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: 48
25
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The question stumped no one .
Make a question that is answered with a question does not equate to being able to give a answer to the question .
Asking what came first the chicken or egg is a round question as both came at the same time .
That time being when Humans bread the first of what we now know as a chicken .
The wild bird already layed eggs all the back to when a few billion cells found a way to create a new way to procreate .

Cause and effect applys to things in motion of any type of motion heat water effect boiling water .
until the water is heated no effect can be seen in the case of the water heat created a effect .
This applys to any effect you wish to understand .
Most effects are caused by heat and heat its self can be a cause as just pressure can create it .
But you also have chemical effects put two or more chemicals together can create many effects ask any one who has shot a gun .

Of corse this wont answer your question because your question can not be answered in any fashion that you will be happy with .which was why you posted it to begin with .

But heres is teh best answer any one can give .
what came first your post or your need for attation ?




posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:43 PM
link   

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

Nothing is something.


so by this logic - no such thing as 'Nothing' then. Because even Nothing is actually something?



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: midnightstar
The question stumped no one .
Make a question that is answered with a question does not equate to being able to give a answer to the question .
Asking what came first the chicken or egg is a round question as both came at the same time .
That time being when Humans bread the first of what we now know as a chicken .
The wild bird already layed eggs all the back to when a few billion cells found a way to create a new way to procreate .

Cause and effect applys to things in motion of any type of motion heat water effect boiling water .
until the water is heated no effect can be seen in the case of the water heat created a effect .
This applys to any effect you wish to understand .
Most effects are caused by heat and heat its self can be a cause as just pressure can create it .
But you also have chemical effects put two or more chemicals together can create many effects ask any one who has shot a gun .

Of corse this wont answer your question because your question can not be answered in any fashion that you will be happy with .which was why you posted it to begin with .

But heres is teh best answer any one can give .
what came first your post or your need for attation ?


Sure there's an answer. It was answered many pages back.

The answer is obvious.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Regards numbers they are distinct from the symbols and words used to describe them. You can take a specific distance, and measure it in kilometers, feet, wackuwacku, etc It doesn't change the existence of the actual quantity specified by the existing distance. All such measures must be inter-convertible.

The genes use algorithms, the brain functions with algorithms. The mathematics discovered by evolution, and implemented physically, were discovered independent of man because they existed irregardless of the words or symbols used to describe them.
edit on 8-1-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 08:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

Your previous example seems to be confusing numeration with measurement.
you're right, I was unclear in my reasoning. let me try again:

"So,what 'caused' the number one? The unitary case?"


It is not valid to suggest a cause.


what caused the cause that gave rise to the number one?


The question is only valid if there was an initial cause.



Those numerative descriptions do not have their origin in the measurement - the measurement does not create them.
i disagree. imaginary numbers are one example. theoretical figures that don't actually exist being used to support an active formula. perhaps god is the number 0.


Imaginary numbers seem to underlie much in physics, we use them most in electronics related calculations which are 'proved out' in reality. They do exist and have expression in 'the natural'.

Imaginary number From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Does a 'concept' exist, or is a concept non-existent? It is obvious that a concept is both non-material and existent.
much like love, truth, and the pursuit of happiness. all of which are subjective if you dig deep enough. is the apple red? or is it every color except red? hmmm.


Am I to take it that you are saying that subjective things don't exist?

Surely objective observations are particular cases of many subjective observations. If subjective things don't exist, then nothing ever observed can exist, which is nonsense.

Also, apples come in a multitude of colors.



The point I was making is that things may objectively exist, that have no cause.
wait...do concepts qualify as 'things'?

furthermore, if a concept forms and no one is around to talk about it or remember it, does it actually form?


Was there no gravity before Newton described orbital motion?

Does sciences' understanding of the rules governing matter, create those rules, or the matter involved, or anything?

Nope, those things must necessarily exist for science to observe them. Get that... they exist!

And finally, how could something that has no beginning, or cause, 'form'?


a reply to: chr0naut

A God hypothesis, similarly, has no holes or gaps. It embraces a natural continuum entirely, and follows natural rules (as well as rules outside of the natural). God's universe, by nature of deductive reasoning, would have no gaps. It is explorable and knowable from a human intellectual perspective, and is fully known by God.

It is the scientific body of knowledge that has the gaps. Numerous and vast ones. These are not representative of gaps in the structure of reality but are specifically limitations in the knowledge accumulated by science.
I'm not talking about the "structure of reality". god of the gaps means that god fits best where the scientific method hasn't yet been fully applied. you know, where the gaps are. the only places where the god concept doesn't have to challenge the scientific method directly.


No, the 'god of the gaps' appelation implies that people are trying to fit God only in the places where science has proven useless.

But people who accept a theistic explanation do not hold that God ran around at the beginning 'filling gaps' that happen to be in your knowledge.

The very suggestion is founded in an untruth.



Suggesting that other people, who see there are no inconsistencies in reality under a God hypothesis, have a "the God of the gaps" conception which they don't hold, is a very poorly reasoned and fallacious strawman type argument.
it's not a strawman at all. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I stated in very plain english the mechanics of the god of the gaps. you are the one who just misrepresented the scientific method as being unreliable simply because it doesn't magically answer every imaginable question in less than a decade. because it isn't magic, it's an intellectual technique that requires time, training, and rigorous protocols. that's why god prefers gaps.


I'm fairly sure that a magical explanation is not an appropriate way to describe the results of scientific method.





So how can someone decrying their own ignorance even speak to the question of the existence of God?
because the god of the gaps pretends to be gapless. and that is where the trouble starts.


How can a God that you say doesn't exist, pretend anything?

Consistency!



edit on 8/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

Numbers are an approximation, how we 'model' reality. They are not reality.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears
Regards numbers they are distinct from the symbols and words used to describe them. You can take a specific distance, and measure it in kilometers, feet, wackuwacku, etc It doesn't change the existence of the actual quantity specified by the existing distance. All such measures must be inter-convertible.

The genes use algorithms, the brain functions with algorithms. The mathematics discovered by evolution, and implemented physically, were discovered independent of man because they existed irregardless of the words or symbols used to describe them.


Within an observable range. There is always a range of uncertainty. Any science or engineering will include +/- confidence levels because, numbers are an approximation of reality, not reality.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

originally posted by: Xenogears
Regards numbers they are distinct from the symbols and words used to describe them. You can take a specific distance, and measure it in kilometers, feet, wackuwacku, etc It doesn't change the existence of the actual quantity specified by the existing distance. All such measures must be inter-convertible.

The genes use algorithms, the brain functions with algorithms. The mathematics discovered by evolution, and implemented physically, were discovered independent of man because they existed irregardless of the words or symbols used to describe them.


Within an observable range. There is always a range of uncertainty. Any science or engineering will include +/- confidence levels because, numbers are an approximation of reality, not reality.


Uncertainty is only human limitation, and perhaps temporary. The world is deterministic at bottom. True randomness does not exist, only pseudo-randomness is possible.

When you see discrete numbers such as binary numbers, they are not some imaginary or uncertain thing, they are definite and certain. The underlying reality we can hypothesize is digital, not just this but all possible reality, all possible existence. When a person does not know how many apples are in a bucket, or how many grains of sand and approximates, his uncertainty does not correspond to the actual reality, the reality is certain, there is a precise number of grains a precise number of apples. It is the lack of capacity that gives the illusion of uncertainty and it does not have physical correspondence, as the underlying reality is certain.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Math represents our measurements and calculations of things. It isn't a tangible verifiable thing. It is how we interpret phenomena and try to extrapolate it to other data sets and things we don't fully understand. That's why there are so many math theories out there that aren't based on evidence, strictly number crunching and trying to guess what those numbers actually indicate to reality. That's why you have so many conflicting views of the universe prior to big bang or the macrocosm. Science and math should never be confused. Numbers aren't tangible or testable, they represent measurements and formulas to help understand things. Mathematics is entirely man made.

edit on 1 9 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Mathematics is inherent in the laws of physics and nature. We didn’t invent it, we discovered it. Of course numbers are testable, that’s the whole point of maths.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Barcs

Mathematics is inherent in the laws of physics and nature. We didn’t invent it, we discovered it. Of course numbers are testable, that’s the whole point of maths.


No, we did actually invent it. Mathematics is not tangible, we use it to represent things in nature and calculate forces. Numbers are not testable, you can't always know what they indicate when looking at things like complex math theories. Math is our description of how we measure those laws, it isn't just there built into them, it's a tool we use to explain them. You are thinking of the physical attributes themselves, rather than our advanced counting system that measures them.
edit on 1 9 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

No, it was not, and the question you posted already had an answer in your mind. If that was the case, why ask the question to which you "already knew the answer". This does not allow for growth, only false superiority. Each person has a perspective on life, and thus a different answer to your question. It would seem as though with this thought, you only see a window, when you have not zoomed out to find that it is a diamond with many different perspectives, and facets.
Take a read at what I think life is about, which seems what your question is pointing to, but not addressing.
------------
This may or may not conflict with your presently held beliefs, if itconflicts with your present belief system, then you need to evaluate whatbeliefs you hold onto, and simply let go of the ones that no longer suit or serve you. I will also be pulling data from other sources here, and will try to reference them when cited.

_________
Definition: Golden Glow: A very good feeling in the middle of the chest. The love we hold and carry for our loved ones (children, parents, lovers, husbands, wives, family). A very powerful excitement with a central focus in the chest area/heart chakra. It feels like: love, ease, excitement, joy.
_________
All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. -Bill Hicks
______________
Okay, at first this seems counter-intuitive to what we are “taught” in life. It also goes in hand with “God created us in his image”. You are a soul with a body, NOT a body with a soul. Your soul is who you TRULY are, not that beautiful genetic space suit you run around interacting with the 3rd density/4th dimensional reality. In this physical reality, everything seems real, but it isn’t, it is nothing more than energy at a very slow vibration. In fact everything is a vibration; our language is based on this. “I don’t like his vibe”, or “she is quite dark” (again light is a vibration). The “Golden Glow” that I mentioned is a vibration. You can control your own vibration, and feeling the Golden Glow is a sure fire way to raise your vibration. Above in the quote, Bill states that we are all one consciousness. Yes, we are, sourced from the Prime Radiant; the “God Particle” (Higgs boson) that makes up everything (all that is). There is no such thing as death, because the soul cannot die. We are the imagination of ourselves; well, this fits nicely with manifesting. Your soul (the true you) is highly creative, has a far view, and is not hindered by “time” or “Physical” “Matter”. You don’t have to know HOW you will get something, or HOW something will come about, because your physical mind was not designed to understand HOW to go about to do something or manifest something. It was designed to experience this physical reality (with lessons included) and the results of what your higher self (your soul) is creating for you.
____________
Third: IMPORTANT INFO HERE
¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬
4 Laws of Creation
Number One: You exist. Can't do much about that. You exist -- that's a law. You exist. That means that you can never not exist. Because, I'll tell you another secret, the other side of that law is, there is no such thing as non-existence. Listen to the sentence, there is NO such thing as non-existence. Non-existence doesn't exist.

Number Two: The One is The All, The All are The One. That's Law Number Two. The One is The All, The All are The One-- every, seemingly separate thing is made up out of The One, and The One knows itself as The One and as all the things it makes up.

Number Three: What you put out is what you get back. The Golden Rule.

Number Four: Everything changes except the first three laws. The reason it is framed that way is to that you can understand that means that even the fourth law changes. And when change changes what does change become? That which does not change, which is the first three laws. So the forth law gives birth to the first three, which gives birth to the forth, and it is, in that sense a circle of perfection, and that is all there is. Every single experience you have in any dimension of experience anywhere, anywhen is based on those Four Laws, and that's it. Anything else that you call a "law" is simply a local condition (physics) that happens to be a combination, in some way, shape, or form, an expression in some way, shape or form, of the Four Laws. Because when we say "Law" -- we mean capital "L" -- it cannot change. As opposed to laws of physics which are not always exactly the same, depending upon dimension, universe -- what have you. Even your own scientists are beginning to understand that there is malleability, even in your physiological universe, to the ideas and concepts of such things as speed of light and so forth; in a sense it is a constant, but there are other ways to look at that that makes it not so. Whereas these Four Laws are this way, no matter where, when, or who, or what you happen to be within creation. These are the defining frameworks of existence itself.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I’m not talking about complex math theory’s, but general mathematics and equations we can use to calculate a given outcome. With out this all engineering processes would be trial and error to get the desired results. As it is we can calculate desired results with equations and have a predictable outcome. Thus numbers are testable.

Look how nature uses the Fibonacci sequence in growth patterns for example. Which can be expressed and calculated numerically. We didn’t invent this most efficient way of growth, we merely discovered it. That was the point I was trying to make.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 03:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears

Within each apple or grain of sand are an indeterminate number of particles. Within each particle is an indeterminate number of probabilities.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

The measurements themselves are testable, not the numbers. The numbers are subjective, they work in the system that we use. The numbers represent things that we count or calculate. The things we measure are testable and objective, not the math itself.

Fibonacci sequence isn't the same and doesn't apply to everything. It's very highly exaggerated and blown out of proportion. Math does not exist, without the system created by humans. Saying it's inherent is like claiming that because 2 stars are near each other that they wouldn't be there without the math to count that there are 2 instead of 1. It's the other way around. The stars are already there without any math. We implement that math to describe it.
edit on 1 9 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I do believe it's a matter of scale. Our numbers work to model most of reality at the scale of our natural observation. Once we go beyond that, like with the aid of technology the scale changes and the models break down. Thus the improbable probabilities.



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 07:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

because the god of the gaps pretends to be gapless. and that is where the trouble starts.


While we are at it, please explain the 'Steve Jobs of the gaps' which must exist by the same process of reasoning (because the FBI weren't able to crack iPhone encryption).

The 'line of reasoning' actually seems irrational, to me.



edit on 9/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 08:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Barcs

Mathematics is inherent in the laws of physics and nature. We didn’t invent it, we discovered it. Of course numbers are testable, that’s the whole point of maths.


No, we did actually invent it.


You seem to be having a problem with the conceptual.

The rules that mathematics describe clearly existed before we discovered them.

We did invent the procedures of symbolic manipulation that expose the balances and inequalities of nature but the underlying structures and rules precede their discovery.


is not tangible


... until someone removes the 'intangible' money from your online accounts.



Intangibility does not imply non-existence.


we use it to represent things in nature and calculate forces. Numbers are not testable


Mathematics is repeatable and testable. It is only the absolutes, which defy falsification, that are not.


you can't always know what they indicate when looking at things like complex math theories.


It's values are strongly 'typed', meaningful and important to it. What would be the point of a mathematics built on irrelevancies and meaninglessness?


Math is our description of how we measure those laws, it isn't just there built into them, it's a tool we use to explain them. You are thinking of the physical attributes themselves, rather than our advanced counting system that measures them.


I don't think it is reasonable to separate the process of mathematics from the conceptual framework in which it has meaning. Neither, alone, is useful.
edit on 9/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs
Math represents our measurements and calculations of things. It isn't a tangible verifiable thing. It is how we interpret phenomena and try to extrapolate it to other data sets and things we don't fully understand. That's why there are so many math theories out there that aren't based on evidence, strictly number crunching and trying to guess what those numbers actually indicate to reality. That's why you have so many conflicting views of the universe prior to big bang or the macrocosm. Science and math should never be confused. Numbers aren't tangible or testable, they represent measurements and formulas to help understand things. Mathematics is entirely man made.


Mathematics is discovered not invented. You add or remove axioms and different possibilities open up, but the reality is even if using different symbols pi is the same for man and alien.

The ratios of specific hormones or molecules within a cell are specific and real. It doesn't matter what symbols you use, the quantities and ratios are real and will be found so by any arbitrary observer even nonhuman.

The brain of man and many animals have an innate sense of numerosity, the foundation of mathematical mental capacity. When evolution happened on numerosity, it is like when it happened upon colors. Colors don't exist outhere, but that there is such a thing as color, as red or blue is a self evident reality.
edit on 9-1-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 45  46  47    49  50  51 >>

log in

join