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: 7
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

The only thing that may disappear with time is Religion.

The theory of intelligent design will never go away. Because it has reasoning.

We're very ignorant to believe we know everything and because we don't understand certain things now or have "no cold hard facts" to back up intelligent design (of sorts) does not mean it doesn't exist.

Look at gravity. We can't see it. But we know it's logical for it to exist.

We might not be able to directly see "God" but when you actually question this universe, where it came from and everything it encompasses the only thing I can arrive at is... A design. Whatever or whoever designed or created it, who knows.


That's my whole point. Think about it. All you can do is point out all the things we don't have an answer for and then conclude that since we don't have a provable answer yet, God must have done it.

However, when you look at all the areas where we do have provable answers for things, where we actually have figured out the how and why of something, there is no God to be found.

Nobody is claiming to "know Everything" except for the Religious and the fact is they don't know everything. Science admits it doesn't "know everything" but it does know "somethings" and all the "somethings" that is does know and can prove show no evidence of God. Therefore no belief in God.

That's what Creationists don't seem to understand. Science isn't out to prove there is No God and that is not what it claims. What it shows is that wherever we have understanding of how and why something functions there is no evidence of God being in control of it.


But it's not a God of gaps theory... It's intelligent design of logical reasoning theory.

Humans can only go so far to answering the questions. Heck, we don't even know what lives in our ocean! That doesn't automatically = God.

If science were to prove everything. I guarantee you we'd eventually end up at the ONE answer. And that's some sort of intelligent design.

In your head, go back to the creation of the universe. What did it come in to existence within? what created our universe? These answers will probably never been explained (at least not in our life time) but this does NOT put God in it's place because we have no other answer. It puts God (or what/whoever) there because it's the only logical explanation that this didn't all just happen by chance.

See my post above regarding a simulation theory. Still creeps me out - but that's a form of intelligent design. And I think it's scarily plausible.




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Asking me questions isn't evidence of anything. Do you understand that??? It's very simple and if you don't get that then you don't understand what the word evidence means.

You claimed to have evidence within nature that showed God "all around us". It right there in you OP. That was your claim. So I asked to see this evidence that you claim to have. But all you answer with are questions for me to answer. Asking me a question is not evidence. It's actually about as far opposite from evidence as you could get.

Evidence is a positive thing that you possess that you can show. Asking me a question doesn't show anything. If answer you with "I don't know" what is that positive evidence for??? NOTHING. IT'S EVIDENCE OF NOTHING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ANSWER ANYTHING. But then I didn't claim to know anything either so it doesn't matter.

You on the other hand did claim to know something and have evidence for it. So show it then or admit you are lying. Admit you don't know it, can't show it and have just made it up.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

On the contrary mOjOm. The more I know about the universe and how it works the more I come to understand its creator - God. It's not the other way around as you put it.

For instance, where's the "god of the gaps" statement?

'For life to exist there MUST a pre-existing life to begin with'.

If science, experience, nature, biology, you name it agree with it, where's the gap?

Now if we say "nothing created life", then we have a problem. You can repeat your experiment trillions and trillion times, you'll never prove it. You just can't get life from "nothing". It's just the fact of life.

And to believe that this makes sense or that it's scientific is pure ignorance. To even say we don't know that "nothing creates something" is pure laziness and ignoring the facts.

Hence, there's no alternative but to accept the facts. There must be an Always Existing First Cause - a Creator to begin with.

It's both logical and scientific.

On the other hand, you have "nothing" to offer.



You see, you're still doing it. You have no choice but to do it either because Creationism has NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. All you can point to are the things you don't know or don't understand and then claim that is where God exists. Because anything you do actually know or could have evidence for also can be shown why and how it operates without God being a part of it.

That's why you point to all the areas where questions still remain. Because everywhere we have answers for shows clearly that they operate without God.

Face it, you cannot show evidence of God within any area of reality that we understand the operation and function and show God being part of it, not one!!!

This is why you continue saying the most uninformed statements because the less you know the more holes there are for you to insert a fictional God. On the contrary anywhere you do have working knowledge of something it can be explained without God.

You have chosen the path of increased ignorance for the purpose of having "faith" in God. Period. End of story.

But if you don't think so, fine, prove me wrong. I dare you. Provide evidence as you have claimed from the start of this thread with nothing shown so far. Show us the Evidence in Nature that you claim is "all around us" so that we can see this evidence of God. Do it. That's your claim so let's see it.


OK - here's a simple one.

Without intelligence, can a law, any law, you name it, exist by itself?

If you say yes, then where do you start?

How did the law of nature begin to exist apart from a law maker?

Who or what can create it without any intelligence? It's impossible and science can confirm it.

But if you say, it just happened, then that to me is faith without any evidence. You sir / madam have blind faith.

There, I didn't even invoke God.

Two undeniable facts I've already provided for the existence of God.

"Life comes from pre-existing life"
"Law requires a law maker"

I dare you to tell me that I'm wrong.






Abiogenesis (Brit.: /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1] U.S. English pronunciation: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnᵻsɪs/),[2] or biopoiesis,[3] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

But it's not a God of gaps theory... It's intelligent design of logical reasoning theory.

Humans can only go so far to answering the questions. Heck, we don't even know what lives in our ocean! That doesn't automatically = God.

If science were to prove everything. I guarantee you we'd eventually end up at the ONE answer. And that's some sort of intelligent design.

In your head, go back to the creation of the universe. What did it come in to existence within? what created our universe? These answers will probably never been explained (at least not in our life time) but this does NOT put God in it's place because we have no other answer. It puts God (or what/whoever) there because it's the only logical explanation that this didn't all just happen by chance.

See my post above regarding a simulation theory. Still creeps me out - but that's a form of intelligent design. And I think it's scarily plausible.


You're still doing it. I can't believe you don't see it. Again you are pointing to all the things you don't know and then claiming that because you don't have a real answer your theoretical answer of God or Creator or whatever must be the answer. That is exactly what "God of the Gaps" is. You put God in those places where you don't have answer to explain it.

You just keep doing and doing it over and over. Trying to explain it as if that isn't what you're doing. But just read your examples. That is exactly what you're doing. Point to the questions that don't have an answer and insert your own made up answer because that is the one you want to go there.

If you can't see what you're doing after I've pointed it out this clearly I don't know how we can continue discussing anything.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

Funny thing is, you haven't even proven that my premise is wrong. All you did is blabber.


You have to provide some evidence for something being right first!!! You are so ignorant it's unbelievable.


Yet, I've proven time and time again that atheists have "nothing" to stand on. So who is ignorant here?


YOU HAVE PROVEN NOTHING. PROOF REQUIRES EVIDENCE. YOU HAVE SHOWN ZERO EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING YOU HAVE SAID. ZERO.


If you can't even show that "nothing" can create even a micron of matter, how can you argue your point?

As for evolution, since you have no proof of the existence of the "first replicator" but believed in it, then I must say, you have faith in something you have not seen and have no proof of.



I don't have to show evidence for anything because I've made no claims about anything. YOU HAVE. THIS IS YOUR THREAD WHERE YOU HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE EVIDENCE WITHIN NATURE THAT PROVES GOD.

So show it then. Once you do I'll be happy to prove it wrong. But you first must put forth some evidence so that I can prove it wrong. When you put nothing forth as evidence there is nothing for me to show evidence against.

If you don't understand that it's your problem not mine.


One more time.

I categorically state the two statements below are 100% true and testable beyond ANY reasonable doubt.

"Life comes from pre-existing life"
"Law requires a law maker"

Now I dare you to prove me wrong.

If you don't have the guts. Them, let me give you another reason why Creation is the only logical explanation to the origin of life or the universe.

Intelligence.

Why is Nature intelligible?

The simple answer is and science can prove it.

Because there's intelligent data inputed in them.

Without intelligibility in nature, we will never understand its inner workings.

Question is, apart from a mind, can intelligence exist?

Without a brain to hold the mind, can intelligence exist?

Answer is no.

But since you're insisting that there's no God, who then is the "brain" behind the creation of the intelligible universe?

"nothing" or something or Someone?


If you have logic in your mind, then you'll arrive at the correct conclusion.

I rest my case. Unless you want to pursue it further.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

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

Asking me questions isn't evidence of anything. Do you understand that??? It's very simple and if you don't get that then you don't understand what the word evidence means.

You claimed to have evidence within nature that showed God "all around us". It right there in you OP. That was your claim. So I asked to see this evidence that you claim to have. But all you answer with are questions for me to answer. Asking me a question is not evidence. It's actually about as far opposite from evidence as you could get.

Evidence is a positive thing that you possess that you can show. Asking me a question doesn't show anything. If answer you with "I don't know" what is that positive evidence for??? NOTHING. IT'S EVIDENCE OF NOTHING BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ANSWER ANYTHING. But then I didn't claim to know anything either so it doesn't matter.

You on the other hand did claim to know something and have evidence for it. So show it then or admit you are lying. Admit you don't know it, can't show it and have just made it up.


Asking you a question is part of the discussion. It was meant to see your point of view. But so far, you haven't refuted my evidence with either logic or science. All you did is complain and babble.


And since you're unable or unwilling to dispute my premise or debunk my contention, then you leave me with no choice but to show everyone how illogical and unscientific the atheist point of view is.


So either show me in scientific terms why / how"nothing can create something" or admit that I'm correct.

It's really simple.

And for Pete's sake, stop babbling.




edit on 2-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   
The bible is often cited by Christians as being the "word of God" sums up the creation story in Genesis, but fails to explain anything beyond earth, and puts man on the scene from the beginning which is obviously false and even a child knows dinosaurs roamed the planet before man. There is overwhelming evidence the earth is much much older than the bible explains, and the good book makes no mention of the creation of the universe so I don't get how anyone can use that as authoritative historical record of creation (of earth or the universe). To my way of thinking, God saying "Let there be light" and viola, is not a reasonable explanation of the creation of the universe for me to accept as being true.

I can't say I believe evolution to be completely accurate either, and admittedly I have a hard time with dinosaurs evolving from fish, or man from monkeys but I suppose over a few billion years the scenario could play out that way. Of all of the creation explanations I tend to lean towards "Intelligent Design" of some sort, but that is about as much as I can contribute to this debate.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2

On the contrary mOjOm. The more I know about the universe and how it works the more I come to understand its creator - God. It's not the other way around as you put it.

For instance, where's the "god of the gaps" statement?

'For life to exist there MUST a pre-existing life to begin with'.

If science, experience, nature, biology, you name it agree with it, where's the gap?

Now if we say "nothing created life", then we have a problem. You can repeat your experiment trillions and trillion times, you'll never prove it. You just can't get life from "nothing". It's just the fact of life.

And to believe that this makes sense or that it's scientific is pure ignorance. To even say we don't know that "nothing creates something" is pure laziness and ignoring the facts.

Hence, there's no alternative but to accept the facts. There must be an Always Existing First Cause - a Creator to begin with.

It's both logical and scientific.

On the other hand, you have "nothing" to offer.



You see, you're still doing it. You have no choice but to do it either because Creationism has NO EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING. All you can point to are the things you don't know or don't understand and then claim that is where God exists. Because anything you do actually know or could have evidence for also can be shown why and how it operates without God being a part of it.

That's why you point to all the areas where questions still remain. Because everywhere we have answers for shows clearly that they operate without God.

Face it, you cannot show evidence of God within any area of reality that we understand the operation and function and show God being part of it, not one!!!

This is why you continue saying the most uninformed statements because the less you know the more holes there are for you to insert a fictional God. On the contrary anywhere you do have working knowledge of something it can be explained without God.

You have chosen the path of increased ignorance for the purpose of having "faith" in God. Period. End of story.

But if you don't think so, fine, prove me wrong. I dare you. Provide evidence as you have claimed from the start of this thread with nothing shown so far. Show us the Evidence in Nature that you claim is "all around us" so that we can see this evidence of God. Do it. That's your claim so let's see it.


OK - here's a simple one.

Without intelligence, can a law, any law, you name it, exist by itself?

If you say yes, then where do you start?

How did the law of nature begin to exist apart from a law maker?

Who or what can create it without any intelligence? It's impossible and science can confirm it.

But if you say, it just happened, then that to me is faith without any evidence. You sir / madam have blind faith.

There, I didn't even invoke God.

Two undeniable facts I've already provided for the existence of God.

"Life comes from pre-existing life"
"Law requires a law maker"

I dare you to tell me that I'm wrong.






Abiogenesis (Brit.: /ˌeɪbaɪ.ɵˈdʒɛnɨsɪs/ AY-by-oh-JEN-ə-siss[1] U.S. English pronunciation: /ˌeɪˌbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnᵻsɪs/),[2] or biopoiesis,[3] is the natural process of life arising from non-living matter, such as simple organic compounds


abiogenesis is not supported back up by scientific evidence, but it is with philosophy.

But since you're a proponent of abiogenesis, who or what started it, if it's not "nothing"?


edit on 2-10-2015 by edmc^2 because: it



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Nature is NOT intelligent..there is chaos and disorder everywhere. Birth Defects in all animals, flooding, earthquake, hurricanes, lightening strikes. Thinks may follow a certain order over time, based on natural selection etc. but there is plenty of evidence of randomness that exists in nature.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

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

Nature is NOT intelligent..there is chaos and disorder everywhere. Birth Defects in all animals, flooding, earthquake, hurricanes, lightening strikes. Thinks may follow a certain order over time, based on natural selection etc. but there is plenty of evidence of randomness that exists in nature.


The word I used is:

Intelligibility in nature, not intelligent nature. Don't get that confused.

For example,

F=ma.
E = mc2

Why do we have these laws in nature?

Because there's intelligent data behind them.

An Intelligence that can only come from a mind. Otherwise, you're left with "nothing" and "chance event".



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Your argument is flawed based on the premise that "GOD" also cannot exists from nothing. Whatever excuses you create to allow the existence of life from nothing to justify god can be used to justify the existence of the universe.
Remember the burden of prove is with you who is making the more extraordinary claim--that an unseen power exists that created the universe and responds to human needs. The universe exists (you cannot deny that) and is proof enough that it has always existed.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Chance event is exactly what has occurred and is occurring...that is why so many other planets are inhabitable and lifeless, and nothing exists.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor

My Iphone exist. Has it always existed?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Your ignorance is amazing. You have literally gone down the path ignorance to allow for your faith so far I'm shocked you can still breath without assistance.

One last time. I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove yourself right.

Don't you get that?? Why are you right only if I am unable to prove you wrong??? How does that make any sense. I've made no claim to know anything or to have proof of anything at all. YOU HAVE.

If I can't prove you wrong what difference does it make since you aren't offering proof that you're right. Just making a statement and challenging someone to prove it wrong doesn't make your statement right. Watch, I can do it too.

"Unicorns can fly because they have magic wings made by fairies." Prove that wrong or else I must be right. Go ahead, prove that I'm wrong. You can't, so I must be right according to your method of proof. This is fun, I could do this all day.

Here is another one for you.
"God is a horses ass that crapped the universe into existence." Prove that wrong or else it must be true.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

F=ma.
E = mc2 is human's formula/understanding to pick some order from the chaos. It doe not mean that everything in nature can be assigned a formula.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

The components that created your IPhone from the micro stages have always existed. Human just manipulated it into your IPhone.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: toktaylor

Intelligently? Could it have come about by chance?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: mapsurfer_
The bible is often cited by Christians as being the "word of God" sums up the creation story in Genesis, but fails to explain anything beyond earth, and puts man on the scene from the beginning which is obviously false and even a child knows dinosaurs roamed the planet before man. There is overwhelming evidence the earth is much much older than the bible explains, and the good book makes no mention of the creation of the universe so I don't get how anyone can use that as authoritative historical record of creation (of earth or the universe). To my way of thinking, God saying "Let there be light" and viola, is not a reasonable explanation of the creation of the universe for me to accept as being true.

I can't say I believe evolution to be completely accurate either, and admittedly I have a hard time with dinosaurs evolving from fish, or man from monkeys but I suppose over a few billion years the scenario could play out that way. Of all of the creation explanations I tend to lean towards "Intelligent Design" of some sort, but that is about as much as I can contribute to this debate.


Mapsurfer, I suggest you study carefully what Genesis is saying because your conclusion is wrong.

For example, you said:




There is overwhelming evidence the earth is much much older than the bible explains, and the good book makes no mention of the creation of the universe so I don't get how anyone can use that as authoritative historical record of creation (of earth or the universe).


The answer is right at the very beginning of the book.

It says in Gen 1:1 "[Gen 1:1 ESV] 1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Then the following verses described the process / stages when the earth was prepared for habitation.

But what does Gen 1:1 tell you about the age of the earth? Well nothing but opens up the possibility that the earth can be billion years old. In other words, it doesn't conflict with current scientific data.

The "heavens" in poetic terms refers to the universe.

"heavens" plural, since there's the sky, there's atmosphere, there's outer space, then the entire universe.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: NihilistSanta

intelligently is our way of understanding. Things evolved based on natural selection and random chances. The iPhone is result of many trials and errors and randomness before evolving to what you see now. So was the origin of life, and everything you observes. The first phone created probable never started out at being a phone....



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 03:42 PM
link   

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

Your ignorance is amazing. You have literally gone down the path ignorance to allow for your faith so far I'm shocked you can still breath without assistance.

One last time. I don't have to prove you wrong. You have to prove yourself right.

Don't you get that?? Why are you right only if I am unable to prove you wrong??? How does that make any sense. I've made no claim to know anything or to have proof of anything at all. YOU HAVE.

If I can't prove you wrong what difference does it make since you aren't offering proof that you're right. Just making a statement and challenging someone to prove it wrong doesn't make your statement right. Watch, I can do it too.

"Unicorns can fly because they have magic wings made by fairies." Prove that wrong or else I must be right. Go ahead, prove that I'm wrong. You can't, so I must be right according to your method of proof. This is fun, I could do this all day.

Here is another one for you.
"God is a horses ass that crapped the universe into existence." Prove that wrong or else it must be true.


If this is the extent of your intelligence mOjOm, then you're showing us the weakness of your stance, weakness of your argument and your belief.




top topics



 
42
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join