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.

 

if you had proof of a god , would you actually worship it ?

page: 14
11
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2018 @ 09:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jobeycool

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Jobeycool
Why do atheist have the worst concept and dumbed down arguments about God and Faith and the Bible.......Like morality goes through their head and the screaming back and fourth with believers and atheist goes into a constant revolving door of I’m right no I’m right.....This makes the case that someone has to be telling the truth....I will pick God instead of no God..Therefore you only make the case stronger of Faith by constantly bickering over it.
A guy named Ray Comfort who approaches strangers proves we are all guilty of this.....Only way to solve it is repenting to Christ and forgiving each other.....Geeee that is what Jesus said to do.
Uuhhhmmm... atheists are not the ones with concepts about god. We are the ones who don’t believe the many, many, many, dumbed down versions that theists are constantly presenting as fact. Why would you pick a concept that has absolutely no evidence to back it up? Faith is not a reason to accept gods, but rather an excuse to accept something that has close to a 0% probability of being true. You’re whole post here is the worst bit of logic that has been put forth in this thread so far.
I believe in Jesus and you have made it clear that you do not believe InGod or any gods.......The argument is all ready over right there.
I can’t change what you believe, but i can show you why it’s not a logical position to have.

These convos aren’t really for people like you. My job is to get you to describe your position and why you hold on to it with such glaring lack of good reasons to have it. There are plenty of people reading these threads who are simply wondering what are the merits of these two sides, which side makes the most sense, and who can articulate their arguments better. You’ve already seen several posters in this thread lose interest in the convo and resort to trolling and posting music videos. If their side of this argument was rooted in logic, don’t you think they would stay with the topic and post their evidence?

Why do religions need faith to believe in them, when we know the importance of evidence for any other claim?
edit on 24-5-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-5-2018 by Woodcarver because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 24 2018 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Woodcarver

Are you sure about that Wood I thought I heard
of some evidence for dark matter?

But you know me I'm hardlly a scientist.
this is actually very interesting. I’ll try to hit all of the points which lead them to hypothesize the existence of dark matter and dark energy.

First we have to talk about the big bang and the work that leads us to believe in that theory. (You might be surprised that i don’t fully accept the BBT as it is presented)

We have very powerful satelites that we use as telescopes, you’ve probably heard of the hubble telescope, but there are others that work on various wavelengths that allow us to get images across the spectrum of visible light, all the way through the other frequencies,UV, radio, microwave, x-ray,gamma, etc etc. We have used these to get a fairly complete image of the visible universe. (The universe is actually bigger than we can see, as some of it has travelled so far away from us, that the light coming from the stars will never reach us)

Through these images, we know that all of the matter is moving away from eachother at the same rate. So, if we could take still images from the history of this process, and run them backwards like a video, you end up with all of the matter in the universe condensing into 1 single space. It basically shows us that everything physical in the universe started at 1 point, and burst outward in an (fairly) evenly distributed fashion. It would have been an explosion with more force than all of the power of the universe. For 100,000s of years it would have been so hot that no solids existed yet. Only plasma. Which is basically a state of matter between energy and solids. As it cooled down, the first things to form would have been hydrogen atoms, followed by everything else on the periodic table in chronoligical order of the wieght of those atoms.



We also used these images to conduct a survey to estimate how much matter there is in the universe, But according to these surveys, there is not nearly enough matter to account for the speeds that all of these galaxies are traveling and the amount of the force of gravity that we can observe and measure . Actually, we can only account for about 5% of the needed matter to reach the speeds and forces that we observe.

So...... they postulate that there must be more matter than we can see in these images. Although, there are some other experiments that support the idea of dark matter, (gravitational wave measurements) i suspect it will be demonstrated to be a problem with our original measurements, or a case where the universe is just much larger than we can ever account for. Or possibly another particle or field that we have not found yet.



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: midicon
a reply to: NickK3



Personally I would call any "proof" of god I could understand as invalid. Kind of like a conflict of terms, a catch-22. Like burning water or showing that black is white. To prove something there has to be a "something" to prove.


Perhaps there might be another perspective. What if God appears, not outside in the material world, but inside you. That is, that you feel God's presence and he touches you and In that touch you are filled with unconditional love and a joyous reunion.. What then? It might be enough proof for some.


Actually the reason I wrote that response was exactly what you suggest as another perspective...

What then? ... another problem with terms such as proof and questions about how one would react. That feeling you describe would (does) reside at the core of what I am. What is there to prove to who? I can't prove, discover, worship or react to being myself, what sense does that make ? And a feeling I experience doesn't "prove" anything to anyone, even me, I am what I am...

What is is, if God is "inside" me therefore "my" experience than "it" is all or at least part of me and not separate... if separate, God has to be something made of some material existing over a period of time somewhere (not likely) or it cannot be proven.

I think the bottom line is that we basically agree on the whole thing but words aren't very useful in expressing this subject matter. And the original question sort of assumes that someone could somehow "prove" the "existence" of some big far off separate "God" to someone else and they would in turn "worship" or not "worship" this "thing" that was just "proven" to them... ?!

To me that would be the same as first proving to someone that they are themselves. And then after proving to them that they are in fact themselves, we ask, would they worship themselves or not? WTF! Basically the original question deteriorates to pure nonsense...

Maybe the real question is really how would one react to "enlightenment" or "spiritual realization" ? But that's a totally different question in my opinion...



posted on May, 24 2018 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Holy crap! WTF Wood ?
An impressive post! Now I'm really
confounded at you. If that was off the top
of your head and I have no reason to believe
otherwise? What the hell are you retired or
something? How can you not see that
science is only capable of explainations
with in its captured system ie the universe?
And it hasn't come even close to full
knowledge there of. Don't you realise you
are claiming knowledge of what might be
completely outside the universe when you
claim God does not exist ? How does
the knowledge you do have not tell you, you
don't know enough to start making claims
about anything? Limited knowledge of the
universe zero knowledge of what's outside
of it doesn't add up to science making any
credible claims based on absence.

Am I so unreasonable here?


And I agree that was very interesting.



edit on Rpm52418v25201800000007 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Dark Matter? Here's an illustration:



I don't think it would be wise to suggest, that science needs to come up with a world theory before we can take it serious. You are running on the darker fumes of whataboutisms there, just saying.

Anyhow. The way out "atheists" use science in order to "debunk" other believe systems, only makes me wonder how they managed to ignore the legendary spooky action at a distance. Newton aint worth a dime when we take a closer look at quantum mechanics.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 06:49 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Anyhow. The way out "atheists" use science in order to "debunk" other believe systems, only makes me wonder how they managed to ignore the legendary spooky action at a distance. Newton aint worth a dime when we take a closer look at quantum mechanics.


Science is not a "belief system," it is a methodology. The methodology presents observations that are sometimes hard to believe, like nonlocality, or "spooky action at a distance." Nonlocality has been observed, like it or not. If your belief system is at odds with what has been observed by objective sources, that is your problem, not science's.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Yes. It's a method, not evidence for the absence of a creator. Work in progress, if you will. But there is no consistent theory of everything to argue God away with, which is how it was used in this thread. Again.


Stephen Hawking was originally a believer in the Theory of Everything but, after considering Gödel's Theorem, concluded that one was not obtainable: "Some people will be very disappointed if there is not an ultimate theory, that can be formulated as a finite number of principles. I used to belong to that camp, but I have changed my mind."

TOE - Gödel's theorem
edit on 25-5-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: PublicOpinion


Anyhow. The way out "atheists" use science in order to "debunk" other believe systems, only makes me wonder how they managed to ignore the legendary spooky action at a distance. Newton aint worth a dime when we take a closer look at quantum mechanics.


Science is not a "belief system," it is a methodology. The methodology presents observations that are sometimes hard to believe, like nonlocality, or "spooky action at a distance." Nonlocality has been observed, like it or not. If your belief system is at odds with what has been observed by objective sources, that is your problem, not science's.

So how come what Woodcarver observes or doesn't observe being at odds with other belief systems is everybody else's problem but his?
edit on 25 5 1818 by Ruiner1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Yes. It's a method, not evidence for the absence of a creator.

And who here has claimed science provides evidence for the 'absence' of a creator? No one.

What we have said is science can provide a framework to help discover, analyse, experiment with and provide repeatable tests to explain a particularly observed phenomenon.

Science doesn't 'disprove' God because it cannot disprove what is not observed; ie: proving a negative.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
So how come what Woodcarver observes or doesn't observe being at odds with other belief systems is everybody else's problem but his?

Because it IS everyone else's problem. Why is it his problem? If groupA who hold belief X are upset or annoyed with groupB who do not share belief X - why is it groupB's problem?

Unless we're talking about common sense social ideologies, like following the laws, not killing each other, etc.

Who cares if someone doesn't share your belief in a God or Gods or whomever? In western society we're allowed to disagree with each other and discuss and debate.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:40 AM
link   

edit on 25-5-2018 by ntech because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: ntech

Oh the rapture has happened? Do tell


I said prologue. But. It's going to happen within the next 2-3 years at most. Why? Because of what I know and looking at the prophesies it appears we're in the days of the tribulation of the carcass as mentioned in Matthew 24. And if I'm interpreting it right we're looking for the events that end it. Keep a watch on the middle east. Look for Iran to collapse. And the appearance of the Branch.

When the Jews start to rebuild their temple then all hell will break loose. And at that point it will only be days. Maybe even hours.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 07:54 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

It came across that way, yes.



Science doesn't 'disprove' God because it cannot disprove what is not observed; ie: proving a negative.


There are scientists, who actually claimed the opposite.



I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)


We'd have to differentiate a few things before we can have a more reasonable conversation.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:15 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

So how is it you can make any claims in
regards to the existence of anything based
on what could be a minute amount of
knowledge of the universe? And if we are
accepting Gods existence in this thread hello?
Are we to assume he would be captive to
his own creation? Negative, get the idea
now? A lack of evidence? Doesn't mean
squawt. I can't prove to you that I exist. Doesn't
mean anything.

Of course you don't have to believe any
thing. But for you to claim the spagetti
monster doesn't exist? You're just set'n
yourself up foolishly.
edit on Ram52518v22201800000053 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:16 AM
link   
I worship no god.





posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: wdkirk
I worship no god.




Hey you read the title!



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

How is that claiming the opposite?

Einstein was a pantheist, leaning towards agnostic -- which to be honest, we all are, as no living human being knows if there really is a god or not, by default making us all agnostic.

But i don't see how he (Einstein) was using science to disprove the existence of God. He didnt believe in a personal God, like how the religious do, but in something more reflective of the natural world.

At least that's my take on it



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

For the record, this is page 14. We're slowly starting to differentiate between Spinozas God and the more concerend version. Kinda late, innit?



But i don't see how he (Einstein) was using science to disprove the existence of God.


Read the quote again? He stated something entirely different, you are free to ignore the beauty and harmony of creation though.


ag·nos·tic

1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Many of us know that there is a God(ess), we just can't offer conclusive evidence in order to sway the more materialistic folks. You are the agnostic here, I'm just one of the resident gnosticist wasting time in this thread.

edit on 25-5-2018 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: wdkirk
I worship no god.




Hey you read the title!


Nope. Read the OP.

It's just a simple and easy answer.



posted on May, 25 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: wdkirk

originally posted by: randyvs

originally posted by: wdkirk
I worship no god.




Hey you read the title!




Nope. Read the OP.

It's just a simple and easy answer.


Fair enough



new topics




 
11
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join