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

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
No, faith is not blind belief, lol.

Actually, that's exactly what it is - belief in the absence of evidence.

Science is the opposite.




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 08:27 AM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Or the singularity would broach both universe, possible even multiple different universe.

Fact is we dont know and since classical physics break down and the laws of thermodynamics state that in the macroscopic world, it's impossible to reduce the entropy of the universe.

So theoretically anything that came out the other side/end of the singularity would seem to negate the concept that universal entropy can only increase.
edit on 1-6-2018 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



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

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: visitedbythem
God created science


Man created God in his own image


Then who created man?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Science is just man still looking for that
ancient promise to be realised. "You will be
like God".



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: randyvs

Well we were allegedly created in his image.


Science is humanities attempt to address the unknown via repeatable experimentation and results.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Science needs to recognise it is impossible
to explain existence with out the purpose
of a Creator. We will never see organic material
suddenly spring to life anywhere. It takes a
divine spark not coincidence to infinity for
no reason.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

so you have faith since you believe in the absence of evidence, or are you an atheist?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

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.


Simple idea: God as the totality of physical and metaphysical reality. Right? That is what you are saying.

Using the word 'god(s) implies personality, intention, omniscience, omnipotence, yadda, yadda, yadd. All attributes ascribed to god(s) by mankind to alleviate fear and confer meaning to individual life.

Do you think God is self aware? Do you think God has 'a plan'? For me? For you?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
so you have faith since you believe in the absence of evidence, or are you an atheist?

No. I haven't been presented with any evidence, therefore I do not believe the claims. Maybe the evidence exists, but I haven't seen it. And no one has presented it. Same with God. Maybe God exists. But I havent' seen it and no one has ever presented any evidence to back up that claim.

And if you want to use labels, sure, I'm an atheist.

I'm also an aSantaClausist, an aEasterBunnyist and an aCthulhuist.

Sounds fun - let's label people by all the the made up things they don't believe in.


EDIT: Ah, I see what you were getting at initially. That was a bad sentence on my part. I meant to say, faith is what you have when you want to believe in a claim that has no evidence to support the validity of that claim.
edit on 1-6-2018 by noonebutme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
Then who created man?

Maybe aliens? But I suspect not.

Logically? Probably? Realistically? A process over billions of years.

But you wouldn't understand it, Randyvs. It uses non-Bible words.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

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.


Please clarify.

"And the person consciously observing is the basis of existence."

Does that mean 'existence' is no more when you have died?

Does it mean that 'you' are god?

I see that as ego-centric and perhaps that forms the basis for one possible definition of God: The ego-centric projection onto a mental construct.

I do rather think that is basic to how prayer works - I believe we actually pray to our 'higher/wiser/kinder' (one hopes) self.

But I think 'existence' and reality are a communal construct.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: noonebutme

yea, but you said faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

Do you believe there is absence of evidence or are you an atheist?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

see my edit HERE



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

Logically? Probably? Realistically? A process over billions of years.


So you think it is more logical, realistic and probable that logical beings (humans) came came to be through random processes rather than a logical intelligent process?

Such a thought is literally an oxymoron



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Out6of9Balance

There is no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods, ghosts, ghouls, or goblins, so I don't believe any of the claims.
Bring some verifiable evidence to the table and I'm open to change my mind though.
My position requires zero faith.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme


EDIT: Ah, I see what you were getting at initially. That was a bad sentence on my part. I meant to say, faith is what you have when you want to believe in a claim that has no evidence to support the validity of that claim.


I have my definition of faith out of the Bible.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: cooperton
So you think it is more logical, realistic and probable that logical beings (humans) came came to be through random processes rather than a logical intelligent process?

Correct because we have mountains of evidence to support that claim.

There is ZERO claims to support an intelligent design(er). Take the human eye. Why would any Intelligent Designer create a eye that is sub-par? Hawks and eagles have much better eyes than us. Why are the specific light sensitive cells 'behind' the nerves thereby reducing the efficiency? Why can't we see the radiation wavelengths that can kill us?

No smart designer would create something like that. However, a process of survival of the fittest and random mutation DOES support such flaws in a design. WHy would any designer put all the poop and pee stuff next to the fun-zone?! O_o

I will concede that the only sort of intelligent design I think *may* be possible is alien intervention - where some smart little green dudes diddles with some ancient DNA and may have helped spawn what we are now.

But from scratch?? No way. Too poorly designed to be 'intelligent'.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
I have my definition of faith out of the Bible.

Brilliant. Your faith is personal and subjective to you and that's cool.

But scientific facts are objective and couldn't care less whether you like them or not, whether you believe in them or not. They're facts. You may not 'believe' in gravity. You may not see it, but it's real, and God help you if you want to try to prove it wrong by leaping out of a plane without a parachute.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: cooperton
So you think it is more logical, realistic and probable that logical beings (humans) came came to be through random processes rather than a logical intelligent process?

Correct because we have mountains of evidence to support that claim.

There is ZERO claims to support an intelligent design(er). Take the human eye. Why would any Intelligent Designer create a eye that is sub-par? Hawks and eagles have much better eyes than us. Why are the specific light sensitive cells 'behind' the nerves thereby reducing the efficiency? Why can't we see the radiation wavelengths that can kill us?

No smart designer would create something like that. However, a process of survival of the fittest and random mutation DOES support such flaws in a design. WHy would any designer put all the poop and pee stuff next to the fun-zone?! O_o

I will concede that the only sort of intelligent design I think *may* be possible is alien intervention - where some smart little green dudes diddles with some ancient DNA and may have helped spawn what we are now.

But from scratch?? No way. Too poorly designed to be 'intelligent'.


This is an absolutely debatable subject. Davies, Hoyle, Stevens, Kaku, some high level physicistsd biochemist disagree with the assumption the probability life evolved by chance.

Universal constants can't vary etc..there is certainly things to think about as evidence while not being direct evidence. It's a broad topic so evidence is not exactly clear.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

Correct because we have mountains of evidence to support that claim.

There is ZERO claims to support an intelligent design(er). Take the human eye. Why would any Intelligent Designer create a eye that is sub-par? Hawks and eagles have much better eyes than us.


What need would humans have for eagle eyes? Seems like a fitting design for each animal. Bats have no need, due to their sonar


Why are the specific light sensitive cells 'behind' the nerves thereby reducing the efficiency?


Are you referring to the blind spot caused by the optic nerve? The blind spot of one eye is visible to the other eye. No problem here.


Why can't we see the radiation wavelengths that can kill us?


Sunburn is an effective way that our body says "get out of the sun".


No smart designer would create something like that.


Hmm... how about you, an intelligent person, create a machine that can last for over 100 years, repair itself, deduce logically, feel emotionally, and reproduce offspring that can do the same. Since humans have all these capabilities, and it is unfathomable for us intelligent humans to create such a machine, we are compelled to believe that the human body is the result of an intelligent being much more intelligent than us humans
edit on 1-6-2018 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join