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.

 

Maths Proof: God Created the Universe

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
There is no god.

Religion is just another form of government.
Man created the "scriptures" .




posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: SuperFrog

For starters...maybe you can explain why the Sun's corona is a few million degrees hotter than it's surface...


Maybe you can explain why you didn't even try to search for that answer?

www.livescience.com...
edit on 23-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: SuperFrog

For starters: love.
All we can see are the biological consequences, but that's it.

Besides from that we understand roughly 5% of our universe, thus we're 95% away from the world formula of 'fundamental understanding'...



www.psychologytoday.com...

www.bbc.co.uk...

How do you know we only understand 5% of the universe? What formula did you use to get that figure?
edit on 23-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:08 PM
link   
There are of course things we don't know (duh).....but to say we will never ever be able to detect or measure a god type creature simply because it's magical, spooky and supernatural is just theists covering their backs.

As I said, if such a creature apparently manifests itself in the material universe (as we're told it does thousands if not millions of times a day) there is no reason it could not be detected.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Prezbo369 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

No need to be psychic to catch that drift, am I?



When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

en.wikipedia.org...

What the heck (is it a pun?) did he smoke all day then? You don't like Clarke much, do you?



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

A near miss is still a miss after all.
Now find something regarding the deep love people feel, not just a piece about the change of biochemistry during the first days. You just linked the consequences I was referring to.



How do you know we only understand 5% of the universe? What formula did you use to get that figure?


CERN

edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Barcs

A near miss is still a miss after all.
Now find something regarding the deep love people feel, not about the change of biochemistry during the first days. You just linked the consequences I was referring to.



How do you know we only understand 5% of the universe? What formula did you use to get that figure?


CERN


From your source:

The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!


That's of course not the same as saying:


we understand roughly 5% of our universe, thus we're 95% away from the world formula of 'fundamental understanding



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

You wanna split hairs over that?




The matter we know and that makes up all stars and galaxies only accounts for 5% of the content of the universe!



5% is 5%, innit? We don't fully understand the (known) unknown 95% then, do we?
edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Just a hundred years ago we were not aware that there is more then 1 galaxy in the world - we did not have data or tools to see and recognize other galaxies. With the help of new telescope in 1929, Hubble was able to discover that Galaxies are common and that there are billions of Galaxies in universe, some much bigger then our own...

We have learned that everything is moving, that our own galaxy is on collision course with Andromeda galaxy (fine tuned sh*t) and that around that time our own sun will expand so large, that will swallow inner planets, including earth... (we just recently monitored another star do this)

Reason I mention this is to show just how much we learned in very little time. We are still learning, if you follow any scientific publications/journal in past few year, you would learn that speed of discoveries is not linear, it's exponentiation.

Today religion is just incapable to cope with science/technology and soon will be completely obsolete, something Freud predicted more then century ago, and we see first results...

To save some time from googling...


The religious views of Sigmund Freud are described in several of his books and essays. Freud regarded God as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure; religion, necessary to help us restrain violent impulses earlier in the development of civilization, can now be set aside in favor of reason and science.


edit on 23-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Love is an emotion. Biological consequences? The biology is what creates the emotion. What part of it are you specifically referring to that we do not know? It sounds like you are just embracing whatever mystical thing you can think of and claiming science doesn't know, because you think it's not tangible.

Here's a simple explanation. THE BRAIN, which is the source of all emotions.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

That's your opinion, you just reduced life (in this case love) to matter.

You could equally state I can't feel love for my brothers and friends, as there is absolutely no biochemistry involved. But reality proves your claim wrong.

The brain is just working in teamwork with our abdominal brain, you somehow missed that.


edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Double post sry...posting from mobile...
edit on 23-10-2015 by Agree2Disagree because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

A catchy title proves nothing. Read t gh e actual published research in the journal Science and you will find that it is only a speculated answer.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Prezbo369

You wanna split hairs over that?



Dark matter is one aspect we don't understand. Just because the matter itself is supposed to account for 95% of the universe, does not mean that we don't understand 95% of the universe. You are trying to suggest science doesn't know anything, so yeah, I'm splitting those hairs. If you want to talk about what percentage of things we understand about the universe, it's a completely different conversation.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Barcs

That's your opinion, you just reduced life (in this case love) to matter.

You could equally state I can't feel love for my brothers and friends, as there is absolutely no biochemistry involved. But reality proves your claim wrong.

The brain is just working in teamwork with our abdominal brain, you somehow missed that.



I'll ask again. What part of love do we not understand? Everything is made up of matter, so I don't see what you are getting at. Oh wait I do. You are trying to claim it's a product of the soul, something we don't even know exists and you are mystifying it.



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs

A catchy title proves nothing. Read t gh e actual published research in the journal Science and you will find that it is only a speculated answer.


Yawn. The usual. You asked to explain and I explained. Sorry that you don't buy it. I don't care. Nano flares have been observed, they aren't just a guess. They might not know every detail about them yet, but this will lead us toward the answer. I don't understand the need to fight science every step of the way. They will get to the answer eventually and this is the first step in understanding it. What is your point here?

Link to research paper on nano flares

A link to the journal article on nano flares for those interested. Where does it say that nano flares are just a guess? They are currently the best known explanation based on the evidence. That's what scientific knowledge is.
edit on 23-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Agree2Disagree
a reply to: Barcs

A catchy title proves nothing. Read t gh e actual published research in the journal Science and you will find that it is only a speculated answer.


Yawn. The usual. You asked to explain and I explained. Sorry that you don't buy it. I don't care. Nano flares have been observed, they aren't just a guess. They might not know every detail about them yet, but this will lead us toward the answer. I don't understand the need to fight science every step of the way. They will get to the answer eventually and this is the first step in understanding it. What is your point here?

Link to research paper on nano flares

A link to the journal article on nano flares for those interested. Where does it say that nano flares are just a guess? They are currently the best known explanation based on the evidence. That's what scientific knowledge is.


It's not buying it. You just don't understand science.

Their reasoning behind why the corona is hotter than the surface is basically that gas jets from deep in the sun and magnetic waves transfer tremendous amounts of energy to the corona. However, they still have no idea as to how that process actually works.


Type II spicules are accelerated into the corona at speeds up to 100 km/s and have plasma heated to temperatures up to 1 million Kelvin. The new observations show hot plasma associated with spicules for the first time, indicating that the energy flux density into the corona is on the order of that required to sustain its temperatures in the face of the energy the corona radiates away.

In rough physics terms, this means that energy in now appears to equal the energy out, making spicules a dead-obvious source of coronal heating. However, there is still an uncertainty regarding the mechanics of the heating and eruption of the type II spicules themselves. It could be heating by magnetic waves or heating from reconnection of magnetic field lines that are twisted by convective motion at the solar surface.


Bold for emphasis.
Source

A2D



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Besides for the splitting of hairs and ridiculousness...My point was that there are tons of things science doesn't know...and then someone asks me to provide examples of what science doesn't know...

Well it's a given isn't it? That's what science is all about...learning new stuff...learning STUFF YOU DON'T KNOW...if science knew everything, there'd be no need for new research...

A2D



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

So your claim would be, the only love existent is between lovers?
You're out, brother! Don't love to hear your take anymore...


edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-10-2015 by PublicOpinion because: lacking grammar skillset



posted on Oct, 23 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Barcs

So your claim would be, the only love existent is between lovers?
You're out, brother! Don't love to hear your take anymore...



I said that? Are you going to answer my question yet?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join