Absolute, Irrefutable Evidence of a Creator

I wouldn't say off-topic but will say that in the context of creationism vs evolution to talk about aliens or God as creators is talking about the same thing.

Also confirmed it was just repeating the same stuff, which is what I thought. So he gets a star from me

Absolute Irrefutable Evidence of a Creator is on YouTube? that's funny

It wore thin on me after the first two, couldnt bring myself to watch anymore, the music alone was most off putting.

fwiw, the only part that made any sense was Dawkins at the start of the first one.

Can you people not understand that there must be a destroyer? We see out in the universe; stars, planets, galaxies even, that simply explode into NOTHING. Theres nothing left at all.

Now something doesnt just become nothing for no reason? There must be a destroyer behind it. An intelligent destroyer.

Ever witnessed the miracle of death? How could something so alive, just fade away into nothing? Its clear evidence of a destroyer.



OK realtime here:
WHY do you all obsess with there being SOMETHING that made everything? Its like saying something doesnt just go to peaces for no reason? There must have been an intelligent destroyer. Why does everything need a reason?

It never changes.. you always find the stuff we know little or nothing about, and insist god is behind it. The last thing was debunked as being totaly natural and normal, and of course explainable, so you you find something else.

Just like lightning HAD to be angry gods throwing at us, the universe just HAS to be made by god.



You're obsessed, and so much that you're effectively blind.. or rather, all you see is god, god, god. You are dilusioned.

"The pyramids are so nice, we dont know how they were made.. it MUST have been god!"
-Come on!?

The universe doesnt NEED a designer, and it doesnt need a destroyer. It is silly to think it does.

Perhaps the error is not in our answers, but rather in the questions we choose to ask. When we see a beautiful flower dripping lightly with dew in the warm, cheery sunlight of morning...yes, we can ask how it came into being. "Who created this flower?" "Who created the seed it came from?" "Who created seeds?" "Who created the matter that seeds are composed of?" God? Then who created God?

We can spin in circles forever asking these questions if we choose.

Or, we can ask different questions: "What is this flower that I see?" "What is its beauty?" "What is this sensation of warmth I feel on my skin?"

If we ask the question "what is?" and we direct our focus on the understanding of what Is, we may arrive at very different beliefs and perceptions than those who ignore what Is in favor of speculating on how It came to Be.

If you say so. But an alien does not have to be responsible for creation of the universe as that implies. An alien simply could have used directed panspermia to get life to this planet. In fact, said alien race could have died out millions of years ago and never matched any concept of God that we know of. If the idea sounds even remotely possible to you, then I don't know why you would want to eliminate it from the debate. It is just that, a possibility, that would need to be eliminated either logically or scientifically if the intent is to arrive at the truth. In fact, this idea could be compatible with both creation and evolution and therein might be the reason why we are so confused.

creationists open their minds to all that is around them,
because everything around them was created.
atheists close their minds to everything that was created,
as if everything was created around them.

this is all i have to say.

.


[edit on 5-9-2009 by ET_MAN]

But yes that is it - you are focusing on the existence of life on this planet but the idea of creationism goes beyond that and so does evolution. To put it very simplistic it is usually spontaneous big-bang vs intelligent creator. It is exactly why I said "aliens aren't a third option to creationism vs evolution" because you can either have aliens that are God (because they can't be aliens from another planet if they created everything - there would be no planets before they created them) or you have aliens that regardless of their exploits or responsibilities towards our existence are still just as much a part of creation/evolution as everything else is.

My take on it is that no matter what theory is placed in front of me my brain always fries when I try to think of how non-existence could give birth to existence without anything existing already (hence non-existence becoming an impossible concept). So only existence is eternal. And if there is a God that is eternal there is at least one principle that is higher than him/her - their own existence. And the big bang really doesn't answer how existence started to exist it just theorizes as to how from a point in time things developed to where they are - but something had to be there already for the bang to go kaboom.

As for the possibilities within an existence already existent I am open to everything. Maybe the planet gathered the right circumstances for life to erupt just like that, maybe a comet fell and brought the basic elements for life with it, maybe aliens decided it was nice to populate other planets, maybe a million other possibilities I can't even envision. Who knows?

reply to post by InTrueFiction

---

Aha, now I know where my confusion lies. When I think of evolution, I think only of evolution on a species level. But when you talk about evolution vs creation you are not talking about evolution on a species level vs intelligent creation of life as I've always assumed. You are talking about evolution of the universe vs creation of the universe. It wouldn't make sense to talk about evolution on a species level vs creation on a universe level because that wouldn't be apples to apples.

The only way I've ever been able to wrap my mind around "creation" on a universe level is in thinking about the universe as holographic in nature. Essentially, there would be beings on the outside of the universe (if outside is even the right word) and maybe they don't have the same laws of physics that we do. It's a concept that has little scientific evidence and I don't even want to go there, but just thought I would mention it.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by theyreadmymind]

Firstly, I am Agnostic on the issue. Secondly, there are serious problems with some of the arguments you have put forth. This is not an attack on you or your beliefs, or the existence of a God (which I believe is very possible).

Some people are BORN without body parts or with a mental/physical condition. How do you explain this? Sins in their past lives? Sins of their parents? How can this be justified? This is not free will. Being born blind or mentally retarded is not a choice.

Many people in this world suffer great evil. Many good people suffer unjust circumstances. Many bad people receive good while many good people receive bad.

If God is truly the creator, why did he not foresee that certain humans would carry out evil actions. If you knew that your own child had the SLIGHTEST possibility of being the victim or perpetrator of some evil act, would you not take all measures to prevent this from occurring? Why did God not do this for us?

Why does God not provide tangible proof of his existence and instantly grant ALL humans the ability to achieve constant compassion, happiness and prosperity? Why does he not remove all the evil in the world?

"He works in mysterious ways..." is not an acceptable answer. We are asked to believe these extraordinary claims about him, including the idea that he is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-loving.

I ask you this: would a Divine Being who is truly benevolent, knowledgeable to the extreme and who possesses unlimited strength not prevent evil, bring forth happiness and prosperity for all if he could? Why would he instil so many people with the ability to doubt him and his existence? To find holes and ambiguities about his true nature? Does this not suggest that he is willfully deceiving in many ways?

reply to post by brightlight

---

How on earth do Nassim Harameins theories that aliens built the pyramids equal absolute irrefutable evidence of a god?


To my mind far more important then whether there is or is not a creator is =

Where the hell is it ?

Why is it silent ?

If it is not silent then who does it speak to and why?

Of all the thousands of gods worshiped by man which one is the creator, if it is one of these at all, and who decided it was ?


If your creator god is real and someone else s is not, how do you know this ?

You have 2 things to prove to an atheist neither of which have you done.

(1) An intelligent mind which appeared from nothing created everything and you call that god.

(2) The god "which" you worship is the one that created itself from nothing and in turn created everything.

As far as the atheist goes ? Well if you prove somehow that there is a god whoopee do so what exactly ? You have then to prove it is the one you worship.

Frankly I would anticipate the latter to be the far more difficult to prove of the two.

So let's pretend for a minute that you proved there is a god and then you proved it is the one you worship.

Again, so what ? What does that have to do with me ?

Let's also pretend for a minute that the god you worshiped and proved absolutely, happened to be the Abrahamic god ?

Again so what ? The dude is obviously a psychotic misogynistic,homophobic, schizophrenic wanker.
Who the hell wants to be associated with that guy ?

Keep him, go party what can I do about it ?

Mahatma Gandhi, seemed like a nice dude so if there was a god and it was like Gandhi, pretty neat, perhaps we would all get along.

?.

---

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

---

I respect that others believe in intelligent design and two of my friends are staunch advocates of that theory as they are religious church goers where as I am an atheist so I have no desire to ridicule any belief system. However for me the argument in support of an intelligent design just does not seem to hold up to further scrutiny.

That said I sincerly hold to the belief that everyone has the right to believe in whatever he or she wishes as long as it does not impinge on the will and belief systems of others.

In my mind the proof of evolution over intelligent design comes from a innocuous nerve called the recurrent laryngeal nerve. This for me indicates that some things do not adapt as fast as others when it comes to evolution, and adaption rather than design allows us to live in an ever changing environment. Nature makes do with what it has been given in order to move life forward. I think intelligent design would be perfect yet so much of what makes us what we are seems to be more a maladaption than an adaption which seems to indicate evolution.

Explanation of the recurrent laryngeal nerve

This series had potential and for the first few vids it was going in the right direction although its flow was a little questionable.

However in the latter vids it became clear that this was an Islamic promo vid, which to me unfortunately lost its momentum.

If it had been a christian slant, I would still have the same opinion. I was hoping this was not going to be a specific religious discussion but simply one of an intelligent creator vs. chance.

oh well

I tried to give it a fair shake but gave up after the first two videos.

Nothing irrefutable. Nothing absolute. No evidence.

Instead, this is just a rehash of the same old tired Aquinian arguments of "first cause" and the watchmaker.

All of these arguments are subject to two fundamental fallacies in logic. For those of you who are more versed in formal logic than I am as a mathematician, perhaps you can supply proper references to these fallacies. I refer to them by names of convenience which I just sort of use by default

1. Inappropriate scale fallacy. This fallacy is assuming that the inferences that are valid and the concepts that make sense at one level of scale must hold at a different level of scale. For example, assumptions of how objects behave at the macroscopic level in terms of path continuity, continuous change in velocity, cause and effect do not hold at the quantum level. So attempting to apply syllogisms that are based on macroscopic observations to explain quantum processes is a fallacy. New agers take note -- it also holds when you try to convince people that quantum processes "explain" macroscopic events.

Interestingly enough, we may also be seeing this fallacy in effect as we observe discrepancies in galactic level (I call it the megascopic level) measurements when we assume macroscopic processes hold at the megascopic level.

2. The linearity fallacy. Non-linear systems display all kinds of interesting behaviours, including self organizing and emergent behaviours. This fallacy is assuming that what is being observed behaves predictably in a linear manner so that emergent behaviour or structure must be due to an external organizing intent rather than being a fundamental property of the system itself.

The universe and what religions call god is far more complex, subtle and mysterious than can be imagined. I would suggest that these kinds of arguments about proving the existence of god (notice it is only the god of the particular religion that puts forth these arguments whose existence is proven) are really more about justifying the right to social, political and economic power enjoyed by these institutional forms of religion.



[edit on 5-9-2009 by metamagic]

reply to post by spellbound

---

It's not a miracle to see plants, and animals.
The hell is wrong with you people?

reply to post by Copernicus

---

Science is a process, it is not an answer. The function of sciences is to keep asking more and more questions. The problem with modern scientists (in general, not specific) is that, much like the science of the middle ages, they are leashed by their funders. Most people rely so heavily on scientists for their answers to all of life's truly amazing questions that they don't look past the man in the lab coat to the man with the money. The tools of the modern scientific trade do not come cheap, and scientific discovery is predicated on a deep desire to understand, but to harness that understanding in a way that makes someone a lot of money.

The origins of mankind are not the product of rich gentry with time to spend researching a hobby, or even the explorers who traversed the globe, but the product of those who want to live forever and know that other well-paying people want to live forever. If we can figure out the "how" we can reproduce it.

Therefore, no one is even researching "G-D" as an option because that option does not allow money to be made. What if there is a way to speak G-Ds language and converse with him much like we are trying to do with radio in the SETI project? The premise is there can be no G-D so why waste the money looking for it?

How is that inquisitive? It seems very shut down to me.

No one has disproven G-D, and what's more it would be difficult to do so with so many varied definitions on what G-D is... They'd be disproving 500 million different ideas. What they attempt to disprove is an anthropomorphic G-D that appears on demand like a Genie. Maybe G-D is defined as the blood of the universe, the thing that makes us work? Maybe G-D is cosmic glue? How can they disprove all of those theories?

What created the Big Bang? Well, atheists will concede they don't know but that it can't be G-D. What came before the Big Bang? Research scientists say "we'll never know that" and don't bother with that part of the equation. What was the VOID? What is the universe? What are we?

These are the property of the philosophers, the spiritualists, and any hybrid scientist with a thirst for adventure. I'm curious about this subject--always have been, ravenously so, and I've experimented myself in various ways, controlled research even...that I've proof enough for myself. Did it conform to my religion? No, but my religion does conform to it. Basically, I'm a happy, satisfied little camper.

I could care less about convincing atheists that there is a G-D. I don't need to prove anything to anyone.

[edit on 5-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 5-9-2009 by A Fortiori]

Dark Ghost...your objections only apply to a very specific, and very small concept of what God is. You speak of "God" as if God is a prudish, bearded man in the sky. I understand you may think of "God" in that way because that's the perspective offered by so many religious people. Many of whom are rather small-minded people.

But let's ask a very simple question. If God were genuinely omnipotent and omniscient...doesn't this whole "prudish, bearded man" idea suddenly seem very silly?




Tripping over a rock isn't something that one "chooses out of free will" either. But it does happen. Sort of like how if you're not paying attention while you walk, you might trip on a rock. Is tripping over a rock a good reason to believe there's no God? I would say no. "Free will" and the ability to make choices does not automatically convey full awareness of the consequences of those choices.

Let's assume we're all spirit-beings. And one day you decide you'd like to incarnate into human form. So you find a pair of humans about to conceive and you choose to incarnate into their baby. BUT you don't do your due diligence and it turns out that there are some problems with the body. Missing arms, or whatever. Does this have anything to do with sin? No. Is this "justification" you're asking for even relevant? No. Is it free will? Yes. You simply didn't know what you were getting into when you made the choice.

Just like somebody who isn't paying attention and trips over a rock. Nobody's going to watch you all day long and stop you from trip[ping over every rock in your life. And nobody's going to follow your soul around through all of eternity and stop you from ever experiencing anything that might be unpleasant.



Why? Whatever for?

When you go to the movies, do you only ever watch G-rated movies? Have you ever seen a drama? Or a sci-fi action flick? Or...a horror film? Somebody created these things, yes? There is a movie entitled "the texas chainsaw massacre." Pretty horrific. Not very fun. Not good, or cheery at all. But nevertheless, somebody made it, and lots of people watch it. Now imagine for a moment that you're a soul whose been around for ten thousands years or so. Maybe you've been through a hundred reincarnations.

Would you really want them to all be G-rated? Would you really want to live that hundred-and-first life of dancing with butterflies in the grass? Or would you maybe consider something a little more exciting? We can see in daily life that there are people who enjoy action and horror flicks. If we're genuinely eternal souls, is it really such a stretch to think that there might be souls who want to live action and horror lives? Even if just to try it?



It's all about perspective. Again, remember that this God is supposed to be all powerful, eternal, and omniscient. From the perspective of eternity what's the big deal about the occassional horrific death? Oh, sure...it may be horrible from the perspective of the one experiencing it first hand, but nobody is going to stop you from watching a horror movie. Why should God stop you from experiencing a horror incarnation of life if that's what you choose? And if you don't really understand that that's what you're getting into, then you "trip over the rock" and get to choose another life after this one.

Expecting "constant compassion, happiness and prosperity" as even being a desireable goal is very short-sighted in view of those words: "omniscient, omnipotent, eternal."



I say with great certainty...NO. A being such as you describe, with wisdom, would defintely not forbid evil, nor impose happiness and prosperity any more than a parent is going to tell a child that he can only watch cartoons all his life, and isn't allowed to watch action adventure, or sci-fi or horror flicks. When a child is young, sure...maybe you keep a close eye on them. But if we're eternal souls, maybe we've grown up enough that we choose for ourselves what we want to watch? What we want to experience?

The word "omniscient" means to "know everything." Happiness, joy, love, compassion...all of these things are part of "everything." But so is sadnes, pain, loss, death and everything else you can imagine.

To see only some few things out of "everything" is to deny a large portion of what is. Do movie theatres only show G movies? Why should souls only be allowed to experience G lives?



Maybe God isn't a terrifed, weak-minded little fool who needs your constant worship and attention to get through the day. Let's say you doubt God. Let's say you deny His existence.

What's the problem? Why should that bother Him?

God is omnipotent, right? God knows everything, yes? And God is eternal? Right? That's the whole premise we're working with, isn't it? So if you want to live a few lifetimes beleiving that you're a monkey, or that the flying spaghetti monster wants your worship, or whatever suits you...why would God stop you?




[edit on 5-9-2009 by LordBucket]

reply to post by Dark Ghost

---

That stuff happens because he is still mad about that thing with the apple.

But yes: his main argument seems to be good ol aquinus. (www.theology.edu... tiny little reading on that)

I don't know if any propability stuff comes later, because i too stopped halfway trhough part 3, but in case it does:

The propability for the universe existing is 100%. The propability for life on earth is likewise 100%. If you honestly think that there is a chance that you don't exist I suggest seeing a professional about it.

Sure: earth is neither to hot, nor to cold for us, nor to bright nor to dark: but if it was you would have fur and your eyes would be bigger/use sonar like bats. And you would think exactly the same thing.