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: 24
14
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2018 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined


It's not my place to prove anything.

You realise you’re in a thread asking for evidence of a sky fairy, right?


The Bible says...

A book of stories and contradictions? That’s the best you’ve got?

I think I’ll have more luck waiting for Harry Potter or the Easter bunny to show up.
edit on 2852018 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 28 2018 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

You see all those words?

Prove it.


Regardless if you believe history or not, your type has been persistent throughout history. Asking for a sign... as if God is your doG. Science is your god and it changes its mind quite often, but the True Archetype of the Living One is Forever.




Back when processed grains were the base of the suggested human diet^



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:58 AM
link   
premise 1.
Terraforming. The act of modifying the geological and atmospheric properties of a planet to sustain life.

premise 2.
Genetic Engineering. Jurassic Park scenario - life forms resemble each other because the team of genetic engineers use the same anatomy packages

premise 3.
Holographic Universe - Planck lengths represent an absolute resolution of the universe. Evidence of a multiverse where this universe is just one of many simulations. Origin of universe complexity may depend on collapse, death, or universal mitosis. The potential existence of other universes with laws of physics different from our own at some multiversal level of interface implies a high level Kardeshev civilization may be programming or constructing other universes, or conceptual structures beyond our reckoning on the scale of, but not identical to universes.

premise 4.
the existence of programming as a model for simulation - analogous to the genetic engineering model, this follows the virtual reality simulation theory that an intelligent programmer using a form of processing machinery at speeds and information density outside our realm of comprehension. The existence of puzzle boxes with permutations exceeding the necessary information to simulate all matter and motion in the universe hints at some higher order complexity. The petaminx puzzlebox for example, has 3.16x10^996 combinations. This is greater than the binary progression of all possible states of all points in space in planck time from the beginning to the end.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Incandescent

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Yes. If those characters are sufficiently complex enough to understand such concepts.


Please do explain how these game characters - no matter their level of intelligence - could prove to other characters in the game that a programmer created them and their world. What would suffice as evidence?
probably several ways to identify a creator.

1) the creator makes themselves known. This would be the easiest process of course.

2) the characters identify the code used, and are able to use that code to rewrite reality in ways that would otherwise be impossible. (Breaking the physics of the game.

I’ll try to think of some more. That was a pretty fun exercise.


you have sufficiently summarized the christian and the transhumanist models of God-evidence criteria.

Either we have to become Godlike ourselves or the Godlike has to reveal themselves and intervene. Both models are plausible and even compatible. The First is impossible for the video game characters to empirically force. The omnipotent programmer cannot be compelled by any leverage other than petition and beginning to intervene - this would, ironically, fit the model of faith, worship, hope, and praying, which may be programmed private message chat formats intended to appeal to the intervention of the programmer.

Meanwhile, although programmed characters have absolutely no recourse but begging to trigger intervention, the apotheosis through analysis of the program, and subsequently, hacking the reality is an insurmountable feat, a godlike feat, that, in achieving, proves the existence of God even if the only God produced is the character that manages to hack its own reality. The basis of all magical theory and paranormal rests on a secondary or substratum reality other than the laws of physics and the scientific study of the universe - the capacities of this entity would appear as para-normal because they would not be operating under the same algorithms. Many models of fictional magic fall in this domain of hypothesis - that there is a kind of physics and laws other than taught in STEM courses, and the magician is nothing more than an engineer aware of rules others are not. This is not too far from Clarke's proposition that sufficiently advanced technology is magic, though it takes the extra step, and separates two rule systems, those governing the virtual space of the video game character, being "the laws of physics", then the higher technology and rules governing the simulation itself and perhaps the reality of the programmer.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Blah blah blah.

Got any evidence for your sky daddy creator?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 05:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: WarriorMH

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: WarriorMH
The elephant remains in the room no matter how many people stick their heads in the sand and embrace agnosticism or Pontius Pilate's way of thinking when he insincerely asked Jesus "What is truth?", demonstrating his disdainful attitude towards truth. An attitude that has been adopted by many nowadays, especially politicians and philosophers who like to be called scientists; who share a lot of other things in common as well.


Everything is subjective, this is your opinion only, ...

I do not share your subjective opinion that "everything is subjective". "Subjective" in the google dictionary is defined as:

1. based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Whether or not the earth revolves around the sun is not based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. It happens regardless of those (so that's not subjective, i.e. not everything is subjective, facts/realities/certainties are not subjective). Likewise, the force of gravity (described by the law of gravity) which governs that orbit, operates independently from my personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Now it's true that many people have lots of opinions about lots of things, but pointing this fact/certainty/truth/reality out doesn't make that fact/certainty any less true/factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error either. I hope these examples will demonstrate to you that it's not a fact/certainty that "everything is subjective", even though you stated it as such, that it was a fact/certainty or that it was factual/certain/true that "everything is subjective" because you used the word "is" (if that flies by you, try googling "is dictionary"; as soon as you claim that something is the case, you don't have to spell out anymore that what you're presenting is supposedly factual/certain/absolute/correct, without error/true according to you because that is implied with the way you've presented it, without any caveats; this issue also shows there's someting wrong with your claim. You're going to have to make up your mind whether or not it's true/factual/certain/absolute that "everything is subjective", cause one of those 2 doesn't work with that claim, and that's the one you're using by saying it "is" that way and not phrasing it as being your subjective opinion since you claim that everything is subjective).

The "everything is subjective" slogan and all its variations (Pilate's cynical "What is truth?" question as if 'everyone makes their own truth', the latter being the more modern phrase of that way of thinking) is a way of thinking that has been promoted throughout human society (or this system of things) for thousands of years. It has especially gained in popularity since the last 2 centuries, especially being promoted as being more openminded if one adopts it (or a more modern way of thinking). It is everything but that. I recognize it as something being indoctrinated into a portion of the masses by what the bible refers to as "this system of things" and people on ATS or on conspiracy websites sometimes call "the Matrix". So this is my attempt at a 'heads up' to you. Seeing that it's my experience that people who have fallen for this way of thinking (a form of agnosticism, I sometimes call it general agnosticism when someone talks about "everything" and not just a specific subject such as God's existence) are on average quite closedminded and stubborn about this subjective opinion (influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions; pardon the redundancy) that in turn has slowly developed by an endless stream of endorsement messages from this system of things (various media in particular, entertainment), I'll leave it at that. Cause I know the other way of thinking is usually painted as a negative character trait in this system of things. Except on this rare occasion (where it's the other way around, but the link between the phrase "the world is grey, Jack" and your "everything is subjective"-phrase might not be obvious enough for most people who have fallen for the philosophy and promotion of vagueness that people use to obscure the truths/facts of a matter and then give it their own spin as if it's just as valid a view of the matter as the person who is not afraid to acknowledge what is true/right/correct, without error and what is false/wrong/incorrect or someone who is not afraid to determin the difference between facts/truths and falsehoods/lies or myths/false stories and to acknowledge which is which once figured out in the proper manner):

The google dictionary defines "acknowledge" as:

1. accept or admit the existence or truth of.

Are you capable of acknowledging the most basic or simple to understand facts/realities/certainties/truths around you?

Cogito, ergo sum; I think, therefore I am. - René Descartes (in my opinion an unreliable untrustworthy philosopher, but that phrase makes sense to me, but I also see the downside slogan-like attributes of it that could allow various people to interpret the phrase whichever way tickles their ears best)

edit on 28-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Hey. Have you got any evidence of a creator, or are you just here to spew your religious propaganda based solely around a single word?

Thought so.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I hate this place
edit on 5/28/2018 by DictionaryOfExcuses because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

You shouldn’t do things that you hate.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
I hate this place


If you hate this one, you should go look at the other thread asking the same about evolution

I love the double standards creationists invoke to desperately defend an ancient belief system. This thread highlights them perfectly.

When creationists ask for evidence of evolution:

The evidence is provided and then is either ignored completely or excuses are made to not read it or falsely claim it doesn't count and to change the subject away from the evidence. It happens like clockwork here.

When skeptics ask for evidence of god / religion:

Evidence is not provided, merely subjective mythology quotes and presumptive assumptions. The claim that "the evidence is everywhere" despite it not being anywhere and being unable to give a specific example, and a myriad of other fallacious arguments are used, but not a single thing based on testable evidence or that can actually be verified in any way whatsoever.

So one side provides peer reviewed testable evidence and it's instantly dismissed over fairy tales. The other side provides zilch and won't even admit the faith is faith. This is what happens when we allow the psychological abuse of our young children by religionists. It closes off their minds to anything outside of their predefined box. They can't leave their comfort zone to critically think about anything because they are trapped in a prison of delusion.


edit on 5 28 18 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: cooperton

Blah blah blah.

Got any evidence for your sky daddy creator?


I am and so are you.

My body, and yours, is the greatest creative vessel on earth. Ideal for creating to the limits of our imagination. Look at your hands, your high degree of encephalization, your uprightednesss, all being signs we are the embodiment, or child, of the Creator.

Our imagination is so infinite we can even convince ourselves we are meaningless mutants, and then have the zeal to force these ideas on others and scorn those who disagree, despite the empirical observations of quantum physics that totally debunk any material reductionist theory on origins.
edit on 28-5-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

More words and opinion, but no evidence of a sky fairy.

Come on creationists! Give us your evidence of your sky daddy!
edit on 2852018 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Hilarious, 24 pages in and still nothing from the creationists aside from speculation, philosophical argument, and faith.

Hell of a lot more evidence to support the theory of evolution than 'God did it' lol, but I keep an open mind so if any creationists have something new to show the class, please do.
...I won't hold my breath though.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deetermined
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's not my place to prove anything. The Bible says that God reveals himself to those he chooses. When or if he wants to reveal himself to you, He will.
If I was going to make up a fake religion, one so absurd that I knew a lot of people wouldn’t believe it, I would definitely include that line somewhere within the scripture.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver

Haha yes!!
It's a good one isn't it, like a get out of jail card in monopoly, lol I'd definitely have something like that in my cult's scriptures.
Same as well I'd get 'em young, like at school or even pre-school, easy to shape young minds.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
I hate this place


If you hate this one, you should go look at the other thread asking the same about evolution

I love the double standards creationists invoke to desperately defend an ancient belief system. This thread highlights them perfectly.

When creationists ask for evidence of evolution:

The evidence is provided and then is either ignored completely or excuses are made to not read it or falsely claim it doesn't count and to change the subject away from the evidence. It happens like clockwork here.

When skeptics ask for evidence of god / religion:

Evidence is not provided, merely subjective mythology quotes and presumptive assumptions. The claim that "the evidence is everywhere" despite it not being anywhere and being unable to give a specific example, and a myriad of other fallacious arguments are used, but not a single thing based on testable evidence or that can actually be verified in any way whatsoever.

So one side provides peer reviewed testable evidence and it's instantly dismissed over fairy tales. The other side provides zilch and won't even admit the faith is faith. This is what happens when we allow the psychological abuse of our young children by religionists. It closes off their minds to anything outside of their predefined box. They can't leave their comfort zone to critically think about anything because they are trapped in a prison of delusion.


I could point out that there is no end-to-end evidence for the entire process of evolution as formulated in the MES and demand that you present that, before I will accept it, but if that were the case it would be particularly stupid of me, wouldn't it?

You exist in a universe of existence, are asking big questions about existence and the evidence is all around you. What more could be offered?

Even if there was a flashing neon sign brighter than 100 suns, you'd probably still ask for evidence.

The evidence is there and it is voluminous at a universal scale.

Science, on the other hand, has no evidence for the ultimate origins of everything. Consider the old "stuff from quantum fluctuation" BS. Try and derive a non-zero answer from Schrödinger's equation with inputs of zero. You can't. To further extend the 'quantum fluctuation' bit to say it produced a singularity (ignoring Pauli exclusion) is just so unphysical and unscientific I'm surprised that so few people point out how stupid and mythological it is.

If I'm wrong, show me the evidence. I'm pretty sure you have none, you just have convinced yourself that a 'sciency' sounding mythology is acceptable as evidence but other hard objective and rational evidence isn't.

There is a saying about the elephant in the room...

edit on 28/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 03:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
I hate this place


If you hate this one, you should go look at the other thread asking the same about evolution

I love the double standards creationists invoke to desperately defend an ancient belief system. This thread highlights them perfectly.

When creationists ask for evidence of evolution:

The evidence is provided and then is either ignored completely or excuses are made to not read it or falsely claim it doesn't count and to change the subject away from the evidence. It happens like clockwork here.

When skeptics ask for evidence of god / religion:

Evidence is not provided, merely subjective mythology quotes and presumptive assumptions. The claim that "the evidence is everywhere" despite it not being anywhere and being unable to give a specific example, and a myriad of other fallacious arguments are used, but not a single thing based on testable evidence or that can actually be verified in any way whatsoever.

So one side provides peer reviewed testable evidence and it's instantly dismissed over fairy tales. The other side provides zilch and won't even admit the faith is faith. This is what happens when we allow the psychological abuse of our young children by religionists. It closes off their minds to anything outside of their predefined box. They can't leave their comfort zone to critically think about anything because they are trapped in a prison of delusion.


I could point out that there is no end-to-end evidence for the entire process of evolution as formulated in the MES and demand that you present that, before I will accept it, but if that were the case it would be particularly stupid of me, wouldn't it?

You exist in a universe of existence, are asking big questions about existence and the evidence is all around you. What more could be offered?

Even if there was a flashing neon sign brighter than 100 suns, you'd probably still ask for evidence.

The evidence is there and it is voluminous at a universal scale.

Science, on the other hand, has no evidence for the ultimate origins of everything. Consider the old "stuff from quantum fluctuation" BS. Try and derive a non-zero answer from Schrödinger's equation with inputs of zero. You can't. To further extend the 'quantum fluctuation' bit to say it produced a singularity (ignoring Pauli exclusion) is just so unphysical and unscientific I'm surprised that so few people point out how stupid and mythological it is.

If I'm wrong, show me the evidence. I'm pretty sure you have none, you just have convinced yourself that a 'sciency' sounding mythology is acceptable as evidence but other hard objective and rational evidence isn't.

There is a saying about the elephant in the room...

LMAO!
You have no verifiable evidence, just speculation and philosophical argument.
It's hilarious, the OP is asking for your evidence, start yourown thread if you have your own questions fella.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: TerryDon79

Hilarious, 24 pages in and still nothing from the creationists aside from speculation, philosophical argument, and faith.

Hell of a lot more evidence to support the theory of evolution than 'God did it' lol, but I keep an open mind so if any creationists have something new to show the class, please do.
...I won't hold my breath though.


Evidence for evolution does not negate the possibility that God did it.

Your reasoning along those lines is faulty.

Your insistence on the supremacy of the flawed and incomplete knowledge of science is intellectual suicide.

... and don't hold your breath. It cuts off oxygen to the brain and impedes cognition.



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 04:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: DictionaryOfExcuses
I hate this place


If you hate this one, you should go look at the other thread asking the same about evolution

I love the double standards creationists invoke to desperately defend an ancient belief system. This thread highlights them perfectly.

When creationists ask for evidence of evolution:

The evidence is provided and then is either ignored completely or excuses are made to not read it or falsely claim it doesn't count and to change the subject away from the evidence. It happens like clockwork here.

When skeptics ask for evidence of god / religion:

Evidence is not provided, merely subjective mythology quotes and presumptive assumptions. The claim that "the evidence is everywhere" despite it not being anywhere and being unable to give a specific example, and a myriad of other fallacious arguments are used, but not a single thing based on testable evidence or that can actually be verified in any way whatsoever.

So one side provides peer reviewed testable evidence and it's instantly dismissed over fairy tales. The other side provides zilch and won't even admit the faith is faith. This is what happens when we allow the psychological abuse of our young children by religionists. It closes off their minds to anything outside of their predefined box. They can't leave their comfort zone to critically think about anything because they are trapped in a prison of delusion.


I could point out that there is no end-to-end evidence for the entire process of evolution as formulated in the MES and demand that you present that, before I will accept it, but if that were the case it would be particularly stupid of me, wouldn't it?

You exist in a universe of existence, are asking big questions about existence and the evidence is all around you. What more could be offered?

Even if there was a flashing neon sign brighter than 100 suns, you'd probably still ask for evidence.

The evidence is there and it is voluminous at a universal scale.

Science, on the other hand, has no evidence for the ultimate origins of everything. Consider the old "stuff from quantum fluctuation" BS. Try and derive a non-zero answer from Schrödinger's equation with inputs of zero. You can't. To further extend the 'quantum fluctuation' bit to say it produced a singularity (ignoring Pauli exclusion) is just so unphysical and unscientific I'm surprised that so few people point out how stupid and mythological it is.

If I'm wrong, show me the evidence. I'm pretty sure you have none, you just have convinced yourself that a 'sciency' sounding mythology is acceptable as evidence but other hard objective and rational evidence isn't.

There is a saying about the elephant in the room...

LMAO!
You have no verifiable evidence, just speculation and philosophical argument.
It's hilarious, the OP is asking for your evidence, start yourown thread if you have your own questions fella.


I have evidence. I presented some of it.

Also, since philosophical argument is repeatable, verifaible, falsifiable, testable, objective and follows rules of rationality, why would you disregard it as evidence? Is it too hard for you?



posted on May, 28 2018 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol you have nothing verifiable fella...nothing lol again.

EDIT
"God did it" PMSL! x
edit on 28-5-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join