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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Damn it I been Rick rolled
edit on 30-5-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.


...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.


It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.

It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.

If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.

The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...
Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.

They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.


This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.

What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.
My point here is still valid, because however love is defined, i can still make a very accurate prediction to whether someone feels that way or not.

Even if it is just an evaluation of how they treat that person. I don’t really need all the machines.


This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.

This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.

There is no point in science exploring vague claims.

In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.
Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.

Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.


What is love?

Baby don’t hurt me
Don’t hurt me
No more

PMSL!, We are similar age!



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.


...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.


It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.

It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.

If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.

The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...
Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.

They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.


This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.

What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.
My point here is still valid, because however love is defined, i can still make a very accurate prediction to whether someone feels that way or not.

Even if it is just an evaluation of how they treat that person. I don’t really need all the machines.


This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.

This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.

There is no point in science exploring vague claims.

In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.
Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.

Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.


What is love?
We could come to some mutual agreement on how to define it. And as soon as that is done, we can set parameters and see if the individual falls within that window. Whether their face flushes when they are shown an image of that person. If they take care of that person and treat them well. The Definition of love is subjective, but a body reacts in certain ways when they are psychologically attached to someone like a spouse or a sibling.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Would there have been “gods” before we started writing? And, what proof do you have of that? I am a Catholic, devout, I MEAN I BELIEVED IT!, it has been a chain around my ankle! But. Beside the written “WORD” we have no proof of a GOD, or gods, for that matter. a reply to: luthier



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TerryDon79

Damn it I been Rick rolled


That’s the wrong song (rick astleys never gonna give you up).

What is love? is by haddaway.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: visitedbythem
God created science


Man created God in his own image


Seven words that explain all religions.


Modern revision: Men created gods in their own image.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

I believe we are



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: luthier

LMAO, only because your degree is in philosophy, mine is BSc Chemistry, of course I'll demand testable, repeatable evidence when you jabber on with your speculative philosophical reasoning.


...and tit for tat threads? Welcome to the club fella, you are doing exactly the same.


It's literally formally accepted as philosphy.

It has nothing to do with one of my degrees. It's a statement of fact.

If you believe science is falsifiable the topic of a prime mover, a designer, and a necessary being rest in philosphy.

The same you can't prove love by showing chemicalor neurological reactions which can be recreated with drugs, psychosis, etc...
Love, and every other human emotion can be measured and verified, with tools like EKG, MRI, multi spectrum facial imaging, etc.

They can also be artificially induced in multiple ways, like, drugs, magnetic fields, direct stimulation to the proper regions of the brain. But that is completely different than determining if someone is lying about how they feel. Once you get a baseline, any deviation can be evaluated. They can tell if you are aroused or disgusted, lying or being honest, or even if you are attempting to beat the system.


This is a fallacy. You would first have to define love and then get everyone to agree this is the same.

What you are confusing is that there are scientifically proven aspects of love.
My point here is still valid, because however love is defined, i can still make a very accurate prediction to whether someone feels that way or not.

Even if it is just an evaluation of how they treat that person. I don’t really need all the machines.


This is also false. I could treat someone kindly I don't like. I could be psychotic, I could be an actor, a gold digger, etc..and no you can't create a reliable test for love, maybe the person you are testing doesn't even understand love.

This is the problem with vague questions as you would know if you are a scientist.

There is no point in science exploring vague claims.

In.fact what is love is a philosophical question.
Psychopaths are just as susceptible to these tests as anyone else. They just read a little different. Once you determine that they are an actual psychopath (which is fairly simple for one trained to identify them) you simply look for different tells.

Besides that would be an outlier case anyways, which is an acceptable variant when deducing probabilities.


What is love?
We could come to some mutual agreement on how to define it. And as soon as that is done, we can set parameters and see if the individual falls within that window. Whether their face flushes when they are shown an image of that person. If they take care of that person and treat them well. The Definition of love is subjective, but a body reacts in certain ways when they are psychologically attached to someone like a spouse or a sibling.


The fact that people don't agree on what that is, is the point.

The fact you can't prove what love is to a person is the point. The fact a person themselves may not know what love is is the point.

All you are suggesting is how to show the effects of interaction.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
Would there have been “gods” before we started writing? And, what proof do you have of that? I am a Catholic, devout, I MEAN I BELIEVED IT!, it has been a chain around my ankle! But. Beside the written “WORD” we have no proof of a GOD, or gods, for that matter. a reply to: luthier



Boyer has written about an anthropological and biological predisposition to believing.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: visitedbythem
God created science


Man created God in his own image


Seven words that explain all religions.


Modern revision: Men created gods in their own image.


Spinoza? Pantheism?

It works the same with our anthropic predisposition for the meaning of the data we observe.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: TerryDon79

Damn it I been Rick rolled


That’s the wrong song (rick astleys never gonna give you up).

What is love? is by haddaway.


Damn it. Got me again.

I was more into testament, Anthrax, DRI, Henry Rollins back then.
edit on 30-5-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:46 PM
link   
That is not what I asked. Beyond that, do you have proof we, or any previous entity on this planet acknowledged a GOD, there is no proof of a biologic disposotion to believe in anything beyond current biologic needs,we are predispostioned cause we want an easy fix, instilled by LEADERS, ultimately we get it done cause we are being paid, otherwise, we are surviving for our family. a reply to: luthier



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
That is not what I asked. Beyond that, do you have proof we, or any previous entity on this planet acknowledged a GOD, there is no proof of a biologic disposotion to believe in anything beyond current biologic needs,we are predispostioned cause we want an easy fix, instilled by LEADERS, ultimately we get it done cause we are being paid, otherwise, we are surviving for our family. a reply to: luthier



According to Boyer there is. Who has published papers in nature.

Also yes there is proof through pottery, painting, sculpture, and oral tradition from aboriginal cultures.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: HiddenWaters
Would there have been “gods” before we started writing? And, what proof do you have of that? I am a Catholic, devout, I MEAN I BELIEVED IT!, it has been a chain around my ankle! But. Beside the written “WORD” we have no proof of a GOD, or gods, for that matter. a reply to: luthier



Boyer has written about an anthropological and biological predisposition to believing.


^^^ This is something that gets lost in the debates. We're seemingly hard-wired to tell stories and believe them. People love stories and dreams. Belief in God attracts a lot of scorn from some folk and yet it could be an aspect of natural selection.

Maybe belief in God (faith) deserves more respect?



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

It's possible. Respect is just generally in low supply these days so I would have to say yes.

I think healthy debate is good.

I think we may have observed apes in primitive worship. So it's interesting. What does that mean? Some people may not care because Christianity ruined their childhood but it's interesting imo.
www.independent.co.uk...
edit on 30-5-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.


This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.


No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?

Don't get me wrong...i'll never say there's definitely no such thing as any kind of god because that's just as ignorant as assuming there is one. But I'm not going to bother debating my beliefs in something I have no real reason to believe in or not.


edit on 30/5/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/5/2018 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.


This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.


No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?


So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.


This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.


No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?


So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.


Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: dug88
a reply to: luthier

You're right claiming god exists is not science. Claiming there is a lack of evidence for an existence of god is scientific. Because there isn't.

No one is trying to prove god doesn't exist...you don't really have to...the lack of evidence speaks for itself as far as science is concerned. You're right people claiming god exists have nothing but pointless philosphical evidence. Which comes down to...I believe in this...so there...which really isn't much of a grounds for any kind of debate anyway.


This is not correct all of the time. The debate for and against God has a rational history. Unfortunately most people aren't aware of it or choose to not think through it.


No it really doesn't. Any debate about the existence of god starts with...well some book people wrote thousands of years ago says this.

There is nothing at all that provides any kind of grounds for debate other than some # people wrote to begin with claiming god told them to write it...How can you rationally debate anything that inevitably comes back to that?


So you are not aware. That is cool but stop pretending you are.


Ok...so make me aware...give me an example instead of bull#. Make an actual point for debate....


They are well documented in philosphy as are their rebuttals. They usually are classified as the cosmological, ontological, and teleological arguments.

There is also reasonable evidence it could be a biological predisposition.



posted on May, 30 2018 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Could someone please make me aware of Gods presence before there was writing?a reply to: luthier




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join