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.

 

God is not Science, it's claims are not Scientific

page: 14
16
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2018 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: kyleplatinum
a reply to: luthier



According to the evidence we have the universe appears to have a beginning.


"appears" is the key word.

The idea of a beginning and an end is embedded in all of us.

The universe has no beginning, and will have no end. It goes through size cycles.


I certainly think that is possible but I don't think you can.prove it.


Since different points in the universe never actually converged in the past, it did not have a beginning. It will also not have an end, there is no singularity.




posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

"What is the probability life occurred by chance given the delicate and precise conditions necessary to create intelligent life?"

First we still don't unequivocally understand the delicate and precise conditions necessary for life to occur and that's just on our own world never mind the rest of the universe. Consider through that the universe in a big place chances are it possibly happens quite often.

"How much variance can the constants have and still create the universe?"

That's the ticket through, that being the universal constant(G). Cant vary that really and expect the universe to turn out the same, at least that's my understanding of the matter.


Actually life is robust - as in "life finds a way'. You are equating life with human life. I have no doubts that life exists in ways we can't begin to understand.


I am just talking about dna and making cells. Or the universe forming at all.

You could be right but to argue and assume I am wrong without proof or a logical argument seems pretty assumptive


I am sorry you feel slighted in some form. Not my intent whatsoever.

let me quote your original statement:


"What is the probability life occurred by chance given the delicate and precise conditions necessary to create intelligent life?"

First we still don't unequivocally understand the delicate and precise conditions necessary for life to occur and that's just on our own world never mind the rest of the universe.

Consider through that the universe in a big place chances are it possibly happens quite often.


The probability of life developing randomly?

A quote from a very well formed argument:


The main problem with this argument is that it assumes abiogenesis (the initial formation of life from simpler molecules) was a totally random process. It also assumes that in order for abiogenesis to be successful, a complete microbe would have had to form spontaneously. In fact, the same non-random forces which propel biological evolution also propelled abiogenesis. Specifically, Natural Selection.


evolutionfaq.com...

He has all the probabilities Maths you could hope for.

All that said, it's all based on a antro-centric idea of life and forgets that man has existed in only the tiniest speck of immense universal time (infinity???)

And 'life' in a much broader scope is quite robust - you can see that even in the short term - in places where cities have be abandoned and horrifically polluted - think Chernobyl. Human life may not be able to survive - but life of some sort (and recognizably at that). Think about the possibilities of recognizable life.

Trial and error, evolution, over vast swaths of time, geologic time can account for life without the need for 'design'.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Sure. Hoyle had some good arguments on the subject imo as does Stevens. All of which use maths to show it is still seemingly an extremely low probability.

It also doesn't answer my other question about universal constants and if they can vary and still construct a universe.



posted on May, 31 2018 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Ultimately nothing is scientific.

Not saying this is the case, but let us imagine that this world is like a virtual reality, say something like World of Warcraft.

We experience a 'world', we can do experiments in this world, say of objects falling and conclude things about gravity.

Did we just conclude in this case, something about reality? Did we learn anything about reality?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Incandescent

Philosophy says "what if?".

Science provides repetitive results to support our philosophical arguments.



Science says, "what if" and takes a step further by finding ways to test.


Well, if that's enough for you to disprove God.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Lol, if God didn't exist no one would have faith.

No, faith is not blind belief, lol.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: FyreByrd

Lol, if God didn't exist no one would have faith.

No, faith is not blind belief, lol.


Of course it is.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: FyreByrd

Sure. Hoyle had some good arguments on the subject imo as does Stevens. All of which use maths to show it is still seemingly an extremely low probability.

It also doesn't answer my other question about universal constants and if they can vary and still construct a universe.



Universal constants are just that 'this' universes constants.

Sure other universes could have different constants and life that would evolve would be very different. It's still a lack of imagination and a very narrow definition of life.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: luthier

I don't know where i stand regarding intelligent design, six of one half dozen of the other really.

Lets just say further study is required, just like with our current understanding of evolution.

The questions are just as important as any answers we may gleam.



If we were "intelligently designed" then we wouldn't even make it past pre-alpha stage.

Cancer, degenerative muscle-wasting diseases, Huntingdon's, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, strokes, hemorrhaging...

The sheer amount of absolutely horrible diseases, ailments, and faults with the human body make it perfectly clear to me that if we were the result of intentional design, the designer was either inept, or cruel.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Sure. If the claims are deistic in nature then it’s merely a discussion involving metaphysical musings. When people posit a ‘Prime Mover’ or an ‘Uncaused Cause’, it’s merely arguments in the realm of philosophy.

That’s not true for religions. Religions make explicit claims about how the known physical Universe operates. Those claims very much enter the domain of science. If religious people don’t want their beliefs to fall within the purview of scientific investigation then they should be philosophers instead of theists!

I’m sorry, but when the creation account of The Abrahamic Faiths state all the stars in the Universe were created after the Earth formed, it very much enters an arena filled with scientists and all our modern findings.

I can’t help but think that you recognize the conflict, and are desperately searching for a way to distance belief from scrutiny.
edit on 1-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 01:22 AM
link   
a reply to: fencesitter85

You're saying common sense evolved from fish, don't you?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky


Belief in God attracts a lot of scorn from some folk and yet it could be an aspect of natural selection.


I really don't think it has a biological basis. I think our psyche's strongly oppose certain seeming truths about our existence. For instance, death; we fight tooth and nail in our minds to deny it as long as we can, and (imo) we invent complex belief systems as an effective strategy to do away with the fear entirely. I don't think it's biological. I think a bunch of apes, given enough time, were clever enough to invent what we now call 'religion' as a way of alleviating stressors. Next generations merely adopted a tradition that proved effective as a psychological bandaid.


Maybe belief in God (faith) deserves more respect?

There is nothing to respect about holding conviction in things absent good reason. Faith would say otherwise! Faith says screw evidence (as does OP apparently), belief is virtuous in of itself! I don't agree, and I think our society would be in the dark ages still if faith was a satisfactory position for Humanity.

I will agree though that philosophical discussion, whether it be god(s), or ghosts, or any transcendent realms, certainly deserves respect. We need to always be open to discussion and exploration, no matter how silly it appears on the surface or how currently taboo in culture.
edit on 1-6-2018 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You must have hit your head against something. There's professional help out there.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

Was that supposed to mean something? Do you have a question? A point?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 03:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
I can prove I exist. I constitute my reality through the observations I make through consciousness. If I am observing even a hallucination or a dream I am a conscious observer.

I can not prove to you I exist.

No 'thing' exists.
There is seeing (observing) happening.

Isn't God said to be 'all seeing, all knowing and all presence'? What else is there?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Hypothetically [until proven otherwise] from God:

1. I created all that exists.

2. I created science so you could understand all that exists - Not for denying my existence.

3. Quantum Computers, some of which already exist in other parts of the Cosmos,
will prove my existence to you.

4. You and I will then meet - mind to mind - We will be as One.

- God,
Matrix Stage II



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: AlienView

4. You and I will then meet - mind to mind - We will be as One.


You may believe that you are the person that appears but really you are the seeing in which all appears. No apparent (appearing) thing can appear without the 'seeing and knowing space' which is ever present. Just like no image can appear on a tv without the ever present screen.
God is akin to the screen on a tv - everything which appears is made of the screen.
edit on 1-6-2018 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: luthier
I can prove I exist. I constitute my reality through the observations I make through consciousness. If I am observing even a hallucination or a dream I am a conscious observer.

I can not prove to you I exist.

No 'thing' exists.
There is seeing (observing) happening.

Isn't God said to be 'all seeing, all knowing and all presence'? What else is there?



There are many definitions of god..

And the person consciously observing is the basis of existence.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Lucid Lunacy
a reply to: Kandinsky


Belief in God attracts a lot of scorn from some folk and yet it could be an aspect of natural selection.


I really don't think it has a biological basis. I think our psyche's strongly oppose certain seeming truths about our existence. For instance, death; we fight tooth and nail in our minds to deny it as long as we can, and (imo) we invent complex belief systems as an effective strategy to do away with the fear entirely. I don't think it's biological. I think a bunch of apes, given enough time, were clever enough to invent what we now call 'religion' as a way of alleviating stressors. Next generations merely adopted a tradition that proved effective as a psychological bandaid.


Maybe belief in God (faith) deserves more respect?

There is nothing to respect about holding conviction in things absent good reason. Faith would say otherwise! Faith says screw evidence (as does OP apparently), belief is virtuous in of itself! I don't agree, and I think our society would be in the dark ages still if faith was a satisfactory position for Humanity.

I will agree though that philosophical discussion, whether it be god(s), or ghosts, or any transcendent realms, certainly deserves respect. We need to always be open to discussion and exploration, no matter how silly it appears on the surface or how currently taboo in culture.


You should read pascal boyer's papers. Also physical anthropology has observed apes using ritual and worship. Or what they are theorizing is such. This would prove their is a biological evolutionary aspect. Or at leaSt point towards that.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

Perhaps my post didn't get across what I was trying to say. Maybe what I was trying to say was wrong and that's a 50/50 bet on my best day.


If we're all the sum of natural selection, maybe there's a reason why we are inclined towards faith? It's provided social cohesion of groups for several thousand years. Just maybe we have survived this far because we've been selecting for faith-based belief.

That isn't to say I believe there's a Creator (I do not) or that I'm inching towards ID. What I mean is there is a biological something that has driven people and continues to. I'm not sure we can divest ourselves of the tendency towards magical thinking or faith-based beliefs. In that context, I stopped arguing with Creationists, evolution-deniers or whoever else. It's like arguing with someone who is colour blind and most of them cannot help it.

Obviously I reserve the right to condemn those who use religion to create chaos , abuse and deaths. Otherwise I guess I see most people's faiths (in my experience) as benign.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join