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: 65
25
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
No one has witnessed it, and it was, what is the claim? 13 Billion years ago? The history of this world is in question let alone that of the universe.

a reply to: Phantom423



P.S. If you're so convinced and have evidence that we can't see 13 billion years ago, perhaps you should write an emergency letter to the Nobel Prize Committee and request they withdraw the 2006 Prize in Physics.




posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
No one has witnessed it, and it was, what is the claim? 13 Billion years ago? The history of this world is in question let alone that of the universe.

a reply to: Phantom423



everything is always in question. except for god. that is never in question, it seems. which is what makes it so darn questionable. you must have a question to get an answer, otherwise the answer is pointless. and if god is the answer, then what is the question?



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   
read the op but not the other 64 pages lol, so if this has been said already i apologize.

the thing is this, the incontrovertible fact in the op is only incontrovertible according to the physical laws of our universe.

anywho, before the big bang, every physical law that we presently accept as facts did not exist, even time itself, so basically anything was possible, including the creation of the universe from nothing.

so it is totally possible that god just snapped his fingers and made the universe sure, and its also impossible to disprove.
edit on 25-1-2018 by snarfbot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   
a reply to: craterman

Good for you, so have I. That is however a meme (in it's original meaning) thing not a gene thing.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 02:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: snarfbot
read the op but not the other 64 pages lol, so if this has been said already i apologize.

the thing is this, the incontrovertible fact in the op is only incontrovertible according to the physical laws of our universe.

anywho, before the big bang, every physical law that we presently accept as facts did not exist, even time itself, so basically anything was possible, including the creation of the universe from nothing.

so it is totally possible that god just snapped his fingers and made the universe sure, and its also impossible to disprove.


being "impossible to disprove" is not the same as being correct.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   
Seems like a lot question God to me. Leaves them grasping at straws. It's really sad.

a reply to: TzarChasm



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I don't think you read my post correctly.

a reply to: Phantom423



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 10:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
Seems like a lot question God to me. Leaves them grasping at straws. It's really sad.

I don't think anyone here is questioning god? They are questioning you and since you can't really answer, you are left trying to deflect.
edit on 25-1-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
Seems like a lot question God to me. Leaves them grasping at straws. It's really sad.

a reply to: TzarChasm



Maybe because god isn't really an answer, it's a deflection. And questioning deflections is pretty common practice around here. If you gave us an actual answer instead of grasping for "god straws" you wouldn't be saddened by our skeptical responses. Less focus on trying to make science look faulty and ineffective, more focus on proving theology is a superior method of study and rationalization. Because no matter what games Edmc2 wants to play, we all know what is being implied by the OP.
edit on 26-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Two things everyone should consider when contemplating God. First, if He is real, He wishes to remain hidden (for now). Two if He is real, then He created the material universe in which we currently live, and material evidence for a Creator God who wishes to remain hidden wouldn't be available. With that you are left to examine the material world for clues. Life itself is pretty convincing. It is either an unfathomable series of natural coincidences, perpetual no less, or it has a higher origin. Nearly everyone here has never seen God, but everyone here has observed nature and accidents. Over time things in nature deteriorate and accidents do not increase structure. Getting to the point where a living cell exists in nature in not even a possibility. You need thousands of proteins (correctly folded) and many cell parts that never, ever exist outside the cell. The probability of a guiding hand, IMO, is much greater than only chance.

I enjoyed the discussion gentleman (and ladies), but I will move along. May we all find the Truth.

a reply to: TzarChasm



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 08:53 AM
link   
a reply to: craterman

Oh look, more deflections. In other words, you are unable to complete the request I submitted in my previous post. That is, proving theology is a superior method of study in terms of physical phenomena and understanding the causality of reality. No hard feelings...it would have been quite the feat to outwit the scientific method without using the scientific method, or to demonstrate the infinite nature of a deity without ironically proving its finite dimensions. Such a display has yet to be recorded on these forums.
edit on 26-1-2018 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 09:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
With that you are left to examine the material world for clues. Life itself is pretty convincing. It is either an unfathomable series of natural coincidences, perpetual no less, or it has a higher origin.


It's only unfathomable to you because you don't understand it. It's a product of natural processes. You can't use something as evidence, if it can't be directly linked to a god or creation process. Using life as evidence when we have viable explanations for how it can arise naturally, makes it an assumption based completely on emotion rather than logic/science.


Nearly everyone here has never seen God, but everyone here has observed nature and accidents. Over time things in nature deteriorate and accidents do not increase structure.


Accident is a terrible description. Accident implies intention. As I said, it's a result of natural processes, the increase of structure is because the earth constantly receives new energy from the sun. You are over simplifying everything and using it to appeal to design, when you can't even show one single piece of evidence that supports creation or creator.


Getting to the point where a living cell exists in nature in not even a possibility. You need thousands of proteins (correctly folded) and many cell parts that never, ever exist outside the cell. The probability of a guiding hand, IMO, is much greater than only chance.


This argument is old and debunked. It assumes that life arose via spontaneous generation and that the modern cell is the same as the origin one. It's flawed and based on assumption that counters our natural observations. There is nothing wrong with believing in god or having faith, but to say it's impossible is a blatant lie. We know it's not impossible.

edit on 1 26 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
First, if... Two if... IMO...

Means you really don't have an answer.

There is nothing wrong with that, just learn to accept it. Might be the next task in your spiritual journey.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
I don't think you read my post correctly.

a reply to: Phantom423



Then please explain your position. Thanks



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: craterman
You have to get a cell first. How do you get a cell? Not even any protein for a cell.

a reply to: Xenogears



There are various ideas involving precursors to the cell. Random molecules in clay like substrate, cell like lipid capsules, etc.

Basically originally it is simpler molecules that can carry protein and dna like function. RNA has shown itself able to perform both protein like functions as well as dna like functions. Some have hypothesized that it was an RNA world origin, but there could potentially be even simpler molecules than rna involved in the origin.



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

At the very least we can show others the ignorance of Creationist fundies...

Perhaps people will avoid them after reading a thread like this on ATS

so thats a win



LOl. Fundies?

How nice of you. Ignorance?

BTW - what's a Fundie according to your understanding?



posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 10:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

At the very least we can show others the ignorance of Creationist fundies...

Perhaps people will avoid them after reading a thread like this on ATS

so thats a win



LOl. Fundies?

How nice of you. Ignorance?

BTW - what's a Fundie according to your understanding?



People who take the bible literally, and believe all the stories to be true and written by God


people like you





posted on Jan, 27 2018 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: TzarChasm

At the very least we can show others the ignorance of Creationist fundies...

Perhaps people will avoid them after reading a thread like this on ATS

so thats a win




LOl. Fundies?

How nice of you. Ignorance?

BTW - what's a Fundie according to your understanding?



People who take the bible literally, and believe all the stories to be true and written by God


people like you




Hahaha, that was funny. Thanks.

You seem like you're so sure about this.

If that's your answer to the question from a "fundie", sorry, but it's weak.



posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 12:07 AM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

quite ok... Im sure you still qualifiy

Lets not forget the inerrancy/infallibility dogma...

one of the top fundy qualities... one of the funniest too




posted on Jan, 28 2018 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Why do people like you presume everyone who believes in a god also believe in religion? You know what Deism means for example right?

Creation is an ongoing process, in the infinite how can it be otherwise? If energy can neither be created or destroyed as science tells us, then is it not infinite? In turn if everything in the universe is in fact made up of energy at its core, then the universe must also be infinite.

I fully understand anyone rejecting the biblical version of god. Christianity in its original form was hijacked by the powers in Rome and has largely been more about control and manipulation of people rather than any spiritual revelation. But that’s another story.

My point is many people who identify as Atheist reject religion and in turn the concept of god as if religion is the only authority on the subject. When it is not. Nobody can truly comprehend god, just as nobody can truly comprehend the infinite. Yet there we have it, the infinite is ultimately what we are dealing with when we contemplate the universe.

God and the universe are not separate in some way as some people seem to imagine, but they aren’t exactly the same thing either. Just as the physical body is not the mind.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in

join