and destroy my evidence point by point.


so you can play the same song and dance routine thats kept your thread alive to this point? no thanks. if you want your evidence to be sufficiently refuted and debunked, then my answer is simple: reread this entire thread.

and if by the time you have finished, you still dont get it, then i cant help you. no one can. but you dont really want to be disproven, do you...you just want a chance to look superior. to earn a gold star in gods book.

thine vanity outshines thine wit.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



" It is finished ".



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Can you give 3 specific things in that video that to you represent the 3 most undeniable examples of Creationism???



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

youtube =/= evidence



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

If you are able to see and not just think?

I'll give you three specific words.

Nature describes God.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

If you are able to see and not just think?

I'll give you three specific words.

Nature describes God.


I was kinda looking for a straight answer not some mysterious message of wisdom. The reason being that I was going to watch it and I was interested in what examples they gave that you personally thought were the most difficult to try and counter. You said it's based in science and uses rational proof and evidence so when it came to those parts I'd pay very close attention to see how solid their argument was.

I'm not going to bother trying to counter philosophical or mystical ideas because that is pointless. It's like trying to hurl clumps of smoke against an attacking wind storm.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm



What's so mysterious?



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

It's not a direct statement with meaning that can be gained from what the words are literally.

You say I need to "see" not just "think". But what you mean is that I need to "see" something that isn't visible by sight alone but is something that needs to be understood in ways beyond just seeing it. You also imply that I have to suspend "thinking" in some way to better understand something.

We both know that while watching the video means I "see" and "think" just fine. So your statement is "mysterious" in that it doesn't state exactly what you mean to say.

The statement "Nature describes God" also means what exactly??? If true, then that means God is Nature and Nature is God. Because Nature describes Nature. Nature is something we can understand because we have access to it everywhere. We are part of it. God on the other hand is a concept only at this point.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: spy66




There is one gap science cant explain and that is what energy-form(Source) formed the energymass (the singualrity).

Correct.
Feel free to insert your favorite cause of choice. If you must.


Heehee..... That is the argument isn't it

But science should know something about the Space time surrounding the expanding singualrity. Since the singualrity is still expanding at present time.

If the void of space surrounding the singualrity is a greater or absolute vaccum void. It would exclude a lot of different arguments.

It is speculated that matter (light) expand faster than light at the edge of Our universe. That would imply that the vacuum is more absolute than the vacuum we have measured the speed of light in.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




The statement "Nature describes God" also means what exactly??? If true, then that means God is Nature and Nature is God.


No it doesn't. It means, all thru GODS CREATION =nature
( because as any person with sight can see all things are created )
his power, majesty and love and intelligence is there to be observed.
I would even go so far to as to say nature is a self portrait of God.

No retort/ oh to bad.


You should put something uplifting in your life and watch the vid.
edit on Rpm102515v14201500000011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

You should put something uplifting in your life and watch the vid.


15 minutes in and this is hardly what I'd consider Science of God. It's just a bunch of "Wow the universe is big neat." and then following that with "God did it."

It better get better than that or I'm not going to be able to finish it.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Sorry Randy. I tried but it's just a bunch of unsupported "God is Great" being applied to everything from atomic forces to how weather works and even the movement of every star in the sky. I can only hear someone with an alleged PhD talk about how the formation of Clouds and Rain and Lighting prove "God's Hand" is controlling everything before I give up out of pure disgust toward such intellectual dishonesty. These "Scientists" should be ashamed of themselves for implying that "God" is "out there" controlling every single rain drop and particle from the smallest quantum bit to every galaxy in the universe. All without anything to support such an incredible claim such as that.

They should just come right out and say what it is they are alluding to which is that some Super Magic Entity controls every aspect of everything and "God Magic" is responsible for every cause and effect everywhere at all times. I wonder what constitutes them having a PhD in the first place when every answer to every question is simply "God Magic". What amount of study and research is required to answer any question with "God did it." It takes about 5 seconds to learn to say that statement and decide to apply it to every possible question. Didn't know you could earn a PhD in 5 seconds.

But hey, I tried at least. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe it either. If you like it and it works for you go for it. Believe whatever you want, but I just can't do it man.
edit on 25-10-2015 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: edmc^2



" It is finished ".


Amazing video!!!

Truly God is Great. His creations testify to His Wisdom, Power, Justice and Love.

Thanks for the vid - enjoyed it immensely.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

The fact you're not able to refute the evidence I presented leaves me with the conclusion that atheism has nothing satisfactory to offer in regards to the origin of the universe. It can't even offer a clear and concise explanation, but an ever changing ideas based on philosophy.

As for this thread. Yes, I went through all the evidence refuting my 3 simple evidence and all you have TzarChasm as your ATS handle name infer is sarcasm.

As for superiority, I thought atheism has a superior argumentation for proving the origin of the universe, but alas, it's just a post-modern irrational chatter. It claims to be scientific on the outside but once you analyze it with brutal honesty, it comes out as a mere belief system. Worse of all it's blind faith. A belief on something no one knows.

Biblical-Creation, on the other hand, is clear as a whistle as it's able to answer Why the Universe and Life existed in the first place.

As for this bit "...you just want a chance to look superior. to earn a gold star in gods book. "

You don't have even an inkling of what you're saying. I serve my God not because of what I WANT but that because he accepted me. Big difference there my friend. Salvation is NOT earned - it's a gift from God. I follow and do his will not because of fear or to make myself look good or "to earn a gold star in gods book". Nope! You're greatly mistaken. I obey his commands as the scripture says:

"...because he first loved us.” (1 John 4:19)



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
My next thread...

Why Atheism is not scientific but a mere belief system.



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




But hey, I tried at least. I'm not saying you shouldn't believe it either. If you like it and it works for you go for it. Believe whatever you want, but I just can't do it man.


Even tho you have no better explanation. I tell you this much my felliow member.
I absolutely refuse to give up on you. You can know it now, or you can know it later.
God is worth knowing, more than anyone else. And you will know it.

Here try to make it to the end of this one. PLEASE.




posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
My next thread...

Why Atheism is not scientific but a mere belief system.


Hook me up with a pm ed?



posted on Oct, 25 2015 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You haven't drawn any conclusions?



No, but I made an INFERENCE based on logical, methodical and scientific analysis of the evidence.


This would be induction, and your inductive reasoning still apparently leads you to the CONCLUSION that a God is what best fits the facts.

So all of my criticisms still stand.



It's even comparable to the blind faith exhibited by those who say "we don't know who created the universe, but it's not God."


I would argue that I know that Yahweh does not exist in the forms defined by the Bible and/or subsequent Christian doctrine and apologetics. You might see that claim as arrogant, but I see it as the only logical conclusion after years and years of research into the arguments. I am sure that for you you see your God as the only logical conclusion, the question is which of us is applying the axioms and principles of logic and skeptical inquiry more consistently.

However I cannot rule out of all gods, or even all forms of the Christian God. As I explained God has been defined and redefined so many times so that many believers think he can break all the rules and get around all the logical roadblocks that would normally rule him out.

This is what happened with the Problem of Evil, where Christian apologists now simply conjure into existence imaginary reasons God has for allowing needless suffering. God simply "has sufficient reason" to allow brain tumors in children and devastating tsunamis and they can wave away the obvious contradiction that is a perfectly loving all powerful being who is wholly perfect in every way creating an imperfect world full of disaster and chaos and pain. This is the same thing that happened with the Euthyphro Dilemma, where Christians made up a new category, God's fundamental nature/character, in order to explain how God's morals are not external but yet are not arbitrary.

Of course such redefinitions of God have largely failed, but clever Christian apologists will always find ways to reword and redefine God or make God sound logically necessary or causally necessary or morally necessary or ontologically necessary.



But like I said the evidence is all around us.


If we must have an explanation, or a cause, for the Universe, all that can be said is that this cause must be "sufficient to cause the Universe to begin existing" (and note that I'm not using begin existing in the ex nihilo sense) and the difference between you and I is that you imbue this cause with agency and see parallels with your preferred deity and I do not see any need for such agency. It is not that there couldn't be a creator God but I see plenty stacked against such an idea.

For example, the use of the word God is itself problematic. I think you will agree with me that essentially every god human beings have ever believed in or worshiped has been fictional, obviously you make an exception for Yahweh, but for the most part human deities aren't real. So if and when we do find a GOD calling it such seems like an insult, because we will be lumping in the one true god (or the pantheon of gods if we discover polytheism to be true) in with the multitude of fictional gods we worshiped in our ignorance.

You have chosen, been convinced of or been indoctrinated to believe in (I don't presume to know which) one ancient god out of a multitude. I am convinced that the intellectually honest stance, at least from my experience and knowledge, is to disbelieve until some claim of the supernatural or a god has met its burden of proof.




top topics



 
42
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join