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: 55
25
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

Everything can't have a beginning there always has to have been something. It's the only logical conclusion.




posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 11:00 AM
link   

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

Got an easier one, but no less unsolvable.

"What came first the chicken or the egg"?

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



Some Dinosaurs laid eggs...



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti

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.


If that is true what then is infinity / infinite space?



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
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?



There's no invocation of God here, hence the question was addressed to atheists and evolutionists alike in order to challenge their perception of reality.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: daskakik
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?



There's no invocation of God here, hence the question was addressed to atheists and evolutionists alike in order to challenge their perception of reality.


If you actually thought that little bit of double speak would work, then clearly this isn't the intellectual debate i had hoped for. But we have had 55 pages to figure that out and still no cigar. As always, just an exercise in pride and one upping each other. Y'all need science in your lives.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: daskakik
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?



There's no invocation of God here, hence the question was addressed to atheists and evolutionists alike in order to challenge their perception of reality.


If you actually thought that little bit of double speak would work, then clearly this isn't the intellectual debate i had hoped for. But we have had 55 pages to figure that out and still no cigar. As always, just an exercise in pride and one upping each other. Y'all need science in your lives.


That was the point of this exercise.

Will a materialistic point of view be able to answer the question?



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

Perception of reality?

That is an interesting idea, do you think creationists have a different perception of reality?

I don't think so. They may have different ideas, beliefs or notions but perception is material and experienced through our senses. Creationists don't have the answer either. They just have a preferred guess.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 07:30 PM
link   

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

Perception of reality?

That is an interesting idea, do you think creationists have a different perception of reality?

I don't think so. They may have different ideas, beliefs or notions but perception is material and experienced through our senses. Creationists don't have the answer either. They just have a preferred guess.


Perception is a very limited word to use in conjunction with reality. We don't perceive reality but we understand reality.

In as much as science is concerned when it comes understanding reality or the perception of reality, a materialistic pov is limited to what is understood.

Hence the infinite must by necessity be part of the equation in order to arrive at the correct conclusion of what reality is.

The finite emanates from the infinite.



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 07:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: daskakik
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?



There's no invocation of God here, hence the question was addressed to atheists and evolutionists alike in order to challenge their perception of reality.


If you actually thought that little bit of double speak would work, then clearly this isn't the intellectual debate i had hoped for. But we have had 55 pages to figure that out and still no cigar. As always, just an exercise in pride and one upping each other. Y'all need science in your lives.


That was the point of this exercise.

Will a materialistic point of view be able to answer the question?



Why don't you answer the question without leaning on assumption?



posted on Jan, 13 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

per·cep·tion
noun
the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Now you are making up your own definitions to appear right?
edit on 13-1-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
There exists the eternal. THAT is a given. If that were not a fact, we would not be here. The question is, what is the eternal? We must first realize that we are asking this question from within a material would. The answer is not here however, and that is a very big problem for most. The answer is not material, it is spiritual, and the material is a derivative of the spiritual. The answer is of course God, the eternal. Unfortunately, many material minds will view this as a make believe answer, and will try so hard to come up with an answer that fits their material perspective. Give up. There is not a material answer. The second law of thermodynamics is correct. A closed system will increase in entropy. Which completely excludes a material eternity.
edit on 14-1-2018 by craterman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   
The answer is you are all asking the wrong questions in search of a meaning that doesn't really matter. God is just another hypothetical (and unoriginal) dictator trying to use mankind like we are all one big game of monopoly. You want to be a pawn? Fine. You want to sell your fate and then try and buy back control of your fate? Cool. You want to hide behind spirituality to disguise your disappointment with existence and how you have spent it? Great. But don't for one second act like science either proves your point or, on the contrary, doesn't know anything useful or worthwhile, patronizing science because it doesn't give you the answers you think you need. Because that contradiction is overplayed and a shallow pretense for humanity's ridiculous habit of obsessing over control yet neglecting it at the same time. the scientific method has nothing to do with our selfish insecure insincere attempts to erect mankind as a key player or valued member in the cosmic scope just to soothe our crippling fear of futility. That's never been the point of science and it never will be. So answer your own question and maybe stop shaming science for being so good at its job.
edit on 14-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 07:14 AM
link   
"So answer your own question and maybe stop shaming science for being so good at its job."

Science is your god then. And that god is full of presumptions and fillers. For instance, that whisper of a background noise is 'the big bang and beginning of everything', is simply a leap of faith no less than that of any religion. The fact people hate the idea of being a monopoly piece has no bearing whatsoever on the truth (existence of God). The simple fact is, we have no idea of our origin, and that is hidden from us, either by time or God or both. Science is done by scientists, and like it or not their agenda is science and the notion of a God in that, negates much of their effort, because with a God, then things are because He wants them that way.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 07:32 AM
link   
a reply to: craterman




For instance, that whisper of a background noise is 'the big bang and beginning of everything', is simply a leap of faith no less than that of any religion.


Not faith, but mathematics and Physics.

Your eyes can deceive you, your hearing can deceive you, your sense of smell can deceive you, your perception can deceive you, but math will not.



The simple fact is, we have no idea of our origin


Based on the evidence we do have an idea or two or three or ...........



Science is done by scientists


Science can be done by just about anyone. Does that make them scientists? Maybe technically while they are doing it.
edit on 15-1-2018 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 07:13 PM
link   
The thing an atheist completely misses: A created world is and is perceived as the creator intended. Science is as the creator intended. And, needless to say, if there is a creator, He intends to remain hidden. Now this really flips the atheist out! Why would a creator do such a thing!!! TO ME???? The answer is quite simple, free will. Free while, if not confronted, can negate the reason for creation. You can deny Him (as you like). And better to show the reality of separation than to tell about it.
An atheist views the world materialistically, because that is his view. Never considering that from a spiritual world, all of his objections are negated. He will completely ignore things like, cells are made of proteins and organelle that only exist and are only made within a living cell. Or that the material world simply vanishes into a sea of probability at the quantum level (becoming completely relied upon the conscious of the observer) . Never mind these thing, and damn all who question the cosmic whisper of the big band, all the while condemning those who speak of faith.

a reply to: Grimpachi



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 07:25 PM
link   
a reply to: craterman

You are perfectly free to believe what you want. However you really are selling a belief (a gnosis) not anthing more.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: craterman




f there is a creator, He intends to remain hidden. Now this really flips the atheist out! Why would a creator do such a thing!!! TO ME???? The answer is quite simple, free will.


No reason to freak out.

If there are gods and they want to remain hidden then the simple answer is. They don't want us to base our lives off of them. If they even gave a crap about what we do or how we develop I am sure they would be very disappointed with the mumbo-jumbo fools spending their time and effort trying to get their attention.

That is a much better explanation than peekabo gods wanting to be showered with admiration and praise.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 07:41 PM
link   
"There is a scientific theory which states that if anyone were to ever figure out exactly what the universe is and how it works it will immediately disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened." ~Douglas Adams

To the original question:

The assumption that everything that has a beginning (everything that exists) has a cause (purpose) is flawed. Not every observable condition, state, or event is purpose-driven. Change for the sake of change has no purpose, yet requires an end to one state or condition and the beginning of another.

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it - does it make a sound?

Yes, if it lands on a chicken...or an egg...
edit on 15-1-2018 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: craterman

And yet, you fail to answer the question that started the thread. Funny, that.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to: craterman

How do you know that the answer is not material? How do you know that it's not caused by a cycle of membrane collisions or a big bang to big crunch scenario? How do you know our universe isn't part of a bigger system where there are numerous universes? You do realize that many of us have no problem admitting that we don't know the answer. The laws of physics don't apply prior to the big bang, so entropy is not a problem for the cyclical universe. Why can't you just admit that nobody actually knows? You BELIEVE a creator is necessary, but then you have the same exact problem of where he came from. You are forcing your personal belief as the answer, when there are dozens of possibilities (if not thousands).

As you said, something eternal must exist. Maybe it's the singularity, maybe it's something else. If an eternal super complex being can just randomly happen to always exist out of nowhere, with no cause, he's just there, then why can't that apply to the singularity that came before the big bang? I just don't understand why you think your belief is the only possible explanation? You shut out all other possibilities, just because they aren't the same as your personal belief system and what you WANT to be true.

Science is not a god. Science is a method of discovery. I'm not sure why you think science and god have to conflict. What is so wrong with waiting for science to figure something out before jumping to conclusions about god? Science is testable. We can tell the big bang happened because of the effects that still happen today. With god, we can't tell anything or even show a slight indication that it's even possible for him to exist.


Science is done by scientists, and like it or not their agenda is science and the notion of a God in that, negates much of their effort, because with a God, then things are because He wants them that way.


Yeah, a scientist's agenda is science, just like a professor's agenda is education, and a car mechanic's agenda is fixing cars. God has nothing to do with it. God doesn't negate science and science is not anti god. Even if god exists, science would be learning about god's creation. This argument makes no sense. If the universe was created, I'd expect things to just work and have no explanations for it, but we have tons of explanations, so to me it doesn't hold any more weight than materialistic explanations.


An atheist views the world materialistically, because that is his view. Never considering that from a spiritual world, all of his objections are negated.


And a theist views the world as a creation of god, because that is their view. Never considering that from a materialistic world, all his claims are illogical and unnecessary.


He will completely ignore things like, cells are made of proteins and organelle that only exist and are only made within a living cell.


Who ignores that and what does that prove?


Or that the material world simply vanishes into a sea of probability at the quantum level (becoming completely relied upon the conscious of the observer) .


Complete BS. It's not about conscious observer, it's about the electron microscope causing interference of the waves too make them take particle form. It's not the act of looking at something that does this, it's the act of being observed by the microscope. Common misconception about QM / double slit.


Never mind these thing, and damn all who question the cosmic whisper of the big band, all the while condemning those who speak of faith.


Atheists aren't the ones going around telling everything that their view is absolute truth or claiming they know as a fact that god doesn't exist. They just debunk the false presumptive claims you guys make about the existence of god because you guys are constantly shoving it down people's throats and pretending your view is the only possibility when that's far from the case. You don't get attacked merely for believing, you get attacked over false claims and your projection of your view onto others. Atheists lack belief in god because there is no testable evidence or way to know it's true. For some reason you guys don't get that.

edit on 1 15 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)







 
25
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join