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.

 

Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

page: 19
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
ok, so tell me how a series of chemical reactions creates the ability to observer, understand and be aware? What are these magical chemicals? What is so special about them that they create these things? Absurd IMO.


I will not pretend to be a neurologist... but I'm sure a quick google search and you can find what neurologists currently understand about the chemical reactions in the brain...

the funny thing is... we can alter/start/stop these reactions... affecting consciousness as you say...


Who has blind faith now?


Not blind faith... pattern recognition... its easy...


If they are consciousness, then they are god. And if it's just random brain waves and chemicals, then how do you get random from a world of action and reaction?


who says its random? There's a distinct possibility that everything follows basic laws of physics with no randomness involved... That is what the physicists that are looking for the "theory of everything" are working toward...

There's a chance that it actually IS random... and there is evidence to show for that as well...

Just because you find it difficult to believe in random events.. and can't comprehend what that means, doesn't mean its "god.


See, we already discussed this. I remember now why I said I was leaving the thread. Chemical reactions and electrical currents just magically produce consciousness?


Yes, they can... thats what I've said in the past...

If you can stop/alter/tamper with the chemicals, you can alter consciousness. Many drugs, both legal and illicit, are designed to do just this very thing.


Tell me, have they identified these things yet? Can you provide any proof that this is true? Or are you just operating on blind faith because you have faith and believe that one day that is what the science will prove?


Do you really want me to do the search on neurology for ya? its a quick google thing man...



My flesh is a meat puppet. I am the one that pulls it's strings.


You think you're the one pulling the strings... however, animals will act like animals...

how many times did you focus on blinking while reading this post?

your brain is in control... you just think you're in control.



Yawn, where did I claim to be superior?


You told us earlier that you need to have a relationship with "the father" to be a good person... You're also lecturing us on this (for lack of a better term) made-up dogma... something completely unique to you... (which is convienient, because you don't have any sort of documents you have to adhere to... you can make it up as you go along... ) And assuming that out of all people in history.. YOU are the one who has it right...

Now, believing you ahve a personal relationship with "the father" that no one else has because they are worshipping in the wrong way, and explaining to us how wrong we are, and how we don't understand everything...

yah, that screams of a superiority complex.



It's not an assumption. You assume I'm making what I say up. You think I am a liar.


No... I think you believe whole heartedly the stuff you made up... so I do not believe you're a liar...

A liar knows he's lying.


Opposed to assuming the opposite? An assumption is an assumption either way. Assumptions being true is the epitome of arrogance. You just think I'm a liar is all.


Not really... this is where occam's razor comes in...


Why do you keep assuming it's all warm and fuzzy, it's not. Realizing the truth requires being comforted after. When you realize what the world truly is, and what exactly is and has been going on, it's not all warm and fuzzy. It's quite the opposite.


But at least you know you ahve an afterlife right? thats the REAL reason religion exists. People like the idea of an afterlife... without an afterlife... life would be pointless right?


Well good luck, we are just repeating previous points as I figured before, there is no new discussion going on between us.


You'll be back... for some reason you hate not having the last word...

Maybe thats a genetic predisposition to compete for the position of alpha out of a social group affecting your "consciousness" in ways you don't understand.

[edit on 21-2-2009 by nj2day]




posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by badmedia
Ah yes, mock and ridicule. Woohoo, what I fool I am right? I must be a liar or ignorant to have my beliefs right?


I'm just having fun while making a point.
If Jesus' words were true, then the events in the Bible would not seem extraordinary, because they would be happening all around us.
People would be healing the sick as Jesus commanded.

You asked before what it would take to prove God's existence.
It's simple, if Jesus' words were accurate, then the evidence should be all around us.

The very fact that such things are not happening could be argued to be evidence against Jesus' words.

Your 'evidence' for God is internal, and I've already explained how that can easily be flawed.

Do you even care that it could be flawed? Do you even allow the possibility?
Of course not.

What does that tell me?
A Hell of a lot about you that I'm sure you wouldn't dare admit even to yourself.

What more can I say?

As ridiculous as it may sound to you, there is just as much (that being none) evidence in favor of the Purple Cookie Monster of DOOM as there is God.

That is not 'blasphemy' or 'ridicule', it's fact...

There's nothing more to discuss at this point, as you've already said that your only evidence and reason to believe is in your head.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I'm just having fun while making a point.
If Jesus' words were true, then the events in the Bible would not seem extraordinary, because they would be happening all around us.
People would be healing the sick as Jesus commanded.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is not good logic, Truth.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee

Originally posted by TruthParadox
I'm just having fun while making a point.
If Jesus' words were true, then the events in the Bible would not seem extraordinary, because they would be happening all around us.
People would be healing the sick as Jesus commanded.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is not good logic, Truth.


Ummm...
Jesus says whatever you ask in God's name will come to pass...
Jesus says if you have faith as a mustard seed you can move mountains, walk on water, etc,etc...

In that case, while looking at how our universe would be if such things were true, yes it is evidence.
It is not proof, but it is evidence.

This is how science works. If you expect to see something based on the data, and you don't see it, then that's more evidence that the initial data was wrong (in this case, the Bible).



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Ummm...
Jesus says whatever you ask in God's name will come to pass...
Jesus says if you have faith as a mustard seed you can move mountains, walk on water, etc,etc...

In that case, while looking at how our universe would be if such things were true, yes it is evidence.
It is not proof, but it is evidence.

This is how science works. If you expect to see something based on the data, and you don't see it, then that's more evidence that the initial data was wrong (in this case, the Bible).


The problem here is that you're not understanding what Jesus was saying. You find a lack of evidence as proof that Jesus must have been wrong, rather than entertaining the possibility that most people have failed to ascend to a "Jesus" level. The fault here lies with the limitations of man, not of God.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by thrashee
 


LOL funny you use a famous Atheists words to defend god lol

anyway... where you are mistaken is since you cannot disprove the existence of anything, therefore you must prove the existence...

In the abscens of positive proof, we have nothing to go on but probability....

Weighing the evidence provided for each possible answer will give you your probability... and, as TP has mentioned... it is not 50/50...

We're talking a significant difference in probabilities... We are tossing a coin, and saying its going to land heads or tails... you're insisting that its going to land on its edge...

actually no... we have evidence for a coin toss landing on edge... you're insisting that the coin will hover in mid-air after being tossed.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
LOL funny you use a famous Atheists words to defend god lol


Not really. I'm simply using logic.



anyway... where you are mistaken is since you cannot disprove the existence of anything, therefore you must prove the existence...


I'm hardly arguing against that. Again, simple logic.



In the abscens of positive proof, we have nothing to go on but probability....

Weighing the evidence provided for each possible answer will give you your probability... and, as TP has mentioned... it is not 50/50...

We're talking a significant difference in probabilities... We are tossing a coin, and saying its going to land heads or tails... you're insisting that its going to land on its edge...


I must have not bothered to read these probabilities...please explain how the probabilities for God are low, again?



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee
I must have not bothered to read these probabilities...please explain how the probabilities for God are low, again?


Its easy! First.. you make a list of all the concrete physical evidence and all the positive hypotheses that support the idea that god exists...

Then, once you do that, you can take all the ideas of how your religion thinks the universe was made and how it works and the scientific hypotheses and experiments that yeilded positive results...

combined those two lists...

I'll make a list of all the ideas and hypotheses and theories that show the ideas put forth in the bible (or any religious text you pick) were proven wrong by science... with solid evidence...

Then we'll compare the two lists. and see how your god stacks up...

remember, we're going for firm, hard, concrete evidence here... stuff that can be proven and hypothesis we can test...

I'll wait here for your list... I'll do mine later... that way you ahve more time to think...

(hint: in the last 4000 years, no one has come up with a positive hypothesis on any aspect of religion... if you can manage to make a decent list... we'll call the Nobel prize committee ok?)



[edit on 21-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
Its easy! First.. you make a list of all the concrete physical evidence and all the positive hypotheses that support the idea that god exists...


Lol. No, it's not that easy, sorry.

If you logically think about the question of where the universe came from, you wind up with three general possibilities:

1) Some "supernatural" force created it outside of space/time.
2) Some physical cause created the universe.
3) The universe was not created; it always existed.

That's generally it. Now, there are logical issues with EACH of these answers. For instance, option 2 only begs the question of what created THAT thing that created the universe--thus you're lead into infinite regression. Option 3 goes against everything we know empirically from a causal standpoint. And Option 1 interjects some "catch all" to explain everything.

So you see....it's not so simple as rounding up positive evidence. Science theoretically favors the notion of a mutliverse, but there is absolutely NO empirical evidence for this theory (remember, it's theoretical), and such theories are grossly incomplete and riddled with logical inconsistencies of their own.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The argument put forth isn't good because of the first premise. "Omniscient" usually is understood to mean all-powerful. Why, then, do you say that if God CAN change the future he is not omniscient? A god that can do anything and everything is the god put forth by Judeo-Christian and also Muslim faiths. Please comment.


Omniscient means all-knowing or all-wise, which I believe you are confusing with omnipotent, which is all-powerful. God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, but then He is love, which is most important to us.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee
Lol. No, it's not that easy, sorry.


Sure it is! that way we don't muddy the water with speculation... only positive confirmed results!


If you logically think about the question of where the universe came from, you wind up with three general possibilities:

1) Some "supernatural" force created it outside of space/time.
2) Some physical cause created the universe.
3) The universe was not created; it always existed.

That's generally it. Now, there are logical issues with EACH of these answers. For instance, option 2 only begs the question of what created THAT thing that created the universe--thus you're lead into infinite regression. Option 3 goes against everything we know empirically from a causal standpoint. And Option 1 interjects some "catch all" to explain everything.


Hrm... than we won't include that in our list... we're only working off solid evidence here...


So you see....it's not so simple as rounding up positive evidence.


Yes it is.. you just want to make it more complicated... we're talking about god existing! positive hypotheses are the only ones we can use to prove anything, as we cannot disprove the existence of anything...


Science theoretically favors the notion of a mutliverse, but there is absolutely NO empirical evidence for this theory (remember, it's theoretical), and such theories are grossly incomplete and riddled with logical inconsistencies of their own.


String theory is dead... it has been "reborn" so to speak in the form of M-theory... which is on the verge of collapsing completely... No string theory... no multiverses... but thats neither here nor there..

But this isn't a discussion about quantum physics... unless you can prove god's existence with quantum... but even quantum physics is a theory. (I gather you think theories are just "opinions")

[edit on 21-2-2009 by nj2day]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by TruthParadox
Jesus says if you have faith as a mustard seed you can move mountains, walk on water, etc,etc...


You were just expressing your "faith" in the future of science....

...and Jesus says if you have faith you can "move mountains", "walk on water", etc..... sounds like future science/technology to me.



Hmmm TruthParadox, you have something in common with Jesus.


[edit on 21-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
Sure it is! that way we don't muddy the water with speculation... only positive confirmed results!


In that case the only thing you can logically state is "you don't know".

That's it. No probabilities, no anything.




Hrm... than we won't include that in our list... we're only working off solid evidence here...


Then, again, the only concrete thing you have to say here is "I don't know".



Yes it is.. you just want to make it more complicated... we're talking about god existing! positive hypotheses are the only ones we can use to prove anything, as we cannot disprove the existence of anything...


No, I'm not. Perhaps you're failing to understand the very cosmological argument that fuels science today. Again, if the only thing you rely upon is positive evidence, then you must be content with stating "I don't know". Which means your argument for or against God is exactly the same.



String theory is dead... it has been "reborn" so to speak in the form of M-theory... which is on the verge of collapsing completely...

But this isn't a discussion about quantum physics... unless you can prove god's existence with quantum... but even quantum physics is a theory. (I gather you think theories are just "opinions")


Not hardly. Perhaps you're not understanding me here. I'm not stating there is positive evidence FOR God, I'm stating that there is NO positive evidence to justify ANY of the rational choices regarding the creation of the universe.

So your issue with probability is irrelevant.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
reply to post by jackflap
 


Depends on which 10 commandments you follow...

They appear 3 different times, and aren't the same each time...

Exudus 20
Exudus 34
and Deut 5

Although, since the commandments in Ex 34 include blood sacrafice, most people like to pretend they don't exist


16 "And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods."

20 "The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem.
No one shall appear before me empty-handed."

25 You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of the festival of the passover shall not be left until the morning.

those are just a few of the lesser known "commandments"




I never heard this argument but I will look into it. You seem to know a bit about scripture. You would know what the significance of the sacrifice was then? And why it was done?



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee
In that case the only thing you can logically state is "you don't know".


No, There is a long laundry list of assertions the bible makes, and how events transpired that can very much be proven incorrect...


That's it. No probabilities, no anything.


Is it more probable that the Rhine river exists from natural causes? or that perhaps someone in ancient times had to take a wicked pee...

Whats more probable? jesus fulfilled prophesies, or jesus know of the prophesies before, and ensured his actions fulfilled them...

see where probability comes in now?


Then, again, the only concrete thing you have to say here is "I don't know".


No, I can positively assert and prove that the earth is not flat, that geography is incorrect many times in the bible, that the account of creation cannot have happened as discribed (even though its discribed in two different ways in the same book).

I can discredit many of the positive assertions that the bible makes.


No, I'm not.


erm.. this thread is about god... not the big bang, or origins of the cosmos...

If you're here to argue the big bang, or whatever other origin of the universe story, I'm thinkin you hit up the wrong thread...


Perhaps you're failing to understand the very cosmological argument that fuels science today. Again, if the only thing you rely upon is positive evidence, then you must be content with stating "I don't know". Which means your argument for or against God is exactly the same.


Erm... we're talking god again... seriously... I think you should start at square 1... and prove the existence of, or determine the probability of the existence of...

and, you're also suggesting that I have to say "I don't know" because I can't DISPROVE god... But i don't... because I can disprove that how god says the universe works... and other scientific oddities in the bible... are in fact, wrong.

therefore, i can successfully claim that the probability of an all knowing, all powerful "god" existing is virtually nil.


Not hardly. Perhaps you're not understanding me here. I'm not stating there is positive evidence FOR God, I'm stating that there is NO positive evidence to justify ANY of the rational choices regarding the creation of the universe.


But we're not talking the origin of the universe... since we have agreed we can't 100% determine how that came about, than we will not include it in our lists!

I take it your entire argument is based off of the big bang or something of the sort?



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
I feel like a Mcdonalds fry cook in an Iron Chef battle.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap
I never heard this argument but I will look into it. You seem to know a bit about scripture. You would know what the significance of the sacrifice was then? And why it was done?


Yes, but it also depends on what dogma you belong to.

I'm also not going to assist you in setting up a straw man...



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by thrashee
Option 3 goes against everything we know empirically from a causal standpoint.


How ?

Why people always think that causality chain must begin somewhere (First Cause) ?

Infinite causality chain is, from mathematical standpoint, perfectly possible...

Big Bang is the current theory which is far from perfect, but it's the best one we have at the moment. It implies first cause mostly to those who believe in god, however, scientists are not happy with that "solution".

It is also possible to have something start existing out of absolutely nothing, no need to involve God entity at all



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap
I feel like a Mcdonalds fry cook in an Iron Chef battle.


LOL I do have to admit, thats the first i have heard that comparative lol made me chuckle...

but seriousy, why's that? why do you feel like that?

we don't bite... well... I don't.... I dunno about TruthParadox lol



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by nj2day
No, There is a long laundry list of assertions the bible makes, and how events transpired that can very much be proven incorrect...


The Bible? Who cares about the Bible? I'm talking about God as a cosmological argument here, not any specific form of God.



see where probability comes in now?


Ah, you're sticking to Biblical explanations. Sorry, I should say here I'm not speaking as a Christian because I'm not a Christian. I'm only sticking to the cosmological argument for God.



erm.. this thread is about god... not the big bang, or origins of the cosmos...

If you're here to argue the big bang, or whatever other origin of the universe story, I'm thinkin you hit up the wrong thread...


Hardly. God is a rational answer to such things. Since this thread is about God, it's logical that such things get brought up.



Erm... we're talking god again... seriously... I think you should start at square 1... and prove the existence of, or determine the probability of the existence of...


But you and I cannot do this with ANY of the cosmological answers. That's my point.



and, you're also suggesting that I have to say "I don't know" because I can't DISPROVE god... But i don't... because I can disprove that how god says the universe works... and other scientific oddities in the bible... are in fact, wrong.


Then you're arguing against the Bible, not God. You do know, of course, that God is not synonymous with the Bible nor a Judeo-Christian representation, right?



therefore, i can successfully claim that the probability of an all knowing, all powerful "god" existing is virtually nil.


No, you can't. What you CAN claim is that many claims in the Bible are not true. This has NOTHING to do with an omniscient, omnipotent God.



But we're not talking the origin of the universe... since we have agreed we can't 100% determine how that came about, than we will not include it in our lists!


Funny how the very rational reason we must consider God as an answer is the very reason you do not wish to include in your list of things to consider.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join