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.
originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor
The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.
originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor
The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.
originally posted by: jonnywhite
All I know is I recall a poll about climate change, involving democrats and republicans. The resuilts being democrats were overwhelmingly convinced humans were causing climate changing. Republicans were unsurprisingly skeptical. However, what comes next is stunning: apparently, the republicans had a greater knowledge of certain (or many) topics, implying the democrats were convinced dependent on FAITH, not objective understanding. This contradicts what you'd expect!
So I ask, are some 51% of people convinced in evolution because of objective understanding, or faith? You ask faith in what? I say faith in science. Faith in evolutionary scientists.
The real judge of a person is their understanding of science, not their pronouncements pertaining to it. Faith should not go blindly.
For the record, I believe evolution explains most or maybe all things. I don't discount the possibility of aliens or god(s) influencing life in our universe. It may be impossible for us to know though. That's why it's religious in nature. Religion can go places science will never go. Like another poster stated, science has difficulty with why. Moreso, science relies on what it can observe. It cannot comment on things outside observation.
If something cannot be recorded, detected or observed in any way, what's the difference between that and something that doesn't exist?
originally posted by: Prezbo369
originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor
The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.
No while it's simpler to explain everything by saying 'the creator did it' it unnecessarily complicates the issue.
Or are you saying the creator is a simple being/entity/creature/ghost/spirit etc?
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor
The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.
It's not the most simple answer, It's the most soothing answer. It gives people hope. Reality or simplicity have nothing to do with it. Some folks need that in their lives. It feels good to believe that we all live forever and will see deceased friends and family again. Unfortunately, this is all extremely unlikely, but it's nice to hope for it.
Dr. Ian Stevenson. Instead of relying on hypnosis to verify that an individual has had a previous life, he instead chose to collect thousands of cases of children who spontaneously (without hypnosis) remember a past life.
originally posted by: SeaWorthy
originally posted by: Barcs
originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: toktaylor
The simplest explanation for everything is a creator. It is difficult for people to accept only because religions have so dirtied the whole idea of a creator, otherwise it is actually programed into us to realize there is a superior intelligence at work.
It's not the most simple answer, It's the most soothing answer. It gives people hope. Reality or simplicity have nothing to do with it. Some folks need that in their lives. It feels good to believe that we all live forever and will see deceased friends and family again. Unfortunately, this is all extremely unlikely, but it's nice to hope for it.
I disagree having been a lover of all areas science all my life I see a creator as the simplest answer in every way.
We don't know much yet, some of the science today that people think is new is in fact very old and only finally being followed up on.
What would seeing deceased Family mean in terms of virtual reality? Reinstating the characters program? What if it is simply a matter of form, all energy could have intelligence even the electricity in your home. What if we are reincarnated by being reborn in amongst our loved ones in a new scenario to live it for a purpose we as yet do not understand?
Dr. Ian Stevenson. Instead of relying on hypnosis to verify that an individual has had a previous life, he instead chose to collect thousands of cases of children who spontaneously (without hypnosis) remember a past life.
reluctant-messenger.com...
Ever wonder why a cockroach did not evolve past humans or a Turritopsis dohrnii, the immortal jellyfish?