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: 15
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

If you can create it in a lab, you can safely safe that the method is at least one of the ways it could have been created originally. This has been done thousands of times with thousands of different subjects including DNA:

phys.org...

www.independent.co.uk...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

You don't know science much less how it works. But you're confident in making statements that have no validity. This is a persistent problem with people who claim that we know nothing about how anything was made. Sheer stupidity and ignorance.


edit on 26-5-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 26 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423


If you can create it in a lab, you can safely safe that the method is at least one of the ways it could have been created originally. This has been done thousands of times with thousands of different subjects including DNA:


No, they are using methods that modify and alter existing material to create something new. It's not really from "scratch" even though they are trying to claim that.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Then you do not understand what a theory is. Scientific theories are a collection of processes that have been sufficiently demonstrated.


Demonstrated to what extent? Theories change all of the time.
They get more complete, but the things that are demonstrated do not change.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: Phantom423


If you can create it in a lab, you can safely safe that the method is at least one of the ways it could have been created originally. This has been done thousands of times with thousands of different subjects including DNA:


No, they are using methods that modify and alter existing material to create something new. It's not really from "scratch" even though they are trying to claim that.


Which fields of scientific study do you hold degrees in?



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: BlackProject

So you have no verifiable evidence to support claims of creator gods then?
Just pure speculation and blind faith lol


I have found throughout life there is those that have common sense and are rational. These kinds of people have no faith, generally are atheists (which is not a faith, it does not believe in anything. Therefore, it should not be deemed a faith or belief system) Yet religious people love to put them in the same space as themselves.

There is enough scientific evidence to explain the majority of lifes magical events. The last 5% or less is the unknown and may take 5 years or 1,000 years to finally find the answer to explain that last percentage. Point is, we will eventually have the answer and this will be a funny time to reflect on. "remember those religious folk who just used the old, if you cant answer right now, then you have no proof so ill stick with a paperback book that some other human wrote and believe that".

Most minds of today are still too locked away to advance our civilisation, that is sad to see.
edit on 26-5-2018 by BlackProject because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Everything from the base nucleic acids to the structure itself can be reproduced in the lab. Life is no miracle. Probably happened thousands of times over. Doing it in the lab is not a big deal.
Fragments are only used for convenience. But everything is totally reproducible in the lab.
edit on 26-5-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: chr0naut

Nice post. I've asked this question before and have not gotten an answer: What if the "god" turns out to be an alien in another universe modeling his theories on a computer - like a video game? Your belief in a god is grounded in the Judeo/Christian concept where good and evil are defined by the god. The god expects you to worship him/her/it and pay homage your entire life so that at the end of your days you return to the god (I guess in Heaven). Alternatively, if you're a bad person, you go to Hell. These are human constructs. The reality might be frighteningly different.

Godel's ontological proof is far from mathematically rigorous. His proof is a set of five axioms which lead to a conclusion. That conclusion may be completely wrong. Why? Because just like the theoretical physicist, the proof of the pudding is in the hard evidence. There is no hard evidence for a god. It's fine to believe in one but it's incorrect to say that it has been proven. Proven in someone's mind perhaps, but not in the laboratory.


Your definition of the Judeo/Christian theology is different than mine.

The universe seems to me to have a direction that favours development of higher and more diverse forms. It is a characteristic that must be intentional in the design of the universe, as there are also contradictory forces at play (such as thermodynamic entropy). The process of maturation requires that such negative aspects be overcome, it is a common theme in Christian scripture.

As such, I see a potential for the development of consciousness far beyond where we find ourselves today.

I posit that what is 'good' are attitudes and actions that are neccessary in that process of that development. What is 'bad' are road blocks to that goal. The rules are not arbitrarily defined by that God, but serve a purpose.

Consider the sin of pride. It is described as the cardinal sin.

Surely pride has evolutionary advantage, motivating us to achieve. Pride also is largely victimless.

But, if the descriptions of our future state in heaven, where the Christian representatives of humanity become a single identity, "the bride of Christ", that is a united consciousness. Mind intertwined with mind, directly.

Pride, combined with guilt, becomes divisive and a strong motivator to remain cut off and individual.

Hell (arguably having stronger Hellenistic roots Judaists ones) could very well be a consequence of that choice.

Consider that if our future bodies are eternal and perfected, what happens if the random firings of nervature are not damped and not kept below conscious sensation? Couldn't we 'burn' eternally in sensory overload? Perhaps participation in the connected consiousness is required to allow us to control our minds, turning on the pleasure centers and turning off pain?

Consider the hells we create in ourseves as a consequence of trying to control our own pleasure centers as individuals (drug addictions and consequences of indulgence of all forms). Perhaps we need a linked mind to allow adequate feedbak to operate?

As to an alien experimenter, I suspect that is a point of definition. Surely God is alien to us already. But I cannot see aneed for experimentation if God can forsee the outcome. Surely, what God is doing are the processes of creation and development? A malign childish god is not what I see expressed in the universe.

We are part of a process bigger than we can imagine and that has goals loftier than our minds can fully comprehend. There are hints of heaven and grace everywhere for those who look.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: chr0naut

Nice to see my favorite Christian philosopher scientist enter the debate. Someday I would love to debate you on the other side. But it seems I am always trying to explain the actual arguments that philosopher Christians make. Then people assume I am arguing my point.

I say I hope to debate you someday just so people can see it isn't about ahuh nuhuh yeah uh nohuh....

It's about actually listening to the argument of your opponent understanding it and rebuttals from understanding. Not I gotcha.


I really think that Christianity has a strong history of philosopher scientists. We are a part of a continuum of scientific and philosophical inquiry.

... but thank you, I take it as quite a compliment.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 12:56 PM
link   

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.


Are they only that?

In the spirit of this topic thread, please present evidence that disproves all alternates.



(just kidding)



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Deetermined

I'm not busted at all, I'm asking for verifiable evidence to support god claims. Do you have any?


A door is solid right? Or is that your limited perception? Because a door is a lot of empty space and probability patterns.

What does that mean?
I think we all understand that the world of matter is made of electromagnetic fields. So when someone says that a door is solid, it is understood that it is solid compared to the air around it.

That is the definition of solid. You cannot pass through it. Although we know that on a molecular scale, things appear differently. It does not change the definition of the word solid.


There are atomic forces and quantum probability fields too. When you go down really small, the physicality of matter becomes really indistinct.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Deetermined

Everything from the base nucleic acids to the structure itself can be reproduced in the lab. Life is no miracle. Probably happened thousands of times over. Doing it in the lab is not a big deal.
Fragments are only used for convenience. But everything is totally reproducible in the lab.


It happens in nature, a lab is not required for life processes. It also doesn't require scientists (if it did, there wouldn't be any).



... and true believer evolutionists such as Dick Dawkins would take umbrage at you saying that life began thousands of times over.




posted on May, 26 2018 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut




The universe seems to me to have a direction that favours development of higher and more diverse forms. It is a characteristic that must be intentional in the design of the universe, as there are also contradictory forces at play (such as thermodynamic entropy). The process of maturation requires that such negative aspects be overcome, it is a common theme in Christian scripture.


I understand your position and appreciate your logic. But why couldn't building up and breaking down just be the consequence of a thermodynamic process? At one time people thought that because life is a building process and appears to be unique that it somehow was evidence for a god. But it turns out that the building process of the human body is balanced by the heat given off during that process. It's called the Gibbs Free Energy. Except for the numbers, it's the same process as a combustion engine - energy is built up in the form of oil. The oil burns releasing energy. The body is built over a period of time. During its lifetime it gives off heat balancing the building process. When the body dies, the energy dissipates, maybe recombining in another form.




As to an alien experimenter, I suspect that is a point of definition. Surely God is alien to us already. But I cannot see aneed for experimentation if God can forsee the outcome. Surely, what God is doing are the processes of creation and development? A malign childish god is not what I see expressed in the universe.


I used the alien as an exotic example of what could be. There may be something. Then again there may be nothing. We don't know. We can never see beyond the horizon of our universe so if there's something out there we can never know it. If the something out there decided to enter into our universe, it would upset every physical law we know of because it would add information into a universe where we think the amount of matter/information has already been fixed. The universe expands but doesn't add mass (as far as I know anyway).



We are part of a process bigger than we can imagine and that has goals loftier than our minds can fully comprehend. There are hints of heaven and grace everywhere for those who look.


I agree to the extent that the quantum world is extremely difficult to swallow at times. That says we've only scratched the surface of what we need to learn to understand this universe. But I think our minds are quite capable of solving problems and mysteries. We do it every day. A thousand years from now our brains/minds will probably be quite different than they are today. Humans will continue to evolve in the same direction that we started out - just like the scene of the prehuman at the beginning of the movie 2001 A Space Odyssey. We never stop discovering.
edit on 26-5-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Joecanada11
a reply to: Deetermined

The bible cannot be trusted. It is full of illogical advice and false stories.


I tried using a textbook on evolutionary biology.

All the recipies tasted awful!




posted on May, 26 2018 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
Likewise, this entire thread has contributed nothing and I'm happy chuckling to myself too! LOL!

NOT ONE PERSON WAS ABLE TO USE SCIENCE TO EXPLAIN HOW ANYTHING WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED! WELL DONE! LOL!


This thread asked a question, no assertions were made in the OP, so there was no requirement for 'science' to explain anything. The onus was, and is, on you god squad lot to provide facts supporting your claims of gods.
...and lmfao, none of you could do that.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes it happens in nature. The argument is that it CANNOT happen in a lab. And yet it does. A mouse hasn't jumped out of a test tube (yet), but all the components are there to play with.

Dawkins is an idiot. He hasn't produced a decent piece of research in years. He's obsessed with arguing god vs no god which isn't an argument.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I would suggest that Jesus is an answer to your question. No other human did the things He did, claimed the things He did, or fulfilled the over 300 prophecies He fulfilled. Look no further. The odds against anyone fulfilling even ten prophecies from the Old Test. Are staggering.
Some of these include but are not limited to where He gonna be born, how He would be killed, where He would be buried, His guards would cast lots for his garments. But no one has ever predicted that they would suffer and be crucified, only to rise from the dead and be seen by over 500 people. He also predicted that He would rise after being entombed for three days, guarded by Roman soldiers to keep His body from being stolen.
If His fulfilled prophecies and sinless life were not enough, the moral impact of His life has changed and continues to change the hearts if men and women to this day. He represents the Holiness of the Father who sent Him and stands alone as a person of impeccable character, and sinless life.

Th countless lives that have been changed over the past two thousand years because of a personal relationship with Jesus, is a testimony to the power of His indwelling Spirit.

Unlike faith in the theory of everything from nothing, evolution, Christians have the person, life, death and Resurrection of Christ
As clear proof of what to trust.

Of course the uniqueness of the scriptures is an entirely diff reason to believe in an all powerfull creator, but it'd enough to say that it is God's love letter to His children.

For His Glory....



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Duffer47

Aside from an old book translated multiple times, there is no evidence that Jesus even existed.
Try again, come back to me when you have some verifiable evidence, because right now all you have is blind faith, blind faith in an old book lol.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Duffer47

Aside from an old book translated multiple times, there is no evidence that Jesus even existed.
Try again, come back to me when you have some verifiable evidence, because right now all you have is blind faith, blind faith in an old book lol.


There is significant historical and subsequent evidence that Jesus existed. Probably more than that Julius Caesar existed.

There are attestations by contemporary historians, refutations from contemporaries opposed to Jesus and his followers and the majority of the events and personnages recounted in the Gospels are historically verifiable.

There are libraries and museums displaying manuscripts and text fragments that were produced within 100 years of Jesus death and that attest to His existence (estimates are that there are 65,000 such texts and fragments, but that may be from later).

Not only that but there are hundreds of millions of people who can attest to the existence of Jesus from personal experience of His Holy Spirit.

You have previously denied reasoned conclusions from observation and mathematics as not being proof.

The issue is not one of insufficient evidence but, of either your ignorance, or denial, of it.

edit on 26/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol you have nothing but faith.
No old books can be verified as factual, and you know it.



posted on May, 26 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Please answer this question....

Someday in the future somebody is going to ask me, how in the world could people actually believe that everything just happened by random chance cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolution with no intelligent design.

What will I tell them?




top topics



 
14
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join