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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why are you unconvincing?

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
There is no doubt abiogenesis was caused by an act of God. The probabilities of it happening by chance are so large life existing at all is probably the most convincing evidence God does exist. What other evidence would ever qualify as proof for the existence of God than something so ridiculously improbably happening that it cannot be measured.

Despite the theistic implications, abiogenesis is a fascinated science to study and should be revered.


probabilities, probably, improbably

These are words in your post. Improbability does not equal impossibility... so there is doubt.

You know what else we cannot measure? The number of habitable planets in our universe. The fact that we can't even conceivably measure the extent of the universe is proof that there is no way you can say that evidence of life is proof of God.

The existence of life is no more a proof of God than it is a proof of no God.

It is proof that people take improbability as fact, and that can be very dangerous.

BTW, where did God come from again? Abiogenisis perhaps?




posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I agree with the others, some people who do not want to be convinced (set ideas/ideals on life usually won't budge) and those that (want evidence of all things, doesn't mean it's true)...Then the people like me that evidence is always good but will look up many sources and find (if anything) self proof.

Now i'm a person that has bits of all the above, although i do need evidence, i will look for my own in as many places as possible (still ongoing) and probably won't stop just yet.

Same as saying, is their any evidence or proof of God existing?, does he need to be proven or is just having life proof of its own?..I'm in the fence with this as much as anyone.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
...that is not because of an inability to convince them on my behalf, but an inability to be persuaded on theirs.


The inability to be persuaded on their part is because you aren't convincing.

If you were convincing you could persuade them.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The inability to be persuaded on their part is because you aren't convincing.

If you were convincing you could persuade them.


Ok, let's start then. Why do you believe God exists?



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

You're not being very persuasive.

You leave me unconvinced.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: scojak

I don't.

But I'm just as incapable of convincing people as those who do believe.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I'm not trying to convince anyone anything.

I'm trying to understand why no one has a convincing argument.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Out of curiosity what would you consider to be convincing? As a theistic individual, who commits science for a living, including research into DNA (and thus evolution). I find the argument for evolution convincing.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Probably because my standard reaction to any challenge to my pre-conceived notion is, "That's what she said".



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

You are trying to convince me that I am the problem because I am incapable of persuading a person so invested in their belief(s) that they ignore mountains of links and data supporting my stance.

You are both failing and verifying my claim all at the same time, and I don't think that you even realize it.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Out of curiosity what would you consider to be convincing? As a theistic individual, who commits science for a living, including research into DNA (and thus evolution). I find the argument for evolution convincing.


For something to be convincing it has to convince people.

An evolutionist is unconvincing to a creationist and vice versa. I'm not interested in which is right as I've already made up my mind anyway and without convincing arguments I will stay where I am.

There just doesn't seem to be convincing arguments as evidenced by those who aren't convinced.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Your logic is flawed. If someone is unwilling to be convinced they can not be convinced. Thus I can lay out all the scienntific evidence (and it is legion) that I want, someone convinced "God did it" will not be convinced by it.

Science should never be based on popular opinion. This is in essence what you are advocating here.

I'm also going to add:

(a) Evolutionist is not a real thing. Evolution is a scientific theory. You don't have thermodynamicists, Kineticists, Gravitationalists, electomagneticists, Sn1ist etc. If you agree that science is correct, you agree with all theories, or are actively looking for data to the contrary. You can not pick or choose what science you believe in, and say science is real.
(b) Why does it matter if it is "convincing" or not?
(c) I said I was theistic, I believe in Gods, therefore Science is convincing to me



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

You are trying to convince me that I am the problem because I am incapable of persuading a person so invested in their belief(s) that they ignore mountains of links and data supporting my stance.

You are both failing and verifying my claim all at the same time, and I don't think that you even realize it.



If you're making any attempt to convince someone of something and you are unable to do it then yes.
It's your fault.

If you had a convincing argument you would convince.

The reason you can't convince, or the reason no one can convince has to be because they lack a convincing answer.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Greetings-

By using the aforementioned folks referenced by SlapMonkey, I'd opine that those folks don't really think what they think they think and when someone/anyone addresses what these folks construe as "Truth" then they take offense. How could You question anything that these folks present as 'truth'.. Sure, You're asking YourSelf "Self, how 'true' can this be if it is being attacked"? And why am I defending it? So I present to You what I have found to be quite helpful in these situations, and You get to mix-in some Lord Tennyson and if You can mix-in the Masters of Yesteryear besides Tennyson Bill Shakespeare also is a good one...

Goes something like this and I am paraphrasing and updating it for what We're living in... the 90's.

Ours not to make reply,
Ours not to reason why...

Improve on Your ecological niche when possible. Help the 'other You' whenever it presents itself. Because 'Service-To-Others' is the most righteous 'Service-To-Self'...

Stay Hydrated...



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Out of curiosity what would you consider to be convincing? As a theistic individual, who commits science for a living, including research into DNA (and thus evolution). I find the argument for evolution convincing.


For something to be convincing it has to convince people.

An evolutionist is unconvincing to a creationist and vice versa. I'm not interested in which is right as I've already made up my mind anyway and without convincing arguments I will stay where I am.

There just doesn't seem to be convincing arguments as evidenced by those who aren't convinced.



the same reason you see people touching wet paint just to be sure the sign is telling the truth.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


If you had a convincing argument you would convince.


in a perfect world, yes. but in a perfect world, people dont shoot a man in reno just to watch him die.

edit on 28-11-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Your logic is flawed. If someone is unwilling to be convinced they can not be convinced.


Is it logically flawed to say that if you can't convince someone you're unconvincing?

Seems pretty sound to me.



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Your logic is flawed. If someone is unwilling to be convinced they can not be convinced.


Is it logically flawed to say that if you can't convince someone you're unconvincing?

Seems pretty sound to me.


Im not convinced.

check and mate.

edit on 28-11-2016 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Is that your fault?

Or is it mine for being unconvincing?



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: TzarChasm

Is that your fault?

Or is it mine for being unconvincing?


if your arguments in this thread are anything to go by, then its your fault for being unconvincing. Y U No Be Convincing?!



posted on Nov, 28 2016 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Y U No Be Convincing?!


The purpose of this thread is to try and find an answer to that.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join