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: 49
25
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 09:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
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.



No that is simply the current 'erroneous' belief. Reality is, it is determinate all the way down.

Even Nobel winning physicists with better intuition are working on alternative theories that will reintroduce the truth back to physics.
edit on 9-1-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-1-2018 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2018 @ 10:10 PM
link   
I postulate thusly

to say the words......... created means it has cause.......are we so sure of ourselves, stay with me now.....that in our reality we ony have our own probably limited i guess frame of reference so......

and then are there permutations that we don't recognize at the now

then the tertiary ripples that i don't know....come friggin sideways to make us think we see a view of .....you know....how it is......



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 12:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skada
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.


Very interesting points you raised their my friend. There's a lot to ponder. But one thing you mentioned that got my attention.

It's this:



All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration,


If this is really the reality of "things", which one was the cause? Was it energy, then matter? If so, is energy eternal then?
if it's not, what then before energy?

Vibration?

Both?



edit on 10-1-2018 by edmc^2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 01:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
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.


The number of particles are determinate.

The numbers of atoms or molecules in a mole of any substance is very close to 6.022 x 1023 particles (Avogadro's number).

The number of subatomic particles is also calculable but the jury is out as to if they are actually particles, or waves, or something that looks a bit like both, but is actually stochastic rather than deterministic.

edit on 10/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Idreamofme

Actually that is a very easy answer..

If you believe in evolution, because it is obvious lol..

Then the first modern chicken genetic would be born from a mutation from the previous species.

Aka the egg would be first.


If one believes that good just said “poof” and the chicken appeared.. then it would never have been an egg.

Aka the chicken.

So science is quit clear.. it was the egg.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

All matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively.

The One (one consciousness) 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. There is no such thing as non-existence.

The One is outside of our time reference. Your question supposes that time is part of the equation. This is small thinking.
From human time, the one always was. From the One, there is no such thing as time because the one sees it like a book. So, there is no satisfactory answer to your question.
Asking this question of the One, is like getting Dr. Who to explain Physics to humans. Or getting back Purple from the question: Ax + By + Cz + Dh = E
It wouldn't make sense to humans because of the limited view we have, versus upper-dimensional views. We see a sphere (our world); what does the upper-dimension see?
Or, how about this: The movie transformers and the "All Spark" multi-dimensional cube when Bumble-Bee made it smaller. He really didn't make it smaller, just put most of it into an upper dimension that is out of our view, with just a tiny protrusion into our dimension.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

I'm going to focus on two particular things from your post, for the sake of simplifying things. It's too easy to get distracted on these forums.




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


That's kind of what I was getting at initially. God defies the rule that defines him.



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.


The key phrase here being "where science has proven useless". The scientific method will never finish being applied. To say it is proven useless is laughable given recorded history and projected advancements. I need not elaborate, the countless publications and applications of scientific study speak for themselves. This is why it's abundantly clear how the god of the gaps operates. Only where the scientific method has not yet been fully exercised and recorded can a divine cause be even temporarily considered. But history shows it is only a matter of time. Your wording suggests that you don't really understand or perhaps prefer to misrepresent the concept of the gap god, and that's fine if you can't honestly disprove it. It's hard to prove God doesn't fill gaps without using the scientific method.

Logistically speaking, since no event or object or concept occurs without cause, it follows that 'nothing' doesn't actually exist. There has never been 'nothing'. This is where the scientific method becomes useful: finding out exactly what 'something' the Big Bang came from, what that something came from, etc.
edit on 10-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0nautI'm going to focus on two particular things from your post, for the sake of simplifying things. It's too easy to get distracted on these forums.



And finally, how could something that has no beginning, or cause, 'form'?
That's kind of what I was getting at initially. God defies the rule that defines him.


But God is not defined as having a beginning, nor is God defined by His Creation, which has a beginning. The material universe and the spiritual are defined in relation to Him, not the other way around.

In the Bible, God is described as eternal and unchanging but obviously, from the interactions with mankind, is also able to operate within time and space. This does not mean God is subservient to time and space.



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.
The key phrase here being "where science has proven useless". The scientific method will never finish being applied. To say it is proven useless is laughable given recorded history and projected advancements.


The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.

Science is inherently naturalistic, allowing for nothing supernatural at all. If a supernatural principle were to be uncovered by science, then that principle would become a natural explanation of how things are, and so could not be considered as supernatural anymore.

And we know that necessarily there must always exist things beyond the axiomatic descriptions of science (the supernatural by definition). That is the implication of 'Incompleteness', namely that any axiomatic system can never fully define itself and therefore things must exist that are (always) outside of the axiomatic definitions.


I need not elaborate, the countless publications and applications of scientific study speak for themselves. This is why it's abundantly clear how the god of the gaps operates. Only where the scientific method has not yet been fully exercised and recorded can a divine cause be even temporarily considered.


But you are equating the gaps in what science knows, as something more than ignorance.

As far as we can conceive, there are no 'gaps' in the universe. We couldn't even begin to guess what such gaps potentially may be like because such are beyond our knowledge, beyond current science to even hypothesize about.


But history shows it is only a matter of time.


History?

Like 150 years?

I also am fairly sure that no amount of 'sciencing' will understand everything without 'gap', as I'll explain later.


Your wording suggests that you don't really understand or perhaps prefer to misrepresent the concept of the gap god, and that's fine if you can't honestly disprove it. It's hard to prove God doesn't fill gaps without using the scientific method.


Please clearly define a specific instance of what we don't know and then design an experiment to prove that we don't know what is in the gap, proving it's gappiness?



Also, I note that I can conceive that there are no actual material 'gaps' without reference to God.




Logistically speaking, since no event or object or concept occurs without cause, it follows that 'nothing' doesn't actually exist. There has never been 'nothing'. This is where the scientific method becomes useful: finding out exactly what 'something' the Big Bang came from, what that something came from, etc.


So,the Big Bang, as an initial cause, is useless, because there must be a cause for the Big Bang, and that previous cause is also caused, and so on in infinitely.

... yet the Scientific Method is one day going to be able to solve an unending sequence of causes of causes?

Really?


edit on 10/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 11:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0nautI'm going to focus on two particular things from your post, for the sake of simplifying things. It's too easy to get distracted on these forums.



And finally, how could something that has no beginning, or cause, 'form'?
That's kind of what I was getting at initially. God defies the rule that defines him.


But God is not defined as having a beginning, nor is God defined by His Creation, which has a beginning. The material universe and the spiritual are defined in relation to Him, not the other way around.

In the Bible, God is described as eternal and unchanging but obviously, from the interactions with mankind, is also able to operate within time and space. This does not mean God is subservient to time and space.



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.
The key phrase here being "where science has proven useless". The scientific method will never finish being applied. To say it is proven useless is laughable given recorded history and projected advancements.


The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.

Science is inherently naturalistic, allowing for nothing supernatural at all. If a supernatural principle were to be uncovered by science, then that principle would become a natural explanation of how things are, and so could not be considered as supernatural anymore.

And we know that necessarily there must always exist things beyond the axiomatic descriptions of science (the supernatural by definition). That is the implication of 'Incompleteness', namely that any axiomatic system can never fully define itself and therefore things must exist that are (always) outside of the axiomatic definitions.


I need not elaborate, the countless publications and applications of scientific study speak for themselves. This is why it's abundantly clear how the god of the gaps operates. Only where the scientific method has not yet been fully exercised and recorded can a divine cause be even temporarily considered.


But you are equating the gaps in what science knows, as something more than ignorance.

As far as we can conceive, there are no 'gaps' in the universe. We couldn't even begin to guess what such gaps potentially may be like because such are beyond our knowledge, beyond current science to even hypothesize about.


But history shows it is only a matter of time.


History?

Like 150 years?

I also am fairly sure that no amount of 'sciencing' will understand everything without 'gap', as I'll explain later.


Your wording suggests that you don't really understand or perhaps prefer to misrepresent the concept of the gap god, and that's fine if you can't honestly disprove it. It's hard to prove God doesn't fill gaps without using the scientific method.


Please clearly define a specific instance of what we don't know and then design an experiment to prove that we don't know what is in the gap, proving it's gappiness?



Also, I note that I can conceive that there are no actual material 'gaps' without reference to God.




Logistically speaking, since no event or object or concept occurs without cause, it follows that 'nothing' doesn't actually exist. There has never been 'nothing'. This is where the scientific method becomes useful: finding out exactly what 'something' the Big Bang came from, what that something came from, etc.


So,the Big Bang, as an initial cause, is useless, because there must be a cause for the Big Bang, and that previous cause is also caused, and so on in infinitely.

... yet the Scientific Method is one day going to be able to solve an unending sequence of causes of causes?

Really?

Gods are Defined by the people who imagine them. It’s not like any of them have observed a God. All of the stories about them were written by the men who imagined them.



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 11:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0nautI'm going to focus on two particular things from your post, for the sake of simplifying things. It's too easy to get distracted on these forums.



And finally, how could something that has no beginning, or cause, 'form'?
That's kind of what I was getting at initially. God defies the rule that defines him.


But God is not defined as having a beginning, nor is God defined by His Creation, which has a beginning. The material universe and the spiritual are defined in relation to Him, not the other way around.

In the Bible, God is described as eternal and unchanging but obviously, from the interactions with mankind, is also able to operate within time and space. This does not mean God is subservient to time and space.



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.
The key phrase here being "where science has proven useless". The scientific method will never finish being applied. To say it is proven useless is laughable given recorded history and projected advancements.


The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.

Science is inherently naturalistic, allowing for nothing supernatural at all. If a supernatural principle were to be uncovered by science, then that principle would become a natural explanation of how things are, and so could not be considered as supernatural anymore.

And we know that necessarily there must always exist things beyond the axiomatic descriptions of science (the supernatural by definition). That is the implication of 'Incompleteness', namely that any axiomatic system can never fully define itself and therefore things must exist that are (always) outside of the axiomatic definitions.


I need not elaborate, the countless publications and applications of scientific study speak for themselves. This is why it's abundantly clear how the god of the gaps operates. Only where the scientific method has not yet been fully exercised and recorded can a divine cause be even temporarily considered.


But you are equating the gaps in what science knows, as something more than ignorance.

As far as we can conceive, there are no 'gaps' in the universe. We couldn't even begin to guess what such gaps potentially may be like because such are beyond our knowledge, beyond current science to even hypothesize about.


But history shows it is only a matter of time.


History?

Like 150 years?

I also am fairly sure that no amount of 'sciencing' will understand everything without 'gap', as I'll explain later.


Your wording suggests that you don't really understand or perhaps prefer to misrepresent the concept of the gap god, and that's fine if you can't honestly disprove it. It's hard to prove God doesn't fill gaps without using the scientific method.


Please clearly define a specific instance of what we don't know and then design an experiment to prove that we don't know what is in the gap, proving it's gappiness?



Also, I note that I can conceive that there are no actual material 'gaps' without reference to God.




Logistically speaking, since no event or object or concept occurs without cause, it follows that 'nothing' doesn't actually exist. There has never been 'nothing'. This is where the scientific method becomes useful: finding out exactly what 'something' the Big Bang came from, what that something came from, etc.


So,the Big Bang, as an initial cause, is useless, because there must be a cause for the Big Bang, and that previous cause is also caused, and so on in infinitely.

... yet the Scientific Method is one day going to be able to solve an unending sequence of causes of causes?

Really?

Gods are Defined by the people who imagine them. It’s not like any of them have observed a God. All of the stories about them were written by the men who imagined them.


Sources?



posted on Jan, 10 2018 @ 11:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0nautI'm going to focus on two particular things from your post, for the sake of simplifying things. It's too easy to get distracted on these forums.



And finally, how could something that has no beginning, or cause, 'form'?
That's kind of what I was getting at initially. God defies the rule that defines him.


But God is not defined as having a beginning, nor is God defined by His Creation, which has a beginning. The material universe and the spiritual are defined in relation to Him, not the other way around.

In the Bible, God is described as eternal and unchanging but obviously, from the interactions with mankind, is also able to operate within time and space. This does not mean God is subservient to time and space.



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.
The key phrase here being "where science has proven useless". The scientific method will never finish being applied. To say it is proven useless is laughable given recorded history and projected advancements.


The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.

Science is inherently naturalistic, allowing for nothing supernatural at all. If a supernatural principle were to be uncovered by science, then that principle would become a natural explanation of how things are, and so could not be considered as supernatural anymore.

And we know that necessarily there must always exist things beyond the axiomatic descriptions of science (the supernatural by definition). That is the implication of 'Incompleteness', namely that any axiomatic system can never fully define itself and therefore things must exist that are (always) outside of the axiomatic definitions.


I need not elaborate, the countless publications and applications of scientific study speak for themselves. This is why it's abundantly clear how the god of the gaps operates. Only where the scientific method has not yet been fully exercised and recorded can a divine cause be even temporarily considered.


But you are equating the gaps in what science knows, as something more than ignorance.

As far as we can conceive, there are no 'gaps' in the universe. We couldn't even begin to guess what such gaps potentially may be like because such are beyond our knowledge, beyond current science to even hypothesize about.


But history shows it is only a matter of time.


History?

Like 150 years?

I also am fairly sure that no amount of 'sciencing' will understand everything without 'gap', as I'll explain later.


Your wording suggests that you don't really understand or perhaps prefer to misrepresent the concept of the gap god, and that's fine if you can't honestly disprove it. It's hard to prove God doesn't fill gaps without using the scientific method.


Please clearly define a specific instance of what we don't know and then design an experiment to prove that we don't know what is in the gap, proving it's gappiness?



Also, I note that I can conceive that there are no actual material 'gaps' without reference to God.




Logistically speaking, since no event or object or concept occurs without cause, it follows that 'nothing' doesn't actually exist. There has never been 'nothing'. This is where the scientific method becomes useful: finding out exactly what 'something' the Big Bang came from, what that something came from, etc.


So,the Big Bang, as an initial cause, is useless, because there must be a cause for the Big Bang, and that previous cause is also caused, and so on in infinitely.

... yet the Scientific Method is one day going to be able to solve an unending sequence of causes of causes?

Really?

Gods are Defined by the people who imagine them. It’s not like any of them have observed a God. All of the stories about them were written by the men who imagined them.


Sources?
Sources for what? That gods are imagined by people? You could start with the Talmud, then on to the septuagent, The Qu’ran, joseph smith, L Ron Hubbard, all of these stories admitted that they are written by men.
edit on 10-1-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 12:53 AM
link   


The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.


If mankind does not destroy itself, we will become as gods. Nothing will be impossible to us.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears



The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.


If mankind does not destroy itself, we will become as gods. Nothing will be impossible to us.


Yeah, that's the hope, but with all these anti science people out there pushing to cut Nasa funds and other science budgets, it is far more likely that we will destroy ourselves. Think about it. We spend WAY MORE money on military conquest than we do on scientific research that could save us and it's not even close. I hate to sound pessimistic, but humans are too dumb. We are going to destroy ourselves because we can't work together and because of ridiculous religious fundamentalists. If all countries pulled their resources and teamed up to push our development further we might have a chance, but as it stands now, I'm not very hopeful. Religion is ruining us all and I don't think we will even realize it until it's too late.
edit on 1 11 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 12:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut


But God is not defined as having a beginning, nor is God defined by His Creation, which has a beginning. The material universe and the spiritual are defined in relation to Him, not the other way around.

In the Bible, God is described as eternal and unchanging but obviously, from the interactions with mankind, is also able to operate within time and space. This does not mean God is subservient to time and space.


'there must be a god because everything requires a cause'

'god requires no cause'

and that's where the magic comes into play, this property of being independent of spacetime. a conveniently untestable property that can be neither verified nor recorded. which makes it a moot point by the standards of the scientific method. and this is where our contention is rooted.


The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.


considering all of the things the scientific method has enabled us to discover, I say again, how very convenient. it is worth noting that up to this point, most of the stuff acknowledged as supernatural has been debunked using the method, so a pattern can be clearly observed. and yet something which cannot be tested or verified or recorded in any useful sense being responsible for the fabric of existence and the fate of literally everything is a statement we can take entirely for granted. extraordinary claims and whatnot.


And we know that necessarily there must always exist things beyond the axiomatic descriptions of science (the supernatural by definition). That is the implication of 'Incompleteness', namely that any axiomatic system can never fully define itself and therefore things must exist that are (always) outside of the axiomatic definitions.


i prefer the word "extranatural" for exactly that reason. it implies that data exists outside of our sphere of study that would complement rather than contradicting existing information. "in addition to" "an extension of", you get the point. it may help to think of a man born blind suddenly acquiring sight, as opposed to contracting an extremely odd medical condition where he spontaneously transforms into a golden retriever.


But you are equating the gaps in what science knows, as something more than ignorance.

As far as we can conceive, there are no 'gaps' in the universe. We couldn't even begin to guess what such gaps potentially may be like because such are beyond our knowledge, beyond current science to even hypothesize about.


i am saying that the simplest translation of 'god of the gaps' is 'god is the ignorance in our scientific study'. god and scientific study simply cannot occupy the same space. divine cause cannot take credit for anything except theory, and that would be blatantly lazy, even unethical.


History?

Like 150 years?

I also am fairly sure that no amount of 'sciencing' will understand everything without 'gap', as I'll explain later.


try more like 4 billion years. the scientific method has existed for several centuries, which is what you are referring to I think. we can thank the muslims for its beginnings, in part. imagine that. since then it has been applied to 4 billion years of natural phenomena and will continue to be applied for many centuries more. it gets harder to study anything beyond planet earth, but that's not stopping us.


Please clearly define a specific instance of what we don't know and then design an experiment to prove that we don't know what is in the gap, proving it's gappiness?


i believe the whole "a sophisticated marvel like the whole universe can't just happen on its own, but god doesn't need a god to create him or a god to create that god, etc" conundrum already covers that. so go ahead and apply yourself to the infinite regression problem. or maybe try and define god without making him sound like a poorly veiled cop out.


So,the Big Bang, as an initial cause, is useless, because there must be a cause for the Big Bang, and that previous cause is also caused, and so on in infinitely.

... yet the Scientific Method is one day going to be able to solve an unending sequence of causes of causes?


i certainly don't see you coming up with anything better.
edit on 11-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears



The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.


If mankind does not destroy itself, we will become as gods. Nothing will be impossible to us.


careful, arrogance is the first step to godhood. and godhood is the first step to something much worse.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xenogears



The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.


If mankind does not destroy itself, we will become as gods. Nothing will be impossible to us.


This is a laugh, people who refuse to except the logic of an infinite creator being we refer to as god, claim there is no scientific basis for such, yet science will enable us to become as gods. Even though of course there is no so thing. Hmm....

This is why I find atheists as abhorrent as the most extreme religious cultists. It’s nothing but blind faith in that which they desire to be true



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0nautI'm going to focus on two particular things from your post, for the sake of simplifying things. It's too easy to get distracted on these forums.



And finally, how could something that has no beginning, or cause, 'form'?
That's kind of what I was getting at initially. God defies the rule that defines him.


But God is not defined as having a beginning, nor is God defined by His Creation, which has a beginning. The material universe and the spiritual are defined in relation to Him, not the other way around.

In the Bible, God is described as eternal and unchanging but obviously, from the interactions with mankind, is also able to operate within time and space. This does not mean God is subservient to time and space.



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.
The key phrase here being "where science has proven useless". The scientific method will never finish being applied. To say it is proven useless is laughable given recorded history and projected advancements.


The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.

Science is inherently naturalistic, allowing for nothing supernatural at all. If a supernatural principle were to be uncovered by science, then that principle would become a natural explanation of how things are, and so could not be considered as supernatural anymore.

And we know that necessarily there must always exist things beyond the axiomatic descriptions of science (the supernatural by definition). That is the implication of 'Incompleteness', namely that any axiomatic system can never fully define itself and therefore things must exist that are (always) outside of the axiomatic definitions.


I need not elaborate, the countless publications and applications of scientific study speak for themselves. This is why it's abundantly clear how the god of the gaps operates. Only where the scientific method has not yet been fully exercised and recorded can a divine cause be even temporarily considered.


But you are equating the gaps in what science knows, as something more than ignorance.

As far as we can conceive, there are no 'gaps' in the universe. We couldn't even begin to guess what such gaps potentially may be like because such are beyond our knowledge, beyond current science to even hypothesize about.


But history shows it is only a matter of time.


History?

Like 150 years?

I also am fairly sure that no amount of 'sciencing' will understand everything without 'gap', as I'll explain later.


Your wording suggests that you don't really understand or perhaps prefer to misrepresent the concept of the gap god, and that's fine if you can't honestly disprove it. It's hard to prove God doesn't fill gaps without using the scientific method.


Please clearly define a specific instance of what we don't know and then design an experiment to prove that we don't know what is in the gap, proving it's gappiness?



Also, I note that I can conceive that there are no actual material 'gaps' without reference to God.




Logistically speaking, since no event or object or concept occurs without cause, it follows that 'nothing' doesn't actually exist. There has never been 'nothing'. This is where the scientific method becomes useful: finding out exactly what 'something' the Big Bang came from, what that something came from, etc.


So,the Big Bang, as an initial cause, is useless, because there must be a cause for the Big Bang, and that previous cause is also caused, and so on in infinitely.

... yet the Scientific Method is one day going to be able to solve an unending sequence of causes of causes?

Really?

Gods are Defined by the people who imagine them. It’s not like any of them have observed a God. All of the stories about them were written by the men who imagined them.

I once wrote a story about a field mouse.

Do you suppose I obversed that mouse, or imagined that mouse before writing about it?

I know for 100% fact that YOU didn't observe that particular field mouse.
Is it 100% fact that I imagined it?


Is any answer you give not just pure assumption?



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0nautI'm going to focus on two particular things from your post, for the sake of simplifying things. It's too easy to get distracted on these forums.



And finally, how could something that has no beginning, or cause, 'form'?
That's kind of what I was getting at initially. God defies the rule that defines him.


But God is not defined as having a beginning, nor is God defined by His Creation, which has a beginning. The material universe and the spiritual are defined in relation to Him, not the other way around.

In the Bible, God is described as eternal and unchanging but obviously, from the interactions with mankind, is also able to operate within time and space. This does not mean God is subservient to time and space.



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.
The key phrase here being "where science has proven useless". The scientific method will never finish being applied. To say it is proven useless is laughable given recorded history and projected advancements.


The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.

Science is inherently naturalistic, allowing for nothing supernatural at all. If a supernatural principle were to be uncovered by science, then that principle would become a natural explanation of how things are, and so could not be considered as supernatural anymore.

And we know that necessarily there must always exist things beyond the axiomatic descriptions of science (the supernatural by definition). That is the implication of 'Incompleteness', namely that any axiomatic system can never fully define itself and therefore things must exist that are (always) outside of the axiomatic definitions.


I need not elaborate, the countless publications and applications of scientific study speak for themselves. This is why it's abundantly clear how the god of the gaps operates. Only where the scientific method has not yet been fully exercised and recorded can a divine cause be even temporarily considered.


But you are equating the gaps in what science knows, as something more than ignorance.

As far as we can conceive, there are no 'gaps' in the universe. We couldn't even begin to guess what such gaps potentially may be like because such are beyond our knowledge, beyond current science to even hypothesize about.


But history shows it is only a matter of time.


History?

Like 150 years?

I also am fairly sure that no amount of 'sciencing' will understand everything without 'gap', as I'll explain later.


Your wording suggests that you don't really understand or perhaps prefer to misrepresent the concept of the gap god, and that's fine if you can't honestly disprove it. It's hard to prove God doesn't fill gaps without using the scientific method.


Please clearly define a specific instance of what we don't know and then design an experiment to prove that we don't know what is in the gap, proving it's gappiness?



Also, I note that I can conceive that there are no actual material 'gaps' without reference to God.




Logistically speaking, since no event or object or concept occurs without cause, it follows that 'nothing' doesn't actually exist. There has never been 'nothing'. This is where the scientific method becomes useful: finding out exactly what 'something' the Big Bang came from, what that something came from, etc.


So,the Big Bang, as an initial cause, is useless, because there must be a cause for the Big Bang, and that previous cause is also caused, and so on in infinitely.

... yet the Scientific Method is one day going to be able to solve an unending sequence of causes of causes?

Really?

Gods are Defined by the people who imagine them. It’s not like any of them have observed a God. All of the stories about them were written by the men who imagined them.

I once wrote a story about a field mouse.

Do you suppose I obversed that mouse, or imagined that mouse before writing about it?

I know for 100% fact that YOU didn't observe that particular field mouse.
Is it 100% fact that I imagined it?


Is any answer you give not just pure assumption?
If that mouse has magical powers, I’m pretty sure you at least made up that part of the story



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Xenogears



The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.


If mankind does not destroy itself, we will become as gods. Nothing will be impossible to us.


This is a laugh, people who refuse to except the logic of an infinite creator being we refer to as god, claim there is no scientific basis for such, yet science will enable us to become as gods. Even though of course there is no so thing. Hmm....

This is why I find atheists as abhorrent as the most extreme religious cultists. It’s nothing but blind faith in that which they desire to be true


what this implies is that being a god is really just a mentality. it's a matter of ego as opposed to sovereign authority or inherent destiny. you have one person with the resources to make a whole bunch of other people impressed enough to swear fealty or whatever and boom, that person is now a god. but then someone else with even more resources comes along and changes the equation and then the whole picture readjusts. rinse and repeat.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Xenogears



The scientific method will never discover the slightest thing about the supernatural.


If mankind does not destroy itself, we will become as gods. Nothing will be impossible to us.


This is a laugh, people who refuse to except the logic of an infinite creator being we refer to as god, claim there is no scientific basis for such, yet science will enable us to become as gods. Even though of course there is no so thing. Hmm....

This is why I find atheists as abhorrent as the most extreme religious cultists. It’s nothing but blind faith in that which they desire to be true
Any scientist who thinks that science will allow us to become Gods Is not a very good scientist




top topics



 
25
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join