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.

 

How close are you in believing ?

page: 4
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
a reply to: SLAYER69


Religion states we are flawed, we are born in sin. Destined to do sinner stuff and all the consequences. Flawed beings cannot pull their collective butts into a state of perfection. Observational evidence suggests this is the case, greed lust etc.





I guess where I separate myself from Religion and being a 'Believer" is that I don't follow "Their" dogma.






Laws of physics were fine tuned then hydrogen was transformed over billions of years to the higher elements that make up the stardust. The stardust itself cannot form an intelligent code, a further intervention by the intelligent designer at a specific era in the development of the universe assembled the code. That is two interventions, one setting the laws of physics and two assembling dna code. If there are two why not a third, then a fourth fifth etc?

Every religion believes they are the favored, the contactees, the chosen etc. It is probably due to sinful nature, greed, jealousy, pride. Religion can be very much a personal thing, no need for group bias support.




posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: TzarChasm

If, that all YOU gleam from it. I'm ok with that.




what is the point you were attempting to discuss?


Sorry, it got sent off topic by me. I mistakenly attributed a Hoyle quote to Crick. A quote which, incidentally, he quickly distanced himself from.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69

Our brains are biologically structured in such a way as to process language and pattern recognition very well. In short, humans are amazing pattern-recognition machines.
We have the ability to recognize many different types of patterns, and then transform these "recursive probabalistic fractals" into concrete, actionable steps. This, and humans have a need for things to have some sort of meaning, and as we seek patterns, we inherently attach meaning to them.
But this does not imply meaning, design, or purpose in the universe, it only means we desire, or imagine these things.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.



If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Just hold your horses, i need to create a directors cut.

One of the most interesting characters has to be the creature we know as satan, he/it is very important for organic life, i met him in one of saturn`s dimensions, awesome place, storms of sand and glass, like sharp needles.

The creature is extremely painful to behold, and it is actually killing me, it takes some time. He/it moves pretty slow, or fast, these things are losing their meaning, like time.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.



If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.


True, but that doesn't mean that something else couldn't be sitting in my chair typing. Just because -I- may not exist doesn't mean that the equations and constants that make up physics HAVE to be what they are. You make it sound like I HAVE to exist. No I don't have to exist. I'm just a product of my environment. If the variables of my environment were different than the product (myself) would be different (or maybe not even exist).

Your claim is fallacious because you are making an argument starting from the present and working your way backwards trying to make the past fit the present like the present is predetermined. There is nothing stating that our current present had to happen. That is a 100% assumption on your part. Also you need to start in the past and work your way forward. Stop calculating odds of our existence as it is irrelevant to proving what happened to get us where we are today.
edit on 15-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: solve

Saturn? Saturn is a giant planet made of gases with a liquid helium core. If you went to Saturn, you'd never return as the pressures alone would tear you apart as you continued to fall into the atmosphere until you hit the core.

PS: Saturn and Satan are the same thing in mythology.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.



If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.


True, but that doesn't mean that something else couldn't be sitting in my chair typing. Just because -I- may not exist doesn't mean that the equations and constants that make up physics HAVE to be what they are. You make it sound like I HAVE to exist. No I don't have to exist. I'm just a product of my environment. If the variables of my environment were different than the product (myself) would be different (or maybe not even exist).

Your claim is fallacious because you are making an argument starting from the present and working your way backwards trying to make the past fit the present like the present is predetermined. Tis nothing stating that our current present had to happen. Also you need to start in the past and work your way forward. Stop calculating odds of our existence as it is irrelevant to proving what happened to get us where we are today.


No there wouldn't be someone else in your chair, there would be no universe in which a chair is possible.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.



If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.


True, but that doesn't mean that something else couldn't be sitting in my chair typing. Just because -I- may not exist doesn't mean that the equations and constants that make up physics HAVE to be what they are. You make it sound like I HAVE to exist. No I don't have to exist. I'm just a product of my environment. If the variables of my environment were different than the product (myself) would be different (or maybe not even exist).

Your claim is fallacious because you are making an argument starting from the present and working your way backwards trying to make the past fit the present like the present is predetermined. Tis nothing stating that our current present had to happen. Also you need to start in the past and work your way forward. Stop calculating odds of our existence as it is irrelevant to proving what happened to get us where we are today.


No there wouldn't be someone else in your chair, there would be no universe in which a chair is possible.


That really depends on what things are different. BUUUUUT that doesn't mean the universe wouldn't exist. It would just be in a different form. No one said that stars, planets, and all other space matter had to exist. You are still trying to make the past fit the present. Like I said you are doing it wrong. You make the present fit the past, not the other way around.
edit on 15-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Great thread OP thanks . I am just starting the first vid and am liking it already as he mentions the plurality of the gods in the OT . Micheal Heiser has done lots of work on the subject and it should have been one of the main components in Orthodox Christianity but was missing with most teachers and preachers so it becomes a hidden thing .

I plan on watching all the vids as this kind of stuff is neat to know . As to faith well it all starts with a decision to believe and that puts you into the Ark and you ride it or not . Some jump ship and some never get on board .It boils down to the choice you make and only you or I can make it . that is the radical free will of it all ....S&F



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: flyingfish

Awesome reply

Thank you.

I was going to go into a completely different topic based discussion but this thread ended up in a completely different forum than it was originally perceived for.

I'll try again in time under different verbiage..



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TinfoilTP

I like how you proclaim things are "finely tuned" without any backing evidence or investigation. It just "is" because you can't figure how else it could have happened.



If it were tuned with any degree of variation differently, you would not exist to dispute my non existent statements.


True, but that doesn't mean that something else couldn't be sitting in my chair typing. Just because -I- may not exist doesn't mean that the equations and constants that make up physics HAVE to be what they are. You make it sound like I HAVE to exist. No I don't have to exist. I'm just a product of my environment. If the variables of my environment were different than the product (myself) would be different (or maybe not even exist).

Your claim is fallacious because you are making an argument starting from the present and working your way backwards trying to make the past fit the present like the present is predetermined. Tis nothing stating that our current present had to happen. Also you need to start in the past and work your way forward. Stop calculating odds of our existence as it is irrelevant to proving what happened to get us where we are today.


No there wouldn't be someone else in your chair, there would be no universe in which a chair is possible.


another assumption.



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: SLAYER69
a reply to: flyingfish

Awesome reply

Thank you.

I was going to go into a completely different topic based discussion but this thread ended up in a completely different forum than it was originally perceived for.

I'll try again in time under different verbiage..






what exactly were you trying to do? it seems to me that the thread ended up where it was supposed to be. unless you are implying there isnt an origins angle buried under the math? wasnt that the point of the title "how close are you in believing"?
edit on 15-8-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


You are still trying to make the past fit the present. Like I said you are doing it wrong. You make the present fit the past, not the other way around.


When scientists study the cosmic background radiation they are studying the past to fit it to the present. Why are you not critical of them doing exactly what you state is the wrong way to do things?

Your statements are hypocritical nonsense.
edit on 15-8-2016 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: scojak

But that's just it, the complexity of DNA precludes that.



"You would be more likely to assemble a fully functioning and flying jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard than you would be to assemble the DNA molecule by chance. In any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 600 million years, it’s just not possible" -Francis Crick


Too bad Crick didn't say that. That quote is from Astronomer Fred Hoyle and as context is key, was meant to promote Panspermia over Abiogenesis.

Since we're quoting from Dr. Hoyle, he also said

The creationist is a sham religious person who, curiously, has no true sense of religion. In the language of religion, it is the facts we observe in the world around us that must be seen to constitute the words of God. Documents, whether the Bible, Qur'an or those writings that held such force for Velikovsky, are only the words of men. To prefer the words of men to those of God is what one can mean by blasphemy. This, we think, is the instinctive point of view of most scientists who, curiously again, have a deeper understanding of the real nature of religion than have the many who delude themselves into a frenzied belief in the words, often the meaningless words, of men. Indeed, the lesser the meaning, the greater the frenzy, in something like inverse proportion. Our Place in the Cosmos (1993), p. 14


For good measure, here's an actual quote from Crick-


"Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children?"



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

No it wasn't

But thanks for turning into such and for "poorly I might add, attempting" to turn it into THAT discussion as opposed to where I was originally headed with other info yet to be discussed.


Slay



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Why is 'Religion" being drawn into this?


I never mention it's support.

Sadly, that's an assumption many make and those of us who are "Believers" are attacked and those who judge they run with it and all the false implications...



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


You are still trying to make the past fit the present. Like I said you are doing it wrong. You make the present fit the past, not the other way around.


When scientists study the cosmic background radiation they are studying the past to fit it to the present. Why are you not critical of them doing exactly what you state is the wrong way to do things?

Your statements are hypocritical nonsense.


Uh... No. That's not even the same thing. Looking at the CMB is like looking at a video into the past where the further out you look, the further into the past you can see. What you are doing is just speculating in lieu of evidence. You see the CMB actually TELLS us things about the past. You are just saying, "well we don't know how this happened, therefore ID".
edit on 15-8-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 04:16 PM
link   
For me it wasn't the complexity of DNA or the overwhelming, breathtaking beauty in this world, or the miracles I've witnessed with my own eyes.

No, for me the leap from doubt to belief came from the Atheists themselves. The desperate ridicule and hate flowing out of their fingertips and onto my screen convinced me that demons are real.

And if demons are real, then so is God.



new topics

top topics



 
45
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join