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.

 

Creator god or intelligent design, the facts that inform the theory?

page: 13
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver


Your feelings are brain patterns. As well as your thoughts.


Patterns created by who/what?!
Your brain.


How was my brain created? Who or what created it?
Your mom and dad created it when you were concieved by them. This is easily demonstrated.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?




posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

I thought you had left the party but you're back?
Got any evidence to support claims of creator gods?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yes, of course we have limitations. Right now even cosmological technology may be at its limit because we can't see beyond the speed of light, or the horizon of our universe. But technology has enabled us to "see" things we never thought possible. I'm a bench scientist. I don't rule out anything. But I like hard evidence, data that you can interpret whether it's right or wrong. Proofs and facts in science are always open-ended. There are no absolutes. What we regard today as fact can be disproven tomorrow given the right evidence. This happens all the time.




So god and metaphysics are even harder. I do understand your point. But humans need to observe and experience things to constitute them into their reality. The meaning of that alone is profound.


Humans don't experience a god except in their minds. There's no reality to a god simply because there's no evidence. But people believe in a lot of things that have no material reality. And that's fine. But it shouldn't be confused with how the scientific method works. The SM works because it demands a sequence of logical steps, each of which validates the prior step. The purpose is to find the best result given the evidence.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver


Your feelings are brain patterns. As well as your thoughts.


Patterns created by who/what?!
Your brain.


How was my brain created? Who or what created it?
Your mom and dad created it when you were concieved by them. This is easily demonstrated.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?


Who created my mom and dad? Who created the first person that brought them into existence and how did that come to be?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

The only proof that exists has to be perceived by the mind. When we find one tiny piece of reality the human ego says "this is it" we found it. Then 70 years later they realize well it doesn't apply to the quantum world or to xy or z.

A bee sees reality as ultraviolet and magnetic field reality. We are bound by our faculties as well.

We can't really prove in a lab what happened before the big bang even if we can reproduce it. We still wouldn't be sure yes this happened.

Cosmology is a hard subject to just say yes this is the only outcome that could be.

So god and metaphysics are even harder. I do understand your point. But humans need to observe and experience things to constitute them into their reality. The meaning of that alone is profound.
It is pretty well understood that when we make a new discovery, that it is never the end conclusion, and that as we develope new ways of observing our surroundings that we will always come to new and better understandings. The only people i see stating otherwise are people who are far to willing to dismiss science in leau of ancient books and mythology.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Nobody including physicists have cosmological evidence of original origin.
Agreed.


Nobody has evidence their wife lives them.
I have plenty of evidence supporting claims that people love me, their actions, behaviour towards me, decisions they make which may influence my life etc.
That belief in love from human friends and family is based on experience, which is more than can be said for any gods lol.


Again this isn't true. Some people feel they feel God for various reasons.

Your friends and family can also be explained as mutually beneficial, social contract, or in the case of sociopaths totally manipulative....

Some people take dmt and experience things..

Again there is no proof one way or the other.

Unless you say pray heals or something and then it doesn't. Or I can walk on water and I can't.
When a person claims they can feel god’s love, they must first demonstrate that god exists. And therefore even able to feel.

I can convince you that someone’s wife exists pretty easily, and then by evaluating her actions and her own claims, one can be reasonably convinced that she loves him or not.

We could also hook her up to a brain imaging device and have hard evidence of whether her brain patterns support he claims of love.


Brain patterns don't prove love, they prove either hormone release or parts of the brain that respond to a stimulus. For instance you can hook up an actor playing a character and find the same brain patterns.


A person is in no way required to prove anything to anyone. That is your ego speaking.

The problem here is most people have never thought deeply about any of the meaningsame of observation or how they are altered by the mind and by the senses. Nouema and phenomenon as kant would say.

The ultimate skeptic Hume presents how can you prove anything exists.

Hawkin's last paper was on a 2 d universe. If this is true the whole of our perception is entirely wrong. If we live in a simulation again we are not understanding a epistemological nature.

I am not a true believer. But I find great fault in these simple discussions and thoughts people try to use to dismantle deeper subjects.
Your feelings are brain patterns. As well as your thoughts.


You can't prove that. You can only prove what happens to our biological functions when people are asked questions.
I can demonstrate that all of your functions are biological. Can you demonstrate anything otherwise?


I can show that you can manipulate data and that interpretation of data is biased I can also show that it's impossible to know what you are saying is absolutely true.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

You're entitled to your belief system. But without evidence, the possibilities remain infinite including an alien simulating our universe on a computer.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

The only proof that exists has to be perceived by the mind. When we find one tiny piece of reality the human ego says "this is it" we found it. Then 70 years later they realize well it doesn't apply to the quantum world or to xy or z.

A bee sees reality as ultraviolet and magnetic field reality. We are bound by our faculties as well.

We can't really prove in a lab what happened before the big bang even if we can reproduce it. We still wouldn't be sure yes this happened.

Cosmology is a hard subject to just say yes this is the only outcome that could be.

So god and metaphysics are even harder. I do understand your point. But humans need to observe and experience things to constitute them into their reality. The meaning of that alone is profound.
It is pretty well understood that when we make a new discovery, that it is never the end conclusion, and that as we develope new ways of observing our surroundings that we will always come to new and better understandings. The only people i see stating otherwise are people who are far to willing to dismiss science in leau of ancient books and mythology.


It's not well understood as this thread shows. And I never once claimed anything about a book.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

There's no evidence to support claims that a god did, only speculation and philosophical argument.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


It is pretty well understood that when we make a new discovery, that it is never the end conclusion, and that as we develope new ways of observing our surroundings that we will always come to new and better understandings. The only people i see stating otherwise are people who are far to willing to dismiss science in leau of ancient books and mythology.


I think you have that backwards. While science may come to new and better understandings as to how things work, it will never be able to explain how it was created or came to be. Why do you dismiss the Bible in helping to explain these things? Why is it so unreasonable to believe that man was created from the dust of the earth, just like the Bible says?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver


Your feelings are brain patterns. As well as your thoughts.


Patterns created by who/what?!
Your brain.


How was my brain created? Who or what created it?
Your mom and dad created it when you were concieved by them. This is easily demonstrated.

Can you demonstrate otherwise?


Who created my mom and dad? Who created the first person that brought them into existence and how did that come to be?
Your grand parents. Are you asking me where life came from? Just because science has an incomplete picture of how the world works does not give room for you to insert other things that are not supported by any evidence, and there is no reason to believe that it is anything other than natural chemistry that put everything in motion.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

It is silly due to the lack of evidence supporting claims of gods.
Old book lmao, is that all you've got?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Deetermined

You're entitled to your belief system. But without evidence, the possibilities remain infinite including an alien simulating our universe on a computer.


Once again, I'll point out that neither man or science is sophisticated enough to make heads or tails out of the evidence that's already been provided them.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Sure bit your understanding is still biased based on your senses and the anthropology principle even with new equipment. How you perceive the results is based on this.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

So what evidence do you have oh enlightened one?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Not really. The data is the data is the data. If I misinterpret the data, reviewers will pick that up. That's why we have a review process. I may have an opinion which would be included in the Discussion part of a research paper, but the data is the story, not necessarily my opinion.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Woodcarver


It is pretty well understood that when we make a new discovery, that it is never the end conclusion, and that as we develope new ways of observing our surroundings that we will always come to new and better understandings. The only people i see stating otherwise are people who are far to willing to dismiss science in leau of ancient books and mythology.


I think you have that backwards. While science may come to new and better understandings as to how things work, it will never be able to explain how it was created or came to be. Why do you dismiss the Bible in helping to explain these things? Why is it so unreasonable to believe that man was created from the dust of the earth, just like the Bible says?
I do believe that life formed through natural chemical reactions. I just don’t insert a divine being as the cause of that process. I see natural chemical reactions all around. That is easily demonstrated.

The bible is a collection of stories from many different cultures. All of which are heavily embellished and sprinkled with magic here and there. I have no doubt that the people who wrote those stories may have believed them in some way or another, but with our modern understanding of natural forces, it is impossible to accept that the book is anything other than fiction. If they got close with a few of their descriptions, i commend them, but that is not enough for me to accept everything written in it wholesale.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

What evidence would that be? If no one understands it, then it's not evidence. It's only speculation.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


and there is no reason to believe that it is anything other than natural chemistry that put everything in motion.


Explain why you believe that natural chemistry put human life into play, on it's own.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Deetermined

What evidence would that be? If no one understands it, then it's not evidence. It's only speculation.


Thank you for admitting that science does not understand how humans or the universe were created and that it's all speculation.




top topics



 
14
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join