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: 54
25
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 01:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Nope, you asked for proof of a negative. I'm gong to paraphrase again so stick with me, when you ask if there is proof that stories in scripture are "not" based on someones observation you are asking for proof negating something. It can't be provided. The info just isn't there.




posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 01:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I'm not confused. Is that your go to dismissal?

ETA: They say based on a true story but it hardly makes it a documentary. It doesn't' make the BS in the movie true.
edit on 12-1-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 01:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Nope, you asked for proof of a negative. I'm gong to paraphrase again so stick with me, when you ask if there is proof that stories in scripture are "not" based on someones observation you are asking for proof negating something. It can't be provided. The info just isn't there.

Well in that case. You can twist any argument so it appears as asking for negative proof.



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 01:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I'm not confused. Is that your go to dismissal?

ETA: They say based on a true story but it hardly makes it a documentary. It doesn't' make the BS in the movie true.

That's not my argument.
For the last time, I'm not religious...



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Ruiner1978

No, you asked for proof negating something. It is there in black and white. No twisting is necessary.


That's not my argument.

Then what is your argument and what is the point of your argument?

I already said that a sliver of truth surrounded by BS makes the stories worthless, as historical facts. Having a sliver of truth provides what? What is the benefit in pointing out that sliver of truth? You wrote a story about a field mouse, and you claim you actually saw it, so what? What difference does it make if you actually saw it or not?
edit on 12-1-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 03:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

No, you asked for proof negating something. It is there in black and white. No twisting is necessary.


That's not my argument.

Then what is your argument and what is the point of your argument?

I already said that a sliver of truth surrounded by BS makes the stories worthless, as historical facts. Having a sliver of truth provides what? What is the benefit in pointing out that sliver of truth? You wrote a story about a field mouse, and you claim you actually saw it, so what? What difference does it make if you actually saw it or not?

I asked for proof of a claim that the stories are based purely on imagination.
Apparently the claim can't be proven.
So by the same methodology you're using against me, we can dismiss the claim I'm arguing against as made up bull#, yes?
No factual basis to the claim whatsoever.

We are actually in agreement over the original claim.
But, you are still arguing against me.
This begs the question, why?
Is it because not supporting the claim doesn't support your bias?
You need to discredit the argument against the claim to give your bias merit, even though technically and logically you agree with the argument against?
edit on 12 1 1818 by Ruiner1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 05:07 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.


And what tiny and cute little gods we will be.



Honestly, I think the problem is that we are more likely to destroy ourselves.



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut



'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.


Does the Hubble constant or the permitivity of space exist?

Existence does not mean 'are material'. Concepts can exist.

Dictionary meaning of the word Exist

Surely every constant is invariant and therefore atemporal. Regardless of time, they are always the same. No magic at all involved (despite your 'magical' inability to acknowledge the "bleedin' obvious").



The constants are also absolutes, because they cannot be falsified. We can measure them and every time we do, they are the same. We know they will be the same, that is why we call them constants. We can mathematically verify that they are 'locked in' to the way the universe works.



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


Consider the concept that, what science hasn't enabled us to discover, is even more bigly yuuge than what it has!




, 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.


Call it 'extranatural' if you like but that word already has a pre-existing definition (damn, another non-material existing thing!).

Extranatural transformation - Wikipedia

Perhaps you could call it 'Wibblywibble'? You would still really be talking about the supernatural and science would still not be able to devise an axiom that describes it.





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.


Yeah, you can't have Theology and Science taught at the same university, the walls would fall down.



It's about time we kicked science out to it's own 'special' schools for those with Aspergers and an inability to understand all those other fields of study such as art, history, literature, business, law, philosophy and theology.



After all, most of the top universities started well before the sciences were any chop!


divine cause cannot take credit for anything except theory, and that would be blatantly lazy, even unethical.


Science "cannot take credit for anything except theory, and that would be blatantly lazy, even unethical". (Did science cause evolution or rocks? Obviously not, science is a process of the accumulation of knowledge and doesn't actually make nature).



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.


Shouldn't you claim that science has been done for 13.4 billion years (but the only one around at the time to do the science would probably have been God, which is a bummer for your argument).



Come on, credit where credit is due.



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.


"Inconcievable!"



You are stuck very firmly in temporal sequence.

Infinities, infinitessimals and eternities are mathematically defined quite elegantly by Srinivasa Ramanujan. They, and the math that describes them, exist too.


i certainly don't see you coming up with anything better.


I believe that I explained the nature of the atemporal, the definition of the word 'exist' and of the limitations of scientific method.

Surely when we can see something that represents a 'Halting Problem' we can be smart enough to not spend eternity 'beating our head against the board' of an insoluble loop.

edit on 12/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I asked for proof of a claim that the stories are based purely on imagination.
Apparently the claim can't be proven.
So by the same methodology you're using against me, we can dismiss the claim I'm arguing against as made up bull#, yes?
No factual basis to the claim whatsoever.

The claim could be incorrect but you asked for proof and that can't be given so the claim remains unanswered.

The crux of the matter is that that particular claim stems from the claim, not made by you, that scripture is fact. Proving that claim doesn't fall on the person saying "I don't believe that, prove it".

You came along and basically said, (paraphrasing here) "Can you prove it isn't based on something observed" as if that gives credence to the original claim. That would be the only reason to make that statement which is why I asked what was the point of your argument, to see if there was any other.


We are actually in agreement over the original claim.
But, you are still arguing against me.
This begs the question, why?
Is it because not supporting the claim doesn't support your bias?
You need to discredit the argument against the claim to give your bias merit, even though technically and logically you agree with the argument against?

I'm not arguing against you. I'm arguing that you can't prove a negative and also your claim that things are not black and white.

I don't need arguments for what I believe, I have enough first hand experience to base my view of life on. All I'm doing here is discussing the logic of what was going on in this thread.
edit on 12-1-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?

I use critical thinking.

No offence, but it seems to me that you don't.
You have a very blinkered view, shortsighted and in black and white.


LMAO! So basically you just personally attack me as a response. Great!

I'm honestly not sure what are you trying to say here. Yes, we should use scrutiny on old texts and stories based on hearsay instead of blindly believing them. If I'm going to accept an old text as being based on reality, then I'm going to need evidence. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying they are definitively right or wrong. I am saying that logically one should not believe things without evidence and that people should analyze the specific stories themselves to try to determine that instead of using broad generalizations. If you think this type of logic/scrutiny is incorrect, then please break it down for me.


All these ancient stories from all over the world that are fundamentallly saying the same thing. Obviously based on something that was happening.


No, they definitely are not all saying the same thing. Again, you need to explain your argument and point out specifics instead of talking in generalities.

edit on 1 12 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I asked for proof of a claim that the stories are based purely on imagination.
Apparently the claim can't be proven.
So by the same methodology you're using against me, we can dismiss the claim I'm arguing against as made up bull#, yes?
No factual basis to the claim whatsoever.

The claim could be incorrect but you asked for proof and that can't be given so the claim remains unanswered.

The crux of the matter is that that particular claim stems from the claim, not made by you, that scripture is fact. Proving that claim doesn't fall on the person saying "I don't believe that, prove it".

You came along and basically said, (paraphrasing here) "Can you prove it isn't based on something observed" as if that gives credence to the original claim. That would be the only reason to make that statement which is why I asked what was the point of your argument, to see if there was any other.


We are actually in agreement over the original claim.
But, you are still arguing against me.
This begs the question, why?
Is it because not supporting the claim doesn't support your bias?
You need to discredit the argument against the claim to give your bias merit, even though technically and logically you agree with the argument against?

I'm not arguing against you. I'm arguing that you can't prove a negative and also your claim that things are not black and white.

I don't need arguments for what I believe, I have enough first hand experience to base my view of life on. All I'm doing here is discussing the logic of what was going on in this thread.

I was trying to expose what I perceived as a hypocrisy.

In my doing so I have realised I am a hypocrite also.
My apologies for wasting you time.



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
So does anyone have proof that ancient scripture is purely based on man's imagination, and not on something that was observed or not?

I use critical thinking.

No offence, but it seems to me that you don't.
You have a very blinkered view, shortsighted and in black and white.


LMAO! So basically you just personally attack me as a response. Great!

I'm honestly not sure what are you trying to say here. Yes, we should use scrutiny on old texts and stories based on hearsay instead of blindly believing them. If I'm going to accept an old text as being based on reality, then I'm going to need evidence. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying they are definitively right or wrong. I am saying that logically one should not believe things without evidence and that people should analyze the specific stories themselves to try to determine that instead of using broad generalizations. If you think this type of logic/scrutiny is incorrect, then please break it down for me.


All these ancient stories from all over the world that are fundamentallly saying the same thing. Obviously based on something that was happening.


No, they definitely are not all saying the same thing. Again, you need to explain your argument and point out specifics instead of talking in generalities.

You're absolutely correct. I was wrong.
My apologies for the cheap insult.



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Ruiner1978

No apologies needed, wasting time is basically what we are doing here anyway.


edit on 12-1-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

For all we know the universe expands and contracts in an infinite loop. What we're seeing is just one of those expansions.



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut



I believe that I explained the nature of the atemporal, the definition of the word 'exist' and of the limitations of scientific method.

Surely when we can see something that represents a 'Halting Problem' we can be smart enough to not spend eternity 'beating our head against the board' of an insoluble loop.


So you are admitting you can't give us a verifiable reliable definition for a god? You don't have a home address or a finger print or a DNA sample?
And that you can't solve the infinite regression problem?

And no, this 'atemporal' thing doesn't count anymore than a time turner or the staff of gandalf the white. Unless you have a picture of some inhuman creature relaxing on its throne outside the bubble of existence with a telescope or whatever. That would at least be more than a theoretical concept that works as a Star Trek episode but not as an actual answer to the nature of existence and destiny.
edit on 12-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe that I explained the nature of the atemporal, the definition of the word 'exist' and of the limitations of scientific method.

Surely when we can see something that represents a 'Halting Problem' we can be smart enough to not spend eternity 'beating our head against the board' of an insoluble loop.
So you are admitting you can't give us a verifiable reliable definition for a god? You don't have a home address or a finger print or a DNA sample?


Please provide any of those for the Big Bang Singularity, while you are at it.




And that you can't solve the infinite regression problem?


The superior recognized solution is to realize that it's solution is too difficult and to only determine approximates, like limits, then to forget it and go and have a beer.




And no, this 'atemporal' thing doesn't count anymore than a time turner or the staff of gandalf the white. Unless you have a picture of some inhuman creature relaxing on its throne outside the bubble of existence with a telescope or whatever. That would at least be more than a theoretical concept that works as a Star Trek episode but not as an actual answer to the nature of existence and destiny.


Atemporal does not mean 'resides outside of time' or 'has a time machine' (although it could, in particular circumstances).

It means that no matter ho much or how little time passes, the object of atemporality is invariant. There are many things that are atemporal that exist now (and always have, and always will exist, because they are invariant).

I asked my 5 year old grandson while we were fishing and we had quite an interesting philosophical discussion about 'if there were things without cause', and he was able to answer in the affirmative, with some examples.

I personally find somewhat baffling, the idea that someone could not conceptualise this, and yet is able to read and write. I wonder if they can sit on the toilet the right way around (but that is a digression)?

I can only assume that I have encountered here a 'halting problem of intellect', of sorts, and that I should estimate a very low limit of comprehension and just go and have a beer.

... and so, we have an actual procedural test of the eminent superiority of a process that is clearly not scientific method.

Quod erat demonstrandum!



edit on 12/1/2018 by chr0naut because: Takes bow and steps down from soap-box.



posted on Jan, 12 2018 @ 10:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut

I believe that I explained the nature of the atemporal, the definition of the word 'exist' and of the limitations of scientific method.

Surely when we can see something that represents a 'Halting Problem' we can be smart enough to not spend eternity 'beating our head against the board' of an insoluble loop.
So you are admitting you can't give us a verifiable reliable definition for a god? You don't have a home address or a finger print or a DNA sample?


Please provide any of those for the Big Bang Singularity, while you are at it.




And that you can't solve the infinite regression problem?


The superior recognized solution is to realize that it's solution is too difficult and to only determine approximates, like limits, then to forget it and go and have a beer.




And no, this 'atemporal' thing doesn't count anymore than a time turner or the staff of gandalf the white. Unless you have a picture of some inhuman creature relaxing on its throne outside the bubble of existence with a telescope or whatever. That would at least be more than a theoretical concept that works as a Star Trek episode but not as an actual answer to the nature of existence and destiny.


Atemporal does not mean 'resides outside of time' or 'has a time machine' (although it could, in particular circumstances).

It means that no matter ho much or how little time passes, the object of atemporality is invariant. There are many things that are atemporal that exist now (and always have, and always will exist, because they are invariant).

I asked my 5 year old grandson while we were fishing and we had quite an interesting philosophical discussion about 'if there were things without cause', and he was able to answer in the affirmative, with some examples.

I personally find somewhat baffling, the idea that someone could not conceptualise this, and yet is able to read and write. I wonder if they can sit on the toilet the right way around (but that is a digression)?

I can only assume that I have encountered here a 'halting problem of intellect', of sorts, and that I should estimate a very low limit of comprehension and just go and have a beer.

... and so, we have an actual procedural test of the eminent superiority of a process that is clearly not scientific method.

Quod erat demonstrandum!




Then I hope your beer suffices as a consolation prize. I know mine does!


Feel free to google the four pillars of the Big Bang Theory while you enjoy your drink. They aren't finger prints but they are certainly subject to the scientific method. although I must admit I am confused by your mention of a "procedural test of eminent superiority" that doesn't involve the scientific method. Dare I ask...
edit on 12-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 01:33 AM
link   

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

For all we know the universe expands and contracts in an infinite loop. What we're seeing is just one of those expansions.


Sure, if the evidence points that way, but so far, the evidence shows a beginning. And even if we accept an infinite loop - a beginning is still in the equation in addition to infinity.

So from what I see, the finite and the infinite goes hand in hand into whichever theory you want to subscribe to.

Hence the question - if the infinite loop is the answer as to why the universe, what then is infinity?

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



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

You said way back on page four:

Now up to you to decide what or who is the source of energy.

To me, there's only one logical answer.

Hence the question to atheists and evolutionists:

It seems pretty obvious, Anee pointed it out around that time, that you are pretty much saying god did it (whatever that means).

I mean the question is aimed at a certain group of people but did you ever think of posing the same question to those who believe in god, or yourself, about the creation of that source?


edit on 13-1-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 08:10 AM
link   

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

So your turn - what's the answer to my question?

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

Everything has a beginning. If it has a cause is determined later and if it doesn't, it will meet its ending.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join