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 Regenmacher
Buy, consume, obey=your already insane, there's no sane model on Earth.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Let's see, sane is: pay taxes, feed body, excrete waste, buy gadgets, abuse chemicals, pratice self gratification, complain and blame...good sane plan ehh?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Reward for belief in God, if God actually does exist is infinite...on the other hand your reward is finite and nothing, so you lose.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Pascal's Wager...read it
Originally posted by spamandham
No one knows is exactly the point! You throwout statistical probablilities and chopped off your head with that idealism based on lack of knowledge. Your no better than a fundamentalist, same nut, different polarity.
Originally posted by spamandham
Faith is for luddites that can't handle the world without back pats. I'll go with the odds backed with scientific proof there is order in the cosmos, while you gambled off your potential for egos sake.
Originally posted by spamandham
As for your numerous labels of supernatural, caring, and sentients, what hat you pull all that crap out of...I said nothing to that effect.
Originally posted by spamandham
[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20050811/sc_space/scientistsbeliefingodvariesstarklybydiscipline]About two-thirds of scientists believe in God,
Originally posted by spamandham
Your in the minority and considered a deviant in principles of psychology too.
Originally posted by spamandham
Sanity is seeing reality as it actually is (or as close as possible). How you behave in light of such perception is up to you. When you can no longer distinguish between fantasy and reality, you are clinically insane. This is the effect of religious faith.
Originally posted by spamandham
If this is how you view those who do not share your delusion, I pity you.
Originally posted by spamandham
Your assuming that god wants you to believe in him. For all you know, he wants you to be an atheist, or perhaps he created the universe for the production of styrofoam cups. No knowledge = No knowledge.
Originally posted by spamandham
Pascal's wager is one of the stupidist arguments ever made. If I don't believe in your silly afterlife BS, then I don't believe it. There is no wager to be made. I could act as if I believed, which would have made sense in Pascal's day, but I can not force myself to actually believe in magic invisible sky people regardless of what magic invisible afterlife sky consequences are threatened. It's patently absurd. To bring up this age old debunked simple minded argument demonstrates your own lack of due diligence in investigating that which you support for nothing but emotional reasons.
Originally posted by spamandham
Before you make stupid accusations, you might want to back them up. What claims of mine regarding statistical probabilities and idealism are you referring to?
I do not claim any special knowledge of the big bang, or whether it had a cause, natural or supernatural. You are the one making claims out of thin air on topics you can not possibly have any knowledge about.
Originally posted by spamandham
Who's claiming there is no order? Science is founded on the principle of an ordered (i.e. predictable) universe. How does the existence/nonexistence of order prove the existence of a magic daddy in the sky who is so egotistical that he cares that we believe in him?
Originally posted by spamandham
If god is not supernatural, or if he is not sentient, or if he is not caring, then what difference does it make if I believe in him? Even if he is real, if there are no consequences for failing to believe a bunch of obvious silly mythology, then why should I? After all, I have identified actual costs to such belief, but no actual benefit. The benefits supposedly take place after I die, and I have nothing but the words of superstitious ancient sun stroked mushroom influenced goat herders to base this promise on. No thanks.
Originally posted by spamandham
How many believe in you're god I wonder.
Doctors have 10 years of schooling, and have a higher percentage than biologist, then we can assume with education comes more belief. Macro view of the article means higher intelligence doesn't gamble and throw away their potential like you do.
Originally posted by spamandham
(did you notice that those involved in natural sciences, and particularly biologists disbelieve at a much higher rate?)
Originally posted by spamandham
Your in the minority and considered a deviant in principles of psychology too.
I know I'm in the minority. Fortunately, truth is not determined by popularity.
Not that it matters, but deviant in psychology in what way?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
There you go pulling terms out of thin air. What part of "Believing in a Creator has nothing to do the human manipulations or perversions of institutionalized religon" do you not understand?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
I can distinguish quite well and I use my full potential, you have chosen to cripple yourself and trust your fallible brain as infallible.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
So tell me why you think your sane to deprive yourself?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
You won't go nuts either. unless you throw out logic and commonsense.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
That's the reality of it, for one to profess to know realism you suddenly jumped ship. That's all there is in your finite dead inside world, get used to it. Denial won't change it either, nor will false pity or mockery.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
You assume way to much, who said the Creator wants anything?
More crap out of the hat child talk...geez
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Pulling crap out of the hat again, who said anything about sky people?
Originally posted by Regenmacher
I'll post it, cause you didn't read it. Your ego over runs your logic.
* You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to the next level.
* You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
* You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
* You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.
You just preconditioned yourself to gain nothing or suffer. Hard logic.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Originally posted by spamandham
Before you make stupid accusations, you might want to back them up. What claims of mine regarding statistical probabilities and idealism are you referring to?
Again let's go thru the logical run down.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Fact: Something exists. Even if the world is an illusion, an illusory self, contemplating an illusory universe, is still something that exists.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Fact: Every existing phenomenon is the end effect of a causal chain of possibly infinite length.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Fact: Everything that exists does so because of some cause.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
Fact: Every phenomenon is either caused by something external or caused by itself, but never both.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
The statistical probability is that something caused the cosmos to exist
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But it amazes me how so many scientists will not say the more obvious truth that - if this is true - and if particles in the universe can interact over vast disconnected distances (which we have proved entangled photons/particles can and do)- then the Universe would inevitably by Evolutionary Theory become self aware itself!
Non sequitur.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
which details how extremely complex phenomena can be created by creating a virtual (or in this case real) universe in which certain established rules (i.e. mathmatical constants) are put into place.
Which of course disproves the creationist nonsense that complexity can not arise without an "intelligent designer".
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
as to the first point above it is hardly Non sequitur because if you believe in Evolutionary Theory, than you have to agree that the theory predicts the likeyhood of increased complexity over time - as long as information can be transmitted throughout the "organism" and its lineage.
And, as the assumed RNA world led to a DNA world, then to a single cellular world, and finally to a multicellular world - so would particles which can hold and transfer information lead to more and more complex organizations, first randomly, and then purposefully as those organizations which self organized and repeated themselves became dominant (and the main organizing force) throughout the universe.
These organized particles would form the first "lifeform", a lifeform of a very alien nature to our experience here on Earth.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Over a nearly infinite period of time - which can easily be infered due to the inherent nature of the universe (and the fact that the universe exists) - the organism would become self aware as iterations of its "body" became more and more complex.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Our Universe actually supports the idea of Intelligent Design because the matematical constants and initial variables required to create our universe (starting with the big bang) are uniquely and quite inexplicably fine tailored to allow for life to form on this planet and in almost all solar systems in our universe.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
This is well known in the scientific community and cannot be easily explained away without an extremely complex hypothesis involving an infinite gradient of parallel universes strung together - of which there is currently no evidence - and which actually goes against the highly regarded principle of Ocam's Razor.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But it is clear that although you have a good grasp of the analytical that you are completely bias against exploring the full realm of evidence of God and the spiritual realm,
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I hope, one day, you will allow yourself to experience some things without playing the role of critical observer but as an unbiased participant free to explore in areas you had previously thought not possible.
Originally posted by spamandham
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But it is clear that although you have a good grasp of the analytical that you are completely bias against exploring the full realm of evidence of God and the spiritual realm,
No, I'm biased against unsubstantiated claims and logical fallacies.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Ahh, but I disagree, you are quite bias.
I have not claimed to prove the existance of God in this thread, but to provide the logical and plausible method for God's existance using the only alternative to the Creation Hypothesis - Evolutionary Theory.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Therefore you reveal your bias in being an athiest (in your expressed hostility towards religion) rather than an agnostic.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
The fact is I have hypothesised here that God used the "Wolfram" method to create a tailored made universe that would result in the spontaneous evolution of self awareness.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
That is to say that genetic bottleneck accidents, that are reinforced due to localized and isolated conditions, have led to the complexity of forms found on Earth.
And to suggest that such extreme localized and isolated conditions do not exist in the Universe is disingenuous at best.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Therfore your argument that there is no known mechnism that would push the universe toward self awareness is fallactious as the normal evolutionary pressures that exist throughout the universe would be sufficient.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
And once sentience was obtained accidentally by the "body" of the universe, it would then start to tailor it's environment to itself as we see all "intelligent" life forms attempt to do here on Earth.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
So again - to summarize - I have presented a logical, possible, hypothesis for the existance of God and "his" subsequent creation of our current universe - using your own prefered theory of origin Evolutionary Theory.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
You can continue to attack those who do believe in God with venom
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
as it does not fit your current paradigm or universe view, but you can no longer claim that science and the existance of God are mutally exclusive - although you will likely still choose to have faith that God is a collective figmanent of the uneducated masses imagination.
Originally posted by spamandham
I never claimed that science disproves the existence of gods, I have merely claimed it does not provide any evidence of gods. The concept of god typically disproves itself by inconsistency of definition.
If I have faith that god is a mass delusion, why is my faith less valid than your faith that he is not? Perhaps we should have a war to determine who's faith is correct.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
I get so very tired of advocates of Evolutionary Theory writing on the internet that there is no God and that anyone who presents a logical case for God is making Super Natural assumptions which contradict what we know about the Universe from science.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
But you can't claim there is evidence or explanation for how lipids could have formed cells in evironments extremely hostile to cells, although friendly to nucleotide formation - or how punctuated equilibrium could have happend so frequently while geologic records show far slower environmental change - or why the massive environmental stresses caused by modern Humans has not led to massive acceleration of species diversity.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
Or - like you say - how sentience has appeared so frequently in animals over an extremely short time period since multicellular animals appeared.
Originally posted by TruthMagnet
These are substantial problems with Evolutionary Theory that will likely be resolved when the evidence presents itself - but which requires extremely unlikely (or what you would call Supernatural) explanations until the truth is elucidated to us.
Originally posted by spamandham
Given an infinite number of trials, anything with finite probability, regardless of how fantasically, rediculously, insanely small it may be (as long as it is not identically 0), will happen. Not only that, but it will happen infinite times.
Originally posted by Regenmacher
I think that statement says it all !
Will happen, indeed. You have talked yourself into a corner on that one.