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.

 

Orbits in our solar system proof of divine scientific interference?

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Feel free to elaborate on how the 2 are infact contrary to one another?
One would be the source the other the methods used by the source...
So to claim that term paradoxical is simply nonsensical...
And I believe I have proven that...




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: truthseeker84

Ah I see so you are not against it being intelligently designed...
you are against the designer being divine...
If God is the creator of the Universe then science is merely the study of his laws used in doing so...


I think what they were getting at is that the term "divine science" is paradoxical and in it's self based on an unprovable premise.


Correct, I just couldn't word it better.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: 5StarOracle

The definition of science is the systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Science isn't an action, it is just a tool used to understand naturally occurring phenomenon.

We have the Scientific Method, which is an action, and that is a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested. Again, it is about learning, not simply creating.

To create 4 planets with orbits that appear to increase in primes isn't science because there is no knowledge-gaining behind it at all. And to assume that this 'divine being' used 'science' to do this a conclusion based an a preconceived notion, which doesn't add anything to the validity of the claims at hand.

Also, those 4 planets that 'increase in primes' is only from our perspective, and it's only in this very moment in time when they would do that because orbital time limits aren't static. So the entire concept is based on a false premise to begin with and only makes sense viewed right now and from this planet alone.

There is no significance behind it what so ever.

'Divine beings' are said to exist outside of the natural realm, so science can't be used by them unless they were in the natural realm. Which is paradoxical.

Intelligent design doesn't require a divine being, so simply stating 'intelligently designed' could in fact use science, but again, it would be to learn something, not to simply create something.
edit on 26/2/16 by Ghost147 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Feel free to elaborate on how the 2 are infact contrary to one another?
One would be the source the other the methods used by the source...
So to claim that term paradoxical is simply nonsensical...
And I believe I have proven that...


How are you confused about this?

Science and Religion does not go hand in hand. Why is this difficult to comprehend?

This doesn't mean Scientists are all Atheists, it just means Science cannot and does not deal with things that are beyond our reality or senses.

Can you ask a Scientist to prove that Black Magic does in fact, exist in our reality and how it functions?

Can you ask a Scientist to prove that Ghosts exist? Or the existence of your Christian/Judaism God? Or any holy entities for the matter?

Can you use Science to prove the existence of anything mystical or super natural? If you can't, all those things are not considered Scientific. Therefore, you don't talk as if you or someone else have found evidence as such.

It's annoying that we have to argue these merits with "philosophical" thinkers, because essentially, we're no longer talking about Science. Instead, we're arguing logic, philosophy, psychology and individual believes.

To best describe why Intelligent Design (Creationism) is not real science, I present to you:

NOVA: I.D. (Creationism) On Trial

It's a rather extensive video of why any real Scientists should stay as far away from I.D. and Creationism as far as they possibly can.

If you're not interested in a 2 hour long video, I recommend you skipping to the last 30 to 20 minutes of it, where real Scientists explain why the whole concept is ridiculous and laughable.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

What is laughable is that if God did indeed create the Universe and all in it...
Then science is nothing more that the study of the rules or laws and methods implemented by him in the first place...
Because you can not quantify or reason on the level of the divine is of no consequence when you find evidence indicating intelligence dictating the circumstances...
This is not a matter of faith it's simply rational...
Long from now as science unfolds it's mysteries,scientists will be left bowing down to a creator as they will be left with no other possibility due to thier own conclusions...



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Because you can not quantify or reason on the level of the divine is of no consequence when you find evidence indicating intelligence dictating the circumstances...
That's great. As soon as you find said evidence, let me know.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
What is laughable is that if God did indeed create the Universe and all in it...
Then science is nothing more that the study of the rules or laws and methods implemented by him in the first place...

I don't understand what you mean when you say "God."



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

What is laughable is that if God did indeed create the Universe and all in it...
Then science is nothing more that the study of the rules or laws and methods implemented by him in the first place...
Because you can not quantify or reason on the level of the divine is of no consequence when you find evidence indicating intelligence dictating the circumstances...
This is not a matter of faith it's simply rational...
Long from now as science unfolds it's mysteries,scientists will be left bowing down to a creator as they will be left with no other possibility due to thier own conclusions...


Can you show us this evidence of your god?

No?

Not very scientific then.

Science works with evidence. You have none therefore it's not science.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

What is laughable is that if God did indeed create the Universe and all in it...
Then science is nothing more that the study of the rules or laws and methods implemented by him in the first place...


Why is that laughable? Do you assume that science doesn't work if a god was discovered?

The only thing that would change in science if a god was discovered is that we would learn even more about the nature of our universe and how it functions. The discovery of god would only serve to increase the accuracy of science.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Because you can not quantify or reason on the level of the divine is of no consequence when you find evidence indicating intelligence dictating the circumstances...
This is not a matter of faith it's simply rational...


No, it has nothing to do with rationality at all. You're presenting a "what if" scenario as if that is proof of anything.

Supposition doesn't prove anything at all. I could equally state "what if leprechauns exist and are the source of all that is nature and they let us know that god doesn't exist and that science is the most accurate way to determine reality", would that make my position any more factual?

I should hope you have the cognition to understand that no, it doesn't.

'What if' scenarios do nothing to prove any points.

Evidence, on the other hand - the stuff that science is backed with - does prove points. So until you actually provide some substance to your claims, they are effectively meaningless.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   
I'll just have to say because science is governed by rules and laws, this in and of itself is rather indicative to the fact there is intelligence behind it all...
God by definition is the creator of the universe...
All things contained in the universe have an origin...
Nothing simply is or always was and nothing lasts forever...
Everything we know points to the fact that things happen for a reason this is science and there is intelligence behind it all...
To deny this is to deny logic and science itself...
Just as God is beyond his creation so too is the ability beyond man to prove or disprove his existence...
That does not mean we can't see evidence of his design in his creation.
Science is not unintelligible without Rhyme or reason, no not at all...
To me all science is evidence of a planned organisation for existence which hold true to its boundaries throughout the entire universe...



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
I'll just have to say because science is governed by rules and laws, this in and of itself is rather indicative to the fact there is intelligence behind it all...


Absolutely correct. Although there is only really one 'rule', and that's to follow the scientific method.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
God by definition is the creator of the universe...


Citation please.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
All things contained in the universe have an origin...


True

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Nothing simply is or always was and nothing lasts forever...


Absolutely true.

Using this logic we can also determine that god has not always existed or will last forever


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Everything we know points to the fact that things happen for a reason this is science and there is intelligence behind it all...


No. Science has never stated that "everything we know happens for a reason", that would be philosophy and philosophy alone.

Science doesn't propose to answer the "Why's" of nature, but the "How's" of it.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
To deny this is to deny logic and science itself...


To deny that would be to accurately understand Science.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Just as God is beyond his creation so too is the ability beyond man to prove or disprove his existence...


Right, just like invisible pink unicorns that can't be detected by any instrument made by man currently or forever in the future that are the real creators of the universe.

It's called an Unfalsifiable claim, and it is inherently illogical and holds absolutely no weight in any conversation about the facts of anything.

I can make up an infinite number of other unfalsifiable claims and they would all hold the same level of validity as your unfalsifiable claim.

It is a logical fallacy to use unfalsifiable claims as an argument over facts.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
That does not mean we can't see evidence of his design in his creation.


Yes, actually, that's exactly what it means. If you can't prove that something does or doesn't exist, then you can't observe evidence about it.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
Science is not unintelligible without Rhyme or reason, no not at all...


Correct, the reason for science is to discover more knowledge


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
To me all science is evidence of a planned organisation for existence which hold true to its boundaries throughout the entire universe...


No... Science is a tool used to make discovers and describe naturally occurring functions to the best of our ability.

It is not a universal phenomenon



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

God exists outside of his creation remember?
As the creator he is unbound by the rules and laws which govern that which he created...
He therefore can always have existed and also be everywhere.
If science was no good everywhere we wouldn't use it in space on the moon or Mars... try to keep up...

Full Definition of god

1capitalized :  the supreme or ultimate reality: asa :  the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universeb Christian Science :  the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit :  infinite Mind

2:  a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;specifically :  one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3:  a person or thing of supreme value

4:  a powerful ruler

www.merriam-webster.com...
edit on 26-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

God exists outside of his creation remember?


Well if god can exist forever, and for always, then your logic cannot possible be accurate when you say that 'nothing can last for ever and for always'.

You can't have the best of both worlds with this. Especially when your extraordinary claims lack any and all evidence.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
As the creator he is unbound by the rules and laws which govern that which he created...
He therefore can always have existed and also be everywhere.


And I'm supposed to take your word for it, with nothing to back up your claims? because you are right, and everyone else who claims the same thing but about a different god is wrong?


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
If science was no good everywhere we wouldn't use it in space on the moon or Mars... try to keep up...


I didn't say you couldn't use science everywhere. In fact, I've said multiple times that Science can only be used within the context of a naturally occurring phenomena. That would include anything that isn't here on earth, and that also exists within nature.

The quote I was responding to in this reference suggested that it was a universal phenomena itself, which it is not. It's merely an Action.


originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
Full Definition of god

1capitalized :  the supreme or ultimate reality: asa :  the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universeb Christian Science :  the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit :  infinite Mind

2:  a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;specifically :  one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3:  a person or thing of supreme value

4:  a powerful ruler


I'm not sure why you're posting the definition of god. Are you trying to use the definition to validity that he exists?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Nothing in the universe exists for ever...
God exists outside of his creation...
Remember?
I said God by definition was the creator of the universe...
You asked for citation...
I gave you the full Definition of God...
edit on 26-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: add



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Nothing in the universe exists for ever...
God exists outside of his creation...
Remember?
I said God by definition was the creator of the universe...
You asked for citation...
I gave you the full Definition of God...


I can give you a definition of unicorns. Guess they exist too?

Just because something has a definition doesn't make it real.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I could say you are intelligent but that wouldn't mean that's reality either...
None the less that is the definition of God...
Now if the definition of a unicorn was that they were the creator of the universe, your idle comment would be something of substance instead of self serving...

Instead the definition speaks of the reality of unicorns nothing is said of God being a fantasy in the full Definition because it is a possibility... Unicorns are not unless of course you would be God...
Definition of a unicorn...
a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.
edit on 26-2-2016 by 5StarOracle because: word



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147

Nothing in the universe exists for ever...
God exists outside of his creation...
Remember?
I said God by definition was the creator of the universe...
You asked for citation...
I gave you the full Definition of God...


You've misinterpreted my request. I understand the various definition's that "God" has on it.

The request for citations was of proof/evidence that god is the creator of the universe.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: TerryDon79

I could say you are intelligent but that wouldn't mean that's reality either...
None the less that is the definition of God...
Now if the definition of a unicorn was that they were the creator of the universe, your idle comment would be something of substance instead of self serving...

Instead the definition speaks of the reality of unicorns nothing is said of God being a fantasy in the full Definition because it is a possibility... Unicorns are not unless of course you would be God...
Definition of a unicorn...
a mythical animal typically represented as a horse with a single straight horn projecting from its forehead.


Hahahahahahahaha!

Your logic is beyond rediculous.

Show us proof of god and you show us a definition.

You still have yet to give proof.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Here's a little science for you then...
This is based on the conception that energy and matter always exist in equal amounts...

the first law of thermodynamics requires an explanation involving a supernatural creation of energy and thus, the entire universe. Thus, the following points are true.

1.      The first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created by natural means.

2.      The universe exists as energy.

3.      Therefore the first law of thermodynamics states that the universe cannot be created by natural means.

4.      If the universe was not created by natural means, then it was created supernaturally.

Just think on that for a bit...



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 06:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ghost147
the first law of thermodynamics requires an explanation involving a supernatural creation of energy and thus, the entire universe. Thus, the following points are true.


No, it doesn't require a supernatural creator because we know that the Big Bang was from a singularity. We however do not know where the singularity came from, however, "Supernatural creator" is not an answer, it's just a goal post that continues to move as we continue to make discoveries that actually explain previously unknown phenomena.

Because you fail to understand that the Universe was the result of a rapid expansion of a singularity, your following points are based off of a false premise.




top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join