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: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2019 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace

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...


I might be wrong, but I think Phage meant something like "This too shall pass". Those Persian folk knew a thing or two.
edit on 3-3-2019 by TzarChasm because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic
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).


I can't deny that, my search for meaning has led to my answer of...

"The meaning of life is to find solace in the fact that there is no meaning."
Circular and paradoxical, but it tickles my spot.

I would argue against the idea that I only gather around teachers who tell me what I want to hear. It's really quite the opposite. I think the fact that I'm looking for a way to prove god shows that I'm not interested in reinforcing my potential misconceptions.

I kinda have the feeling that Timothy 4:3 relates more to you than me.
edit on 4-3-2019 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: editing is fun



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Lumenari




Sorry, my primary language is not a written one and sometimes translating the concept to English isn't easy.


Well, you do a pretty damn good job at English then!!

What is your native tongue?

Note - I actually did not realize it wasn't English.


edit on 3/4/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 09:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: Lumenari




Sorry, my primary language is not a written one and sometimes translating the concept to English isn't easy.


Well, you do a pretty damn good job at English then!!

What is your native tongue?

Note - I actually did not realize it wasn't English.



I think in a Cherokee dialect, speak Cherokee, Hopi, American English and know enough German, French and Spanish to keep out of trouble.

At the house we speak Cherokee.

But the only language I'm decent at writing in is English.

My mom was fluent in 8 languages and could write in 4 of them.

I was not the best student.




edit on 4-3-2019 by Lumenari because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I'm agnostic atheist and have no problem with the idea of science proving some kind of god. What I do have a problem with is people assuming that were such to happen it would prove their absurd version of what they think god is. Even were science to prove the existence of a god it would do nothing to make the versions of god depicted in organized religion any less absurd.

For example I am agnostic atheist in that I don't discount the possibility of a god, but when it comes to the absurdity of organized religion's versions of god I'm functionally 100% atheist.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Many of the great physicists have leaned the direction of the existence of God later in their lives.

I personally am of the mind that science will ultimately prove that Science and God are actually the same thing.

This becomes especially apparent when you look at field such as quantum physics.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

When you capitalize God are you making a reference to the Christian sky daddy version of the entity with all the absurd baggage that comes with it? Just curious.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:07 AM
link   
We're on an earth that has maintained precise habitable conditions for the past known history. We are biological supercomputers that are capable of complex emotion, invention, rational and even irrational thinking. This 3-Dimension interface we are familiar with is the base expression of higher dimensions which we can come to familiarize our self with given a degree of respect for its laws that keep things in order, and also curiosity regarding the Creator that enacted these meticulous physical laws to keep everything in its working motion.

Quantum physics already demonstrated the integral aspect of consciousness in the workings of the universe. Matter ('Mater' / 'Mother' / 'matrix' / 'earth') is a persistent perpetual conception of Mind (the essence of the Father Creator imbued in every conscious Creature)


originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

When you capitalize God are you making a reference to the Christian sky daddy version of the entity with all the absurd baggage that comes with it? Just curious.


I think Ether Daddy makes more sense than sky daddy. The Ether (Mom) is the totality of all space, which God (Dad) filled with His Spirit. God is not just in the sky, God is omnipresent. The all-pervading source of the matrix. Many are chasing their evil step-mother: the false realities which we conceive through our own deranged pursuits.
edit on 4-3-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

The question is whether or not people are insisting on God as in the Christian version of the entity with the bible and all the absurdity that entails. Or God as in some kind of yet to be understood and truly difined force or entity responsible for all existence.

My point being proving there's a creator of some sort does nothing to prove any particular religion right in any way.
edit on 3/4/2019 by Puppylove because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: cooperton

The question is whether or not people are insisting on God as in the Christian version of the entity with the bible and all the absurdity that entails. Or God as in some kind of yet to be understood and truly difined force or entity responsible for all existence.

My point being proving there's a creator of some sort does nothing to prove any particular religion right in any way.


Judge a philosophy by the peace that it yields. The Christian philosophy is altruism, forgiveness, non-violence, love, and so forth. The "absurdity that entails" you are referring to is just man-made rules that distract from the genuine nature of the core unadulterated Christian philosophy. Jesus essentially put forth the rules of how to live peacefully in the matrix, and also the guidelines on how to emerge from it.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

So which parts are Jesus teachings? Do you include Paul formerly Saul in that? What part does the rest of the bible play? Why do almost no one who calls themself Christian follow what you're professing? Etc.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: cooperton

So which parts are Jesus teachings? Do you include Paul formerly Saul in that?


Paul was speaking to particular communities and giving ancillary rules due to the particular deranged ideas culminating in those particular churches. The core universal law for peace was dictated by Jesus.



What part does the rest of the bible play?


History, context, and laws that are not the full embodiment of the Logos (Jesus), but are extensions of it meant for particular situations.



Why do almost no one who calls themself Christian follow what you're professing? Etc.


The main people Jesus ridiculed back in the day were hypocrites. This problem has not changed since then. If the thief convinces those looking for the jewel that it is worthless, then those who have access to the jewel will sell-out to the thief for a low price.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: cooperton

Jesus is absurd as a concept in the first place. You mention judging a philosophy but it's not a philosophy it's supposed to be a religion that defines god and reality.

Sure love and all that is good but you cannot seperate that from everything else surrounding the religion. Which requires the ability to accept the cognitive dissonance of believing in a loving creator while living in an objectively harsh reality where existince requires the suffering of other brings.

It's like the absurd cognitive dissonance of thanking god for your dinner which you only need because god decided you would suffer then die without it, which someone in your family worked their ass off to provide and which required some animals and plants to have their lives cut short for your survival.

You also want us to believe god had a son who was actually himself minus his omniscience to teach us the way.

No it's just absurd. There may be some kind of god but it's clearly not benevolent and all good and certainly would have no need to rely on or create absurdities like Jesus or the bible to do it.

Also saying the bible teaches to be good is absurd as well.

Simply telling others to "be good to others because if everyone did that everything would be nicer" is way more effective than trying to find that message from reading the entire effing bible to find it and hopefully not get lost and confused by the glut of other crap the message is surrounded by.

There may be a god but looking at reality with any objectivity clearly demonstrates religions have no clue and not just Christianity.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Puppylove

No, I meant it in the broader sense.

Technically (grammatically) , I think your statement is correct, but what would have been a better way to say that?

ETA - Lower case and put it in quotes?


edit on 3/4/2019 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Ok was just curious. Not sure really, guess lower case as god is typically only capitalized by the abrahamic religions as far as I'm aware. Could be wrong though.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   

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

What kind of "god" are you talking about? A supernatural, transtemporal superbeing that controls everything in the universe including who wins the next football game? Because that's inherently paradoxical.

Can't prove it until you can define it.



posted on Mar, 4 2019 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

O wow didn't realize you responded to that post that long ago. My bad.

Well it would depend wouldn't it, but lm just going to use the biblical narratives and accounts since they were often said to be first hand accounts and are said to be genuine proof of the Abrahamic God being a reality.

Now usually the only time God ever proves himself was ether by performing a micracle of sorts or performs a sort of catalycisix event with an acute sense of punctuality of times of strife. Like the ten plagues of Egypt were considered magic tricks by the Pharoah at first, then God got meaner and meaner until Rameses had to believe it himself when his son died and even rejected his old gods because they failed... supposedly.

I wouldn't go that far to call Newton the greatest scientific mind even though he had a pivotal moment in history. He also thought he was in the Bible too which I think drove him up the wall, just like Napoleon did too...I think.




edit on 4-3-2019 by Specimen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blue Shift

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

What kind of "god" are you talking about? A supernatural, transtemporal superbeing that controls everything in the universe including who wins the next football game? Because that's inherently paradoxical.

Can't prove it until you can define it.


Defining it would make people hate it for not being the mysteriously convenient mastermind they need to fill in the gaps in their understanding. That is the magic of some questions remaining unanswered - the answer can be whatever you want. Take that away and the masses will riot.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Defining it would make people hate it for not being the mysteriously convenient mastermind they need to fill in the gaps in their understanding.


So many posts from people who didn't read the OP.

"you're down to a 1% chance that you were not created by an interdimensional being that lives outside time."

That's the definition I gave and that's the definition I still give.

It could be 1 million ants, a beardy guy in the magic ether a fat nerd in his basement or it can be a skinny alien in his UFO.
Speculating on the number or their specific facial hair, weight or residency is silly.

It's established that dimensions were created in the big bang therefore anything that created our universe needs to be outside our dimensions. If you can't accept that as a valid definition of god I don't know what to say to you.

If we're living in a simulation then god under that definition exists.



posted on Mar, 9 2019 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Defining it would make people hate it for not being the mysteriously convenient mastermind they need to fill in the gaps in their understanding.


So many posts from people who didn't read the OP.

"you're down to a 1% chance that you were not created by an interdimensional being that lives outside time."

That's the definition I gave and that's the definition I still give.

It could be 1 million ants, a beardy guy in the magic ether a fat nerd in his basement or it can be a skinny alien in his UFO.
Speculating on the number or their specific facial hair, weight or residency is silly.

It's established that dimensions were created in the big bang therefore anything that created our universe needs to be outside our dimensions. If you can't accept that as a valid definition of god I don't know what to say to you.

If we're living in a simulation then god under that definition exists.


I was responding to a very specific post, not yours. Let's not get too excited here over a little sidetracking. Your definition



"you're down to a 1% chance that you were not created by an interdimensional being that lives outside time."


I disagree with that math because it implies infinite regression. If this reality was made by a super being in a higher reality, then there are progressively higher realities where super super beings and super cubed beings reside and like to meddle with lower dimensions. This raises two problems: how can you be sure? And how can you be safe?

That is where it gets tricky.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join