It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Conspiriology
All your Darwhining Atheist sensitivities fall on deaf ears. I think Atheists lost the right to claim bigotry after astyanax created the "Creationists are destroying ATS" thread without it being removed.
Originally posted by Conspiriology
BTW the video, was so much better than the one you didn't make
Originally posted by Johnmike
...No, there are all sorts of atheistic philosophy, such as existentialism, nihilism (those two are the big ones that go against sorts of materialism), Kantianism, objectivism, humanism... Give me a break.
Originally posted by JPhish
I'm going to guess that you're a big fan of "The Fountain"? If you aren't, i'm surprised. If you haven't seen the movie, I suggest you do. It's one of my favorites.
My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms. ~ Anthony Flew
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction. ~ Anthony Flew
Its was 1 in 10 ^40 it is called statistically absurd or statistically impossible.
Are you actually arguing 1 in 10^40 is something likely to occur?
I never said "it exists therefore it has a cause".
Science is founded on the law of causation which is premise one.
Read the first premise over 3 times until the difference sinks in:
1."Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
2. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
3. "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"
Do you deny that? Well you can throw out science then. Science is a search for causes.
The second premise is "the universe began to exist". This the one atheists used to deny creation with until the evidence squashed their primitive eternal universe beliefs. So do you deny that? Then you are stuck in a 19th century view of physics. Most people would call that primitive.
NARRATOR: Above all, they were still trying to solve the biggest problem of all: what caused the very start of the Big Bang, the singularity?
NEIL TUROK: Nobody has a solution for the singularity problem other than essentially by hand starting the Universe at a certain time and saying let's go from there and let's not worry about what happened before and that's very unsatisfactory. This is the deepest problem in cosmology. If you can get through the singularity you're on your way to a complete theory of the Universe.
NARRATOR: Most cosmologists have begun to think they might never find a solution. They'd almost given up completely, which is when Turok and his colleagues heard Burt explain his idea properly for the first time. At a conference in Cambridge pioneers of M Theory had been brought together to explore its implications. Burt was the star of the show. His vision of a violent eleventh dimension wowed the assembled physicists and caught the attention of the cosmologists.
PAUL STEINHARDT: We heard about a vast variety of ideas. The ideas that struck both Neil and myself most strongly were the ideas that Burt presented.
NARRATOR: On the last day of the conference Neil Turok, Paul Steinhardt and Burt decided to take time out. They went to see a play.
BURT OVRUT: We wanted to see the play Copenhagen which was being performed in London at the time and the three of us took the train down to London one evening and we had whatever it was, an hour or so on the train to sit and talk about these ideas.
NARRATOR: On the journey they began to throw ideas around. Three physicists, one train, and the biggest secret about our Universe: what caused the Big Bang.
PAUL STEINHARDT: I think people get the wrong impression about scientists in that they think in an orderly, rigid way from step 1 to step 2 to step 3. What really happens that often you make some imaginative leap which at the time may seem nonsensical. When you capture the field at those stages it looks like poetry in which you are imagining without yet proving.
NEIL TUROK: Paul, Burt and me were sitting together on the train and just free associating.
PAUL STEINHARDT: One of us, maybe it was me, began by saying oh well why can't we make a universe out of collision and Neil sort of pitching in and saying well, if you did that then you could create all the matter and radiation of the Universe, so we had this conversation, one of us completing the sentences of the other in which we kind of just, just let our imaginations go.
BURT OVRUT: And as we went along, at least I learned more and more about how it might be possible to have these brane collisions produce all of the effects of the early Universe and in particular it's just easy to do with my hands, when they collide you might have a Big Bang.
NEIL TUROK: And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds.
NARRATOR: But how could such a collision go on to cause the world we know? The Universe we live in has vast clumps of matter we call stars and galaxies.
BURT OVRUT: We know that things are not smooth out in the Universe. In fact we have little clumps, we have stars, we have galaxies, we have quasars, we have clumps of matter.
NARRATOR: Now they had to explain how the collision of two parallel universes could go on to create these lumps of matter. Was there something about the membranes, or branes, which could explain it?
NEIL TUROK: People tended to think of branes as being flat, perfect sheets, geometrical plains, but I think to us it was clear that that picture could not be correct. It cannot be perfectly flat. It has to ripple.
PAUL STEINHARDT: What would happen as these branes approach that there are ripples in the surface of each brane and when they come together they don't hit at exactly the same time, same place, but in fact they hit at different points and at different times.
BURT OVRUT: We found that as the brane moves it literally ripples, so when the collision takes place it imparts those ripples into real matter.
NARRATOR: The parallel universes move through the eleventh dimension like waves and like any wave these would ripple. It was the ripples which went on to cause the clumps of matter after the Big Bang. They finally had their complete explanation of the birth of our Universe and now they could do something even more profound. They could take the laws of physics back in time to the moment of the Big Bang and through to the other side.
NEIL TUROK: The existence of branes before the singularity implies there was time before the Big Bang. Time could, can be followed through the initial singularity.
BURT OVRUT: You sort of go back and back and back until you get near the place where the expansion would have taken place and then it just sort of changes into another world. When the branes collide the collision of those can be explained within M Theory, so it just simply enters the realm of mathematics and science now rather than being a, an unknown point that exploded.
NARRATOR: The singularity had disappeared and it had taken them just under an hour.
bigbert you are a smart enough guy it is just that as long as you deny God it will always be that way. So the solution to your problem is simple enough. Stop denying the reality of God and your reason and logic problems will be solved.
Fair enough. I am not claiming this proves the Christian God specifically.
But a Supernatural (which you conceded) cause of the universe meets the broad definition of God pretty well.
I have studied it. It is only the consensus amoung desperate materialists
So "just add universes" is a lot crazier than "Goditit". It offers no explanation for where they came from.
No you seem to be the closed minded one. Any thing but God....
Claiming secular humanism and that we should do away with religion is considred atheism to most folks. I believe you did make that claim. You also repeatedly ridicule belief in God. But I understand. I would never want to confess a canard belief like atheism either.
I said "might be a more apt term for your displayed demeanor. " referring to your hostility to God. It is a reasonable description of your attitude not an insult.
You denied logic. You denied science. You invoked magic.
Thanks for playing.
Furthermore, everything that begins does not have to have a cause.
Originally posted by Bigwhammy
After that amazing response I have no choice but to give up!
Because you just destroyed the foundation of Science in one brilliant statement:
Furthermore, everything that begins does not have to have a cause.
That's friggin' hilarious!!! Oh I mean devastating... I guess 1+1=6 and black is white in berts world too? Well to suit your mood. Oh yes you are a relativist. So your truth is different from my truth. There's no absolute truth..
The ancient Hebrew scholar Nachmonides, writing in the 12th century, concluded from his studies of the text of Genesis that the universe has ten dimensions: that four are knowable and six are beyond our knowing.
Particle physicists today have also concluded that we live in ten dimensions. Three spatial dimensions and time are directly discernible and measurable. The remaining six are "curled" in less than the Planck length (10^ -33 centimeters) and thus are only inferable by indirect means. (Some physicists believe that there may be as many as 26 dimensions.4 Ten and twenty-six emerge from the mathematics associated with superstring theory, a current candidate in the pursuit of a theory to totally integrate all known forces in the universe.)
There is a provocative conjecture that these ten (or more) dimensions were originally integrated, but suffered a fracture as a result of the events summarized in Genesis Chapter 3. The resulting upheaval separated them into the "physical" and "spiritual" worlds.
There appears to be some Scriptural basis for an original close coupling between the spiritual and physical world. The highly venerated Onkelos translation of Genesis 1:31 emphasizes that "...it was a unified order."
The suggestion is that the current physics, including the entropy laws, ("the bondage of decay") were a result of the fall. The entropy laws reveal a universe that is "winding down." It had to have been initially "wound up." This windup - the reduction of entropy, or the infusion of order (information) - is described in Genesis 1 in a series of six stages. The terms used in this progressive reduction of entropy (disorder) are, erev and boker, which ultimately led to their being translated "evening" and "morning."
Originally posted by melatonin
Heh, talk about taking an argument and running with it to absurdity.
Looks like you are an inductivist turkey, whammy.