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: 60
42
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

And you still can't see where you messed up although two people already pointed it out.
edit on 22-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: cooperton

And you still can't see where you messed up although two people already pointed it out.



1) The following is not circular logic:

1) something cannot come from nothing - see the universal "conservation of energy law"
2) something is existent - this is obviously true.
3) if 1 and 2 are true, then something was never nothing and therefore something always existed


2) The law of energy conservation is true.

I am uncertain where I supposedly messed up?



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: edmc^2
Since God is UNCREATED, therefore He has no beginning and has no end. He always existed.

And this is where everything you have stated falls apart. Your entire standpoint is hinged on this 'infallible' fact.


Otherwise the alternative is, he was created, which regresses to an un-ending question of who created the creator of God.

Bingo. You've identified why your position on 'there must be a creator' fails every single time. Unless you take the stance, as you have, that said creator "always was and always is".

With that, you've completely glossed over the massive black hole in your position.

Science can't answer it -- but it isn't afraid to say it doesn't know, but we'll do our best to find out.

You are happy to ignore these fatal flaws in your belief system so you faith is maintained.

What a horrible way to live one's life....


To the contrary, there's no "fatal flaw" in my belief or "a massive black hole" in my position.

It's based on logical thinking, true science and order of the highest degree.

Try if may, you will never be able to explain how "NOTHING" can exist or that it can create something. Something from nothing is highly illogical, unscientific bordering on insanity.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

To the contrary, there's no "fatal flaw" in my belief or "a massive black hole" in my position.

It's based on logical thinking, true science and order of the highest degree.

Try if may, you will never be able to explain how "NOTHING" can exist or that it can create something. Something from nothing is highly illogical, unscientific bordering on insanity.


These people are so zealous about the non-existence of God that they will blindly refuse scientific law (i.e. law of energy conservation) just to avoid the conclusion of an always existent Being.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You said intelligence. That is not matter or energy so the law of conservation of energy doesn't apply.
edit on 22-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

The only ones who use the "something from nothing" fallacy are the ones who don't understand science and try to use it to prove a mythical entity exists.

Let's use your own "logic", shall we?

If something can't be created from nothing, your god couldn't have created something from nothing.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
God always was existent. It is exactly what the proof is demonstrating by "3". Don't be so quick-triggered to ridicule anything that doesn't conclude the same as your beliefs.


But you literally just said that something cannot come from nothing. Where did god come from? If god always existed, then he came from nothing, violating your very first point. It has nothing to do with having the same beliefs as you. It has to do with logical flaws in your premise and lack of being able to prove it. A logical inference is only valid if the premise is based on proven verified fact and there is a tangible verifiable connection to the conclusion.



You would agree with such logical progression if it agreed with your worldview.


No, I would not, because it's not logical progression to make up a premise on the spot. I do not claim atheism or any similar philosophy is proven. You are the one trying to do this for your worldview, not me. And science is not a worldview if that's what you are getting at.


If you are trying to discredit the law of energy conservation just to try to belittle my logical proof of an always existent God I would have to say that's rather bull-headed of you.


A God that creates energy conflicts with energy conservation... so... How do you rectify this without invoking numerous assumptions?


I did a 3 step logical progression. Very common for making a proof. If the premises are true then the inherent conclusion must also be true - to falsify the conclusion you have to falsify the premises.


Wrong. Your premise doesn't magically hold true, just because it hasn't been proven false. Burden of proof applies here, if you are claiming to use a logical inference to prove something. Again, a logical inference only proves something if the premise can be proven, not if it can't be disproved.

1. In order to prove something exists, there must be objective evidence.
2. There is no objective evidence for god.
3. God cannot be proven to exist.

It really is that simple. You can talk logic until the cows come home, but unless you have objective evidence you do not have a valid inference.


edit on 9 22 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
To the contrary, there's no "fatal flaw" in my belief or "a massive black hole" in my position.
It's based on logical thinking, true science and order of the highest degree.

That isn't logical. That isn't true science. That is ignoring the biggest question for which your entire faith is based on. One you will refuse to approach because you know it cannot be true.


Try if may, you will never be able to explain how "NOTHING" can exist or that it can create something. Something from nothing is highly illogical, unscientific bordering on insanity.

I ask you this question - why are you assuming everything came from nothing? I'm not aware the big bang theory says everything came from nothing. I don't think that's possible either.

What is the answer to this supreme question? I don't know. Neither does science. But we will do our level best to investigate and discover the truth, regardless of the outcome. If, miraculously, that leads to a supreme being, for which we'd find irrefutable proof - fair enough. I will accept that.

But you? You refuse to question. You refuse to investigate. You assume and blindly 'believe'. I will not be that coward to refuse challenging myself or the truth.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

You seem to have missed the class in Logic 101 which points out:

If you make a claim, you need to be able to prove it. Not just say it is so. The more fantastic the claim, the more fantastic the proof needs to be. Thus you claim "God always was", to be taken seriously, you need to show this. Not say "it is obviously true".

If I am to use your approach. From my perspective it is obviously true that there are many deities, a great many. Because it is obviously true.

There we go.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

You seem to have missed the class in Logic 101 which points out:

If you make a claim, you need to be able to prove it. Not just say it is so. The more fantastic the claim, the more fantastic the proof needs to be. Thus you claim "God always was", to be taken seriously, you need to show this. Not say "it is obviously true".

If I am to use your approach. From my perspective it is obviously true that there are many deities, a great many. Because it is obviously true.

There we go.


"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - carl sagan



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well yes, but these ones are fantastical, as in Fantasy
I should have said I was paraphrasing Dr Sagan, but its pearls before swine etc.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well yes, but these ones are fantastical, as in Fantasy
I should have said I was paraphrasing Dr Sagan, but its pearls before swine etc.


this thread wont end just because we provide the facts. fact is, freedom of expression was meant just as much for the uneducated as it was for the educated.
edit on 22-9-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

A dead equine needs discipline....



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

A dead equine needs discipline....


they will stop beating that dead horse when it stops spitting out money.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 04:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm here as I keep say to be the truth against the world
No money in that.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: edmc^2
To the contrary, there's no "fatal flaw" in my belief or "a massive black hole" in my position.
It's based on logical thinking, true science and order of the highest degree.

That isn't logical. That isn't true science. That is ignoring the biggest question for which your entire faith is based on. One you will refuse to approach because you know it cannot be true.


Try if may, you will never be able to explain how "NOTHING" can exist or that it can create something. Something from nothing is highly illogical, unscientific bordering on insanity.

I ask you this question - why are you assuming everything came from nothing? I'm not aware the big bang theory says everything came from nothing. I don't think that's possible either.

What is the answer to this supreme question? I don't know. Neither does science. But we will do our level best to investigate and discover the truth, regardless of the outcome. If, miraculously, that leads to a supreme being, for which we'd find irrefutable proof - fair enough. I will accept that.

But you? You refuse to question. You refuse to investigate. You assume and blindly 'believe'. I will not be that coward to refuse challenging myself or the truth.


Yet the answer exist! It's right in front of you.

And it's not based on mere "belief" but on facts. Otherwise, it's a "blind faith".

It's based on a scientifically, mathematically and logically sound reasoning.

For example, by way mathematical illustration.

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.

Hence the Universe can't create itself unless an already existing creator exists.

This is just but one of the hundreds if not thousands of facts that point to the existence of a Creator - God (Jehovah/Yahweh).



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Logic ... You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means...

This post of yours is a prime example of confirmation bias.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 04:49 PM
link   

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

Logic ... You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means...

This post of yours is a prime example of confirmation bias.


It's not bias, it's just the fact Jack.

But can you refute this fact?

X creates Y but never X creates X. So by necessity X must exist first in order to create Y.



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Facts require evidence, evidence which people can look at, and come to the same conclusion each and every time. You can try and reduce things to algebra, but algebra is not science, it is mathmatics.

None of that, confirms that there is a single deity, multiple deities, or a pasta themed higher being.

So again
Logic ... You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means...



posted on Sep, 22 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: edmc^2

Is the Big Bang considered life?


I am not OP, but in my opinion I don't think it would or could be considered "life" but I think I could make an argument that it was the Creator, as is everything in and that has happened in that Universe. Not in a way that could be published and Peer reviewed, but in a philosophy of the Universe and Reality way for sure.



new topics

top topics



 
42
<< 57  58  59    61  62  63 >>

log in

join