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.

 

If faith was blind belief, why would it be of such importance?

page: 8
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.
By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

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.




posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


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.


There's evidence in nature itself. How did soil, trees, plants, and flowers originate? Where did their original seeds come from and how did they know that living organisms in soil, mixed with water would allow them to grow and reproduce into their own separate forms?



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   

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.

Thank you for showing your complete lack of understanding of the process. Life on Earth requires left handed and only left handed amino acids. In Nature, what is the ratio of left handed to right handed amino acids? What natural process can create amino acid chains of only one handedness? How many amino acids are needed in a chain? What are the odds using any natural process we know of that an entire chain could be constructed even one time of just that handedness?



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   

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?

I only care when a claim is made and put forth as fact. Put forth the claim as a claim and there is no problem.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.
By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

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
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.


Did we just agree that the claim that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith-based?



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   

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.


It is clear and I can point to the books and words to prove it. If you can point to a god being elsewhere I am completely open to being proven wrong.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Woodcarver


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.


A chemical reaction isn't going to create intelligence, Genius! A chemical reaction didn't create your brain and tell it what part of your body to control, much less create the ability for logical thinking and reasoning skills.

Swing and miss indeed!



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: Woodcarver

You misunderstand. Faith is the certainty of the existence of God.
By definition, you cannot have faith and certainty about the same thing. They are oxymorons.

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.


I can because no one has put a teapot anywhere near Jupiter. If you think I must search around Jupiter to see if there is a teapot there in order to prove my claim, you are simply restating your belief in the possibility, without evidence.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
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.
edit on 22-6-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 03:01 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 03:02 PM
link   

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


Seems to me that science is, as of yet, unable to satisfyingly explain the human experience.
Explaining Love by the scientific, chemical, and physiological alone, just feels to fall short.
Maybe that's part of the 'gap' that art fills in. Don't know for sure really.

Science is great: but there is so much more, no?



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 03:03 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   

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?



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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?


Do you believe Abraham Lincoln exists? Or do you believe he doesn’t?



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 03:05 PM
link   

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.


Sorry, I don’t understand.



posted on Jun, 22 2019 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You told me if it is found in books then it can not also exist. So you tell me.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join