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.

 

Science WILL eventually prove the existence of God

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Maverick7
The flaw in your thinking is you have not defined what 'God' is.

Is there a 'supreme being'? Is there a hierarchy of beings in the known Universe?

What is the point of 'proving' that there is a hierarchy? Personally, I'd be more interested in the number two top being, since it might be something we could understand.

Bear in mind what would happen if you met the Christian God. You would be overwhelmed, you would not be able to look away or think of anything else. Who wants that? Not me.


I did say interdimensional being that lives outside time.

The point of "proving" it is to try and challenge my own thinking.
I'm not even suggesting that god exists here, just that it's plausible that we will get to a point where it's statistically silly to suggest he doesn't.

I actually think I'd be underwhelmed if it turns out that the christian god is the truth.




posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar




just that it's plausible that we will get to a point where it's statistically silly to suggest he doesn't.

That claim is made right now.
Quite frequently.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

True, I'm yet to see a convincing argument however.
The fine tuning argument is a good one but we shouldn't really be surprised to find ourselves living in a world in which we can live. In fact I would probably say you would need the opposite.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

A world in which we can't live?

Like, on a star?



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It's very challenging to make a claim about any kind of supernatural force when our tools and methods have failed to measure said force. Either it is making purposeful attempts to hide itself or it doesn't exist. I'm curious why an all powerful spirit would be afraid to make itself fully known and available to all of mankind.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Not quite, but I guess that would work too.
If humans as we now them were living on a star it would be impossible to deny god.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I would posit that, if that were the case, we would be gods.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

That's a valid point.
And I don't disagree.

But my point here isn't to prove the actual existence of god.
All I'm saying is that there will be a point in the future where whilst god still won't exist, it would be unscientific to make that claim.

The whole god question is so polarising that I guess I'm looking for a "proof" that will make everyone unhappy.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Good WIL: you are a very tenacious and persistent person.

However: your arguments, and videos, have not convinced me, once again.

Peace.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 10:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: TzarChasm

That's a valid point.
And I don't disagree.

But my point here isn't to prove the actual existence of god.
All I'm saying is that there will be a point in the future where whilst god still won't exist, it would be unscientific to make that claim.

The whole god question is so polarising that I guess I'm looking for a "proof" that will make everyone unhappy.


It all hinges on what motivates the quest. There are many who would refuse an answer because it doesn't suit their purposes. This doesn't change the facts, only how we react to them.



posted on Mar, 2 2019 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: micpsi
If anyone here wants to rise above the level of word-spaghetti that boils over and spills out whenever the debate between science and religion heats up, study the rigorous, pioneering research at
smphillips.mysite.com...
where mathematical proof of the hidden isomorphism between certain sacred geometries of the world's religions is presented. This analysis has the irrefutable inference that a universal, mathematical template exists for "holistic systems" embodying the divine archetypes, as represented in these sacred geometries. It proves that E8xE8 heterotic superstring theory is the realisation of this mathematical blueprint, as are the seven types of diatonic musical scales. ...

Uhm, you were saying? About word-spaghetti? I fail to see how the rest of your comment helps us "rise above the level of word-spaghetti". Can you understand how someone might see some "word-spaghetti" in your comment as well? And if so, doesn't that warrant some kind of explanation in relation to your suggestion to "rise above the level of word-spaghetti"? Something like:

'I realize this may appear as more word-spaghetti to some, but actually, it's not because...'

I have no idea what one may be able to fill in there at the end and still be making sense or still being reasonable about one's own commentary about "the hidden isomorphism between certain sacred geometries of the world's religions", the supposed "irrefutable inference that a universal, mathematical template exists for "holistic systems" embodying the divine archetypes" and "E8xE8 heterotic superstring theory".

Btw, string theory, superstring theories and M-theory cannot be honestly classified as "science" (from the Latin "scientia"* meaning "knowledge" which essentially means a familarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities, i.e. things that are true/factual/absolute/conclusive/certain/correct, without error, acquired by personal experience, observation, or study). One can have knowledge of the well-established facts described in the Law of Gravity though (as described by Newton). So in that sense, one can say that in contrast to string theory, the Law of Gravity can be honestly classified as science/knowledge.

Notice what Sir Roger Penrose, who won the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics, which he shared with Stephen Hawking for the Penrose–Hawking singularity theorems, says about things like string theory, superstring theories and M-theory after 2:00 in the interview below:

I'd say describing them as "hardly science" is still putting it very mild.

*: In the Christian Greek Scriptures there are two words commonly translated “knowledge,” gnoʹsis and e·piʹgno·sis. Knowledge (gnoʹsis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20)

One Myth Leads to Another

and another, and another, and another. Until you have websites like ATS with millions of comments promoting or demonstrating belief in a multitude of myths/false stories and that which is falsely called “knowledge,” or “science,” to actually be knowledge/science. And then one can begin noticing the situation described and predicted at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, in all areas of investigation (religious, philosophical, and supposed or real scientific investigation). 2 Timothy 4:3,4:

3 For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] 4 They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.

1 Timothy 6:20

20 Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”

Whatever terminology is preferred for the concept of “knowledge.” (such as “science” or implied advanced insights into reality, how things supposedly are and work, supposed enlightenment, understanding or wisdom, etc.; usually implied rather than spelled out, “science” is still the most preferred and succesful marketing label for pseudoscience and myths/false stories, unverified philosophies/ideas and empty word-spaghetti devoid of anything “beneficial” but filled with “contradictions”, or contradictory use of language and contradictory ideas or concepts, or pointing to those)
edit on 3-3-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Yeah....NOT!!!!! When there is an entity that can cure the main ailments of mankind of this generation then I will believe it. Until then, nothing burger!!!!!



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 12:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
It all hinges on what motivates the quest. There are many who would refuse an answer because it doesn't suit their purposes. This doesn't change the facts, only how we react to them.


Yep, I think this thread is a good example of that.
How many people have actually responded to what was in the OP, I can usually count on the atheists to jump in to disprove anything god related or the theists to jump to the defence equally.

This hasn't happened here which I find interesting.
Of course the reason to that could be simply that the OP was incoherent as was pointed out already.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 12:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
As an atheist I really don't like saying this but I'm curious where the flaws in my thinking are.

The idea that we are living in a simulation seems to be perfectly accepted as a valid theory (or hypothesis for you nerds).
We are not there yet, but when we can make a simulation that is indistinguishable from reality we will make another.
Then another, then another...

If it's indistinguishable from reality then once the first one is created then the chances you are in reality is 50%, after the 2nd one is made it drops to 33.3%, after the 99th you're down to a 1% chance that you were not created by an interdimensional being that lives outside time.

Even if you're lucky enough to be in reality #1, there will be a point when you're a fool if you believed that to be the case.
Maybe not at 1%, what about 0.1%, or 0.00000001%.

Is it possible that we've been born into a world without a god and have the potential to make it a mathematical certainty?






No it will not. Because if id did, there'd be no tribulation.

People will one day turn over their neighbor, brother, sister, relative to the state for their crimes of Christianity.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 12:16 AM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

One day the Sun will become a red giant and burn the Earth to a cinder.

And that's all I have to say about that.



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 12:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: EternalSolace

One day the Sun will become a red giant and burn the Earth to a cinder.

And that's all I have to say about that.


Shame you forgot China's social structure and rating. As well as NK response to religion.


Good grief man...



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Phage

True, I'm yet to see a convincing argument however.
The fine tuning argument is a good one but we shouldn't really be surprised to find ourselves living in a world in which we can live. In fact I would probably say you would need the opposite.

Yet you are quite eager to have your ears tickled by circular reasoning, now that's no coincidence either (as explained by 2 Timothy 4:3,4 as quoted earlier).

Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? Awake!—2009

...
‘We’re Just Here​—That’s All There Is to It’

Atheists, of course, have their counterarguments. Some shrug off the apparent fine-tuning in nature, saying: ‘Of course the observable universe is capable of supporting human life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it. So there’s really nothing to explain. We’re just here, and that’s all there is to it.’ But do you find that a satisfying explanation for our existence?

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?

Both are forms of circular reasoning btw (or part of a possible form of circular reasoning such as in your case for example, if followed through as intended by the one bringing it up as an objection to what you referred to as the "fine tuning argument", which is an "argument of induction"; see quotations from Newton earlier for that term and how they should not be evaded in any real truth-seeking endeavor, a proper and proven effective "Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis"). Between brackets is mine below.

In efforts to explain by natural processes alone the design and fine-tuning evident in the cosmos, still others turn to what has been called the multiverse, or many-universe, theory [related to M-theory, see my previous comment]. According to this hypothesis, perhaps we live in just one of countless universes​—all of which have different conditions, but none of which have any purpose or design. Now according to that line of reasoning and the laws of probability, if you have enough universes, eventually one of them should have the right conditions to support life. However, there actually is no scientific evidence to support the multiverse theory. It is pure speculation.

After stating that he did not subscribe to that hypothesis, Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve said: “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

Human Consciousness

The fact that we form theories for the existence of the cosmos is remarkable. In a universe without purpose, such an ability would have to be nothing but the result of a mindless process. Does that seem reasonable to you?

The human brain has been described as “the most marvelous and mysterious object in the whole universe.” No amount of knowledge in the fields of physics and chemistry can in itself produce adequate explanations for the human capacity for abstract thought and our widespread search for purpose in life.

Either the human mind, with its quest for understanding, was put in place by a superior intelligence, or it arose randomly. Which of these two possibilities seems more reasonable to you?
...

edit on 3-3-2019 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

The observable universe is observed.

Can the observer be observed?

Is there really two things... the observer and the observed?
Or is there simply observingness.




edit on 3-3-2019 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 08:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

I would posit that, if that were the case, we would be gods.


We create simulations, give it form and function can change the perimeters at will. Destroy it if we wish. As time passes the simulations we will create will become much much more complicated, gives us time my old friend. We'll get there. He made us in his image after all



posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: SLAYER69


It is said that man is crested in Gods image...... the above video explains what it means.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join