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.

 

The Drake Equation Fallacy

page: 37
14
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

I said direct measurement. Don't cherry pick words.


Oh come on! That's a good indication that gravity waves are real! Seriously?




posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 01:08 PM
link   
An indication is not proof. Nor is it direct observation or measurement.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
An indication is not proof. Nor is it direct observation or measurement.


How can you say that when the same goes for a creater? Sorry, but there is more evidence of gravitational waves than a creater. But the point is, you used your own logic against you :/



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 01:19 PM
link   
For the record i am not a science denier. I am very interested in the latest scientific developments and have no problem with any of the Theory you have referenced. I just feel scientific discovery is unlocking the design of the universe. There's a reason we have laws and forces that are finely tuned and have existed since the dawn of time.

I am very familiar with logic, in fact my job revolves around combinational, time-independent and sequential logic so if you really want i can elaborate to a level that you simply wouldn't understand? Digital logic and Boolean circuits are my bread and butter.

A universe we can describe with math and logic suggests that math and logic were there at inception. How can this be true without design or creation?



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

I can see design all around me. The fact you can use mathematics to explain reality suggests mathematics underpins the logic of our universe. Hence it must have been designed.

I have no interest in biblical philosophy or any of that religious crap. I just don't think the universe is as random as you are arguing for. I also think science can only ever explain a tiny fraction of the experience we call reality.

Please explain scientifically how the laws of nature can arise and solidify in a random universe. Science isn't possible without design.

edit on 30/11/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

I can see design all around me. The fact you can use mathematics to explain reality suggests mathematics underpins the logic of our universe. Hence it must have been designed.

I have no interest in biblical philosophy or any of that religious crap. I just don't think the universe is as random as you are arguing for. I also think science can only ever explain a tiny fraction of the experience we call reality.

Please explain scientifically how the laws of nature can arise and solidify in a random universe. Science isn't possible without design.


That is not evidence! That is your opinion. Both are completly different things. Because we do not have all the answers, does not mean their was a creater. If we had evidence of this, then it would be case closed!

It's just your opinion/belief, not evidence!



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

Where do i claim this is evidence.

I've stated repeatedly these are only my opinions and you can't disprove them. Sure you can question their probability however it is my prerogative to hold them and defend my right to them.

I simply don't believe the entire universe randomly spawned from nothing. I also don't believe it randomly organised itself to follow our known laws of physics. Nor do i believe life is just a natural random process of chemicals that somehow turn to living cells that self organise, replicate, diversify and evolve with such complexity.

That's it. My opinion.

Goodbye.



edit on 30/11/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)

edit on 30/11/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Jay-morris

Where do i claim this is evidence.

I've stated repeatedly these are only my opinions and you can't disprove them. Sure you can question their probability however it is my prerogative to hold them and defend my right to them.

I simply don't believe the entire universe randomly spawned from nothing. I also don't believe it randomly organised itself to follow our known laws of physics. Nor do i believe life is just a natural random process of chemicals that somehow turn to living cells that self organise, replicate, diversify and evolve with such complexity.

That's it. My opinion.

Goodbye.




Thank you! Now you know what I have been trying to explain to people in this thread! They see there beliefs as fact, when it is not!



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

Again, why has the universe always obeyed the laws of mathematics since its inception?


LOL! Your arguments are terrible. Please go back to school and learn basic logic. Evidence is all around, yet you can't cite any of it and instead rely on outdated apologetic arguments and assumptions based on complexity.


Actually this argument was proposed by Eugene Wigner. A nobel prize winning physicist.

www.dartmouth.edu...

I'm sure that will be some uncomfortable reading for you if as you claim you are objective about the idea of Creation.
edit on 30/11/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Barcs

Again, why has the universe always obeyed the laws of mathematics since its inception?


LOL! Your arguments are terrible. Please go back to school and learn basic logic. Evidence is all around, yet you can't cite any of it and instead rely on outdated apologetic arguments and assumptions based on complexity.


Actually this argument was proposed by Eugene Wigner. A nobel prize winning physicist.

www.dartmouth.edu...

I'm sure that will be some uncomfortable reading for you if as you claim you are objective about the idea of Creation.


Why would I find it uncomfortable? Lol



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

Well i was essentially called an illogical fool for suggesting his work.

I guess once Barcs realises he was referring to the work of a nobel prize winning physicist he might retract his comment.

Highly doubt it tho.

edit on 30/11/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 04:57 PM
link   
"How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? [...] In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Einstein



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
"How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality? [...] In my opinion the answer to this question is, briefly, this: As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Einstein


If anything, it points to us being in a simulation. You talk about maths and code, the universe is full of it. So, yes, it could be a simulation, it could be a creater, it could be a number of things. All theories, that's all. I am fine with theories, but people claiming things as fact, as some people have done in this thread, then I will debate.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

Well please stop attacking my beliefs as i've never presented them as fact. Only my reasoning for them.

Folk don't actually read and consider their replies on this forum anymore. Instead confuse multiple arguments and blindly attack any and all opinions without ever trying to understand where the other side is coming from.

I was simply interjecting some balance to the argument and to be fair it was the atheists who couldn't deal with anyone challenging their belief, the religious crowd seemed more objective. In fact atheists tend to be arrogant morons in my experience. I'd describe myself as agnostic if you really need to stereotype me.

I believe in god and creation but i can't say for certain so i have to remain open to both sides of the argument. To me it seems creation is obvious but i can't prove it nor can someone disprove it.

I also believe if there is a creator of the universe we would never have the capacity to understand them due to our limited intellect, which is why we probably can't find evidence for them.
edit on 30/11/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

I think the simulation hypothesis is entirely possible and maybe even probable.

This would still lend it's hand to my belief in creation. Just the "God" would be the programmer or AGI who kicked it all off.

Maybe the big bang was just someone booting up their "Life" sim on their Playstation 3045.

Did time exist before conscious beings were able to measure it?

A universe without life would not have any observations or measurements, without some creator or intelligence outwith this universe then it would be pointless. Basically until the formation of life our entire universe was a waste of time and space.
edit on 30/11/19 by Grenade because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade




I never said i was your hero pal. He inferred that.


I know I was referring to Jay sorry for the mix up.



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris




I can see design all around me.




It's just your opinion/belief, not evidence!


It is evidence Einstein! Just because you keep repeating
that it isn't evidence doesn't make you correct.

If I leave my finger prints at the scene of a crime what do they
call that in court?



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 11:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: turbonium1

We can create life! I have already posted this! Does that mean we are Gods?


No, we cannot create life, and no, we are not Gods.

What 'life' do you think we can create, specifically?



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grenade
Gravity waves are real? Really, please show me the study or references which indicate directly measurable gravity waves.


Already gave it to you in this post. Funny how you just ignored it.


Please read my posts properly, i did not say i gave Godels Proof any weight, i simply used it to show you can spin equations and make a logical argument.


You claimed it was scientific. You claimed it used equations. You posted neither.


To me, in my opinion, which i'm entitled to i believe the universe shows many indicators of design.

Why is it such a problem?


It's not the opinion that's the problem, it's the claim of knowledge.


I have a BSc in computer science, so please stop talking to me like i'm some scientific heretic monk that lives in a cave.


Damn, that's too bad. Scientific heretic monk in a cave was my leading theory.


You would get a lot further and maybe learn to compromise if you actually listen to people.


Interesting position to take considering I gave you evidence of gravity waves, and then you asked me for that same evidence later.

a reply to: Grenade

Sorry but programming logic isn't even close to the same thing as logical reasoning. I know logic itself came from math, but you are equivocating here. You aren't a science denier but for some reason you are putting apologetic arguments on the level of science and math.


A universe we can describe with math and logic suggests that math and logic were there at inception. How can this be true without design or creation?


No it doesn't. Math and logic are man made systems that we use as tools. They aren't inherent in anything. We use them to calculate and try to describe reality, but not everything is quantifiable.

If you want to believe the universe is designed I have no problem with that. But it's personal beliefs and nothing more.


Please explain scientifically how the laws of nature can arise and solidify in a random universe. Science isn't possible without design.


Please explain scientifically how the laws of nature can arise in a designed universe or how that god can exist in the first place. Science is a man made tool of investigation. You just keep attributing the creativity of man to a supreme being but it's baseless. All that stuff came from the human brain. The fact that we are learning ways to understand the universe, is irrelevant to the existence of a creator/god.


edit on 11 30 19 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2019 @ 11:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Grenade

This isn't relevant to anything we are talking about.




top topics



 
14
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join