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: 74
42
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You wish that were true but, if you were honest, you would accept that it takes the same to believe either religiously.

Add to that the many people don't believe in evolution religiously and your argument falls pretty flat.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

You are being intellectually dishonest again. I've only ever sold myself as someone who understands biological evolution (the chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and bioinformatics there of) . Beyond that as a scientist, I understand scientific method much better than the lay person.

You repeatedly post parts of quotes, to try and make an argument, rather than the entirety. Indeed you admit you could not finish Prof. Hawkins book, so why should your opinion matter? Its like reading chapter one of War and Peace and claiming it has all you need to know.



No. I'm not being "intellectually dishonest". Your participation in the discussion gave an impression that you're familiar with Prof. Hawkings writings and works. I guess not. I guess I'm asking the wrong person. My bad then.

As for the book, yes, I attempted to read the book in its entirety but failed to do so in the hopes of finding the answer to my question regarding the "creation" or the "spontaneous appearance" of the law of gravity. So what I did is use the Search tool in order to isolate the words law gravity. Alas 52 hits but no explanation of how it came to be. I've learned quite a lot though, of how the universe behaves and the laws that governed it. It's a fascinating book, I must say. It's a mishmash of different theories in order to arrive at a single theory (law of gravity) to explain how the universe came to be.

In any case, I guess thank you for your participation.



Perhaps this can clear up some of the confusion:



... from the terminology, it sounds like this may be a reference to Hartle and Hawking's no-boundary proposal.

In this scheme, they propose a method for computing what they refer to as the "wavefunction of the universe". This wavefunction uses Feynman's path integral to assign probability amplitudes to three-metrics on a three-surface ΣΣ bounding a Euclidean spacetime M. By analytic continuation, the wavefunction can be continued to a function representing a Lorentzian signature spacetime.

This approach is explained in Hawking's publicly available lecture. There he describes an explicit example where ΣΣ is a three-sphere and the Euclidean manifold M is a four-ball. "On the other side" of the bounding three-sphere ΣΣ is Lorentzian de Sitter space. This model is proposed as a model for a spontaneously created de Sitter universe, and he makes the statement

"Unlike the black hole pair creation, one couldn't say that the de Sitter universe was created out of field energy in a preexisting space. Instead, it would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all, because there is nothing outside the universe."


physics.stackexchange.com...

As for gravity...we don't yet know exactly where it starts. We have determined how it functions but not its source. The investigation is on going. Inb4 "finally, a gap we can cram god into so as to preserve our egocentric model of existence!"


A man said to the universe, "Sir, I exist."

"However," replied the universe, "that fact has not created in me a sense of obligation."

- Stephen Crane




Clear as mud.

Peter Atkins has a better explanation - if you prefer a way out there concept.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:02 PM
link   

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

You wish that were true but, if you were honest, you would accept that it takes the same to believe either religiously.

Add to that the many people don't believe in evolution religiously and your argument falls pretty flat.



I didn't say religious faith. I said faith. For example, do you have faith in the banking institution right now?

If you do then you have more faith than I am.



edit on 30-9-2016 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
I didn't say religious faith. I said faith.

Correct, I said religious faith because that is usually the type that believers in creation have.

Sounds like you are now saying that believing in evolution is actually less of a leap in faith than believing in creation although the post I replied to says the opposite.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:33 PM
link   
"Logic"




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: edmc^2
I didn't say religious faith. I said faith.

Correct, I said religious faith because that is usually the type that believers in creation have.

Sounds like you are now saying that believing in evolution is actually less of a leap in faith than believing in creation although the post I replied to says the opposite.


No - it's quite the opposite.

Let me illustrate using the Hawking concept:




Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.


To accept and believe this concept - a great deal of faith is required for the simple reason that there's nothing to based "nothing" from.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan
"Logic"



I'm curious, how do you apply logic to this?




Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," .... "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

When are you going to understand that cherry picking sentences works against you?

Oh, you won't because "logic" lol.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Differently than you it would appear.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:02 PM
link   

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

Differently than you it would appear.


I'm all ears - what is it then so that we can apply it in the Hawking concept of Universal Origins.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

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

When are you going to understand that cherry picking sentences works against you?

Oh, you won't because "logic" lol.


Here u go - use the entire page:




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

It already got explained to you a few pages back. All you're doing now is rehashing old arguments as if they're new. We can all see you doing it. It's like a roundabout.

But this is what happens when someone tries to prove a creator with "logic" and fails.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
No - it's quite the opposite.

Let me illustrate using the Hawking concept

Sorry but that is a strawman.

It could only apply to those who worship at the church of Hawking and even then, those who might accept it as a possibility are not necessarily religious about it so no, it isn't the opposite except, in your opinion.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

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

It already got explained to you a few pages back. All you're doing now is rehashing old arguments as if they're new. We can all see you doing it. It's like a roundabout.

But this is what happens when someone tries to prove a creator with "logic" and fails.


I see, I must have missed it. Since you seem to know where the "law of gravity" came from, enlighten me then with your LOGIC.

Prof. Hawkings didn't say where the "law of gravity" came from, so please the floor is yours. Don't be shy.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Now you're just being obtuse because you can't prove your flavour of god(s) real with "logic".

Try reading the thread. You'll see how all your "logic" has been countered by ACTUAL logic, reason and science without needing to resort to strawman arguments.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: edmc^2
No - it's quite the opposite.

Let me illustrate using the Hawking concept

Sorry but that is a strawman.

It could only apply to those who worship at the church of Hawking and even then, those who might accept it as a possibility are not necessarily religious about it so no, it isn't the opposite except, in your opinion.


It's not a straw man - world-leading physicists holds Dr. Hawkings' view - including Dr. Krauss.





posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

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

Differently than you it would appear.


I'm all ears - what is it then so that we can apply it in the Hawking concept of Universal Origins.



Logic: reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

I have seen little if any of this here. Hell, you cannot even define what "Valid" principles are in this discussion. You have one side using faith and a book to define validity, and the other using math and physics... that change after we are able to test them.

Technically you are both operating on Faith



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Since when did holding the same belief as someone else become religious faith, other than to those trying to bring others down to their level so they can say "you're just as bad" and then try to slip in "you're even worse"?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

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

Now you're just being obtuse because you can't prove your flavour of god(s) real with "logic".

Try reading the thread. You'll see how all your "logic" has been countered by ACTUAL logic, reason and science without needing to resort to strawman arguments.


I've already presented Why Creation the only logical explanation for the origin of life and the universe.

What's your alternative? All I've encountered is not logical alternative but attacks.

State you case - don't attack.

What's your alternative besides Creation?

If Dr. Hawking failed at it, maybe you can.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I already stated what I believe. The only logical answer is "no one knows and might never know".




top topics



 
42
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join