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.

 

God Did It! The rest is post modern chatter!

page: 17
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 12:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
To the contrary, there's no evidence of any non-conscious agency that's able to create any law. We have however laws being created by the conscious mind.

Case in point:

F = ma

If the law didn't already exist, will Sir Isaac Newton be able to formulate the equations that described to the laws of motion?

But let's supposed the law didn't exist - then where to begin?

How would you formulate something that doesn't exist?

Without consciousness, how would you even begin?



All that formula is doing is describing something. It's just language. Like saying S+M+I+L+E =


All you're doing is using language to describe something. Everything can be represented by some symbolic language. That's the whole purpose of language. To assign certain symbols in a specific order which describe real things or events.

But the actual things themselves just are what they are. They don't require a linguistic representation to exist. That's just how we communicate them.




posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: wmd_2008
I will repeat this


Why have none of the religious members replied to THIS POST

Your SILENCE speaks volumes


Par for the course, I suppose. The religious folk that deny science never ever explain why it's wrong. They prefer to ignore any post that counters their claim or requires them to think critically. It's so much easier to just stick your head in the dirt and deny science. Basically they have no integrity.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

Par for the course, I suppose. The religious folk that deny science never ever explain why it's wrong. They prefer to ignore any post that counters their claim or requires them to think critically. It's so much easier to just stick your head in the dirt and deny science. Basically they have no integrity.


I agree! Their dodging questions just reinforces my conclusions: the Bible is a book full of contradictions that only proves it was made up by men two millenium ago to control the gullible... and it still does.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

The bible is a perfectly serviceable book, as long as you are
(a) That way inclined (viz Christian)
(b) Acknowledge that it is myth, legend (at best), parable etc, and not actually a historical document.
and
(c) That it should not be your only guiding document in life.

For those of us who are not (a), it holds no bearing or power over us



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Absolutely, it bears no power. Funny thing is that I'm not even sayingthere is no God, I'm an agnostic, I am open to the idea that we just don't know. But you cannot tell me a book full of contradictions, errors, violence, sadism, incest etc is from a God... and they still bow down to him?

Oh well, I plan to go to Valhalla when I die anyway. lol

edit on 25-4-2016 by Agartha because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: edmc^2
To the contrary, there's no evidence of any non-conscious agency that's able to create any law. We have however laws being created by the conscious mind.

Case in point:

F = ma

If the law didn't already exist, will Sir Isaac Newton be able to formulate the equations that described to the laws of motion?

But let's supposed the law didn't exist - then where to begin?

How would you formulate something that doesn't exist?

Without consciousness, how would you even begin?



All that formula is doing is describing something. It's just language. Like saying S+M+I+L+E =


All you're doing is using language to describe something. Everything can be represented by some symbolic language. That's the whole purpose of language. To assign certain symbols in a specific order which describe real things or events.

But the actual things themselves just are what they are. They don't require a linguistic representation to exist. That's just how we communicate them.


Sure - the letters - F = ma represents something but what they represent didn't and can't just construct itself.

The forces that are represented by the said symbols had to be formulated and precisely calculated using a higher form of mathematics.

But how would you do this without consciousness? Furthermore, how would these precise forces form in such orderly fashion as opposed to random fashion

Case in point:

Consider Kepler's Planetary:


Calculations Using Kepler's Third Law

A convenient unit of measurement for periods is in Earth years, and a convenient unit of measurement for distances is the average separation of the Earth from the Sun, which is termed an astronomical unit and is abbreviated as AU. If these units are used in Kepler's 3rd Law, the denominators in the preceding equation are numerically equal to unity and it may be written in the simple form

P(years)^2 = R (A.U.)^3


csep10.phys.utk.edu...

That is:

The Mathematical laws governing the universe, specifically Kepler's THIRD LAW:

- states that the CUBE of a planet's DISTANCE (call it "a") is IDENTICAL to the SQUARE of the planet's orbital Period (call it "P").

So if: a = distance in a.u., P = orbital Period then the equation is --> a^3 = P^2.

Applying this equation to the planet EARTH.

If the Earth is 92.95 million miles (mean) from the Sun and that it orbits the Sun 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes and 46 seconds in one year ,the equation a^3=P^2 --> becomes --> 1^3 = 1^2 --> 1=1

So the earth's distance in 'astronomical unit' is 1 a.u. and the earth's ONE year orbit is 1P 'orbital Period' -

Which confirms that the CUBE of a planet's DISTANCE (a) is IDENTICAL to the SQUARE of the planet's orbital Period (P). Agree?

Applying the same calculation on the planet Mercury

if a = 0.387 a.u. and P = 0.24 year (87.97 days)

then a^3 = 0.387^3 = 0.057
p^2 = 0.24^2 = 0.057

It's accurately predictable!!!

What does this mean?

It means that the ratio and proportion and distances of planets are not products of mere blind chance but consciousness.

They were put there by a conscious mind.




posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: edmc^2

You started the thread with your "proof" from the bible. Maybe you should finish grade 9 before trying to explain science to us adults.


sure.

BTW - since, I, as you put it - still need to finish 9th grade, if you have time professor, can you please explain the science of circuit design? Explain please the principles of Nodal's Theorem and the Maxwell Principle. And while you're at it, add Kirchhoff law and the bkm for circuit design with emphasis on a good transmission line.

Then maybe then I might consider going to 9th grade

oh, in case you want to know, I have a background in Electrical Engineering.
edit on 25-4-2016 by edmc^2 because: see below



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   

You started the thread with your "proof" from the bible. Maybe you should finish grade 9 before trying to explain science to us adults.


see above
edit on 25-4-2016 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

Many of us are not saying there are no deities (sorry polytheist, I refuse to use the singular for Gods). But apparently those of us who do not agree with the infallibility of the bible, are all atheists.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I don't doubt that you do. It my comment was in jest. But seriously your obsession of the bible being scientific is well I just don't understand it.

You presented the bible as proof of it a scientific accuracy. Yet I've shown more than 5 examples where the bible fails scientifically. I could show many more. But you simply ignore those points and say but look the bible says "the earth hangs on nothing" how could they have known.

Taking a vague statement like that and using it as proof is the most unscientific thing I have seen.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 05:58 PM
link   
There are so many creationism stories from various religions, all sounding extremely unusual, it's baffling to me how any one can claim a monopoly of truth with no evidence. I don't claim to know how everything came to me but I generally drift towards the arguments with quantifiable evidence.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecanada11




But you simply ignore those points and say but look the bible says "the earth hangs on nothing" how could they have known.


OK - let's go back to this.

When was it discovered that "nothing" physical or tangible was holding the earth? That it was literally floating in space?

It was discovered in the last century.

When was the writing of Bible book of Job completed?

It was completed (based on Bible chronology) around 1473 B.C.E

From 1657 through 1473 B.C.E. by Moses (140 years)

From 1473 B.C.E to 1900 C.E. is 3,373 years.

Now even if you say the book of Job is a myth or a book that was written by men with so many contradictions. Still the fact remains, the writer had the correct information as to the earth's location in space.

In poetic WRITING style, Moses wrote the story and the events of the life of Job and in a poetic manner stated: "the earth hangs on nothing".

(btw - those who haven't read the entire book of Job, the writing is considered one of the best prose and poetry)

Now, if we think about it, without going to outer space, how could he know that the earth is not being held placed by something solid?

In fact, as time passed, thousands of years after the writing of Job, many people came up with different ideas as to what the earth was resting on. One theory says the earth was surrounded by water and that it was floating in these waters. The Hindus believed or conceived of an idea that it was resting on several foundations, one on top of each other: four elephants standing on a giant tortoise, the tortoise rested on a giant serpent where the serpent floated on universal waters. Greek philosopher Empedocles believed the earth rested upon a whirlwind and that this whirlwind was the cause of the motion of the heavenly bodies. Aristotle, on the other hand, taught that the earth was inside a sphere within a sphere where the moon, sun and stars were attached to its transparent surface. The earth according to Aristotle was at the center of the sphere -within- a sphere immobile. His teaching was widely accepted in the 16th and 17th century.

Yet, far ahead of their time. Far ahead of the age of science the Bible writer wrote exactly what we know now.

That the earth really "hangs on 'nothing'" (beli-mah' - literally 'without anything').

Now if you want to be scientific about it - the earth is being held by un unseen invisible force called gravity.

So where did the writer of Job get the information from - c 3400 years ago?

It's an honest question.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: FairyThorne
There are so many creationism stories from various religions, all sounding extremely unusual, it's baffling to me how any one can claim a monopoly of truth with no evidence. I don't claim to know how everything came to me but I generally drift towards the arguments with quantifiable evidence.


If you can, please answer my question in the above post.

So where did the writer of Job get the information from - c 3400 years ago?

It's an honest question.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2




When was it discovered that "nothing" physical or tangible was holding the earth? That it was literally floating in space?

The Earth is not floating in space. It is falling around the Sun. An orbit is not floating. Literally or otherwise.



So where did the writer of Job get the information from - c 3400 years ago?
Please provide information from 3,400 years ago showing that it was known that the Earth orbits the Sun.
edit on 4/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   

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




When was it discovered that "nothing" physical or tangible was holding the earth? That it was literally floating in space?

The Earth is not floating in space. It is falling around the Sun.


True. However you look at it, but the point is - the earth is not being held by something solid.

It's "floating", "falling" or "suspended - or hanging upon nothing" in space. Nothing solid is holding it. It's not resting on something solid but is held by a force unseen to the eyes.

btw - if you say "falling around the sun" - what's holding it in placed?

Is it something visible to the naked eye?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2



Is it something visible to the naked eye?
No.

Please provide information from 3,400 years ago showing that it was known that the Earth orbits the Sun.



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   

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



Is it something visible to the naked eye?
No.

Please provide information from 3,400 years ago showing that it was known that the Earth orbits the Sun.


Must I repeat myself again?

The subject is not the orbit or the rotation of the earth or the sun but the location of the earth in space.

Or what's holding it - or to use your word "falling on"?

Why do you people like to change the subject whenever a valid question is ask?

Come on Phage - you're more intelligent than this.



edit on 25-4-2016 by edmc^2 because: add ?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2




The subject is not the orbit or the rotation of the earth or the sun but the location of the earth in space.
The Earth is constantly moving through space. Both around the Sun and around the galaxy. And, in fact, along with the galaxy. Its location is always changing. Did Job mention that? It's sort of a major bit of data.

Here is what you asked:

So where did the writer of Job get the information from - c 3400 years ago?

What "information" do you find so informative? Did he say the Earth moves around the Sun? Seems that his information was lacking. Quite a lot.

edit on 4/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   

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




The subject is not the orbit or the rotation of the earth or the sun but the location of the earth in space.
The Earth is constantly moving through space. Both around the Sun and around the galaxy. And, in fact, along with the galaxy. Its location is always changing

Here is what you asked:

So where did the writer of Job get the information from - c 3400 years ago?


You


Job 26:7 says - "the earth is hanging on nothing"

It's not about orbit or rotation.

Stick to the subject. What is the earth resting on?



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2


Job 26:7 says - "the earth is hanging on nothing"

The Earth is not hanging.


Stick to the subject. What is the earth resting on?
I have been. Now, could you answer my questions?
edit on 4/25/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join