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.

 

From Nothing to Nothing

page: 25
31
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Your little joke would work better if you didn't try so hard. You really wanted to make fun of ignosticism, I get it. But maybe don't compare it to something as demonstrably successful and globally applicable as a lightbulb? You might start to make it look useful, even clever. That's no good, is it?


Yes, that analogy left me scratching my head. A light bulb pretty much does have a set definition, and everybody knows what the purpose and function of a light bulb are, which can be empirically verified and tested. It's basically the exact opposite of a creator / god. I don't think he even believes his own position, to be honest.




posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 11:48 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98




You misunderstand, i dont know if aliens exist and if you back me into a corner id say 'no' they dont exist. Same with vampires


Vampires do exist.
If you invite a creationist into your home it will suck the life out of you and your dignity, and proclaim that you're immortal.
edit on fSunday16021012f025312 by flyingfish because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98




You misunderstand, i dont know if aliens exist and if you back me into a corner id say 'no' they dont exist. Same with vampires


Yes, I understand some of that; but what confuses me is, you said aliens have a high probability of existing. Would you say vampires also have a high probability of existing? Or have you reconsidered, and changed your estimation on the probability of life existing beyond this world? Can you state the reasons you have, and the logic you use to draw conclusions and probabilities from them?




Do you believe in Pixes?


Pixies? I don't really believe in them, beyond the literary or mythological sense. But I hope you're not counting on me to do your work for you. You said you reject them based on reasoning. You seem to imply that you're going on more than just gut instinct here. I'm curious of your reasoning process.

It sounds like you're saying someone who doesn't reject even the possibility of God, must also believe in things like vampires, werewolves and aliens. Why would that be so? I've known people who believe in some of these things but not the others. Personally, I believe with a fair amount of confidence that life inhabits other worlds, while also maintaining with some confidence that the tales of Pixies and Vampires are fictional or mythological.

I also believe in reason and logic (in the traditional sense), which may be represented by the propositional calculus or Boolean Algebra. I'm open to expanding my methods of reasoning, the more modern systems presented by E.T. Jaynes or Richard Cox are highly appealing to me; but it seems to me that you're rejecting the classic principles of logic, or adding some unsound axioms, to shield you from facing considerations you don't want to deal with. That sounds like a troubling path to go down, like you're trying to avoid one dogma by clinging to another. Please clarify.
edit on 2-10-2016 by VP740 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


I tried to include your points for convenience, but something in the code keeps screwing up. Your post link is there if anyone desires context, so...moving on.

You are again ignoring the fact that god has been poorly defined, almost to the point of deliberate obfuscation. If you refuse to acknowledge and resolve this critical flaw, then it naturally follows that this discussion will reach the same unsatisfying conclusion as its predecessors. Its cute that you used hitchhikers guide to illustrate your cleverness, but clever does not an argument make. Too often the impression of being clever is mistaken for the presence of sound logic. Its a fictional work for entertainment purposes, even if it is useful to avoiding my point. It is fruitless to debate a thing when you are unable to successfully defend the exact dimensions and properties of the thing. Which is the position you now find yourself in, in yet another thread attempting to accomplish what dozens of other threads failed to do.

I am here because I enjoy thought exercises with the understanding that it is an exercise and not intended to be taken as gospel. I am also hoping that someone will eventually produce a substantial definition of god and employ it for constructive purposes other than polishing man kinds ego or reserving a seat in the cosmic spotlight.
edit on 2-10-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay buddy.

What do have against athletes?

Alls it is is 'the rejection of god/s'

What do you have against that?

Coomba98


Nothing against athletes, really (ran an Ultra-Marathon a few years ago, but I'm more generally of a sedentary disposition. The Marathon wrecked me, physically, for two weeks, probably due to poor preparation. At least I didn't come last, which also shows that I have a competitive spirit, a factor in the way I live my life and a motive as to why I might argue the case for something that I believe).

As a Theist, my beliefs at simply odds with those of Atheism. Also, as a Theist and a rationalist, reason and a certain degree of honesty are important to me. Atheists are not so constrained and it shows.

Atheists pretend that their view point is more rational, more evident and a conclusion of great intellect, which annoys me. It has no more validity in those areas than any other belief.

edit on 2/10/2016 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Again your biases are poking out.

Please show evidence to support your assertion against Atheism. As a polytheist, I don't see this dishonesty you are citing,.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

Your having tunnel thoughts.

From a science stand point Pixies dont exist.

You can believe in something with differing levels of certainty, that does not mean you believe it definitively.

For example aliens and the number of veiwed galaxies and the number of planets in the goldilocks zone make it a high probability for aliens to exist.

Thats not me saying aliens exist though.

Do you understand the difference?

Coomba98
edit on 2-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yeah but their not arguing the atheist position. It has no position.

Your arguing with the scientists in them.

Coomba98
edit on 2-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 06:21 PM
link   


Your having tunnel thoughts. From a science stand point Pixies dont exist.


Is that because scientists actually have reasons to reject the idea of Pixies, or does science just reject things people don't believe in? A lot of people have a strong belief in God. Does that alone make belief in God more scientific than belief in Pixies? Or does science only reject things you personally don't believe in?



You can believe in something with differing levels of certainty, that does not mean you believe it definitively. For example aliens and the number of veiwed galaxies and the number of planets in the goldilocks zone make it a high probability for aliens to exist. Thats not me saying aliens exist though.


That makes sense. What doesn't make sense to me is this:



i believe in the high probability of aliens existing... and if you back me into a corner id say 'no' they dont exist. Same with vampires


This is either some very flawed reasoning, or you're twisting your own words into something severely misleading. This is why I've been asking you to explain what reasons you justify these statements with; and to clarify the thought process you employ in considering these reasons. Not saying a thing is so, is quite different from saying a thing is not so; with or without taking probability into account.

If you were arguing that agnosticism is the most reasonable stance in the absence of any compelling evidence, I'd agree. If you said you saw reasons to doubt the existence of god, and we should be careful not accept or reject evidence just because of what we'd like to believe, I could back you up on that. But you seem to be arguing against classical logic, because it fails to refute stances you personally disagree with. Anyone who follows that line of thinking is either horribly misguided, or highly disingenuous.
edit on 2-10-2016 by VP740 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2016 by VP740 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

Sigh.... folks

Science has no view on Pixies. As mystical beings, its not something science goes off to measure. In this case I am guessing Zoology or similar would be the science (unless it is fossils).

Pixies as an example is a poor choice. We've not evidence that any Pixies, or other fae lived, nor unicorns, Dragons (and no not dinosaurs) etc ever live. As such, Science has no stance on the buggers. Some of us have spiritual views on them however



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: VP740

I think your playing games.

Do you not know the difference between:

1: I do not believe in aliens given the evidence available.

And:

2. Given the number of veiwed galaxies and the number of planets in the goldilocks zone it is a high probability for aliens to exist.

Do you know the difference?

One is a stance, the other a hypothesis.

Coomba98
edit on 2-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Noinden on page 4 said this below..




The goal of science is to understand the measurable universe. Nothing more.


I am over this measuring stuff... lol

How do you measure something which cannot be measured. I am speaking on behalf of the creator AND the universe. Like God the Universe isn't measurable.

Some things.... just cannot EVER be measured.

Science really needs to evolve ....

Here is the definition of Science: "The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Within this definition lies the main problem when it comes to proving "God". God cannot be measured as it is un-measurable ( like the Universe). They seek to understand the physical world and do so mainly through mathematics and observation. They do not seek the unknown therefor if they can't see it they don't TRY to understand such. Same with the Atheist... to them seeing is believing.

Here is the definition of philosophy: "The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline". Here is where we find the creator as the creator created the WORD (**reason) and when the word was created all knowledge, reality and existence came on the scene in the material world as we know it. See Hermes (aka- Thoth, Jesus, Melchizedek) for further understanding.

I think therefor I am. My mind is where the creator creates in me as well as all living beings that are trapped in the matter (physical) of our reality.

The Mind is the Builder.
edit on 2-10-2016 by MamaJ because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay buddy.

What do have against athletes?

Alls it is is 'the rejection of god/s'

What do you have against that?

Coomba98


Nothing against athletes, really (ran an Ultra-Marathon a few years ago, but I'm more generally of a sedentary disposition. The Marathon wrecked me, physically, for two weeks, probably due to poor preparation. At least I didn't come last, which also shows that I have a competitive spirit, a factor in the way I live my life and a motive as to why I might argue the case for something that I believe).

As a Theist, my beliefs at simply odds with those of Atheism. Also, as a Theist and a rationalist, reason and a certain degree of honesty are important to me. Atheists are not so constrained and it shows.

Atheists pretend that their view point is more rational, more evident and a conclusion of great intellect, which annoys me. It has no more validity in those areas than any other belief.


But...its not a competition. There is no prize, no acclaim. This forum is anonymous. Why does it annoy you if someone disagrees?



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut

Hay buddy.

What do have against athletes?

Alls it is is 'the rejection of god/s'

What do you have against that?

Coomba98


Atheists pretend that their view point is more rational, more evident and a conclusion of great intellect, which annoys me. It has no more validity in those areas than any other belief.


Thats just like saying:

Vampirilist pretend that their view point is more rational, more evident and a conclusion of great intellect, or

Lycionian pretend that their view point is more rational, more evident and a conclusion of great intellect, or

Unicornist pretend that their view point is more rational, more evident and a conclusion of great intellect, etc etc

(see www.abovetopsecret.com... for definitions)

Thats just asinine thinking man!


Coomba98



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

Those quotes I placed were your own words, which I've asked you multiple times to clarify.



1: I do not believe in aliens given the evidence available.
2. Given the number of veiwed galaxies and the number of planets in the goldilocks zone it is a high probability for aliens to exist.


These sound reasonable. What is not logical is what you said before:



id say 'no' they dont exist.


Was this a slip of the tongue, or do you still insist that this original statement holds true? Was your point to justify agnosticism, or to refute it because it allows the possibility of God?



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MamaJ

You are "over this measuring stuff", thats nice. But Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. That means if we can not observe it somehow, we can't measure it, and it is out of the purview of science. One can't ask science to suddenly get involved in things it is not meant too.

You can think, and feel a lot of things, I do, as I've said repeatedly, I'm a Polytheist. I don't force my spirituality on my job (Science) or vica versa.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98

Those quotes I placed were your own words, which I've asked you multiple times to clarify.



1: I do not believe in aliens given the evidence available.
2. Given the number of veiwed galaxies and the number of planets in the goldilocks zone it is a high probability for aliens to exist.


These sound reasonable. What is not logical is what you said before:



id say 'no' they dont exist.


Was this a slip of the tongue, or do you still insist that this original statement holds true? Was your point to justify agnosticism, or to refute it because it allows the possibility of God?


This is why i think your playing games, arguing semantics.

* I do not believe in aliens given the evidence available.

* id say 'no' they dont exist.

What is the difference between these two points?

Coomba98

Edit.
Ohh and you missed most of my quote which may provide further clarity

"You misunderstand, i dont know if aliens exist and if you back me into a corner id say 'no' they dont exist. Same with vampires."

edit on 2-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-10-2016 by coomba98 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

You are exactly right but in a way Science is trying to do something it's not meant to even try to understand. Take the CERN for example. Their "singularity" is God from my pov.

We have philosophy to understand the immeasurable (God and the Universe).

When you stated the "measurable universe" this too isn't something science will ever be able to fully understand or measure in it's entirety.



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden




I'm a Polytheist


Why a Polytheist?

And...

What type of scientist are you? What degree?



posted on Oct, 2 2016 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: MamaJ
a reply to: Noinden

Take the CERN for example. Their "singularity" is God from my pov.


Thats an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I dont know therefore God.

Coomba98



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join