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.

 

A very simple question that seem to stumped both atheists and evolutionists alike.

page: 31
16
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Exactly. Back on page one I tried to explain what a universe of its own cause meant in the sense of a rebuttal in philosophy, where even today the argument for god is debated.

30 pages of a semantic argument is a little much.

Honestly we don't know that the big bang is entirely acurate or the big squeeze, the multiverse, 26 dimensions in Bosonic theory etc but, it would be a good idea for these people to actually read the theories so they can at least make an argument based on what the theories actually say. I understand the data is becoming more clear with the big bang and the singularity, with emergent gravity showing it's face it certainly adds some muscle to some unexplained gravitational anomalies. I am just trying to remain agnostic in the claim we know the cosmological story.


And the cult of creationists....my god are they all here on ats?
edit on 3-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar





Prior to expansion of the singularity, there was still a singularity.


Yes. But how did the singularity get there?

The singularity was hardly infinite in anyway.




edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: peter vlar





Prior to expansion of the singularity, there was still a singularity.


Yes. But how did the singularity get there?

The singularity was hardly infinite in anyway.





maybe a big crunch from a black hole in another universe or reality?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: peter vlar





Prior to expansion of the singularity, there was still a singularity.


Yes. But how did the singularity get there?

The singularity was hardly infinite in anyway.





maybe a big crunch from a black hole in another universe or reality?



How would that be possible?

In that case Our existance (Our milkyway) would probably be caused by the black Whole in the senter of Our milkyway. But that is not possible.

The question would still be where did it come from.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: peter vlar





Prior to expansion of the singularity, there was still a singularity.


Yes. But how did the singularity get there?

The singularity was hardly infinite in anyway.





maybe a big crunch from a black hole in another universe or reality?


It's becoming apparent nobody in the creationism club has read or comprehended the cosmological theories other than God.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: peter vlar





Prior to expansion of the singularity, there was still a singularity.


Yes. But how did the singularity get there?

The singularity was hardly infinite in anyway.





maybe a big crunch from a black hole in another universe or reality?



How would that be possible?

In that case Our existance (Our milkyway) would probably caused by the black Whole in the senter of Our milkyway.


Why don't you stop wasting everyone's time and read a little bit about the theories in physics. It may take a few days or weeks to digest, and then make a comment.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: peter vlar





Prior to expansion of the singularity, there was still a singularity.


Yes. But how did the singularity get there?

The singularity was hardly infinite in anyway.





maybe a big crunch from a black hole in another universe or reality?


It's becoming apparent nobody in the creationism club has read or comprehended the cosmological theories other than God.


let me make apparent that i am not a monthly subscriber to creationist hypotheses, so i dont know why that was directed to me. but that doesnt mean it isnt fun to explore the possibility of black holes sucking matter from one reality and spitting it all out in another. genesis by osmosis?



originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: peter vlar





Prior to expansion of the singularity, there was still a singularity.


Yes. But how did the singularity get there?

The singularity was hardly infinite in anyway.





maybe a big crunch from a black hole in another universe or reality?



How would that be possible?

In that case Our existance (Our milkyway) would probably be caused by the black Whole in the senter of Our milkyway. But that is not possible.

The question would still be where did it come from.


i think that would mean the black hole in the milky way galaxy is vacuuming up some of the galaxy and spitting it out in another reality or universe somewhere. hypothetically. if the hypotheses were correct, then i have no idea what reality or universe the matter in our universe came from. it would be hard to tell without some kind of multiversal scope haha. the better question in my mind it, why is it important where the matter in this universe came from? is that the key to who you are as a person and what you should do with your existence? because i hate to be the bearer of glum news but when the sun we depend on goes nuclear in a few billion years, the universe will not mourn us or the rest of our backwater celestial neighborhood.
edit on 3-5-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

I was just making the comment it's no use trying to explain to these folks. It wasn't towards you.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:23 PM
link   

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:26 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

I am not wasting Your time. You are wasting mine.



When you find out that no matter what you come up With. It is finite.


--- That means something. When you figure that out you will stop wasting Your own time.


If finite is not infinite. Then Finite can not be the cause of Our existance.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

I haven't come up with anything, nor have you.


These are ancient arguments where no one wins.

I believe we are stuck with the anthropic principle.

We just can't know based on our position in time and space as consciousness what reality is we can really only say what it isn't in this time and space.
edit on 3-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

those were the words i used not long ago. a keep sense of cosmic insignificance balanced with iron philanthropic principle. the knowledge that our world may never be acknowledged outside of our finite awareness paired firmly with the belief that no matter what happens, being good is good for society. even if extinction is right around the corner. what is the alternative? sacrifice a very real life for a hypothetical afterlife? thats called gambling, which is referred to in many circles as an addiction and an illness that statistically bodes ill for most who dare to try it. but your freedom is yours to spend or waste however you wish. happy trails amirite?

edit on 3-5-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
How significant a cause isn't really addressed. The cycle could just be a ton of worthless people having sex until "God" is reproduced at the end of time and he starts over.

Anyway, does Time have a beginning, because some say it doesn't? Does Time have no cause? Time is what composes most everything, so the real answer to your question is not only does nothing have a cause, whatever cause it has, mostly likely has essentially been infinitely readdressed before. Sure you have a cause. Is it worthwhile?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 07:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
How significant a cause isn't really addressed. The cycle could just be a ton of worthless people having sex until "God" is reproduced at the end of time and he starts over.

Anyway, does Time have a beginning, because some say it doesn't? Does Time have no cause? Time is what composes most everything, so the real answer to your question is not only does nothing have a cause, whatever cause it has, mostly likely has essentially been infinitely readdressed before. Sure you have a cause. Is it worthwhile?




Time is infinite (absolute nutral), and finite time had a beginning.

The Infinite must exists, so absolute time must exist.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Is that an attempt at ontology?



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Mordekaiser
How significant a cause isn't really addressed. The cycle could just be a ton of worthless people having sex until "God" is reproduced at the end of time and he starts over.

Anyway, does Time have a beginning, because some say it doesn't? Does Time have no cause? Time is what composes most everything, so the real answer to your question is not only does nothing have a cause, whatever cause it has, mostly likely has essentially been infinitely readdressed before. Sure you have a cause. Is it worthwhile?




Time is infinite (absolute nutral), and finite time had a beginning.

The Infinite must exists, so absolute time must exist.


all of these mental exercises attempting to grapple with the concepts of infinity and eternity and perfect absolute nothing vs perfect absolute unity, so on and so forth. all these riddles and conundrums and brain teasers just to convince ourselves that we are the dearly beloved children of an almighty ruler who is going to save us from ourselves like we are little choir boys stranded on an island. we only ever think about ourselves, you know? we are pretty entitled as a species, pretty self absorbed and childish. we spend more time trying to convince ourselves we deserve the love and attention of some ET superpower than we do actually earning it or working so we dont need the help. 99.999% of people who existed over the last century wont be remembered in the next one. and maybe 1% of them will have died of natural causes. instead of not killing our fellow man, we have elected to reproduce faster than we can kill. and thats just one problem in a very long list of reasons why the question of a higher power or an afterlife should be the furthest thing from our minds right now. you want paradise, then make one here on earth while you still breathe. if you cant make a paradise here in the mortal world, then you dont deserve one after you leave.
edit on 3-5-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sounds a bit like anselm no?

Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible — one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.


So silly.



posted on May, 3 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TzarChasm

Sounds a bit like anselm no?

Anselm defined God as "that than which nothing greater can be thought", and argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the person who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, then an even greater being must be possible — one which exists both in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.


So silly.


oh right that thing.

a. God cannot be thought of as existing contingently.
b. Everything that exists can only be thought of as existing contingently.
Therefore
c. God does not exist.

the causeless cause disproof, as i like to call it. the whole point of this thread. first it must be demonstrated that something can exist without cause, and by using this universe as an example of something that has no cause, it can be declared that by necessity some sort of higher power must be responsible. it is a catch 22 using the false choice dilemma. but it requires that we assume the universe has no cause. just as ontology requires us to assume that god exists necessarily. i refer you to my previous post about mental exercises and our priorities as a society. i present to you a third choice: focus less on the heavens and more on the world you call home right now. poof, the dilemma is gone. if only we put this sort of cleverness to more practical use eh?

edit on 3-5-2017 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: spy66

Is that an attempt at ontology?


Well, is it false?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 02:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm


Well, i Guess being able to think is something we humans have been given as a tool. Just because i see Things differently compared to the masses. Am i suddenly wrong then?

There is nothing Natural about Our way of life. We practically have to spend half Our life at School just to be thought how to live within Our unnatural system. The other half of Our lives we spend working for someone else.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join