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: 64
42
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2
I don't know, is being honest.
Propping up indefensible ideology in gaps in knowledge.. Is dishonest.
Bastardized logic swelters in your hubris.
edit on fSaturday165597f551907 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

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


"God creates the universe but never God creates God. So by necessity, God must exist first in order to create the universe."


assumption 1: the universe was created

assumption 2: the universe was created by a god

assumption 3: the definition of said god


Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.



Conversely, if there was nothingness, absolute nothingness - from the beginning of time, then there was nothing to create. Hence no universe, no life as there was absolutely no one to create, nothing to "light the blue torch".


another misrepresentation. can you demonstrate that there was absolutely nothing at the very beginning of this universal cycle? the current understanding states that all of matter was focused into one very dense very small mass. that is not nothing, that is a tremendous amount of something in a very condensed state.


So by necessity, there MUST be a pre-existing life, the Prime Life, the Prime Mover, an uncreated Being to bring about the transformation of energy into matter. Full Stop.


refer to both the above fallacy and the list of assumptions i noted.


Sorry but you obviously missed my point.

That is, there are only two realities or I should say paradigm to choose from when it comes to Origin Of the Universe.

1) An Always Existing Entity/Being - God

or

2) Nothingness, Absolute Nothingness.


The 1st is provable, whilst impossible on the 2nd.



Why are you imposing a false dichotomy based in your own misunderstanding of the big bang theory? I would hate to second guess your motives...





your own misunderstanding of the big bang theory?


Wow! What a bold claim.

You mean the point of Singularity is not the beginning of the universe c14b years ago?

If not please enlighten us oh wise one.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

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


"God creates the universe but never God creates God. So by necessity, God must exist first in order to create the universe."


assumption 1: the universe was created

assumption 2: the universe was created by a god

assumption 3: the definition of said god


Begging the question, sometimes known by its Latin name petitio principii (meaning assuming the initial point), is a logical fallacy in which the writer or speaker assumes the statement under examination to be true. In other words, begging the question involves using a premise to support itself.



Conversely, if there was nothingness, absolute nothingness - from the beginning of time, then there was nothing to create. Hence no universe, no life as there was absolutely no one to create, nothing to "light the blue torch".


another misrepresentation. can you demonstrate that there was absolutely nothing at the very beginning of this universal cycle? the current understanding states that all of matter was focused into one very dense very small mass. that is not nothing, that is a tremendous amount of something in a very condensed state.


So by necessity, there MUST be a pre-existing life, the Prime Life, the Prime Mover, an uncreated Being to bring about the transformation of energy into matter. Full Stop.


refer to both the above fallacy and the list of assumptions i noted.


Sorry but you obviously missed my point.

That is, there are only two realities or I should say paradigm to choose from when it comes to Origin Of the Universe.

1) An Always Existing Entity/Being - God

or

2) Nothingness, Absolute Nothingness.


The 1st is provable, whilst impossible on the 2nd.



Why are you imposing a false dichotomy based in your own misunderstanding of the big bang theory? I would hate to second guess your motives...





your own misunderstanding of the big bang theory?


Wow! What a bold claim.

You mean the point of Singularity is not the beginning of the universe c14b years ago?

If not please enlighten us oh wise one.






oh the point of singularity...thats a big step up from the 'absolutely nothing' you were talking about before. and here you almost had me convinced you really didn't understand the big bang theory. no, you are just misrepresenting it. as for the false dichotomy bit, the big bang theory is the leading contender but not the only contender. and in terms of creationism, well...there's a whole universe of mythologies, isn't there. but here you are funneling the discussion for your own convenience. the funniest part is how you go on pretending like we don't see it...or maybe you just don't care.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I have noticed that the vast majority of speculation where theology and physics overlaps is concerned with our place in the big picture. All these people care about is how important we are. Instead of bettering ourselves as a species for the sake of betterment, we seek to exalt ourselves for the sake of being acknowledged by whatever is out there, on the pretense that it is expecting us or waiting for us. We hate feeling expendable and insignificant, because it scares us to think we might waste our one shot. So instead of putting the impetus on the cosmos to notice us and care about us, maybe we should just make the best of it so we have no regrets no matter where the universe came from. My point is, even if creationism is the most logical explanation, your approach to tracking down and contacting and even identifying this creator thing is so sloppy you might as well give up. Be a good person and it won't matter even if you never think about this creator again.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: edmc^2
I don't know, is being honest.
Propping up indefensible ideology in gaps in knowledge.. Is dishonest.


Sure. IDK is honest if there's no model to follow. But if there's evidence of a Prime Mover based on existing models, then saying IDK is lazy and above all close minded.

As for "gaps of knowledge", I think that notion resides in the camp of those who accept evolution. In fact evolution theory is all about gaps of knowledge.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: edmc^2
I don't know, is being honest.
Propping up indefensible ideology in gaps in knowledge.. Is dishonest.
Bastardized logic swelters in your hubris.


In my hubris?
Hahaha, that's funny. I'm merely stating facts that you can't accept.

If you're right based on incontrovertible facts, there's no hubris in it.

So may I ask - do you believe what you don't know?



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Do you ever question what you "know?"



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a "logical" assumption if you believe there is a god. That makes it a bias assumption, not a logical one. You're assuming an awful lot without having any evidence.

That makes this not even a theory, but a very bias hypothesis.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 03:31 AM
link   

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

I created I.

It's just the fact jack.

That sums up the debate on this forum quite nicely. After being asked to consider reason for a moment...

And someone else gets accused of hubris, being dishonest, misrepresentation, etc. Talking about misrepresentation, quoting daskakik again:

I can't prove it but I do somewhat[???] mean it when I say "I created I" and that it has to do with an invisible reality that you may not have caught a glimpse of yet.
Not how I would say it but it also works.

Long live vagueness. Now a "are you saying" type of question would be justified and genuine. But probably best in the question:

Do you even know what you are saying? Or do you just want us to use our creative imagination to fill in the blanks?
edit on 25-9-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic
So, you are not following the thread?

It was just a rehash and toss back of what had been offered by those who think they have reason on their side.

I do know what I am saying. I have my beliefs, which are not science, and I, unlike others, realize how pointless it is to try to convince others that I can prove it by bending logic into a pretzel.
edit on 25-9-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 04:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

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

I created I.

It's just the fact jack.

That sums up the debate on this forum quite nicely. After being asked to consider reason for a moment...

And someone else gets accused of hubris, being dishonest, misrepresentation, etc. Talking about misrepresentation, quoting daskakik again:

I can't prove it but I do somewhat[???] mean it when I say "I created I" and that it has to do with an invisible reality that you may not have caught a glimpse of yet.
Not how I would say it but it also works.

Long live vagueness. Now a "are you saying" type of question would be justified and genuine. But probably best in the question:

Do you even know what you are saying? Or do you just want us to use our creative imagination to fill in the blanks?


every decision we make determines the person we are today. in that sense, I creates I indeed. we are all the product of what we choose. this ties into what I said before about the irrelevance of the cosmos. being worthwhile isn't about being daddy's favorite. if you were ignored or unnoticed for the rest of your existence no matter what you said or did, would you still feel compelled to act in the best interest of your peers?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

Clearly you have different biases than some here



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

The data is where? Or are you just hand wavy "logicing" it?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

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

Do you ever question what you "know?"


Of course, I do. Is it not what you should do in order to come to a correct and proper conclusion on a matter of such importance as existence?



Just look below this reply. Einstein quote.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
in that sense, I creates I indeed.


Being crafted in the semblance of a creator, we creative beings can create. Opposable thumbs, upright posture, huge neocortex, vocal cords in perfect positioning to allow speech. Do you think there is no intelligence involved?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Just look below this reply. Einstein quote.
Is it? Are you sure?

edit on 9/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

What evidence do you have that he said that? Beyond a meme online?



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: edmc^2

It's only a "logical" assumption if you believe there is a god. That makes it a bias assumption, not a logical one. You're assuming an awful lot without having any evidence.

That makes this not even a theory, but a very bias hypothesis.


Assumptions are only that. They are just assumptions when there's no evidence to support it.

But if we look at reality and use it as a Model, the incontrovertible raw evidence points to Creation.

Case in point:

Here are the predictions of Evolution Model:
Life evolved from nonlife by chance chemical evolution (spontaneous generation - something from nothing)

Predictions of Creation Model:
Life comes only from previous life (Already Existing Life). Originally created by an intelligent Creator

Facts as Found in the Real World:

(1) Through experience and countless experiments and test, the results are ALWAYS the same, that is: Life comes only from previous life.

(2) No way to form complex genetic code by chance.

The evidence in not bias but the reality.



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   

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

Just look below this reply. Einstein quote.
Is it? Are you sure?


Here if you missed it:

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. - Albert Einstein"



posted on Sep, 25 2016 @ 11:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
in that sense, I creates I indeed.


Being crafted in the semblance of a creator, we creative beings can create. Opposable thumbs, upright posture, huge neocortex, vocal cords in perfect positioning to allow speech. Do you think there is no intelligence involved?


If I'm approaching the question honestly, its not a matter of what I think, but what the evidence tells me. That's the purely pragmatic angle. The philosophical angle is that whatever they find at the beginning of the universe or even before the beginning will not change who I am or why I do what I do. I believe in betterment for its own sake, and in honest rigorous pursuit of knowledge for that purpose. I see no reason to wedge the human ego into the center of the cosmic equation - other than appeasing the human ego of course.




top topics



 
42
<< 61  62  63    65  66  67 >>

log in

join