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: 32
20
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Yes. The ontological argument is extremely weak because it steeped in human igorance of reality.

You would have to understand noumena vs phenomena to realize why it's a weak argument.

How do you know there is not an infinite scale of gods, and it's based on aquired knowledge and observation?

Like how natives thought technological advances were gods.

If we learn to rewrite genes, program ai that reproduces, make objects from matter assembly would we not seem gods to our creations?

Particularly if we destroy ourselves in the process of becoming gods so there is no record of our existence to the future generations except folklore.


Maybe there are infinite god levels and every universe and dimesion increases or decreases your observational ability.

It's certainly as logically plausible as any biblical explanation you may provide.
edit on 4-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier




Like how natives thought technological advances were gods.

So for your argument to work it requires ignorance.



Particularly if we destroy ourselves in the process of becoming gods so there is no record of our existence to the future generations except folklore.

We must create Ignorance to become gods.

We have created so much that it would seem impossible to remove all the evidence of our past to the point where we think technology is a god.

Back the there was very little of human created objects. That's why making Idols was a big deal. When they made stuff it wasn't just for s#itz and giggles, thier creations had much more meaning to it.

I can't imagine future humans finding an old whoopie cushion and thinking wow look, the god of farts.
edit on 4-5-2017 by Observationalist because: Extra letters



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier


There is no room for multiple infinites. There is only one void of Space that can take up absolutly all Space.


Finite is not infinite, but it takes up Space within the infinite void. Finite is also formed by the infinite void, therefor finite must exist within the infinite void of Space.

That is what my images prior actually show. Page 30.


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



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: luthier


There is no room for multiple infinites. There is only one void of Space that can take up absolutly all Space.


Finite is not infinite, but it takes up Space within the infinite void. Finite is also formed by the infinite void, therefor finite must exist within the infinite void of Space.

That is what my images prior actually show.



but what does that actually mean? there is no practical application of the model you are describing.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: luthier




Like how natives thought technological advances were gods.

So for your argument to work it requires ignorance.



Particularly if we destroy ourselves in the process of becoming gods so there is no record of our existence to the future generations except folklore.

We must create Ignorance to become gods.

We have created so much that it would seem impossible to remove all the evidence of our past to the point where we think technology is a god.

Back the there was very little of human created objects. That's why making Idols was a big deal. When they made stuff it wasn't just for s#itz and giggles, thier creations had much more meaning to it.

I can't imagine future humans finding an old whoopie cushion and thinking wow look, the god of farts.


I think that is underestimating what a cataclysmic even does when it wipes out the majority of the population.

How fast would 100,000 humans with no power be able to build back after say a space object impact, radiation piisoning, super volcano eruption etc?

100k years without technology would bury the past. What if the survivors were all on the Tibetan plateau? How long before they branched out? Would earth bury man made stuff before they start digging for foundations again? Or the only people to survive were the indegionous who knew how to survive without technology?

But for sake of continuity let's build this new race of man for mars, and then we die here on earth before we can adapt. They live like the bedouin on mars..



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Your response has absolutely no meaning. It's gibbersish.

You mix concepts of math, english, and philosophy to prop up your paper tiger argument.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: luthier


There is no room for multiple infinites. There is only one void of Space that can take up absolutly all Space.


Finite is not infinite, but it takes up Space within the infinite void. Finite is also formed by the infinite void, therefor finite must exist within the infinite void of Space.

That is what my images prior actually show.



but what does that actually mean? there is no practical application of the model you are describing.



It's like infinity minus one man then you add 2.



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm






but what does that actually mean? there is no practical application of the model you are describing.



Did you know that there is a reason for that?


Does the Scientific community ring a bell?



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: spy66

Your response has absolutely no meaning. It's gibbersish.

You mix concepts of math, english, and philosophy to prop up your paper tiger argument.



Not it doesent.

Nothing of what i have stated is wrong.

The infinite must be absolute nutral. This means that time is absolute nutral [stationary]. It always was and always is.

Damn how complicated is this to understand?

Its bloody science.

..............................................

Dont confuse the finite time line With the infinite time line.

But it wont matter what i say. I know you wont know the differance......anyway. This is not the first fora this subject has been brought up, And its not the last.

Some of you even coment that the infinite is to complicated for the comman man to comprihend.....I geuss that is the answer to this subject. You dont have what it takes to know......
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 03:10 PM
link   
Or your using semantics and math principles to try and explain reality, which has no basis for creating an expectation a human could possibly understand the true nature of anything.

For any concept to be imagined it had to pass through the mind, and there is both the problen and the beauty.

Some of us are comfortable admitting we have no ideas.

Others like to pretend they know.


edit on 4-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:34 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier


Infinite is not a number its a sybol. It is a idea actually. Sicence cant prove its existance, but knows it exists.


The infinite can not be calculated. It is a absolute that is why it is a sybol.


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



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 05:49 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Yak yak yak...

Substance less bs.

What are you even yammering in about?

Are there absolutes? You have no idea and neither does anybody else.

We have ideas that appear to be true. What your having trouble with here is the bias of the observer. You can't get your head around reality.

It's constituted by your observations. That is all you can know.

Your in a perpetual cave watching shadows. If your facade wants you to believe you are fully aware then so be it.
edit on 4-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: luthier


Infinite is not a number its a sybol. It is a idea actually. Sicence cant prove its existance, but knows it exists.


The infinite can not be calculated. It is a absolute that is why it is a sybol.



what cannot be measured cannot be confirmed. infinity has not been measured in its entirety so it cant be absolute because it has never been recorded. sorry.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: luthier


Infinite is not a number its a sybol. It is a idea actually. Sicence cant prove its existance, but knows it exists.


The infinite can not be calculated. It is a absolute that is why it is a sybol.



what cannot be measured cannot be confirmed. infinity has not been measured in its entirety so it cant be absolute because it has never been recorded. sorry.


And it never will be measured. It is impossible lol.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: spy66

Yak yak yak...

Substance less bs.

What are you even yammering in about?

Are there absolutes? You have no idea and neither does anybody else.

We have ideas that appear to be true. What your having trouble with here is the bias of the observer. You can't get your head around reality.

It's constituted by your observations. That is all you can know.

Your in a perpetual cave watching shadows. If your facade wants you to believe you are fully aware then so be it.



There are no absolutes within Our finite universe.

And it only seams that it is i who can wrap my head around this. You for sure are not fallowing. Now go back to sleep.

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



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66


There are no absolutes within Our finite universe.


The laws of physics? Unless you have an example of them ever being broken or not applying?


And it only seams that it is i who can wrap my head around this. You for sure are not fallowing. Now go back to sleep.


Most of what you are saying is presumptive at best and your logical connections are flimsy. It can be fun to speculate, but it gets us nowhere postulating that something that can't be measured MUST exist when such a statement requires more knowledge of the universe than we currently have. The truth is we don't know what lies beyond what science has discovered. We have yet to even begin to explore other dimensions (if membrane theory is accurate), or what existence was like before big bang.
edit on 5 5 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Yes.

If time was not caused to exist, yet exists now due to space time, it has essentially started before the cause that seemingly to us which are caught in spacetime, saw as its impetus.

The big bang didnt exist at some point, yet now it has happened in our past. Time didnt exist before the universe as an experience to us, but did exist as a possibility.

Much like we were a possibility to the early universe, the universe with space time was possible before it was a reality.

The cause is its potential. Something not yet existent.


edit on 5 5 2017 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Infinity = infinite number of possibilities/potential state

It's cause is 'to be'. To evolve.

With the first movement, the first disturbance or 'ripple' in 'space' (unmoving potential energy) a beginning was set into motion.

Science and religion BOTH agree that this motion was the beginning.

To me it's simple, energy is intelligent, purposeful, and fully conscious. At al levels. And it is modular.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Only science requires measurements as 'proof' or 'fact'. Did gamma and x Ray exist before they were measured?

Lol It's merely another form of faith, another religion



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MoniqueG

Well in science the theories actually don't state a beginning like your explaining. We have moved toward dimensional reality. Which can be very difficult to comprehend as noted in the chain of conversation here.

And to your second post it's quite possible reality requires an observer. If we somehow are in a state of superposition we can't comprehend because of our place in time space, reality may not exist at all until it's viewed. Until then it's probability wave forms like in QM.
edit on 5-5-2017 by luthier because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join