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.
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: Woodcarver
By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.
originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver
You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.
I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow
I am certain that there is a god.
The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.
The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.
Hi Woodcarver.
Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.
Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?
Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL
We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.
Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?
Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf
So your claim is that it is unlikely there is a God?
I don’t even believe in the possibility of god, let alone that there is one.
I would love to know the mathematical equation you are using to calculate the odds of there being a God at near 0.
Its the law of non-contradiction. It’s quite clear that God is a character of literature, a linguistic construct conceived in the minds of men. If god is one thing, he isn’t something else.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin
The way gut flora interact with the human brain is awesome. You might find it interesting to look into the language of bacteria. Thank me later (if you find that stuff interesting).
Thanks in advance... LoL.
An ATS member also mentioned to me before, that the role of mitochondria may also potentially be huge.
And thanks for being nice. Is this a newer-gentler you?
Nope, same me as always. If someone comes at me as a fool without an appreciation for my position they will be met as a fool. If someone comes at me with a difference of opinion and appreciates others such as myself think differently and they are interested in a discussion of the differences they will be met with true interest.
If you are talking about probability, then yes. It is highly unlikely that a god exists. I get to that position by examining all of the evidence that gods exist.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Woodcarver
My evidence is that life can not come from non life. If you wish to argue evolution then you need to prove life starting from nothing. Attempts to solve that problem have only reinforced that it can not happen.
Your evidence is another claim based on what? Your opinion?
You do know that we have created the building blocks of life in a lab. Multiple times. We have also found them floating around in space. RNA is precurser to DNA and we find it out in nature all the time.
You also know that you body is literally made up of non organic molecules right? All the same ones we see in nature? Life is a series of chemical reactions and chemical reactions are completly natural.
Another swing and a miss.
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Nothin
The way gut flora interact with the human brain is awesome. You might find it interesting to look into the language of bacteria. Thank me later (if you find that stuff interesting).
Thanks in advance... LoL.
An ATS member also mentioned to me before, that the role of mitochondria may also potentially be huge.
And thanks for being nice. Is this a newer-gentler you?
Nope, same me as always. If someone comes at me as a fool without an appreciation for my position they will be met as a fool. If someone comes at me with a difference of opinion and appreciates others such as myself think differently and they are interested in a discussion of the differences they will be met with true interest.
Fine with me if we can accept others' ideas.
Harder to accept claims, don't you find?
originally posted by: Woodcarver
Sure. And that is why i differentiate between faith based claims that are backed up by clear observations and those that are pulled out of people’s imaginations.
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: Woodcarver
By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.
originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver
You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.
I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow
I am certain that there is a god.
The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.
The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.
Hi Woodcarver.
Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.
Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?
Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf
So your claim is that it is unlikely there is a God?
I don’t even believe in the possibility of god, let alone that there is one.
I would love to know the mathematical equation you are using to calculate the odds of there being a God at near 0.
Its the law of non-contradiction. It’s quite clear that God is a character of literature, a linguistic construct conceived in the minds of men. If god is one thing, he isn’t something else.
Except it is not clear, it is your belief. By the same token, since God is real, He is not just a construct. You are welcome to your belief, just call it what it is.
You also know that you body is literally made up of non organic molecules right? All the same ones we see in nature? Life is a series of chemical reactions and chemical reactions are completly natural.
Another swing and a miss.
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: Nothin
originally posted by: Woodcarver
By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.
originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver
You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.
I am certain that the sun will come up tommorrow
I am certain that there is a god.
The first statement is one based on observable and expected outcomes. It is not a faith claim.
The second is a faith based claim with no demonstrable value. It is used to show your conviction or the value that you place on the claim.
Hi Woodcarver.
Nobody can possibly know what might happen in the future, making the sun idea an example of faith, no?
The simulation could end; Earth or the sun get destroyed; any number of probabilities, but not 100% certainty.
Don't think that anyone can know that there is no god neither. No certainty there, just faith again, no?
Anyways: it appears as examples of faith to me, but don't have faith in my ideas... LoL
We cannot prove there is not teapot a revolving around Jupiter. But I think any reasonable person can conclude with 100% certainty that there isn’t a teapot revolving around Jupiter.
Sorry: don't see it that way.
How is it possible to be certain of something that is uncertain?
Because reserving judgment on something so unlikely is also a form of conviction. One has to have faith in the mere possibility that someone making the claim of a god might be right.
Your claim that there is "no teapot revolving around Jupiter" is faith, or so it feels from here.
You can't prove that claim.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf
Except you can't. You should stop making claims you can not back up. There is no book that can prove a God does not exist.
originally posted by: Woodcarver
originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Woodcarver
The universe is proof that the universe exists.
That sounds like my faith. I made a religion out of living in and interacting with that Universe. Well, not the whole Universe, but what I had the time and means to see, and touch, and listen to and feel.
You would necessarily need to demonstrate that a god created it to make the claim that a god created it.
Now there are people who question the reality of the Universe I live in and experience. They say "quantum this" and "sub atomic particles become as they are observed" and stuff like that.
According to my religion, I do not live in a quantum potential; but rather in a real Universe.
If I throw a piece of bread to a deer, and the deer eats it, then I am real; the deer is real; the bread, the ground, the air that the bread flew through, the time it takes for all that to occur, are all real.
Back in the old days people and animals and plants and rocks and things all existed together. Now it's like I'm forced to be all apologetic about common every day reality. I didn't used to be an apologist for the real.
Now I'm ranting. According to my religion, I am really ranting. No delusion or illusion; the real deal!
You are the first to bring up quantum anything.
As far as i can tell, people, animal, plants, and rocks still exist together.
Why would you accept your religion over demonstratable and reproducible science?
That just seems silly
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf
A better comparison would be a teapot is found orbiting Jupiter and we are trying to figure out how it got there. Was it just a natural process or was it placed there. Unless you think the Universe and humanity is nonexistent like the imaginary teapot you mentioned.
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf
Except you can't. You should stop making claims you can not back up. There is no book that can prove a God does not exist.
It’s not so much that god does not exist, it’s that God exists as a character of literature. I can back that up quite easily.
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf
A better comparison would be a teapot is found orbiting Jupiter and we are trying to figure out how it got there. Was it just a natural process or was it placed there. Unless you think the Universe and humanity is nonexistent like the imaginary teapot you mentioned.
If a teapot was found orbiting Jupiter we’d have something to talk about. But no teapot was found orbiting Jupiter, it was merely asserted to be there.
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf
Except you can't. You should stop making claims you can not back up. There is no book that can prove a God does not exist.
It’s not so much that god does not exist, it’s that God exists as a character of literature. I can back that up quite easily.
I can point to books talking about Abraham Lincoln too. Are we now claiming he is just a construct?
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf
originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf
A better comparison would be a teapot is found orbiting Jupiter and we are trying to figure out how it got there. Was it just a natural process or was it placed there. Unless you think the Universe and humanity is nonexistent like the imaginary teapot you mentioned.
If a teapot was found orbiting Jupiter we’d have something to talk about. But no teapot was found orbiting Jupiter, it was merely asserted to be there.
Sure there is. Humanity is that teapot.