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 argument over the existence of God

page: 9
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
To madnessinmysoul: I am basing my belief on faith, I am not here to prove to you that God exists. In fact I do not care if you believe that God exists or not, but when you say that God does not exist because science is right and religion is fake, and wrong then I tend to come in here and see what evidence you have against my religion. I am not trying to say disprove that God does exists, because me saying that is not right. During history many nations believed in God, and why was that? Old nations that had a lot of knowledge about astrology and such believed in a God (not all), and if it was not a God then a higher being.



Please educate yourself on the matter before saying there's no evidence and that all cosmology is a hunch. The Big bang model has predicted lots of stuff that turned out to be true once we had the proper instruments to take the appropriate measures. And there is lots of evidence, such as the cosmic microwave radiation, red shift, etc.


"In the theory, the early universe was made up of a hot plasma of photons, electrons and baryons.", Okay so this stuff, where did it come from? has it always been there, or did "nothing" make it? where did the radiation come from? Do stars not give off radiation as well, or is it different from this?

Please educate me more about this subject.




posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:41 AM
link   

You are right, science did create the computer. Science has knowledge, yes indeed it does. However claiming that God is not real because there is no evidence or proof backing it up is contradicting yourself don't you think?

Nope.
I am not claiming anything. I am saying there is no evidence to prove his/her/it's existence. There is however a lot of evidence to prove evolution is correct. Creationists say that god exists so evolution must be wrong. They make these statements with no proof. Evolution has proof, creationists don't so they lose.


You said it yourselves that we do not know how the universe started. The Big Bang is not from point A to B it is from B to C, if it was from A to B then I would not be here debating about who started this universe.


Because we don't know exactly how the universe started doesn't AUTOMATICALLY mean "god did it". You're ASSUMING that just because we currently don't have an answer, god must have done it. For example, along time ago we didn't know how electricity worked. The same logic would imply that we shouldn't research it because god made it and there is nothing more to know.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:56 AM
link   


Originally posted by Equinox99
So wait, is that evidence or just a guess that science has made? Because science has not traveled back in time to check how it happened. So they have an idea of how the universe began, yet they can not even figure out what the purpose of dark matter is, or where it comes from. Did the Big Bang eventually make dark matter? If science can not answer questions about these types of stuff, nor have evidence on how the universe started then it is just a hunch. Evidence is like a witness, or anything you can present to prove your case.
In this matter, there is no evidence, so when science does get the evidence you can come in these forums and start a thread called "God is not real!"
But until then this battle between both sides over the existence of God is a stalemate.


What you are saying is that the only real evidence is direct viewable evidence. Ok so you don't believe in atoms, molecules, Dark Mater, GOD, etc.

No it's not a stalemate at all. You see science has evidence you do not. That means science wins, you lose. Sorry... Beside, you're now on our side since you cannot see God so we have a new member in the science camp.
WELCOME !!!



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Equinox99
 


and that is why you fail. you are basing everything on faith... on a hunch. not on evidence, not on reason, not on something tangible, just one what you think.

walk into an insane asylum... lots of people there have faith in what they experience.


six

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Thousand
 

Ahhhh but they do....Awonawilona...The supreme being over all other gods.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
Ahhhh but they do....Awonawilona...The supreme being over all other gods.


He said that the Native Americans had no main prophet, not no main god


six

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by DarkSide
 


So he went from a God in his first example to a prophet in his second? Those are two different things. This thread is about a supreme being..not a prophet.
Now if we are talking about prophets. I will give you that they have no main prophet in the old religion.

[edit on 12-9-2007 by six]



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by six
So he went from a God in his first example to a prophet in his second? Those are two different things. This thread is about a supreme being..not a prophet.
Now if we are talking about prophets. I will give you that they have no main prophet in the old religion.


He was replying to equinox's post. He said that every culture had beliefs about god and had a main prophet. Thousand was right in that buddhists are non-theists and native americans have no prophets.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Usually DarkSide, I agree with you, but technically, Native Americans HAVE had prophets.

Tenskwatawa the Shawnee Prophet, brother of Tecumseh was one.

The Delaware Prophet was linked with Pontiac.

Smohalla of the Wanapum.

Wovoka, founder of the Ghost Dance.

And the Buddhists had Buddha. Isn't he their prophet?



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   
Proof of the Existence of God...

Here we are on ATS trying to solve the ultimate question... Ironic is it not?

I have NO desire to argue the point, I am just going to tell you all my thoughts on the subject...

Here goes...

Let's take a structure, any structure..

For the sake of argument we will consider the Great Wall of China and Stonehenge...

Now, I have never met the builder of either of these structures. I'll bet that none of you have either...

I have never seen him. Neither have you..

Yet you KNOW that he existed.. hmmmmmm

There are other structures similar to them all around the world... Other walls and odd structures...

I know that they were CONSTRUCTED....

I know they did not evolve there....

How do I know this...???

Because of their existence.

Because they exist is enough for all of you to ASSUME, TO BELIEVE they had a creator.

You can't PROVE they were created, you just KNOW they were because they are there.

The Universe exists, but you refuse to acknowledge the Creator.

You, nor I can PROVE the universe had a creator, but just like Stonehenge and the Great Wall, it exists.

I wonder why...

Semper

ps. There is a VALID reason why it is STILL called The THEORY of Evolution...

S



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by semperfortis
 


your argument was used in a debate on national television by the "way of the master" banana crowd...
thoroughly refuted argument.

your argument says that natural structures are equivalent to artificial constructs, yet you provide no reason why.


Originally posted by semperfortis
ps. There is a VALID reason why it is STILL called The THEORY of Evolution...


just like there's a VALID reason why it is STILL called germ THEORY
or just like there's a valid reason that it's still called cell theory...
or the THEORY of gravitation

all are still called a "theory" for the same reason/



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
Is had Buddha. Isn't he their prophet?


Concerning the american prophets, I stand corrected


Concerning Buddha, he wouldn't be considered as a prophet, since buddhists do not believe in god, heaven or angels there is nothing to be channeled through prophets



Now, I have never met the builder of either of these structures. I'll bet that none of you have either...


The universe isn't a structure. Stop comparing the universe (= everything) to computers or walls, they're just not comparable. You've never seen something make everything (= the universe) so stop assuming it was create, there is not evidence to it.



ps. There is a VALID reason why it is STILL called The THEORY of Evolution...


Theories for noobies:

"In common usage, people often use the word theory to signify a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them. In this usage, the word is synonymous with hypothesis.

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behaviour are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and general relativity.
"

I think we should put the second paragraph in our sigs don't you think


[edit on 12-9-2007 by DarkSide]


six

posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MajorMalfunction
 

I also stand corrected. Thank you for correcting me in the error of my ways....lol. Always learning something new



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:36 PM
link   


Let's take a structure, any structure..

For the sake of argument we will consider the Great Wall of China and Stonehenge...
Now, I have never met the builder of either of these structures. I'll bet that none of you have either...
I have never seen him. Neither have you..
Yet you KNOW that he existed.. hmmmmmm
There are other structures similar to them all around the world... Other walls and odd structures...
I know that they were CONSTRUCTED....
I know they did not evolve there....
How do I know this...???
Because of their existence.
Because they exist is enough for all of you to ASSUME, TO BELIEVE they had a creator.
You can't PROVE they were created, you just KNOW they were because they are there.

Of course we can prove these structures were created by people.
Lets take your example of the great wall of china.
Although I have never met the people who built the great wall, we know through historically accurate texts, we know who and how it was built.
We can see the actual tool marks in the blocks.
We know where the blocks came from, etc...
We know a omnipotent being did not build the great wall.
Through many different sources, we have EVIDENCE as to how, who and why the wall was built.


You, nor I can PROVE the universe had a creator, but just like Stonehenge and the Great Wall, it exists.


Again, the difference here is I can prove that people built the great wall and stonehenge using evidence left by them.



ps. There is a VALID reason why it is STILL called The THEORY of Evolution...


You are absolutely correct my friend. There is a VERY VALID reason why The Theory of Evolution is called a THEORY. Let me explain by providing you with the definition.


In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

In science, we collect facts, or observations, we use laws to describe them, and a theory to explain them. You don't promote a theory to a law by proving it. A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory. Laws describe things, theories explain them.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


So as you can see, many people misunderstand what a THEORY really is.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I am basing everything on history, not a hunch. The people before us believed there was a higher being, The Inca had Inti their God, The Mayans had Gods, Hindus had Gods, and etc. So all of those people were wrong? Mayans, they knew much of the universe, and we did not even see a telescope at their pyramids and other places, were their calendars wrong?

I assume God made the universe because science is not going to find out the answer of how the universe started. You guys saying that There is no God because we have the Big Bang is wrong! what happened before the big bang? Ummmm we don't know but there is evidence!
Well, let me see the evidence you have of what happened before the big bang and I will stop coming and arguing with you guys.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


No, you misunderstood my post. You guys keep telling the religious people to
"show us evidence of God", it is a belief. Yet when we ask you for evidence, you do not have any. What I am saying is your system is built on a false theory, Radiation in the background could have come from all the stars around us. Wait, stars do have radiation output don't they?




A star shines because nuclear fusion in its core releases energy which traverses the star's interior and then radiates into outer space.
Wiki


So how do you guys know that the microwave background radiation did not come from years and years of the stars radiation outputs? Claiming Big Bang expanded from "heat" which came from nothing is sort of like a guess don't you think?



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 06:13 PM
link   

You guys saying that There is no God because we have the Big Bang is wrong! what happened before the big bang? Ummmm we don't know but there is evidence!
Well, let me see the evidence you have of what happened before the big bang and I will stop coming and arguing with you guys.


Just because we don't know what happened before the big bang doesn't automatically mean "GOD DID IT".

Let me give you an analogy. It's not perfect but you should get my point.

When you were 1 year old, did you know who built the statue of liberty?
Of course not.
Now because you didn't know the answer to that question, based you your logic, you would automatically conclude that god built it. Now since you have decided god built it, there is no further reason to look into the origins of the structure.

The analogy is theoretical so please don't nitpick and say thats not how a one year old thinks.

And once again, evolution on the planet earth and the big bang are 2 completely different things. The big bang discusses the origin of the universe while evolution discusses the origin of species on only one single planet in the universe. You can see how we could and should know more about evolution then the big bang.

Another analogy for the big bang and evolution, would be the difference between being familiar with all the streets in your neighborhood versus being familiar with all the streets in every country on the earth.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I am not talking about evolution, I am talking about the fact that you guys automatically think that, because you don't know what started the universe, It was not God. That is my main point, how do you know God did not start the universe? What if the Big Bang was true and God sought it through? These are questions we will probably never ever know, so why dismiss everything?
Just because science can not sense a God, does that make it automatically not there?
Your analogy is a terrible one, because a one year old is still unable to think for
him/herself. I know that and I am positive you know that, our society is more then a 1 year old, we understand everything from DNA, to weapons. We can see deep in the universe, and are able to understand how stars form.
So the comparison is much much different.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
What I am saying is your system is built on a false theory, Radiation in the background could have come from all the stars around us. Wait, stars do have radiation output don't they? So how do you guys know that the microwave background radiation did not come from years and years of the stars radiation outputs? Claiming Big Bang expanded from "heat" which came from nothing is sort of like a guess don't you think?


Holy crap, you just disproved the Big Bang...
=.= don't you think scientist would have checked that? Plus i don't think it's related anyways.
They calculated the temperature of the radition to be -3k and that's exactly what it was, from just using Big Bang.

Other evidence:
1 The universe is expanding
2. nucleosynthesis of the light elements
3. The formation of galaxies and large scale structures


Originally posted by Equinox99
That is my main point, how do you know God did not start the universe? What if the Big Bang was true and God sought it through?


Here we go again with 'how do you know god didn't this' question. No matter how much it contridicts with the bible or what you believe in. First it's like, 'there's no big bang', then it goes into 'so what, god created the big big' statements... =.=


Originally posted by Equinox99
we understand everything from DNA, to weapons. We can see deep in the universe, and are able to understand how stars form.


We wouldn't have be able to understand all that and still be in the stone ages if everyone thought like this:


Originally posted by Equinox99
I am talking about the fact that you guys automatically think that, because you don't know what started the universe, It was not God.



posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99

I am basing everything on history, not a hunch. The people before us believed there was a higher being, The Inca had Inti their God, The Mayans had Gods, Hindus had Gods, and etc. So all of those people were wrong?


So your saying they're all right? Cause if you are, then i don't know what's going on in your head. There can only be 1 right answer, so they have a very very high chance of being wrong...



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join