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: 27
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

LMAO, good reply

It's silly isn't it, believing in stuff which cannot be verified. Have you seen Raggedyarse's new thread yet? It's hilarious!
Faith is lame as #, it's for submissive types who need a comfort from imaginary entities.




posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Incandescent
Now now, can't we all just be friends? (Atheists, Theists, Agnostics and Undecided).

Can't we have civil discussions about the great mysteries of life without ridiculing each other?


I'm down for that... provided ONE side stops lying constantly...



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: whereislogic

More drivel from the cult who protects child molesters and rapists.

Come on creationists! Show us your evidence. Not cult webpages and mindless YouTube propaganda. Real evidence that your sky daddy is real.


They literally program him to regurgitate a certain group of web links and youtube videos. It's pretty bad. You can't make a simple statement to him without 5 paragraph essay condensed into a wall of unreadable text and red herring youtube videos. Then he tries to claim that WE are the ones using propaganda and deceptive tactics. It's hilarious.


Thanks for figuring that out! It's actually a BOT! Makes complete sense now. Thanks again.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

I think Raggedyarse is an actual person, if only because he gets so grumpy in his replies. Bots generally don't do that, they are emotionally neutral in my experience.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Phantom423

I think Raggedyarse is an actual person, if only because he gets so grumpy in his replies. Bots generally don't do that, they are emotionally neutral in my experience.


I was referring to "whereislogic", the guy who posts YouTubes ad infinitum.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

Ah sorry mate, I misinterpreted your reply, 'whereislogic' is definitely a questionable one, odd replies.
Maybe 'god did it' and has a team of bots to spread the word lol



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Phantom423

I think you miss my point.

One the anthropic principle most likely limits the ability to understand actual reality.

Two cosmology does not always have current testable falsifiable tests other than math.

Three I trust the process but understand human limitations and thus leave the ego at the door that we are really capable of understanding the entire cosmological model in our current biological form.

We aren't talking about making a laser or treating cancer. This is an infinite regress issue.


Yes, I see your point. I think most theoretical physicists would tell you that hard evidence is where the rubber meets the road. The numbers, the math, the theories lie in wait for experimental evidence.

But where I disagree is that humans do not have the capability of developing the technology to investigate the biggest questions in science. Humans have a history: given a problem, we will work like hell to solve it. It's an inherent feature in our biology. Which is a good thing otherwise no progress would ever be made.

I wouldn't put humans into the trash heep of history yet. We still have a long way to go.

Just look at recent journal articles - not just from Nature or Phys Letters, but some of the other journals out there. Humans have a huge capacity for creativity and ideas. We're always thinking - you're thinking, I'm thinking. It's an evolutionary process. The challenges and the questions are what motivates us to get up at 4 am and get in the lab and go to work. I can say that was the best time of my life - every day no matter how boring the outcome was an opportunity to discover. Now I'm on the theoretical side of the road, learning how to think like "them" as we used to call them.

Don't despair, especially if your wife is actively involved in research. It's not so much about optimism as it is about drive. The drive to get the job done, whatever it is.

Good conversation. I wish your wife the best of luck in her endeavours. I understand the drill all too well.





Thank you good conversation. My wife works in medical research and clinical studies. So the review process is much easier than theoretical physics. Still a challenge as some of the process are patented in drug manufacture. The conflict of interest also drives her nuts.

My degree is in philosophy. I have a pretty good knowledge of cosmology from that perpespective and keep up with most breakthrough journal papers.

I don't think you stopped to consider some of the points I have made. If you had I think you would understand better what I am talking about.

I haven't put humans in the trash heap, I am merely explaining some of the logic of my opinion.

I have also tried to explain the logic of possible design/designers from simulation to fine tuning.

Not as a believer but as an agnostic explaining what are considered valid reason based philosophical arguments in the formal study of philosophy.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier
Chemistry was my gig at uni, I liked being able to recreate maths with measurable experiments.
God did it was never an option in my mind because such claims could not be tested.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Cool. You also couldn't produce the big bang or the big squeeze, a multiverse, or multiple dimensions.

A lot of people have trouble udersranding philosophy. It's an undeniable important part of theoretical physics however.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

But you still have no verifiable evidence to support claims of 'god did it', nothing, zero, nada, just speculation lol



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 12:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

But you still have no verifiable evidence to support claims of 'god did it', nothing, zero, nada, just speculation lol



Physical cosmology is studied by scientists, such as astronomers and physicists, as well as philosophers, such as metaphysicians, philosophers of physics, and philosophers of space and time. Because of this shared scope with philosophy, theories in physical cosmology may include both scientific and non-scientific propositions, and may depend upon assumptions that cannot be tested.



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

Nothing verifiable then?
If I can't test it and repeat the test then I don't believe it.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Nothing verifiable then?
If I can't test it and repeat the test then I don't believe it.


Cool so most of string theory then?



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Nothing verifiable then lol



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Nothing verifiable then lol


You keep saying this but you are talking about a subject that is not verifiable or testable.

You have created a false dichomity by posing the question.

It's the same in reverse can you prove "God" did not design the universe?

It shows a clear lack of understanding that the subject is not scientific but rather philosophical.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

"God did it" is lame as # as you know because there is no way to test the claims.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

"God did it" is lame as # as you know because there is no way to test the claims.


I don't think that way. It's ignorant and juvenile.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Nope, it is methodical, there is no testable evidence for gods, so why the # do people believe in them lol?
It is ridiculous.



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

Nope, it is methodical, there is no testable evidence for gods, so why the # do people believe in them lol?
It is ridiculous.


It's very hard to explain this to someone who has never studied and does not understand philosophy.

But if you want a scintific reason people believe in God you should read Boyer's article in Nature. It's an evolutionary trait most likely.

And two it's one of the only explanations that doesn't fall into infinite regress.

Why do people believe others love them? Because they want to.
I



posted on May, 29 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: luthier

I studied philosophy, and I read Boyers bull#, it's bull# fella lol
Speculative bull#.




top topics



 
14
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join