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.

 

intelligent Design is More than "God did it."

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
The impossible would be trying to disprove what I am saying regarding PC, so the improbable would be accurate after all, since PC, regardless of one's denial, prejudice, or hostility towards him, would still be the simplest answer.


Correct, it is impossible to disprove anything... we have to settle for proving positive assertions.. that is how things work...

Like I said... are you prepared to accept the divine truth of the Angry Unicorn?


You have not given me enough evidence that atheism works and is advanced or intelligent enough to meet my questions.


Atheism is NOT a religion as you are supposing... it means... A (prefix meaning without) Theism... (belief in gods)

Atheism is not a religion in the least... it is actually, the absence thereof!

Atheism will not "work", nor will it answer questions... Atheists are atheists because THEISM doesn't sufficiently answer questions...


IMO - Atheism bites the dust!


If you honestly believe that you've proven something, using these arguments... all of which have been logical fallacies, all the while ignoring every point we bring up.... even when we point out the flaws in your argument... than I am really disappointed...

I thought we were dealing with someone of a higher caliber here... Instead, its almost as if you're reading out of a evangelistic brochure...

seriously MP... you can, and have done better...




posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
I pondered the question a while ago and came up with a perfectly good (though difficult if not impossible to prove) idea that incorporated intelligent design but had absolutely nothing to do with "God," however you might want to define him/it.

It basically has to do with the incorrect assumption that time actually moves in the way we perceive it -- always from the past through the present and into the future. That's an illusion created by our memories and expectations. In reality, something happening 10,000 years from now can have an influence on things 10,000 years ago, and probably does all the time.

In a sense, there was no "creation" from which everything else followed. It's more like a continuous process of things and happenings zipping back and forth through multiple dimensions of time and space.

Couple this notion of non-linear time with the ability of consciousness (any consciousness of any living thing, including us) to directly manipulate energy on a quantum level, and you have all the ingredients you need to create and guide a universe from essentially nothing. Without the need for any kind of God.

So Atheists don't "lose," any more than the religious Creationists. Although maybe the Atheists have a bit of a better stance, since they are at least able to point to consciousness as existing, whereas those who believe in God are still completely unable to define it, much less point to evidence of its existence.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by noobfun
 


Sweetie I can play the infinite regress game all day and you still won't be able to answer my multitude of questions.
the fact your playing it angel means you also understand why making a god to fill the gap is an unacceptable and fallacious outcome

it carries on without end, if you say god came before it all then what came before god is a valid question and 'nothing' or 'always there' become an invalid answer, its a self destroying line of questioning

the infinate regres goe striaght through god and keeps going unless you uddenly decide to abandone the logcial path of an iliogical argument

if god doent need anything before it then why would the universe?


If you cannot answer my questions with cognizance, intelligence and humility, I will accept that Occam's Razor is the effective tool to use. The simplest explanation is the best....
$5 says you dont


the reality of a power with consciousness (PC) would be the simplest explanation for all my good questions.
no natural processes as already observed would be the simplest explenation, your having to aume another force exits beyond what can already account for it as a possable and likley cause


Regardless of whether you have "proof" of him or not. The questions are proof in themselves by their very existence, the He exists.


no they are proof that you are able to think up and ask those question

beyond that theya re proof opf nothing unless you feel like making a none sequitor like you just did


The impossible would be trying to disprove what I am saying regarding PC
negative proof again, we dont need to, you need to prove it correct


, so the improbable would be accurate after all,
no the improbable would still be improbable and the probable would take precedence ... natural cause from observed natural sources


You have not given me enough evidence that atheism works and is advanced or intelligent enough to meet my questions.
atheim doesnt work, it has no job do, it doesnt hold my hand and tell me im loved, im special and better then anyone else, doesnt say that someones looking out for me, ive never needed or wanted to ask it to

it doesnt need to be intelligent it has no reason or desire to convince me of anything

it doesnt tell me there somthing out there if only i believe enough, and if i ask it nice it might just cut me a break and change the univere to wipe away my tears



you have convinced me belief works and religeon has a job, youve used countless logical fallacies to contruct a web to hold back probables that exist and lets through improbables that you already believe

you say if you cant answer this then i must be right

you say athesim doent work becasue your treating it as a faith where it needs the answers to make its owner feel better and safe at night and al warm and fuzzy becasue thier special

you call on occam razor then pull out faiths sheep shears intead, the logical is wrong and the improbable prefferable, mystical over natural isnt occam's blade

and so faith and religeon work, making the improbable reality in the desiered ones head, pushing away the real when the unreal is preferred

blinding the obvious in favour of the incredible

it may work, but it sure isnt better


[edit on 18/2/09 by noobfun]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Just to humor you... I'll go through your list of questions../

Why are we here?

I suppose you mean "how did we get here"... the answer to that is a complex answer starting with abiogenesis followed by a healthy dose of evolution...

How did life start?

Abiogenesis... there are several theories... however, you have to define life... "life" didn't start biologically, but chemically...

What is the meaning of life?

Propagation of the DNA to further the species... from a biological standpoint... no other meanings exist, as there's no reason for them to... (Occam's Razor)

Is this all there is?

hrm... if you mean afterlife and all that jazz... yes... there is nothing else...

Where did consciousness get its start?

Survival instincts... I personally suspect its actually a byproduct of our brain developing to handle complex reflexes... but thats just my thoughts...

How did the gray matter that is called our brains develop thought?

Chemical reactions in the brain... we can observe these now-a-days... Searching for any purpose for these thoughts to exist is futile... as we already know it is supremely beneficial to the species for the purposes of survival.

Where did truth come from?

Humans. the universe has no need for a true/false label like humans need to... Humans invent truth out of necessity, because humans can create non-truths... Its nothing more than a label for an abstract human concept that doesn't exist in the cosmos..

Where did conscience come from?

A series of chemical reactions in the brain... still comes from there... we can watch it on high tech brain scans


Where did comprehension come from?

Comprehension is another human label. You keep forgetting, the universe could care less if we exist or not...

Why do we die (when our cells were developed otherwise)?

Thats actually pretty necessary for the survival of the species, and thus aging is believed to be an evolved trait... this way, the next generation isn't competing with the previous for resources... Its a science called Senescence....

Here's a link with all the info you could ever need! www.senescence.info...


Where did imagination come from?

all these questions about thought... when its all wrapped up in the fact that each of these questions on abstract reasoning etc, all have a definitive leg-up when it comes to survival... but, you guessed it... Evolution and Natural selection.

How did we and animals get our instinct?

Another evolved trait... most definitly beneficial for survival.

Where did intuitiveness come from?

Depends on what you mean by intuitiveness... If you mean recognizing patterns and making predictions based on those patterns... its an evolved trait similar to conditioning...

If you mean something with magical psychic powers... doesn't exist...

Where did reason come from?

Abstract human concept... if you mean "thought" or "abstract reasoning" that is another evolutionary trait.

Where did our ego come from?

Survival instincts... there are social heirarchies in many many species... the ego most likely plays on this.

Where did our IQ come from?

Erm, man made idea. biologically, IQ doesn't exist.

Where did creativity come from?

same as imagination.

What is the purpose to nature?

There is no purpose. Nature just happened.

Is there a purpose to the universe?

Nope. Its humans who feel the need to assign purpose to everything that makes you ask this, and the previous question.

Why is there such perfection in nature?

LOL really? there isn't perfection in nature... Nature shows us imperfection... In a perfect universe, humans wouldn't have wisdom teeth.. (this becomes especially important if you don't believe in evolution!... explain wisdom teeth).

Hallibut's eyes wouldn't be on the same side of their head... Dogs wouldn't have a useless toe halfway up their legs...

There wouldn't be any Diabetes or birth defects... (in fact, the extreme pain of childbirth is because your body isn't designed to give birth... the hips are too narrow as they evolved to be more streamlined after we started walking upright..

Where did imagination come from?

you already asked this.

Where did science come from?

Man... its mankind's search to understand observations in nature in such a way, to predict future outcomes successfully.

Where did matter come from?

For all we know, its always "been here". There's also a link between energy and matter (E=MC^2) showing that they are interchangable... energy can become matter and vice versa... There are many theories as to how matter came about... but I'm not seeing anything more convincing than the fact that it might have always just been.

Where did light come from?

Light is energy... wherever there's matter... there's energy... they are interchangable.

Where did electricity get its start?

Energy again...

How did time start?

We don't know... we can only measure back to the big bang... but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist before hand... it just means we can't measure before that moment... However, if you take reletivity into account... Time can't exist without a frame of reference... so the concept of "TIME" may very well be human in itself... but, cosmology and theoretical physics is a diff thread.

What is infinity?

its the way humans describe something without a beginning or end.

And what about quantum physics?

Quantum physics are a science... invented by man... I'm not understanding your question here..


All these questions searching minds want to know, without former prejudices, without placing limits on comprehension and the direction our thoughts and discoveries lead us. Without perimeters dictated to us by all the many human structured systems, nor place any limits on its research.


that is precisly what Science does! seeks to answer questions without former prejudices! However, science will use Occam's razor... and has yet to find a scenario where "god" is needed to make the universe work.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
I think I found your failure to understand evolution as it pertains to occam's razor:

If you sit down, and put a puzzle together... putting it together one piece at a time is fairly easy...

Now... I want you to sit down with a puzzle... and put all the pieces together at once... In fact... most people will tell you its impossible to assemble the puzzle in this manner...

In the words of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes: "If you eliminate the impossible... whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth".

small simple steps result in a complex outcome... but this doesn't make the process itself complex...

however, creationists are trying to convince us that the easiest way is to put the pieces of the puzzle together at the same time... and calling that in accordance with Occam's razor... which is false in the grossest sense.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Here's some stuff to ponder as well... hopefully you'll think and digest this...

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”

“The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.”

"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual
fantasy."

The man was a genius...




[edit on 18-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by SamuraiDrifter
 


Remember what Einstein said "Simplifiy but don't over simplify." which is what those that abuse Occum's Razor tends to do. And using Occum's Razor to evaluate reality seems to me to be a triffle silly anyway. There are complexities to be found in nature.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Geeee one sided quotes weeeee.


Originally posted by nj2day
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”


Too bad no matter what you believe *Christianity, Atheism, Interplanetary Church of Cosmic Chickenhood* guess what, you're a believer skippy. They apparently think what evidence they have is enough, you can disagree and that is fine but the old "My belief's better than your belief." song is tiresome. Science does not disprove the existance of a "higher power", sorry.
Shall we now debate the possibility of truly "knowing" anything now?


Originally posted by nj2day
“It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.”


Every belief of someone else's is a delusion to someone.


Originally posted by nj2day
“The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition.”


Perhaps he should pay more attention to his own quote here.


Originally posted by nj2day
"Life is but a momentary glimpse of the wonder of this astonishing universe, and it is sad to see so many dreaming it away on spiritual
fantasy."


*rolls his eyes*
Needs to concretely prove it to be a fantasy before declaring it to be a fantasy. Otherwise this is little more than egotistical babble.


Originally posted by nj2day
The man was a genius...


Genius is subjective. But the fact what he says is complimentary to what you're saying explains why you think so.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows

Too bad no matter what you believe *Christianity, Atheism, Interplanetary Church of Cosmic Chickenhood* guess what, you're a believer skippy.


There's no leap of faith in evolution... 150 years since darwin's book... and we have multitudes of evidence... physical hard evidence.

4000 years for the judeo-christian faith... not a single shred of physical hard evidence.


They apparently think what evidence they have is enough, you can disagree and that is fine but the old "My belief's better than your belief." song is tiresome.


Well... when one belief is based on evidentiary findings, and the other is baseless fairy tales... I would tend to go with the evidence.


Science does not disprove the existance of a "higher power", sorry.
Shall we now debate the possibility of truly "knowing" anything now?


Sigh... why is it always up to the debunker to "disprove". How about this... Unicorns Exist. Prove me wrong.


Every belief of someone else's is a delusion to someone.


Except, we have evidence. Thats the point.


Perhaps he should pay more attention to his own quote here.


He did. Thats why he said that... This speaks of the believers wanting to believe in a "warm fuzzy" than an ugly truth.


*rolls his eyes*
Needs to concretely prove it to be a fantasy before declaring it to be a fantasy. Otherwise this is little more than egotistical babble.


nice! than you do believe in unicorns!

I mean... you have to right? Prove Unicorns are fantasy?


Genius is subjective. But the fact what he says is complimentary to what you're saying explains why you think so.


No, he really was a genius... seriously... He just happened to be Atheist as well... and thus, we have some quotes...

If you've never read his books... I would suggest them highly...

BTW... Sagan was an Astronomer... It was his insight into cosmology, and the ability to explain it in "laymans terms" that makes him a genius.




[edit on 21-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nj2dayThere's no leap of faith in evolution... 150 years since darwin's book... and we have multitudes of evidence... physical hard evidence.

4000 years for the judeo-christian faith... not a single shred of physical hard evidence.


And what aspect/belief encapsulated within the judeo-christian doctrine are you talking about? Or which even? Judhism and Christianity has after all diverged and by no means are the same thing. And we are talking about a collective as opposed to singular things after all. They did after all find evidence that the Jews lived in and were slaves in Egypt for a time and at least a few other things.

And if you talking about Creationism as I am pretty sure you are. It IS worth noting that there ARE followers of those belief systems that don't put any faith in creationism either..... But for your purposes I am sure you will argue otherwise.


Originally posted by nj2dayWell... when one belief is based on evidentiary findings, and the other is baseless fairy tales... I would tend to go with the evidence.


Rather poor and self serving analysis there budro. In light of the fact there is a kernel of truth to be found in most of the old stories. Albeit distorted by age and retelling. And Faery Tales are used to convey some sort of message.


Originally posted by nj2daySigh... why is it always up to the debunker to "disprove". How about this... Unicorns Exist. Prove me wrong.


Well, a debunker is making a counter-claim and should sufficiently back it up. Just having a belief is not making a claim.
Or do you honestly believe you can prove everything that exists, that there is truly nothing new to be found?

Perhaps there is a creature on another planet that we would call a unicorn. So the general inference of your comment is rather silly at best. Earth and mankind does not encompass all that there is, all we know I will grant you but not all there is.



Originally posted by nj2dayExcept, we have evidence. Thats the point.


I take it you are making assumptions and calling them reality now. I believe in evolution. Telling that you would do that.



Originally posted by nj2dayHe did. Thats why he said that... This speaks of the believers wanting to believe in a "warm fuzzy" than an ugly truth.


"the believers" *chuckles and rolls his eyes*
So says the believer of a different stripe.

It's all belief. It suits your stance to claim you "know" anything, but it is a rather silly stance if you really look at it. But I expect nothing less from the people that decided to just trade the guys in lab coats for the guys with funny hats and robes.


Originally posted by nj2daynice! than you do believe in unicorns!

I mean... you have to right? Prove Unicorns are fantasy?


This is too silly to bother responding to.


Originally posted by nj2dayNo, he really was a genius... seriously... He just happened to be Atheist as well... and thus, we have some quotes...


And had he not been a atheist and said the quotes you quoted I seriously doubt you would call him a genius.


Originally posted by nj2dayBTW... Sagan was an Astronomer... It was his insight into cosmology, and the ability to explain it in "laymans terms" that makes him a genius.


I know who Carl Sagan is.
Really should cut it out with the assumptions.

And your talking about the field that says the universe is only so big because we can only see so much of it when light and radiation decays but DESPITE all that the universe is only so big. And then we can talk about cosmologists cannot prove anything they claim with that little thing you oh so seem to love *subjectively apparently* physical evidence.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
And what aspect/belief encapsulated within the judeo-christian doctrine are you talking about? Or which even?


I am putting judeo-christian together for the reason that they are, supposedly, the same "god". Thus, if we can test a hypothesis as to the existence of this deity, we would have to take evidence from both new and old testaments...


Judhism and Christianity has after all diverged and by no means are the same thing. And we are talking about a collective as opposed to singular things after all.


While they have diverged in dogma, they still use the same books as source material...


They did after all find evidence that the Jews lived in and were slaves in Egypt for a time and at least a few other things.


Well, kinda... They've found a lack of evidence supporting a large nomadic desert people in for the time in question... A complete lack of artifacts and other archeological evidence, on top of a complete lack of supportive writings that would be present if a wandering nomadic tribe lived in the desert... it makes it even more strange because of the bible's claim that Moses was adopted into the pharoh's family... a man of that stature would have surely grabbed attention...

BUT, what they have found, is a tiny sliver, and the remotest shred of possibility that it could have happened...

I know the religion based archeologists claim all this "proof", but the non-religious funded archeologists don't agree with the claims that the "biblical archeologists".

The whole matter does deserve more looking into... But most archeologists today insist that the exudus could not happen the way the bible says. If evidence does show itself, it won't likely collaborate the biblical account.

[qote]And if you talking about Creationism as I am pretty sure you are.

Fair assumtion, as this is an ID thread..



It IS worth noting that there ARE followers of those belief systems that don't put any faith in creationism either..... But for your purposes I am sure you will argue otherwise.


No, I'm well aware of that... but I was speaking more along the lines of ID/Creationism.


Rather poor and self serving analysis there budro. In light of the fact there is a kernel of truth to be found in most of the old stories. Albeit distorted by age and retelling. And Faery Tales are used to convey some sort of message.


Usually the fairy tales were meant to convey some sort of moral lesson, much like a fable. Some fairy tales do indeed contain a small nugget of truth, but the facts are usually so far gone its not really productive to separate myth from fact.... Take King Arthur for instance... There is alot of literature on him, but the fact is, he was most likely a Roman soldier.


Well, a debunker is making a counter-claim and should sufficiently back it up. Just having a belief is not making a claim.


It is impossible to disprove the existence of anything... But refuting a claim, and making a counter claim are two different things...

You could say that Unicorns don't exist... and I could call you crazy...
or, you could say they exist, and I can say, its impossible, everyone knows purple cookie monsters drove the unicorns into extinction eons ago.

To simply refute a claim does not really require as much "proof" when it comes to the existence of stuff... Do you ask that people who disbelieve bigfoot should prove that he doesn't exist?


Or do you honestly believe you can prove everything that exists, that there is truly nothing new to be found?


Nope, I think we only know about 1/10th of 1% as to what is actually "out there".

We're not even sure whats to be found here on earth, let alone in the universe.


Perhaps there is a creature on another planet that we would call a unicorn.


But, that doesn't make it the same unicorn we've dreamed about for thousands of years.


So the general inference of your comment is rather silly at best. Earth and mankind does not encompass all that there is, all we know I will grant you but not all there is.


But, you're prepared to remain agnostic about the existence of unicorns? or is this just an attempt at missing the point



"the believers" *chuckles and rolls his eyes*
So says the believer of a different stripe.

It's all belief.


I beg to differ... unless you are using a definition of belief that excludes faith. Faith is belief without evidence.


It suits your stance to claim you "know" anything, but it is a rather silly stance if you really look at it. But I expect nothing less from the people that decided to just trade the guys in lab coats for the guys with funny hats and robes.


I have not claimed to know everything... instead I'm quite willing to concede that we don't know much at all...

What we do know though, points the opposite direction from gods...


This is too silly to bother responding to.


Of course it is... however, gods/unicorns are the same. The only difference is... we'll... Russell's teapot.


And had he not been a atheist and said the quotes you quoted I seriously doubt you would call him a genius.


I admired the man before I knew what an atheist was. so yes... I did call him a genius before I was even an atheist.

His beliefs don't overshadow his accomplishments.


I know who Carl Sagan is.
Really should cut it out with the assumptions.


No assumption was made. I was stating out why he was a genius. YOU should quit assuming I'm assuming... (whoa... this could get convoluted fast lol)


And your talking about the field that says the universe is only so big because we can only see so much of it when light and radiation decays but DESPITE all that the universe is only so big.


No... cosmologists aren't certain what lies beyond how far we can see... and we'll never know really... we can only see as far as light has traveled since the big bang.

Remember, when you look out at the stars, you're seeing them as they were... therefore, when looking at the universe, it would of course appear there is nothing there beyond a certain point... we are looking back in time to the time of the big bang...

That is the reason they somewhat claim the universe is only "so big". because for all practical intents... it is...


And then we can talk about cosmologists cannot prove anything they claim with that little thing you oh so seem to love *subjectively apparently* physical evidence.


It would be horrendously off topic, but we can talk about that if you wish... But you must not confuse theoretical physics with cosmology... Most people make that mistake quite often.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


I am putting judeo-christian together for the reason that they are, supposedly, the same "god". Thus, if we can test a hypothesis as to the existence of this deity, we would have to take evidence from both new and old testaments...


Ah, judge the validity a compilation by validity of certain elements within it. How lazy of you. Not to mention we are talking about two compilations here, sure one is a derivative of the other but it is not the same thing. Bothering to actually know your chosen enemy would serve you here.
Or do you accept every word that comes out of every scientists mouth no matter the fact that it will almost assuredly be contradictory?


While they have diverged in dogma, they still use the same books as source material...


Shows how little you know your chosen enemies. Do we have a Rabbi and a Christian Priest/Pastor/Revend/whatever in lurking that could point out your differences please?


Well, kinda... They've found a lack of evidence supporting a large nomadic desert people in for the time in question... A complete lack of artifacts and other archeological evidence, on top of a complete lack of supportive writings that would be present if a wandering nomadic tribe lived in the desert... it makes it even more strange because of the bible's claim that Moses was adopted into the pharoh's family... a man of that stature would have surely grabbed attention...


Actually, they found a tomb. I will see if I can dig it up for you at my leisure.
And no crap it couldn't happen as the story depicted. But have you forgotten the fact that stories told over the ages tend to get distorted? Hell stories tend to get distorted even in the first telling.

But we are getting off topic, mostly my fault admittingly.


Usually the fairy tales were meant to convey some sort of moral lesson, much like a fable. Some fairy tales do indeed contain a small nugget of truth, but the facts are usually so far gone its not really productive to separate myth from fact.... Take King Arthur for instance... There is alot of literature on him, but the fact is, he was most likely a Roman soldier.


Thank you for expanding upon my statement but your neglecting yours.
Not that you needed to as I know since I was the one who said it first.


It is impossible to disprove the existence of anything... But refuting a claim, and making a counter claim are two different things...


Ah. So a counter lawsuit isn't a lawsuit, that a person isn't seeking monetary recompense for damages, regardless who did it first? By your logic I mean. By virtue of it being "counter" since you seem to think just because a claim is counter it isn't a claim.

Sorry hate to inform you that counter is a adjective meaning it modifies does not change completely the meaning of a word.
A counter claim is still a claim.


Nope, I think we only know about 1/10th of 1% as to what is actually "out there".

We're not even sure whats to be found here on earth, let alone in the universe.


Ah, then claiming that unicorns don't exist would be rather premature dontcha think?
And by your only statement in this sentence you're contradicting yourself.
I underlined what is in contradiction with your over all stance in this conversation.


But, that doesn't make it the same unicorn we've dreamed about for thousands of years.


Since when is our concept of something in fact the something? And since when is any idea especially complex ones with multiple elements completely correct?


But, you're prepared to remain agnostic about the existence of unicorns? or is this just an attempt at missing the point


Or this is an attempt at your point at being condescendingly funny. Poor one at that.
But on the subject of agnostics, it's the best position for anyone truly seeking that elusive thing called "the truth".


I beg to differ... unless you are using a definition of belief that excludes faith. Faith is belief without evidence.


Nope. It is commonly attempted to say that is the meaning of the word. For the purposes of just this particular silly bickering. For one side to continue it's feeling of superiority over the other.
And it should also be noted evidence is subjective.


I have not claimed to know everything... instead I'm quite willing to concede that we don't know much at all...

What we do know though, points the opposite direction from gods...


Actually it's still firmly in the grey zone as so many things are, you say otherwise because of your belief system, just as they say contrary to yours because of their's.

And who's concept of "gods"?
There are after all many different conceptions on the theme of "gods".


I admired the man before I knew what an atheist was. so yes... I did call him a genius before I was even an atheist.

His beliefs don't overshadow his accomplishments.


Don't need to know what an atheist is in order to be an atheist hate to tell you.


No assumption was made. I was stating out why he was a genius. YOU should quit assuming I'm assuming... (whoa... this could get convoluted fast lol)


You said this, which shows that you assumed there was a need to explain to me what he was:

BTW... Sagan was an Astronomer...



No... cosmologists aren't certain what lies beyond how far we can see... and we'll never know really... we can only see as far as light has traveled since the big bang.


Ah so the "Universe is shaped like this" statements I see are just illusions how fascinating for you to say that.


Remember, when you look out at the stars, you're seeing them as they were... therefore, when looking at the universe, it would of course appear there is nothing there beyond a certain point... we are looking back in time to the time of the big bang...


Again information I am familar with. You really like to try to talk down to people huh?


That is the reason they somewhat claim the universe is only "so big". because for all practical intents... it is...


Incorrect. Just because we cannot see does not mean that is all there is.
The word universe incorporates everything not just everything we know.


[edit on 22-2-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Ah, judge the validity a compilation by validity of certain elements within it.


Very common actually... How can we take a book as factual in nature, or truth, if we can conclusively show that it isn't all true? if the bible was 99% true, and it made an unsubstantiated claim, I would be more likely to take it seriously...


How lazy of you.

Ad Hominem


Not to mention we are talking about two compilations here, sure one is a derivative of the other but it is not the same thing. Bothering to actually know your chosen enemy would serve you here.
I know it well... but the new testament is reliant on the old testament to be valid...


Or do you accept every word that comes out of every scientists mouth no matter the fact that it will almost assuredly be contradictory?


Nope. Not in the least... In fact, I am still plugging away at the math for an idea of mine that would be supremely unpopular in the scientific world... Its a process though... on and off for about 3 years now...


Shows how little you know your chosen enemies. Do we have a Rabbi and a Christian Priest/Pastor/Revend/whatever in lurking that could point out your differences please?


Whoa, you're talking dogma... not source texts... The Torah is the basis for Judeaism, and the New Testament is the basis for x-tians. The validity of the new testament actually relies on the prophesies of the Torah.

Essentially, on paper, the only difference between x-tians and jews is the fact that the jews don't believe jesus was the messiah...

Now, dogmatically, they are very different... but that is more from developing tradition, not the original source texts


Actually, they found a tomb. I will see if I can dig it up for you at my leisure.


Which is the shred of remotest evidence I mentioned. But, as I also said, it's still hotly contested.


And no crap it couldn't happen as the story depicted. But have you forgotten the fact that stories told over the ages tend to get distorted? Hell stories tend to get distorted even in the first telling.


I agree. But, if the bible is distorted (which is most certainly is), than EVERYBODY has it "wrong." (well, everyone in the Abrahamic religions).



Ah. So a counter lawsuit isn't a lawsuit, that a person isn't seeking monetary recompense for damages, regardless who did it first? By your logic I mean. By virtue of it being "counter" since you seem to think just because a claim is counter it isn't a claim.


Your doing it wrong... All countersuits are suits... but not all suits are countersuits...

If I counter a positive claim with a negative assertion, its completely different than making my own positive assertions...


Sorry hate to inform you that counter is a adjective meaning it modifies does not change completely the meaning of a word.
A counter claim is still a claim.


sorry, wrong again... Counter- means diametrically opposed... but don't take my word for it...

(merriam webster)

: marked by or tending toward or in an opposite direction or effect
2 : given to or marked by opposition, hostility, or antipathy
3 : situated or lying opposite

This means... it is possible to deny something, without asserting a positive counterclaim.



Ah, then claiming that unicorns don't exist would be rather premature dontcha think?


Nope. I can say with a high degree of certainty that the unicorns in our literature did not, and do not exist.

However, if you're willing, you can hold "god" in the same esteem you do unicorns...



Since when is our concept of something in fact the something? And since when is any idea especially complex ones with multiple elements completely correct?


When they are 100%, they become scientific law.


Or this is an attempt at your point at being condescendingly funny. Poor one at that.


You still didn't address about missing the point eh?


But on the subject of agnostics, it's the best position for anyone truly seeking that elusive thing called "the truth".


even agnostics admit there are degrees of probabilities involved... but will never go 100%...


Nope. It is commonly attempted to say that is the meaning of the word. For the purposes of just this particular silly bickering. For one side to continue it's feeling of superiority over the other.


Faith is indeed belief without evidence...

Merriam webster again:

belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof


And it should also be noted evidence is subjective.


No, Subjective Evidence is subjective... (thus the name...) however there is another type of evidence... called Objective evidence.

Objective evidence is hard, physical proof that you can actually observe... nothing abstract.

I can give examples if you like, just let me know.


Actually it's still firmly in the grey zone as so many things are, you say otherwise because of your belief system, just as they say contrary to yours because of their's.


Not really... The more we find out in science, the more it looks like occam's razor would eliminate a magic man...


And who's concept of "gods"?


Thats why I said "gods". To be more inclusive... I meant gods to encompass most of the gods out there... I can't conclusivly say all, because I am not familiar with the specific beliefs on supreme beings of all religions...


There are after all many different conceptions on the theme of "gods".


The only off the top of my head I can eliminate from this "gods" list would be Deists and possibly Pantheists.


Don't need to know what an atheist is in order to be an atheist hate to tell you.


hehe assuming eh? I wasn't born atheist man... I wasn't Raised atheist either.


You said this, which shows that you assumed there was a need to explain to me what he was:


This was because your statement seemed to marginalize his accomplishments, instead just pointing out he was an atheist. I reminded you there is more to the man than his beliefs.


Ah so the "Universe is shaped like this" statements I see are just illusions how fascinating for you to say that.


Actually... bah, nevermind lol that would be a thread derailment.


Again information I am familar with.


Well, than you understand what they mean by "the end of the universe".


You really like to try to talk down to people huh?


Ad Hominem...



Incorrect. Just because we cannot see does not mean that is all there is.
The word universe incorporates everything.


Nah, they've had to invent new words... Universe is everything from the big bang... from out point of view, after a certain distance... (since we are looking into thte past) the universe doesn't exist yet...

For the most part, since the introduction of string and M theory, Universe is meant to incorperate just the "stuff" from the big bang... the place where we live... There may be other universes... we're not sure... but refering to multiple universes as the "universe" gets redundant and confusing... therefore, Universe and Cosmos are different now...

Cosmos is everything.



posted on Feb, 22 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


This is getting tedious.
1) Allow me to quote completely with cited sources a number of terms for you that you define only as you wish it to be defined:
Universe
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...

1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
b. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
4. Logic See universe of discourse.
5. Statistics See population.


Faith
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.


Counterclaim
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...


A claim filed in opposition to another claim, especially in a legal action.

Please note it refers to especially not exclusively a legal action.

You're making a claim regardless what mental/gymnastics you wish to use to say you are not. Just as an answer to a question is still a answer regardless the content of said answer. We can start escaping into alternate/obfuscating terms all you wish.

Oh and incidently:
Claim(thesuarus entry)
Source:www.thefreedictionary.com...

Noun 1. claim - an assertion of a right (as to money or property); "his claim asked for damages"
assertion, asseveration, averment - a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)
cause of action - a claim sufficient to demand judicial attention; the facts that give rise to right of action
dibs - a claim of rights; "I have dibs on that last slice of pizza"
pretension - the advancing of a claim; "his pretension to the crown"; "the town still puts forward pretensions as a famous resort"
2. claim - an assertion that something is true or factual; "his claim that he was innocent"; "evidence contradicted the government's claims"
assertion, asseveration, averment - a declaration that is made emphatically (as if no supporting evidence were necessary)
allegement, allegation - statements affirming or denying certain matters of fact that you are prepared to prove
3. claim - demand for something as rightful or due; "they struck in support of their claim for a shorter work day"
demand - the act of demanding; "the kidnapper's exorbitant demands for money"
insurance claim - demand for payment in accordance with an insurance policy
4. claim - an informal right to something; "his claim on her attentions"; "his title to fame"
title
right - an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature; "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"; "Certain rights can never be granted to the government but must be kept in the hands of the people"- Eleanor Roosevelt; "a right is not something that somebody gives you; it is something that nobody can take away"
5. claim - an established or recognized right; "a strong legal claim to the property"; "he had no documents confirming his title to his father's estate"; "he staked his claim"
title
legal right - a right based in law
own right - by title vested in yourself or by virtue of qualifications that you have achieved; "a peer in his own right"; "a leading sports figure in his own right"; "a fine opera in its own right"
entitlement - right granted by law or contract (especially a right to benefits); "entitlements make up the major part of the federal budget"
6. claim - a demand especially in the phrase "the call of duty"
call
demand - an urgent or peremptory request; "his demands for attention were unceasing"
Verb 1. claim - assert or affirm strongly; state to be true or existing; "He claimed that he killed the burglar"
pretend, profess - state insincerely; "He professed innocence but later admitted his guilt"; "She pretended not to have known the suicide bomber"; "She pretends to be an expert on wine"
contend, postulate - maintain or assert; "He contended that Communism had no future"
make out - try to establish; "She made out that she know nothing about the crime"
purport - have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming; "The letter purports to express people's opinion"
profess - practice as a profession, teach, or claim to be knowledgeable about; "She professes organic chemistry"
charge - make an accusatory claim; "The defense attorney charged that the jurors were biased"
affirm - say yes to
disclaim - make a disclaimer about; "He disclaimed any responsibility"
2. claim - demand as being one's due or property; assert one's right or title to; "He claimed his suitcases at the airline counter"; "Mr. Smith claims special tax exemptions because he is a foreign resident"
arrogate, lay claim
call for, request, bespeak, quest - express the need or desire for; ask for; "She requested an extra bed in her room"; "She called for room service"
claim, take - lay claim to; as of an idea; "She took credit for the whole idea"
pretend - put forward a claim and assert right or possession of; "pretend the title of King"
requisition - demand and take for use or service, especially by military or public authority for public service
arrogate, assign - make undue claims to having
forfeit, give up, throw overboard, waive, forgo, forego - lose (s.th.) or lose the right to (s.th.) by some error, offense, or crime; "you've forfeited your right to name your successor"; "forfeited property"


Sorry ran out of space please click the link to read it all if you wish.


Imagine that "assertion" is the first word listed as synomous with the word "claim".

3) The term "god" is a widely used term with more than a few different concepts attached to it, sometimes contradictory ones. Yet you unilaterally deny it not knowing the full extent of the concepts you deny.

[edit on 22-2-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:28 AM
link   
Unintelligent Design

Because of all the problems in the world, the Flying Spaghetti Monster must have been drunk, careless, etc. when he first created life. I think things like disco music and Jar Jar Binks prove this.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


All your unoriginal gobbledeegook about food based bs aside. Why is there an assumption that a "perfect" being or higher power or whatever would have to want to make everything perfect or make a perfect world?
Is there no other possibilities that come to mind as why such a entity would make an imperfect world? I would recommend thinking about the subject a little more if the multitude other possibilities don't smack you in the face the moment you think about it.
Especially considering "good" and "evil" are purely human constructs and not any sort of "force" in nature.


[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


All your unoriginal gobbledeegook about food based bs aside. Why is there an assumption that a "perfect" being or higher power or whatever would have to want to make everything perfect or make a perfect world?
Especially considering "good" and "evil" are purely human constructs and not any sort of "force" in nature.




I don't know. Nobody claims that the FSM is perfect



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


*face palm*
If trolls only knew how silly they look most the time.




[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


*face palm*
If trolls only knew how silly they look most the time.



I'm sorry what? If we were created, I think it's quite safe to say that the creator wasn't being very intelligent. If the bible god is perfect, it makes no sense at all. On the other hand FSM being drunk.. well that just makes perfect sense!



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 06:59 AM
link   
reply to post by iWork4NWO
 


Stop skirting the question please. Why would a supposedly "perfect" being have to create something that is "perfect"? Where is the natural law that states this? All BS propaganda aside.

[edit on 7-3-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join