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: 31
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0nautI 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?
What would you consider "end-to-end" evidence? Please explain yourself and also explain how this "end-to-end" evidence exists for creation or the idea of god, because that's the topic here. The topic isn't, "let's try to exploit semantics to trick people into thinking I can argue against science" as per usual.


Proof of natural selection does not prove evolution, it only proves natural selection. Proof of mutation does not prove evolution, only mutation, and so forth.

While not all processes are neccesary in establishing evolution, more than one or two, and in specific sequence, are. There are many examples of evolutionary mechanisms but I have yet to see one example that unequivocally covers all bases neccesary to the theory.

If you simply accept that evolution must be correct in each case, then you cease critically examining the examples. A true scientist mantains a critical and skeptical view which allows them to continue to evaluate new data as it comes to hand.

This doesn't argue against evolution (which I see as a totally logical and rational paradigm for explaining biological diversity) but it doesn't actually argue for it, either.

I neither accept nor reject evolution, yet you reject Theism - based upon what evidence?



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?
This is the nonsense I'm talking about. You ask for "end-to-end" evidence of evolution and hold it to the highest possible (unrealistically possible) standards of proof, yet when it comes to god you just make lazy half ass statements like "the evidence is everywhere". Come on, dude. You know me better than that.


You are the guy who believes that science is capable of explaining, or has already explained, the ultimate origins of existence and based upon that belief, you have stopped enquiring and reasoning about it, expecting instead that someone else has already done so or will do it for you in the future.

Forming an opinion based upon nothing but supposition is not the scientific method. Rejecting a theory without evidential validation of of your rejection, is also not science.



Even if there was a flashing neon sign brighter than 100 suns, you'd probably still ask for evidence.
Well there is not one, so your statement is pointless, yet again.

The evidence is there and it is voluminous at a universal scale.
Then show it instead of talking about it. There is no evidence in favor of god or creation.


There is no evidence against God or creation. Nothing, at least, which would cause a rational rejection of the hypothesis,


Religious people are mad about this and mad that there is so much evidence supporting evolution that the only argument they have left is pure blind denial and lies. Saying that there is evidence, does not make evidence actually exist.


The best evidence of a Creator is the Creation itself. Well, it's there!

What else might be evidence of a Creator?



Science, on the other hand, has no evidence for the ultimate origins of everything.
On the other hand???? As if religion has evidence for god or the origins of everything?


Religion does have evidence and it is universal. Everything from existence, to complexity, to the temporal nature of nature, to mathematical order, to consciousness, to altruism, to our intrinsic sense of right and wrong are evidential that something, beyond the base forces that science has uncovered driven by random occurrences, is actually going on. None of those things are the outcomes of random processes. Individually they are evidences, together, they present a strong case.



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.
LMAO! Meanwhile the idea of god coming into existence from nothing or nowhere cannot be rectified by any equations anywhere in the history of everything.


Do you think we believe that God is temporally restrained?

In Judeo-Christian theology, God is supreme over time and unchanging (as anything atemporal must be). This has been a core paradigm in theology for more than 3.000 years.

Perhaps your rejection of the existence of God is based upon an invalid ideation?


At least they have math and data to support things on the quantum level, whereas you just make blind assumptions about a magical being.


Supernatural does not imply magical. Supernatural implies something beyond nature.

Most theologies disavow all forms of magic and divination as being deception and trickery.


How do you not see the blatant double standards you are invoking. The funny thing is you don't even realize it. You just think it's inherent truth that god exists and that evolution is a guess.


From my personal stand point, they are both guesses and, based upon my reasoning and observation, both probably really good ones.



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?
No. Philosophical arguments are speculative. They aren't proof of anything. Anybody can argue for anything, that doesn't make it true by default. Every single philsophical argument made to support god is flawed. Every single one of them and we've already been over it


The section above that I have highlighted is a fairly arrogant and unfounded thing to say.

If you believe that Theists think that God is temporal, then I doubt the comprehensiveness of your philosophical explorations.


None of it is based on fact, especially when you argue nonsense like "the universe began" when we don't even know it. Apologetic BS is not evidence, sorry. I get that you WANT it to be, but it's not on the level of testable scientific data.


Um, temporal things, like the univese, have a beginning and an end. We know of no exceptions. We can obseve the progress of states of the universe and determine that it is clearly temporal.

The universe is expanding. We can trace its expansion backwards, showing that it was, at one stage, a very compact object. So compact that physics as we know it, cannot describe it correctly (which makes that phase in the existence of the universe supernatural according to known science). Itis fairly hard to deny that the universe had a beginning (remember the steady state universe was once the favourite and has now been disproven by the evidential data you go on about).

What testable scientific data disproves God?

If you don't have any evidence either way, your opinion is unfounded.

edit on 30/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Well, then, all of our opinions are unfounded, however, they are still opinions. The belief and worship of a god or gods still remains in the human domain. a reply to: chr0naut



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

LMAO, you can type as much as you like but you have nothing except speculative philosophical reasoning...oh and I don't need to provide verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence for anything, I'm not making any claims lol



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 08:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

LMAO, you can type as much as you like but you have nothing except speculative philosophical reasoning...oh and I don't need to provide verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence for anything, I'm not making any claims lol


Of course you are taking a side by your ridicule of one side of the argument.

The evidences that have previously been given in this thread are not all just philosophical, yet you have classified them as such. That speaks of denial, lack of understanding, or both.

Your derision has no intellectual validity. The following quotes are from great intellectuals, who don't seem to be agreeing with you (some even provide the evidence you deny):

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics". - Frank Tipler.

"How surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values". - Steven Weinberg.

"A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world". - John Archibald Wheeler

"Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use, "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be less than 1 part in 10^40,000." Of course you would. … I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of 12C to the 7.12 Mev level in 16O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix … A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature". - Fred Hoyle.

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge. You see, even if you dismiss mankind as just a mere hiccup in the great scheme of things, the fact remains that the entire universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a 'put-up job'." - Paul Davies.

"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers". - Carl Pomerance.

"So Einstein was wrong when he said, "God does not play dice." Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen". - Stephen Hawking.

"I'm not religious in the normal sense. I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws". - Stephen Hawking.

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired". - Stephen Hawking.

"We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know". - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

"God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world". - Paul Dirac.

"I do not claim any ability to read God's mind. I am sure of only one thing. When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky and the glory of forests and flowers in the living world around us, it is evident that God loves diversity. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity". - Freeman Dyson.

"I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt". - Thomas Edison.

The God Spinoza revered is my God, too: I meet Him everyday in the harmonious laws which govern the universe... My God speaks to me through laws". - Albert Einstein.

"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details". - Albert Einstein.

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid"? - Benjamin Franklin.

"There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists. With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined". - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time". - Thomas Jefferson.

LOL.

edit on 30/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Any published studies indicating verifiable evidence of gods or just speculative opinions?
edit on 30-5-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: clarity



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0nautAny published studies indicating verifiable evidence of gods or just speculative opinions?


As previously noted in this thread, you could try a search on Amazon books with the criteria of "proof of God".

I just did it and it returned over 1,000 results. I would imagne that the majority with 'science' in the byline would suffice.

edit on 30/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

LMAO, you can type as much as you like but you have nothing except speculative philosophical reasoning...oh and I don't need to provide verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence for anything, I'm not making any claims lol


Of course you are taking a side by your ridicule of one side of the argument.

The evidences that have previously been given in this thread are not all just philosophical, yet you have classified them as such. That speaks of denial, lack of understanding, or both.

Your derision has no intellectual validity. The following quotes are from great intellectuals, who don't seem to be agreeing with you (some even provide the evidence you deny):

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics". - Frank Tipler.

"How surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values". - Steven Weinberg.

"A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world". - John Archibald Wheeler

"Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use, "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be less than 1 part in 10^40,000." Of course you would. … I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of 12C to the 7.12 Mev level in 16O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix … A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature". - Fred Hoyle.

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge. You see, even if you dismiss mankind as just a mere hiccup in the great scheme of things, the fact remains that the entire universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a 'put-up job'." - Paul Davies.

"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers". - Carl Pomerance.

"So Einstein was wrong when he said, "God does not play dice." Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen". - Stephen Hawking.

"I'm not religious in the normal sense. I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws". - Stephen Hawking.

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired". - Stephen Hawking.

"We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know". - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

"God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world". - Paul Dirac.

"I do not claim any ability to read God's mind. I am sure of only one thing. When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky and the glory of forests and flowers in the living world around us, it is evident that God loves diversity. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity". - Freeman Dyson.

"I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt". - Thomas Edison.

The God Spinoza revered is my God, too: I meet Him everyday in the harmonious laws which govern the universe... My God speaks to me through laws". - Albert Einstein.

"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details". - Albert Einstein.

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid"? - Benjamin Franklin.

"There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists. With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined". - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time". - Thomas Jefferson.

LOL.


Believing in a god and proving there is a god are two entirely different things. Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence. As much as you would like to convince everyone that there is evidence, there is no scientific evidence for a god.

And books on Amazon are hardly considered evidence. There are just as many, probably even more, books on Amazon refuting the existence of a god.

This is a persistent problem with religious zealots - you simply can't accept that not everyone is in tune with your thinking. If you were honest, you would admit that there is no evidence for a god. Instead, you simply whitewash the lack of evidence with a tirade of false claims.

I have to admit that this is the first time I've seen Amazon referenced as an authority.

You're free to believe in your god. You're not free to make claims that are unsubstantiated.


edit on 30-5-2018 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: chr0naut

Proof of an intelligent designer is far from proof of a particular specific deity, or even a deity at all.

Just because our only examples of complex, coded things were created by humans in a relatively short period of time, it does not mean that the only yet unexplained example of something that appears coded -- life -- could not have arisen "randomly" given enough time and variation.


While the possibility remains, the likelihood is very low.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 10:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
Well, then, all of our opinions are unfounded, however, they are still opinions. The belief and worship of a god or gods still remains in the human domain. a reply to: chr0naut



... and so, what started as science becomes philosophy.



edit on 30/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

LMAO, you can type as much as you like but you have nothing except speculative philosophical reasoning...oh and I don't need to provide verifiable, testable, repeatable evidence for anything, I'm not making any claims lol


Of course you are taking a side by your ridicule of one side of the argument.

The evidences that have previously been given in this thread are not all just philosophical, yet you have classified them as such. That speaks of denial, lack of understanding, or both.

Your derision has no intellectual validity. The following quotes are from great intellectuals, who don't seem to be agreeing with you (some even provide the evidence you deny):

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics". - Frank Tipler.

"How surprising it is that the laws of nature and the initial conditions of the universe should allow for the existence of beings who could observe it. Life as we know it would be impossible if any one of several physical quantities had slightly different values". - Steven Weinberg.

"A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world". - John Archibald Wheeler

"Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use, "Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be less than 1 part in 10^40,000." Of course you would. … I have always been intrigued by the remarkable relation of the 7.65 Mev energy level in the nucleus of 12C to the 7.12 Mev level in 16O. If you wanted to produce carbon and oxygen in roughly equal quantities by stellar nucleosynthesis, these are the two levels you would have to fix … A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature". - Fred Hoyle.

"The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge. You see, even if you dismiss mankind as just a mere hiccup in the great scheme of things, the fact remains that the entire universe seems unreasonably suited to the existence of life — almost contrived — you might say a 'put-up job'." - Paul Davies.

"God may not play dice with the universe, but something strange is going on with the prime numbers". - Carl Pomerance.

"So Einstein was wrong when he said, "God does not play dice." Consideration of black holes suggests, not only that God does play dice, but that he sometimes confuses us by throwing them where they can't be seen". - Stephen Hawking.

"I'm not religious in the normal sense. I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws". - Stephen Hawking.

"The whole history of science has been the gradual realization that events do not happen in an arbitrary manner, but that they reflect a certain underlying order, which may or may not be divinely inspired". - Stephen Hawking.

"We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know". - Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

"God used beautiful mathematics in creating the world". - Paul Dirac.

"I do not claim any ability to read God's mind. I am sure of only one thing. When we look at the glory of stars and galaxies in the sky and the glory of forests and flowers in the living world around us, it is evident that God loves diversity. Perhaps the universe is constructed according to a principle of maximum diversity". - Freeman Dyson.

"I do not believe in the God of the theologians; but that there is a Supreme Intelligence I do not doubt". - Thomas Edison.

The God Spinoza revered is my God, too: I meet Him everyday in the harmonious laws which govern the universe... My God speaks to me through laws". - Albert Einstein.

"I want to know how God created this world. I want to know his thoughts, the rest are details". - Albert Einstein.

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid"? - Benjamin Franklin.

"There are numerous phenomena from which you can reason out the existence of God, but I shall not insult your intelligence by offering you a rational explanation of that type. I would have you brush aside all rational explanations and begin with a simple childlike faith in God. If I exist, God exists. With me it is a necessity of my being as it is with millions. They may not be able to talk about it, but from their life you can see that it is a part of their life. I am only asking you to restore the belief that has been undermined". - Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi.

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time". - Thomas Jefferson.

LOL.


Believing in a god and proving there is a god are two entirely different things. Religion requires faith. Science requires evidence. As much as you would like to convince everyone that there is evidence, there is no scientific evidence for a god.

And books on Amazon are hardly considered evidence. There are just as many, probably even more, books on Amazon refuting the existence of a god.

This is a persistent problem with religious zealots - you simply can't accept that not everyone is in tune with your thinking. If you were honest, you would admit that there is no evidence for a god. Instead, you simply whitewash the lack of evidence with a tirade of false claims.

I have to admit that this is the first time I've seen Amazon referenced as an authority.

You're free to believe in your god. You're not free to make claims that are unsubstantiated.


I am just as free to make claims, substantiaed or otherwise, as you are.

I am happy to point out that my personal justification for my belief is based partially upon faith, and that I continually hold that faith up to challenge. It is only rational and human to do so.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
It could not, but, geology makes microscopic inorganic cells all the time, if enough “stuff” (organic elements) concentrate in those chambers, evolution can happen.

If something that I refuse to describe as "inorganic cells" can't retain what it has already got (retention followed by copying and passing on to a next generation to be exact, this must happen before it disappears again, or what it has retained for a while disappears from it again, the "stuff" you spoke about) it can't evolve as that word is used in this context, not merely referring to changing over time (soap bubbles pop eventually in a natural environment, rather than a precisely set-up experimental environment designed to maintain their structure as long as desired for particular experiments with intelligently glorified soap bubbles or blobs of molecules such as the ones called "fatty acids"). For example, there are myriad chemical reactions that need to be precisely staged to form DNA, the building block of life. Three decades ago Dr. Frank Salisbury of Utah State University, U.S.A., calculated the odds of the spontaneous formation of a basic DNA molecule essential for the appearance of life. The calculations revealed the probability to be so tiny that it is considered mathematically impossible. Whatever it is that you are thinking about when saying "inorganic cells" with 'organic elements concentrating in those chambers', it's unlikely that you are only thinking about the established facts from geology (and/or chemistry). It's more likely that the influence of the intelligently guided or precisely staged experiments (chemical engineering that conveniently disregards the evidence from the field of geology concerning the presence of oxygen on a prebiotic earth) and accompanying storytelling concerning abiogenesis a.k.a. chemical evolution spoken about in the video below are included in your thinking and choice of words there. From 27:02 - 29:55, which discusses that retention issue in a natural environment rather than a precisely staged one (keypoint after 29:12 at 29:31, but it's better to not miss that introduction):

He mentions something about the oxygen subject after 29:55 but one phrase in there about ammonia is either confusing or misleading (perhaps he didn't mean it that way and was just continuing on with the claims about the prebiotic atmosphere made by the others who he's talking about, the evidence from geology is clear about the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere around the time abiogenesis is claimed to have occured; this is rather significant).
The oxygen subject also comes up below regarding the Urey-Miller experiment, but it counts for all these types of chemical engineering experiments that have little to do with abiogenesis a.k.a. chemical evolution even though they are brought up by those bringing up these type of experiments in discussions about the origin of life (or bringing up the impression they got from hearing about them in their own words as you've done). At 1:13:

edit on 31-5-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Page opened on your post.

I saw the wall'O'text and got scared off. It was simple lack of paragraphs which, causes one who scans then reads ...

You get my drift.

(showing age with that one !😎)

* scrolled back and long well made paragraphs were easily digestible.

Read through most forum posts and ... well, most of this
site is of that , easy to read punctuated style.

No busting of round appendages. Just friendly critique .. 🙂
edit on 31-5-2018 by Timely because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol @ search for proof of gods on Amazon

There is no testable, repeatable, or verifiable evidence at all to support claims of gods so I don't believe.
If you believe because speculative philosophical argument has you convinced then good luck with it.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

Lol @ search for proof of gods on Amazon

There is no testable, repeatable, or verifiable evidence at all to support claims of gods so I don't believe.
If you believe because speculative philosophical argument has you convinced then good luck with it.


I thought you weren't making any claims? Now it appears that you are saying that you "don't believe". Surely claiming disbelief is making a claim? But eh? who really cares?

Science tells us that we are all, without exception, going to die.

Perhaps if you stand out among the billions of similar lives, there may be a slight glimmer of remembrance for a short while, but the entire human species will die.

Even the universe itself will succumb to entropy. Taking all consciousness, hope and memory of all life with it. Everything comes to nothing in your philosophy (Yes, science is a philosophy [shock, horror!]. Have you noticed that scientists nearly always have a Doctorate of Philosophy - a PhD? The term 'scientist' was unknown until the 19th century, before then, they were called 'natural philosophers').

But, anyway, the grand ascension from proto matter to near god-like future state is ultimately pointless. A brief flicker of light, consumed in a vasly greater eternal darkness. Your struggles, pains, loves, achievements and success are ultimately as irrelevant as all the forgotten science.

The only hope we can hold is in those speculations and philosophies that you reject.

You have nothing to laugh about.

edit on 31/5/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

Dude, I don't believe in gods, ghosts, or goblins either, that ain't a 'belief' in itself, it's just not believing someone's claims due to obvious lack of verifiable evidence.
Lack of belief ain't belief, but keep trying if you like, your speculative philosophical arguments are amusing.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

Dude, I don't believe in gods, ghosts, or goblins either, that ain't a 'belief' in itself, it's just not believing someone's claims due to obvious lack of verifiable evidence.
Lack of belief ain't belief, but keep trying if you like, your speculative philosophical arguments are amusing.


Verifiable evidence has been presented.

If someone tells you not to play on the road because it is dangerous, and you don't believe them, citing 'absence of evidence', then you are probably going to get run over.

You need to engage your brain and face the truths inherent in philosophies and speculations. Science and evidence won't save you if you act like a petulant child.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Verifiable evidence has been presented.
No, it hasn't.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: chr0naut
Verifiable evidence has been presented.
No, it hasn't.


Don't play in the traffic.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: chr0naut

[/yawn]
You have nothing but speculative philosophical argument so come back to me when you have something actually testable, repeatable, and verifiable.
Dude that is what it will take for me to believe claims of gods.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut

[/yawn]
You have nothing but speculative philosophical argument so come back to me when you have something actually testable, repeatable, and verifiable.
Dude that is what it will take for me to believe claims of gods.


Have a look at this video posted in another thread, it's from a TEDx talk in Sydney.

Jordan Peterson shows DNA Video




top topics



 
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join