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: 31
42
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Sorry bud, you have your faith and your opinion, but none of it is based on logic, fact or evidence. I can respect that if only you would admit it rather than pushing your worldview on others as fact.

Seems rather ironic to me that TPTB push their worldview on others as fact and no one questions it or even bats an eye.

That post actually applies to Darwinism more than it does to ID.

Atheism and darwinism are clearly faith and opinion, nor are they based on logic, fact or evidence.


Atheism is the most primitive of belief systems. It claims ‘science’ and ‘logic’ ‘prove’ God does not exist. A total logical fallacy, as obviously God is not material and science is only interested in, and can only observe material ‘reality’. God’s existence cannot be proven or disproven via the scientific method. It’s not that people haven’t tried, it’s just logically impossible.

Atheism is therefore inconsistent with its own propositions. And this is why it inspires so little confidence. It’s usually a reaction to religious hypocrisy and while primitive, for this reason it’s often the strong that flirt with it.

Atheists often develop fundamentalist tendencies. Also they will often actively proselytize. All in all, atheism as a belief system is not sufficient to defeat religion. That’s why Richard Dawkins, who made a career of denying God, recanted and went agnostic: simply not knowing, instead of denying.

migchels.wordpress.com...




posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
And what's your definition of "life" anyway? Biologically, the ability to reproduce defines life. Robots that reproduce will be considered "alive". The first robot to reproduce will be a unique life form that had no pre-existing life form which produced it, except if you consider the engineers who developed it to be its "parents".

And robots which can reproduce will have autonomous evolution. In other words, they will mutate and evolve on their own.

You should think outside the box a little more - there's a lot of "life" that requires no intervention from a God to exist.



Life - in it's broadest term, it's the principle of life or living. It's the animate existence as opposed to inanimate existence.

To earthly, biological physical life, life in general, have the ability and capability of growth, metabolism, response to external stimuli, and reproduction.

In its ultimate definition, human life IS life - a conscious life.

From this exacting definition - robots are not life but artificial life forms with pre-programmed instructions to mimic real life.

As to thinking outside of the box - is fire alive or not?









Well DNA is certainly a code - so what's the fundamental difference? A robot is animate, will make it's own decisions and think for itself. It will grow, metabolize and reproduce. It's a new life form.

Human is one type of life. But there are many others and there will be many more in the future. I think religion preaches this idea that life is a special event. But we know from archeological history that life has been all over this planet in many different forms - and this is a tough planet to live on - only 9% of the planet is habitable.

So again, I think it's more fun to think about the possibilities and not be stuck on one model.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid


(Atheism) claims ‘science’ and ‘logic’ ‘prove’ God does not exist.

Atheism makes no such claims, regardless of which blog you want to copy-paste content from this time.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

your mom and dad are your creators, you do need them.

just saying.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
And what's your definition of "life" anyway? Biologically, the ability to reproduce defines life. Robots that reproduce will be considered "alive". The first robot to reproduce will be a unique life form that had no pre-existing life form which produced it, except if you consider the engineers who developed it to be its "parents".

And robots which can reproduce will have autonomous evolution. In other words, they will mutate and evolve on their own.

You should think outside the box a little more - there's a lot of "life" that requires no intervention from a God to exist.



Life - in it's broadest term, it's the principle of life or living. It's the animate existence as opposed to inanimate existence.

To earthly, biological physical life, life in general, have the ability and capability of growth, metabolism, response to external stimuli, and reproduction.

In its ultimate definition, human life IS life - a conscious life.

From this exacting definition - robots are not life but artificial life forms with pre-programmed instructions to mimic real life.

As to thinking outside of the box - is fire alive or not?









Well DNA is certainly a code - so what's the fundamental difference? A robot is animate, will make it's own decisions and think for itself. It will grow, metabolize and reproduce. It's a new life form.

Human is one type of life. But there are many others and there will be many more in the future. I think religion preaches this idea that life is a special event. But we know from archeological history that life has been all over this planet in many different forms - and this is a tough planet to live on - only 9% of the planet is habitable.

So again, I think it's more fun to think about the possibilities and not be stuck on one model.



What, a robot is animate?

I think you've been watching too many sci-fi movies. It's not animate but inanimate. Even if we can provide it with super advanced AI, it's still inanimate and will never be able to reach life in terms of human life.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Phantom423
And what's your definition of "life" anyway? Biologically, the ability to reproduce defines life. Robots that reproduce will be considered "alive". The first robot to reproduce will be a unique life form that had no pre-existing life form which produced it, except if you consider the engineers who developed it to be its "parents".

And robots which can reproduce will have autonomous evolution. In other words, they will mutate and evolve on their own.

You should think outside the box a little more - there's a lot of "life" that requires no intervention from a God to exist.



Life - in it's broadest term, it's the principle of life or living. It's the animate existence as opposed to inanimate existence.

To earthly, biological physical life, life in general, have the ability and capability of growth, metabolism, response to external stimuli, and reproduction.

In its ultimate definition, human life IS life - a conscious life.

From this exacting definition - robots are not life but artificial life forms with pre-programmed instructions to mimic real life.

As to thinking outside of the box - is fire alive or not?









Well DNA is certainly a code - so what's the fundamental difference? A robot is animate, will make it's own decisions and think for itself. It will grow, metabolize and reproduce. It's a new life form.

Human is one type of life. But there are many others and there will be many more in the future. I think religion preaches this idea that life is a special event. But we know from archeological history that life has been all over this planet in many different forms - and this is a tough planet to live on - only 9% of the planet is habitable.

So again, I think it's more fun to think about the possibilities and not be stuck on one model.



What, a robot is animate?

I think you've been watching too many sci-fi movies. It's not animate but inanimate. Even if we can provide it with super advanced AI, it's still inanimate and will never be able to reach life in terms of human life.



As I said, there are many different life forms. Human isn't the only one. There's no reason why a robot shouldn't be considered to be alive. And would fill the definition of animate very well - it moves, it thinks, it reproduces. Life forms in other star systems may be extraordinarily different than humans - but as long as they fulfill the definition of life, they are alive.



posted on Nov, 5 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

www.activistpost.com...




George Zarkadakis is an artificial intelligence engineer who believes that robots will move toward procreation rather quickly as they will wish to produce superior offspring. With the rapid advances made in the realm of 3D printing, they would likely begin by printing out their progeny, or perhaps would breed at the molecular level through their silicon and carbon make-up. Others experts such as Professor Noel Sharkey from England’s Sheffield University point to the same concept as the “Wikipedia for Robots” – through a simple software swap, new intelligence could be created, as well as the likelihood of other upgrades like virus protection. Incidentally, the organic component of this is also being researched by geneticists as downloadable DNA via our own human Internet.


It's really just a matter of perspective.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:46 AM
link   

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




According to who? You? Please break down exactly what is illogical and unscientific about a finite universe without semantics and fallacies.


Actually - that would be an infinite space and time where the PHYSICAL universe is finite.

Infinity is the space in which the PHYSICAL / MATERIAL universe is expanding to. But since you have no concept of infinity, it's hard to explain it to you in plain English. Even harder scientifically.

You need to study up more.



I have to thank you, Ed. I love starting my day with a nice laugh. I almost lost my coffee, but it was worth it. Yes, I totally need to study more, so I can learn about all these fictitious things you talk about.

I understand the CONCEPT of infinity. You clearly just said that a finite universe is illogical and unscientific and then refused to even explain why. I guess it's just another lie to add to the pile of compost that is this thread. Don't stop on my account though. It's fun for me.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Murgatroid
Seems rather ironic to me that TPTB push their worldview on others as fact and no one questions it or even bats an eye.

That post actually applies to Darwinism more than it does to ID.

Atheism and darwinism are clearly faith and opinion, nor are they based on logic, fact or evidence.


I didn't have to read past the acronym TPTB to know you were going to bring up darwinism and evoluton which have nothing to do with the thread. The guy claims he can logically prove god. Thus far he hasn't done it. Are you going to help the OP prove god logically? Or go off beating a dead horse insulting evolutionary biologists and quoting some random guy's opinion blog about atheism? You really are just a one trick pony. Plus you are dead wrong. Evolution is backed by mountains of evidence.

I get that you had a personal experience that justifies believing in god to you, but that has nothing to do with your constant hatred filled rants against a field of science.
edit on 11 6 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   
The cockroach on the bathroom floor could come up with some theories as to how the floor tiles were developed by randomness over an inconceivably long period of time, or it could come to know the truth that a group of higher lifeforms, humans, did it in a day.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Maybe because said cockroach can go out and see a human for itself. That isn't the case for god. Seriously, did you even think about what you typed before hitting the post button?
edit on 6-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

I don't think it's very nice to refer to the OP as a cockroach on the bathroom floor.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You are using a discussion technique (which name I right now do not have present) by building an argument using a counterargument which does not have anything to do with the original argument. I think it is called "strawman".

Because you first looked for a known artificial structure (floor tiles in a bathroom) and deduced then that the cockroach should "see" the truth that there was a creator for the tiles.

Lets try this in the wild: I look at a tree. It does not seem to be built by a creator. How can I see ("find evidence", but that is too rationalistic for this thread and discussion) who built it?

Or better, a forest of many trees, like the many floor tiles. There is no pattern, there is nothing to find that the trees were built for their way of life. Unlike the floor tiles.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: cooperton

Lets try this in the wild: I look at a tree. It does not seem to be built by a creator. How can I see ("find evidence", but that is too rationalistic for this thread and discussion) who built it?

Or better, a forest of many trees, like the many floor tiles. There is no pattern, there is nothing to find that the trees were built for their way of life. Unlike the floor tiles.


There is pattern everywhere. The Phi Ratio is approximately 1.618... and is an irrational number, meaning its decimal places go on forever without any repeating sequences. What are the odds that randomness, and not a creator, could encode infinitude into the creation? Phi is everywhere, beyond the branching of trees, it is also in the nautilus shell, the hippocampus, romanesco cauliflower, etc. Then we have Pi, which is another irrational number found in nature.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: cooperton

Lets try this in the wild: I look at a tree. It does not seem to be built by a creator. How can I see ("find evidence", but that is too rationalistic for this thread and discussion) who built it?

Or better, a forest of many trees, like the many floor tiles. There is no pattern, there is nothing to find that the trees were built for their way of life. Unlike the floor tiles.


There is pattern everywhere. The Phi Ratio is approximately 1.618... and is an irrational number, meaning its decimal places go on forever without any repeating sequences. What are the odds that randomness, and not a creator, could encode infinitude into the creation? Phi is everywhere, beyond the branching of trees, it is also in the nautilus shell, the hippocampus, romanesco cauliflower, etc. Then we have Pi, which is another irrational number found in nature.


Just because there is consistency in the natural world doesn't imply that it had a creator. It only says that there is some type of order. Self assembly is an example of order (I'm STUNNED that you still don't know this) and doesn't require intervention.


Molecular self-assembly is ubiquitous in chemistry, materials science, and biology and has been so long before self-assembly emerged as a discrete field of study and as a synthetic strategy (2, 3). The formation of molecular crystals (4), colloids (5), lipid bilayers (6), phase-separated polymers (7), and self-assembled monolayers (8) are all examples of molecular self-assembly, as are the folding of polypeptide chains into proteins (9) and the folding of nucleic acids into their functional forms (10). Even the association of a ligand with a receptor is a form of self-assembly (11); the semantic boundaries between self-assembly, molecular recognition, complexation, and other processes that form more ordered from less ordered assemblies of molecules expand or contract at the whim of those using them.


Fibonacci and Lucas numbers are well defined patterns in nature. That they exist doesn't imply a creator. It only says that nature is self organizing without any outside intervention.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

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




According to who? You? Please break down exactly what is illogical and unscientific about a finite universe without semantics and fallacies.


Actually - that would be an infinite space and time where the PHYSICAL universe is finite.

Infinity is the space in which the PHYSICAL / MATERIAL universe is expanding to. But since you have no concept of infinity, it's hard to explain it to you in plain English. Even harder scientifically.

You need to study up more.



I have to thank you, Ed. I love starting my day with a nice laugh. I almost lost my coffee, but it was worth it. Yes, I totally need to study more, so I can learn about all these fictitious things you talk about.

I understand the CONCEPT of infinity. You clearly just said that a finite universe is illogical and unscientific and then refused to even explain why. I guess it's just another lie to add to the pile of compost that is this thread. Don't stop on my account though. It's fun for me.


Glad to make you laugh because from the looks of it, you just don't know about anything.

Your answer to pretty much everything is - wait for it - "I don't know".

There's really nothing much to discuss with you because you just don't know what you're talking about.

Every post you come back with "we don't know", "I don't know" then pretend that everyone is wrong except you.

Now that's a laugh!



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
The cockroach on the bathroom floor could come up with some theories as to how the floor tiles were developed by randomness over an inconceivably long period of time, or it could come to know the truth that a group of higher lifeforms, humans, did it in a day.


OK - I'll take you for it and assume that you're a very scientifically knowledgeable person.

Explain to me please just how can a cockroach on the bathroom floor is able to fathom its existence.

I'm curious if you're just trolling around or too dumb to figure this out.

Calling you on it.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

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




According to who? You? Please break down exactly what is illogical and unscientific about a finite universe without semantics and fallacies.


Actually - that would be an infinite space and time where the PHYSICAL universe is finite.

Infinity is the space in which the PHYSICAL / MATERIAL universe is expanding to. But since you have no concept of infinity, it's hard to explain it to you in plain English. Even harder scientifically.

You need to study up more.



I have to thank you, Ed. I love starting my day with a nice laugh. I almost lost my coffee, but it was worth it. Yes, I totally need to study more, so I can learn about all these fictitious things you talk about.

I understand the CONCEPT of infinity. You clearly just said that a finite universe is illogical and unscientific and then refused to even explain why. I guess it's just another lie to add to the pile of compost that is this thread. Don't stop on my account though. It's fun for me.


Glad to make you laugh because from the looks of it, you just don't know about anything.

Your answer to pretty much everything is - wait for it - "I don't know".

There's really nothing much to discuss with you because you just don't know what you're talking about.

Every post you come back with "we don't know", "I don't know" then pretend that everyone is wrong except you.

Now that's a laugh!



Your logic hasn't provided any evidence for your position. You posted a list of citations but never answered my inquiry as to which one of those citations was written as a scientific research paper. Not one of them substantiates your logic.

Your logic is faulty. Your conclusion is based solely on your opinion. The fact is that WE DO NOT KNOW and probably cannot know whether there is a creator, an alien civilization who programmed this universe as a game or whether it came into being all by itself. WE-DO-NOT-KNOW. Science has no test which can prove any of the options I mentioned. Your religion is another matter - you can believe whatever you want with no consequences. Science doesn't work that way.

Speculation is not evidence. It's only speculation.

BTW, the roach does indeed have self awareness. Its awareness, just like humans, is based on its neurological capabilities.
Beings in another star system may have neurological webs which far exceed that of humans. Then what? Did your creator short-change you??


edit on 6-11-2015 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: spy66
With the terms you claim there is no way Your claim can be right or Ours.

That means if we make a claim, you can claime fallacies based on evidence. But at the same time, Your claim is also based on fallacies do to the fact that you cant disprove Our claims With Your own facts.


But I never made a claim either way about the concept of infinity. You are the one claiming that the infinite "must exist" because we can't argue against it based on present day science and knowledge of the universe. I'm just saying that your claim is illogical, just like Ed's. We don't know the answer to that question so science can't answer the question either way. Maybe one day we will know. I'm not sure what you are getting at here.



Yes. I am making that claim because it must.

How did we come to exists if the infintie dont exist?



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Yes, I admit that don't know the answers to things that are unknown. Neither do you. The difference is you pretend you know the answer, but your answer is based 100% on blind faith in ancient texts. You have shown absolutely nothing in this thread in terms of evidence or logical possibilities that have anything to do with god.


originally posted by: edmc^2
OK - I'll take you for it and assume that you're a very scientifically knowledgeable person.


Cooperton is one of most scientifically inclined people on this website. I highly recommend you discuss this with him rather than me. He puts my knowledge to shame when it comes to science. Good luck with him.
edit on 11 6 15 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join