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: 36
18
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 07:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: edmc^2

You sincerely need to read what modern cosmology is saying.

You continue to repeat things that are not true and don't relate to modern physics cosmological models.


I agree. I recommend the following book for the OP to read. It is a very well written book on the subject. It chronicals human understanding of time and origins from the prehistoric to modern and than explains the few different directions our understanding might go into the future (ie several current leading edge hypothisies).

The book isn't overly academic it reads more like a history book than a physics book and the author stings together several allegories as he is explaining the cosmology of the different time periods that help you "get into" the subject matter.

www.amazon.com...




posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: edmc^2

You sincerely need to read what modern cosmology is saying.

You continue to repeat things that are not true and don't relate to modern physics cosmological models.


I agree. I recommend the following book for the OP to read. It is a very well written book on the subject. It chronicals human understanding of time and origins from the prehistoric to modern and than explains the few different directions our understanding might go into the future (ie several current leading edge hypothisies).

The book isn't overly academic it reads more like a history book than a physics book and the author stings together several allegories as he is explaining the cosmology of the different time periods that help you "get into" the subject matter.

www.amazon.com...



Am I right to assume you've read and understood what the author's premise on the matter? If so, kindly please enlighten me. what is time and where does it begin?


edit on 22-7-2017 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2017 @ 11:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Conan The Usurper

These are interesting questions.


Let me put it this way. The same human beings 250k years ago could have created space x or computers. They had all the mental and physical faculty to do so. What they lacked was the knowledge.

There are very driven highly intelligent people working in theoretical physics. It isn't a high paying career path full of crony capitalism.

Many of these theories are the combination of the quantum world and the visible world. Concepts like superposition for instance or entanglement. What do these things mean?

The op does not have knowledge of these concepts and has asked st Anselm ways all over again. Really the best argument for god is the teleological one but I won't tell the op. It has its rebuttal as well but it's far less antiquated.


Pardon, but you speak a though you understand what you're talking about. In a nutshell - no one has figured out how the universe was caused.

To quote Richard Feynman:




"No one understands Q.M."


www.quora.com...

But then again, you may be the one who can explain it.



posted on Jul, 22 2017 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Conan The Usurper
a reply to: Conan The Usurper

The universe complexity, it's purpose (if it got one, i don't know), whether there are many dimensions or not, if there is a multiverse, much more complex life forms than us, and so on cannot be understood with our materialistic approach alone. I think there are numerous facets to it, thousands of new kind of pattern thinking and new paradigms needs to develop. I think we have barely scratched the surface. We definitely need to accept that there might be many valid ways to look at the universe and not just from a scientific approach. What if ultimately the understanding was not important, but to live fully was? What if we already knew it?

What if imagination was the ultimate tool? What if thoughts created things for real? What if we were all creators? What if there was no purpose whatsoever, other than the one we might wanna give?

questions, questions, questions




One thing amusing about this multiverse theory is the "space" in between them. What is this "space"? And how are these multiverse exist apart from each other yet part of the same "space"?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: edmc^2

You sincerely need to read what modern cosmology is saying.

You continue to repeat things that are not true and don't relate to modern physics cosmological models.


I agree. I recommend the following book for the OP to read. It is a very well written book on the subject. It chronicals human understanding of time and origins from the prehistoric to modern and than explains the few different directions our understanding might go into the future (ie several current leading edge hypothisies).

The book isn't overly academic it reads more like a history book than a physics book and the author stings together several allegories as he is explaining the cosmology of the different time periods that help you "get into" the subject matter.

www.amazon.com...



Am I right to assume you've read and understood what the author's premise on the matter? If so, kindly please enlighten me. what is time and where does it begin?



The author's premise was to relate a history lesson in the physics relating to time and how "time" has a dual existance; cultural and physical. He explains how, though material engagement, these two existance of time intertwine through out history, one becoming dominate over the other and back again, as human knowledge and technology progress.

The opening chapperts start with prehistoric and move through history to Modern history; from mythological time and stone tools to the birth of modern cosmology and the industrial revolution.

The middle chapperts move from modern history to Contemporary history; birth of modern cosmology and the industrial revolution to current theories of cosmological (inflation, quantum mechanics and ect) and our current slavery to the clock.

The final chapperts of the book talk about alternative and cutting edge hypotheses(baby universes and directionless time, the clock ambiguity, Barbour's Nows and Solimn and Unger's crytisum of current theoretical physics)



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?

The easy and obvious answer is "sometimes" ... why do people make things so complicated?



posted on Jul, 26 2017 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Chadwickus

precisely.



posted on Aug, 2 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The real question here is:

If we don't know whether the universe has a beginning should we make wild guesses about it?

I simply admit we don't actually know the answer to that yet. It's one of the biggest mysteries of the universe. Everybody's got beliefs about it. Why can't we just leave it alone and be patient? Science is still looking into that. One day we may know, or we might never know.

edit on 8 2 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
The real question here is:

If we don't know whether the universe has a beginning should we make wild guesses about it?

I simply admit we don't actually know the answer to that yet. It's one of the biggest mysteries of the universe. Everybody's got beliefs about it. Why can't we just leave it alone and be patient? Science is still looking into that. One day we may know, or we might never know.


yours is what is called a non-answer answer.

serves no purpose in answering the OP question.



posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: edmc^2

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

Hint: No one knows the answer no matter how smart they sound.


The egg, Lizards were around before chickens.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
yours is what is called a non-answer answer.

serves no purpose in answering the OP question.



Nothing serves purpose in answering the question. That was my point. Nobody knows. It's a question that nobody can answer, whether they are theists or atheists. Your thread title is deceptive because it says atheists and evolutionists, but why not theists?
edit on 8 14 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
yours is what is called a non-answer answer.

serves no purpose in answering the OP question.



Nothing serves purpose in answering the question. That was my point. Nobody knows. It's a question that nobody can answer, whether they are theists or atheists. Your thread title is deceptive because it says atheists and evolutionists, but why not theists?


Nothing deceptive about it. It's a challenge question to atheists/evolutionists as they claim to be the vanguard, the mantle of authority when it comes to scientific matters.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: edmc^2
yours is what is called a non-answer answer.

serves no purpose in answering the OP question.



Nothing serves purpose in answering the question. That was my point. Nobody knows. It's a question that nobody can answer, whether they are theists or atheists. Your thread title is deceptive because it says atheists and evolutionists, but why not theists?


Nothing deceptive about it. It's a challenge question to atheists/evolutionists as they claim to be the vanguard, the mantle of authority when it comes to scientific matters.




You could not tell if your senses were generated from patterns created through direct stimulation of the brain from a brain computer interface. Patterns product of a digital file. If digital information can be indistinguishable from reality, and if digital information has no beginning, how do you know that the real world is not fundamentally digital at base?

The truth has no beginning, and numbers are part of the body of true knowledge, they need no physical manifestation, no instancing to exist, they don't begin nor end, they are eternal. All possible knowledge, even the result of a high resolution scan of all human brains past present future in all possible states from all possible worlds, there are corresponding numbers containing that information.

Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears




Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.


To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Xenogears




Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.


To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.



A cloud that murders children and commands genocide goes hippy while talking of bringing the sword and conflict and asking to be worshipped and loved above even family... yet genetics disproves adam and eve, archaeology disproves Moses, geology disproves the flood. If your story is mostly myths and incoherent fiction, perhaps everything in it is just fiction?



posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Xenogears




Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.


To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.



If you knew anything about science and technology, you would know that both are neutral and draw no conclusions other than what the evidence demonstrates. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You posed a question in your original post which is mindless.


If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?


The answer is no because the "something" would be infinite. It would have no beginning and no end. And since there's no evidence for absolute infinity, the question is a moot point. So unless you can present evidence to the contrary, why don't you fold up your tent and head for Ken Scam's Ark and take a vacation.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 12:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Xenogears




Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.


To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.



If you knew anything about science and technology, you would know that both are neutral and draw no conclusions other than what the evidence demonstrates. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

You posed a question in your original post which is mindless.


If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?


The answer is no because the "something" would be infinite. It would have no beginning and no end. And since there's no evidence for absolute infinity, the question is a moot point. So unless you can present evidence to the contrary, why don't you fold up your tent and head for Ken Scam's Ark and take a vacation.








absolute infinity


You're not making any sense.

What is an "absolute infinity" when infinity have no absolutes?

It'd be like saying infinity+1 or -1.

In fact there's only one to chose from:

Space is either:

1. Infinite.
or
2. Finite.

Evidence shows the former.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: Xenogears




Those who believe in any of the abrahamic faiths in light of our current understanding, are no different than flat-earthers, either ignorant or willfully ignorant.


To the contrary, I find it way ahead of our time. In fact I think, we're just catching up to it - with the help of modern technology.



A cloud that murders children and commands genocide goes hippy while talking of bringing the sword and conflict and asking to be worshipped and loved above even family... yet genetics disproves adam and eve, archaeology disproves Moses, geology disproves the flood. If your story is mostly myths and incoherent fiction, perhaps everything in it is just fiction?


Funny, I knew you will bring up stuffs like this, but since this discussion is about Origins, I will just address the 'stuff' that pertains to it.

That is, that they knew way back then, during the days of Abraham and his contemporaries about things that we discovered today as facts.

Just to cite one: the number of stars is the heavens.

To quote one publication:




Look into the sky on a clear night, out of the glare of streetlights, and you will see a few thousand individual stars with your naked eyes.


With the naked eye - only a few thousand individual stars can be seen from earth.

and ..



With even a modest amateur telescope, millions more will come into view.





It has been said that counting the stars in the Universe is like trying to count the number of sand grains on a beach on Earth. We might do that by measuring the surface area of the beach, and determining the average depth of the sand layer. If we count the number of grains in a small representative volume of sand, by multiplication we can estimate the number of grains on the whole beach. For the Universe, the galaxies are our small representative volumes, and there are something like 10^11 to 10^12 stars in our Galaxy, and there are perhaps something like 10^11 or 10^12 galaxies.


www.esa.int...

Yet, Abraham was told:

"[Gen 22:17 KJV] 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which [is] upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

So, where did this knowledge come from when telescopes weren't available during the Abrahamic period?

When was the telescope invented?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Except none of that was written in "the days of Abraham". Not a word of it. It was written down and compiled between 1000 and 500 BCE with most scholars of Jewish history attribute its writing to the 6th century BCE, the late Persian period which corresponds with the Babylonian exile and the infusion of several Sumerian mythos in with those of the Hebrew people.

While we're on that topic, when exactly we're "the days of Abraham" according to you? Where exactly was Abraham from? Because you keep talking about him a day if he isn't a confirmed, literal, historic figure when all but the most zealous Hebrew scholars admit that he is almost guaranteed to be a literary construct, again, with his origins in the late Persian period just like the Noah story can't be traced back any farther by even the most conservative of historians to the 9th century BCE yet the prototype and archetype of that myth is archaeologically traced and dated to over 1000 years earlier.

Faith is great. But please don't demand that it is factual when people who have studied these documents and the archaeology for 50+ years aren't willing to make such claims. Andnif you want to quite scripture, why are you using the KJV which was written and translated only a few hundred years ago and not utilizing Hebrew sources and citations? Do they perhaps have a slightly different take? Because the KJV was indeed written after the advent of the telescope whereas the Hebrew and Greek versions were long before but not before the earliest astronomical observations and calculations. But hey, why look st the whole picture when your tiny window shows you the precise view you prefer right?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Nothing deceptive about it. It's a challenge question to atheists/evolutionists as they claim to be the vanguard, the mantle of authority when it comes to scientific matters.


That's not true at all. Scientists are the authorities of science, not atheists or "evolutionists". This question can't be answered by anybody because nobody really knows if something without a cause exists, we don't know about other dimensions or the cause of the big bang. It does seem like some element of it has to be eternal at some point. Perhaps not infinite, but not restricted to our perception of time. If time only exists within our big bang bubble as scientists postulate, then everything outside of it (if anything exists outside of it) would technically be eternal.
edit on 8 15 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join