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: 50
25
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:44 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 logic is there in an infinite creator being? I don't think she meant literal creator gods, she meant that we can achieve virtually anything if we master our universe.

This is why I find theists abhorrent. They hate science and think it's all anti god. But will they thank science if it saves us from an extinction level event? Probably not.
edit on 1 11 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
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?


That depends. Did you make the mouse perform miracles and defy reality? Because that's generally the first red flag that any story is fiction.
edit on 1 11 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

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.

Sources for your claim that these stories came from something imagined and not from something which was observed.

Do you have anything or can we agree that you are just spouting bias opinion based purely on your own (lack of) experience?
edit on 11 1 1818 by Ruiner1978 because: Typo



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:52 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?


are you going to worship that mouse as a god and start a church?

edit on 11-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
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?


That depends. Did you make the mouse perform miracles and defy reality? Because that's generally the first red flag that any story is fiction.

Completely beside the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


are you going to worship that mouse as a god and start a church?

Totally irrelevant to the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


are you going to worship that mouse as a god and start a church?

Totally irrelevant to the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?


writing about a mouse is not the same as claiming to have met a god, particularly given the absence of supernatural evidence and the copious presence of woodland creatures. mice are common, gods are not. at least they aren't readily available to be recorded and tested. I've never heard of mice spontaneously manifesting anywhere. "If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?" this is the question being addressed. feel free to comment on that, otherwise I have no interest in your game. save your strawman for the corn fields.
edit on 11-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


are you going to worship that mouse as a god and start a church?

Totally irrelevant to the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?


writing about a mouse is not the same as claiming to have met a god. save your strawman for the corn fields.

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?" this is the question being addressed. feel free to comment on that, otherwise I have no interest in your game.

Bad form, Buddy, very bad form indeed.

You wanted to play a couple of posts up! You were all over me!


I think you see my point now.
It's hard to answer the question with any authority isn't it.
Your own Strawman didn't help none either did it...



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

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 logic is there in an infinite creator being? I don't think she meant literal creator gods, she meant that we can achieve virtually anything if we master our universe.

This is why I find theists abhorrent. They hate science and think it's all anti god. But will they thank science if it saves us from an extinction level event? Probably not.


Quite a bit more logic than the universe popping into existence and creating itself from nothing...
Theists don’t hate science, many scientists believe in god. Believing in god doesn’t mean you have to believe in any or all of the doctrines of a particular religion. Or even believe in religion at all. One of the fundamental principles of science is you don’t get something from nothing, so why shouldn’t scientists believe in an ultimate creator?
I can fully understand someone wishing to reject religion. I don’t follow any myself. I would agree with someone who said we can’t know or understand anything about god or a creator, and I would understand the position of someone who said we can’t know one way or the other. As with the agnostic. But what I don’t get is the person who says no, there is definitely no creator. As with the atheist, when it can’t be scientifically proven one way or the other. Now that I find suspicious..



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


are you going to worship that mouse as a god and start a church?

Totally irrelevant to the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?


writing about a mouse is not the same as claiming to have met a god. save your strawman for the corn fields.

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?" this is the question being addressed. feel free to comment on that, otherwise I have no interest in your game.

Bad form, Buddy, very bad form indeed.

You wanted to play a couple of posts up! You were all over me!


I think you see my point now.
It's hard to answer the question with any authority isn't it.
Your own Strawman didn't help none either did it...


yeah, have fun with that.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: surfer_soul

originally posted by: Barcs

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 logic is there in an infinite creator being? I don't think she meant literal creator gods, she meant that we can achieve virtually anything if we master our universe.

This is why I find theists abhorrent. They hate science and think it's all anti god. But will they thank science if it saves us from an extinction level event? Probably not.


Quite a bit more logic than the universe popping into existence and creating itself from nothing...
Theists don’t hate science, many scientists believe in god. Believing in god doesn’t mean you have to believe in any or all of the doctrines of a particular religion. Or even believe in religion at all. One of the fundamental principles of science is you don’t get something from nothing, so why shouldn’t scientists believe in an ultimate creator?
I can fully understand someone wishing to reject religion. I don’t follow any myself. I would agree with someone who said we can’t know or understand anything about god or a creator, and I would understand the position of someone who said we can’t know one way or the other. As with the agnostic. But what I don’t get is the person who says no, there is definitely no creator. As with the atheist, when it can’t be scientifically proven one way or the other. Now that I find suspicious..


"Quite a bit more logic than the universe popping into existence and creating itself from nothing..."

you mean like god apparently did?



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


are you going to worship that mouse as a god and start a church?

Totally irrelevant to the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?


writing about a mouse is not the same as claiming to have met a god. save your strawman for the corn fields.

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?" this is the question being addressed. feel free to comment on that, otherwise I have no interest in your game.

Bad form, Buddy, very bad form indeed.

You wanted to play a couple of posts up! You were all over me!


I think you see my point now.
It's hard to answer the question with any authority isn't it.
Your own Strawman didn't help none either did it...


yeah, have fun with that.

Next time, try not to get so over excited when jumping in on side debates...



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


are you going to worship that mouse as a god and start a church?

Totally irrelevant to the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?


writing about a mouse is not the same as claiming to have met a god. save your strawman for the corn fields.

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?" this is the question being addressed. feel free to comment on that, otherwise I have no interest in your game.

Bad form, Buddy, very bad form indeed.

You wanted to play a couple of posts up! You were all over me!


I think you see my point now.
It's hard to answer the question with any authority isn't it.
Your own Strawman didn't help none either did it...


yeah, have fun with that.

Next time, try not to get so over excited when jumping in on side debates...


Do you know how to count? or how to debate? you are a waste of time. good day sir, and may you find the time to improve your character as well as your powers of reasoning.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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?


are you going to worship that mouse as a god and start a church?

Totally irrelevant to the point...

Did I observe the mouse or imagine it?


writing about a mouse is not the same as claiming to have met a god. save your strawman for the corn fields.

"If something has no cause, does it have a beginning?" this is the question being addressed. feel free to comment on that, otherwise I have no interest in your game.

Bad form, Buddy, very bad form indeed.

You wanted to play a couple of posts up! You were all over me!


I think you see my point now.
It's hard to answer the question with any authority isn't it.
Your own Strawman didn't help none either did it...


yeah, have fun with that.

Next time, try not to get so over excited when jumping in on side debates...


Do you know how to count? or how to debate? you are a waste of time. good day sir, and may you find the time to improve your character as well as your powers of reasoning.

I count three times now that you've embarrassed yourself here.

That's on you, not me.
No need to get personal...



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: surfer_soul

It is the nuance, what is being said isn't "there is no creator", what is being said is "there isn't enough proof of a creator for me to believe".

You can't prove a negative so it is automatically "no creator" until there is enough proof of one.

Then you have the problem of which one. Something like 75% of the worlds population are Christian, Muslim, or Hindu and I don't follow any of those religions so chances are that if someone is talking about a creator they are talking about one of those deities and I don't believe in them.

In other words, for practical purposes, it is easier to just say one is an atheist.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

God would be eternal so need to, you know a bit like how energy can neither be created or destroyed, it is just transmuted.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ruiner1978

You can't prove a negative.

The ones claiming that it was observed have to prove it, not the other way around.



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Is the universe and our existence not proof enough? If it wasn’t created then how has it come into existence?

You don’t have the problem of which one. You are assuming to believe in god you must in turn believe in some religion which is nonsense.

In other words it would be easier to say one is agnostic, and admit they don’t know. As I have already pointed out there is no scientific proof one way or the other.
So why jump to the conclusion there definitely isn’t?



posted on Jan, 11 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

You can't prove a negative.

The ones claiming that it was observed have to prove it, not the other way around.

I haven't asked for a negative to be proved.
Read again.

A claim was made earlier that it was imagined and not observed.
Not the other way round...




top topics



 
25
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join