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.

 

Point Blank: Is there a God, why and why not?

page: 9
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 



I I were to create a fishtank and put fish in it. The fish would live perfectly in their world believing it to be the only thing, not knowing that it was engineered by us.


If you were to take a species from another planet with a different atmospheric composition and of lower or higher pressure/gravity and place it on Earth, you'd possibly end up with them considering you were one evil SOB.


1) The big bang came into existence approximately 15 billion years ago. The universe is expanding as per Hubble's Law. Now let me ask you people does the rate of expansion of the universe significant? You bet. This has been calculated: If the rate of expansion were a millionth too fast, the density of the gases would not be sufficient for hydrogen to coalesce into Stars, and thus no life. If the rate were a millionth too slow, the universe would collapse back on itself too fast not allowing adequate time for life to evolve. What are the chances that the rate of expansion just happened to be precisely what was need for life...what are the chances?


Using faulty science to prove a God is ... well, it's retarded really. The expansion of space is based on the interpretation that redshift is an accurate measure of distance within the vastness of the cosmos. This is also under the assumption that a currently physics defying event occurred shortly or right at the time of the 'bang', called the inflationary period. Which there is no known mechanism for or actual observed event for this occurring. Using assumptions to 'prove' other assumption's is just a meaningless exercise of stupidity in it's most purest form.


2) We know that many planets have moons....what are the chances that the moon of a planet takes precisely the same angular measurement as its parent star...ie the sun is the same apparent size as the moon in our sky....hmmmm.....what are the chances.


There is no such thing as chance, as chance is just a term indicating extant causes not recognized or perceived. Are you claiming to know all the variables to the formation of our solar system? Perhaps you should work as a physicist or for NASA.


3) We learned about the four fundamental fources in high school physics: gravity, strong, weak, and the electromagnetic force. The strong nuclear force (the force responsible for binding neutrons and protons together in the nucleus) is critical. If it were just 2% stronger, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen after fusion would create diprotons instead of helium and deuterium. What are the chances....


Again with 'chance', please be aware that chance doesn't exist. Also be aware that these 'forces' are entirely unknown in mechanism of propagation right now and are assumed to be 'constant' and universal. As we haven't physically been outside of our solar system and know very very very little of the rest of the universe, these are all assumptions applied from a small pocket to a larger whole. Remember what I said about using assumptions to prove assumptions?


a - It is a universal solvent


Wrong.


b - Ice is less dense than liquid water enabling it float. If it did not float during cold, bodies of water would freeze...ice would sink and life in oceans would not be protected


Ice doesn't protect the oceans.


c - Water has high surface tension. This is responsible for the capillary action required by plants to take in water. If it were not for its extraordinarily high surface tension, there would not be any plants


Wrong, learn plant biology and basic physics.


d - Water has unusually high specific heat value. This gives the ability for humans and animals or life in general to be able to store large quantities of heat.


Not even going to go there ...


e - Water has the HIGHEST KNOWN heat of vaporization of any substance. This makes it easy for use as a cooling mechanism for bodies.


This is so ridiculously wrong ... Do you know anything about water or do you listen to the bible thumper's for all your 'knowledge'?


So we see all these miraculous qualities for our benefit. I wonder who could have made it....hmmm......naaaaa couldnt be...? Coould it? Does a mouse know we created its maze?


Nah, it wasn't. Nothing miraculous about our universe, in fact it could be equally validly argued that the universe is more perfectly geared towards the creation of black holes.


You at this point must be thinking..The universe is just the way it is. Well so does the fish in the fish tank. It does not know we created its fish tank.


I'll tell you what ... Write out a working model and equation for how a fish tank full of water and fish can come together under the laws of physics as we know them to exist and then you might, might just be on to something!




posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:43 AM
link   
I do have a BS in physics. You have yet to disprove anything I have said. Everything I have said cannot be disproven. The Hubble law has been calculated and slight changes were introduced into models to see what would happen. We would not exist. Ask Stephen Hawking about the precision of the expansion of the Universe, he will tell you the same thing I am. Yes we use redshift to estimate the velocity of expansion....dont we use fossils to infer about evolution? How is that any different? Redshift is the signature of expansion, as a fossil is the signature of evolution.

If there is no chance then what is it? Someone who controls the fundamental constants of the universe?



Originally posted by sirnex

If you were to take a species from another planet with a different atmospheric composition and of lower or higher pressure/gravity and place it on Earth, you'd possibly end up with them considering you were one evil SOB.



What other species on another planet? See that is false science because there have not been any other species on a planet discovered as far as I know, yet we do know about the expansion of the universe.


Originally posted by sirnex
Nah, it wasn't. Nothing miraculous about our universe, in fact it could be equally validly argued that the universe is more perfectly geared towards the creation of black holes.


Black holes will still be created if a variety of physical constants were varied, if the strong force were varied by 2% there will still be black holes, but not human beings.


Originally posted by sirnex
This is so ridiculously wrong ... Do you know anything about water or do you listen to the bible thumper's for all your 'knowledge'?


Give an example of a substance with higher heat of vaposization and I will withdraw my statement of it being the highest. Until then I am correct.



Originally posted by sirnex
Not even going to go there ...


What is it about my statement of the high specific heat of water that warrants "not even going to go there" Why dont you replace water in your body with liquid chlorine and see what happens.


Originally posted by sirnex
I'll tell you what ... Write out a working model and equation for how a fish tank full of water and fish can come together under the laws of physics as we know them to exist and then you might, might just be on to something!


Why don't you ask the fish to prove our existence has human beings who engineered its tank? When you do I think you might be onto something.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 



I do have a BS in physics.


Good for you, what kind of cookies do you like?


You have yet to disprove anything I have said.


Burden of proof is on you. It was you who made the claim, thus it is you that needs to show the work.

Prove:

1. God.
2. Redshift is constant and accurate as a measure of distance and velocity.
3. that space is indeed expanding.
4. A mechanism for inflation that is both observable and testable.
5. That life is unique to Earth and can occur nowhere else.
6. That water is a universal solvent. (I know of at least three more solvents that can be used for life myself.)
7. Prove chance exists.
8. That ice protects life in the oceans.
9. That surface tension of water plays a bigger role in plant than do their biology for 'sucking' up water.
10. That water has the highest evaporation point of any other known substance.
11. That the universe requires creation or that life requires creation.

A person who holds a degree in anything is not inherently knowledgeable in the subject they are learning when they aren't applying what they have learned. Your clearly not applying anything you have learned, nor have you shown that you have actually paid attention in classes. Your degree was essentially a waste of your time, the schools time, and a waste of finances for whomever paid for that degree. A shame really.

Now, as for the disproof statement ... It is known that redshift is variable in nature and not a constant which means that it just might not be accurate enough to interpret a plausible big bang scenario. Everything you've mentioned about water need's no 'disproving' as it is all blatantly wrong and shows no knowledge of water at all on your part. As you've made the ludicrous claim about water, you are the one who needs to back that up as it goes against everything known to man. Your argument is an attempt to prove an assumption, in this case, God. You utilize other assumptions in order to 'prove' your first assumption. I can not disprove the first assumption as it doesn't exist in order to disprove, one can not disprove a nothing. Since your assuming the rest of the argument to hold true, you need to prove it true because as it stands, it is all based upon further assumptions for the very reasons given in my first reply to your argument.

Did you get a real degree, or is it one of those thing's you pay $50 bucks for and print out?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 



If there is no chance then what is it?


Your skill for memory recall astounds me, I just went over what it is. Go back a couple of posts.


What other species on another planet? See that is false science because there have not been any other species on a planet discovered as far as I know, yet we do know about the expansion of the universe.


So your *assuming* that life is unique and only in existence on our own planet? Do you not like chemistry and biology?


Black holes will still be created if a variety of physical constants were varied, if the strong force were varied by 2% there will still be black holes, but not human beings.


No, not really... Black holes require everything to be the same, if it weren't then all the constants varied slightly that disallow matter to form or disallow the big bang to occur would effect black hole formation equally. If the strong nuclear force were varied even slightly, atoms couldn't form. Oh gee, fancy that ... Star need atoms to form as well. If gravity were off, matter couldn't collapse into stars and stars wouldn't collapse further into black holes.

Are you *sure* you didn't sleep in class?


Give an example of a substance with higher heat of vaposization and I will withdraw my statement of it being the highest. Until then I am correct.


Graphite and diamond come to mind.


What is it about my statement of the high specific heat of water that warrants "not even going to go there" Why dont you replace water in your body with liquid chlorine and see what happens.


Because it's an assumption that only water can be used as a coolant, which is just wrong as water isn't a universal solvent or the only solvent that can be used. The statement was just to retarded to warrant my time to argue against.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I did not offer proof of god, just signs pointing towards it. Just as fossils point towards signs of evolution. Heck why not call it a theory of god for simplicitys sake.

2. Redshift is constant and accurate as a measure of distance and velocity.
Scientists use it as the most accurately current known method. Just as fossils are the most accurate current method for piecing evolution.

3. Space is indeed expanding.
Hubbles Law

5. That life is unique to Earth and can occur nowhere else
Accorinding to our current knowledge of science, there has not been life observed elsewhere. When we find it I will let you know.

Want to visit my school alumni page to see my degree? Its not 50 dollars...which is what your entire education was probably worth.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Black holes do not require specific atoms to form. It needs anything with mass, regardless of the form it has. Ever heard of neutron stars? Matter was formed at the time of the big bang. If the strong force were varied slightly, different nuclei would be formed, and yes black holes will still form, yet life would not evolve as we know it. That is fact.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:26 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 



I did not offer proof of god, just signs pointing towards it.


Your 'signs' are assumptions and your using those assumptions to assume that another assumption must be equally true. Faulty logic or blatant disregard for common sense, possibly a combination of both. I'm betting on the latter myself.


2. Redshift is constant and accurate as a measure of distance and velocity.
Scientists use it as the most accurately current known method.


Redshift is variable and not an accurate measure of distance and velocity as it assumes that redshift remains constant across the wavelengths entire journey through the cosmos. This has never been proven to be the case as no probes or other means of measure exist to prove the validity of redshift as an accurate measure.


3. Space is indeed expanding.
Hubbles Law


Based upon redshift interpretation only, see above. There is no means of showing 'space itself' expanding under any mechanism.


Accorinding to our current knowledge of science, there has not been life observed elsewhere. When we find it I will let you know.


Then why bring it up if your not actually alluding that life only exists here? Either the fish argument was a statement that life can only exist under earth like conditions or it was an argument made for no reason. Please elaborate if I'm missing something there.


Want to visit my school alumni page to see my degree? Its not 50 dollars...which is what your entire education was probably worth.


Oh how you wish. How you wish...



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by sirnex
 


Black holes do not require specific atoms to form. It needs anything with mass, regardless of the form it has. Ever heard of neutron stars? Matter was formed at the time of the big bang. If the strong force were varied slightly, different nuclei would be formed, and yes black holes will still form, yet life would not evolve as we know it. That is fact.


Your funny!

You really don't pay attention, without the constants for matter being exact where it is, matter won't form, there will be no mass, there will be no neutron stars and there will be no black holes. You hate common sense and you show a strong will to use one argument for one thing despite it applying to all things. Tsk, tsk. Different matter would not form, the strong force as we know it applies only to matter as we know it. Same for the weak force and all other forces, they exist as matter exists and if different wouldn't exist as we know them.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:43 AM
link   
Why must everyone try to turn God into something scientific - He isn't that complicated, folks.

The King James Bible aka Holy Scriptures' prophecies prove God is real.

Archaeology proves He is real.

Science proves He is real.

Near Death Experiences have proven
He is real.

The Holy Spirit, once you accept Jesus as
your Savior, proves there is a God.

Israel, and Biblical prophecy, certainly proves
He is real.

The discovery of the ancient cities of Sodom
& Gomorrah prove there is a God.

And the kicker - as the end days pass by, God
will be revealing Himself more and more to
mankind. He has given us prophecies as a way
for us to know He is real. If people are interested
they can verify all of the prophecies listed in the
Bible - and see which ones have been fulfilled
and which ones will be fulfilled soon. But God isn't
going to approach you first - we must seek Him
as He doesn't force Himself upon any of His
children.

People can sit and think for days upon days
about how to turn Him, Creation and the Bible,
into something complicated and science related
but just because you can't *see* something or
someone doesn't mean they don't exist.

I can't *see* a billion dollars but yet I know it
exists.

Mankind must have a personal relationship with
Jesus in order to get to Heaven, and to God
- the Bible makes it clear that our only hope
out of this world is through His Son, Christ Jesus.
But it's up to each individual to take the initiative.

And might I add that time is really getting short.





posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:58 AM
link   
reply to post by nomorecruelty
 



The King James Bible aka Holy Scriptures' prophecies prove God is real.


A prophecy written after the fact of an event is not a prophecy. The bible was not penned until after all the events had taken place, it's more accurate to liken it to a historical textbook than a prophetic account.


Archaeology proves He is real.


Archeology proves that *some* events as told occurred, but not all events had occurred. It doesn't prove the actual existence of God as a real Entity.


Science proves He is real.


Scientific theories postulate a universe without a supernatural beginning.


Near Death Experiences have proven
He is real.


As no one has actually died in an NDE it does nothing more than show that science does not know everything about the death experience. NDE's are wide and varied and show no *one* scenario of afterlife experience.


The Holy Spirit, once you accept Jesus as
your Savior, proves there is a God.


BS, this is like saying my religion is more right than your religion regardless of every religion claiming the same acceptance experience for them all.


Israel, and Biblical prophecy, certainly proves
He is real.


Does not.


The discovery of the ancient cities of Sodom
& Gomorrah prove there is a God.


No, it proves those cities actually existed. Just as Troy was proven despite mythological accounts.


And the kicker - as the end days pass by, God
will be revealing Himself more and more to
mankind. He has given us prophecies as a way
for us to know He is real. If people are interested
they can verify all of the prophecies listed in the
Bible - and see which ones have been fulfilled
and which ones will be fulfilled soon. But God isn't
going to approach you first - we must seek Him
as He doesn't force Himself upon any of His
children.


Actually, if you read the bible, the end days were supposed to occur a very long time ago. Jesus told an audience of people that they would see the end of days themselves. They didn't, we're still here. Unless we missed the invitation?


- the Bible makes it clear that our only hope
out of this world is through His Son, Christ Jesus.
But it's up to each individual to take the initiative.


As Jesus wasn't the messiah, going through him to receive God's salvation is detrimental to your soul. Remember in the old testament, God said it was only through him and also that his word would not change or could be changed. The entire NT is a testament to the fallacy of christian religion, it goes against God's word. Jesus even teaches that those who follow *jesus* don't have to follow the unchanging law of God anymore. The OT was the original God, so unless there is two God's, your God is wrong.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I believe there is a "God" however i use that term loosly...
I believe that god cannot be defined as person (he or she) but rather "it" because we as humans cannot comprehend the full extent of god. More properly it should be reffered to as an ultimate being. One that is what i called the big 3 O's (omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient)

God knows all and see all, it can look into the past and change the course of the future. God has that power! However just because God is all knowing does not mean that God will interviene with our lives. I claasify God as an observer, whom has no imidiate influence in our lives other than to observe.

I am what you would call a "free-spirited" person. Which means that i do not believe in the existence of the religious God. Because i feel it is all propaganda, which the formal religious insitutes has placed this image of a God for which we can relate to.

How could that be possible?... would that make us equal to God?

The idea of that is obsurd!! Many ancient civilizations understood this and sought out to worship the Gods, not to understand them.

I Also believe that God has still many secrets of the world, which has yet to be revealed or a select few have been lucky enough to uncover these secrets. However these secrets cannot be known until God believe we are ready for them.

The Proof that god exists is false... there are no scientific or factual proof that god exists, it is based on belief. Belief alone does not signify truth. You must justify that belief, soo until a time where the existence of god can be proven it is nothing more then a belief. Which can not be proven, therefore makes the topic subjective.

To answer the original question... YES i do believe in God. but as a supreme being which has no control of my life, but rather an observe who knows all, sees all and hears all.

[edit on 5-10-2009 by enigma14]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by enigma14
 


Excellent answer to the question. I am curious though, how do you justify that belief? I'm personally 'up in the air' on the issue, I neither believe nor do a deny the possibility. it's just as it stands there doesn't appear to be any evidence for a God or any real requirement of the universe for a God. Always curious how others justify belief in God(s).

Which, in your opinion would be the more simpler "truth"?

A universe that requires creation.
-OR-
A universe which requires no creation.

Why/why not?



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Many beliefs can be justified...however many cannot... it is not a matter of proving it.. but rather do you strongly feel that what you feel is true.

Because the truth itself is subjective. No two things are the same. just like no two people are the same.

That is a very good question you asked... The answer to that is neither. Do we believe that God created the universe and that we were created out of nothing. or did we evolve into a higher species of millenias...

To common people, or to me ignorant people, they would think that a universe that requires creation to be simpliar or true. And i will explain why.

It is because they do not know the answer to that question, when we do not know the answer to a question we resort to theories or ideas brought on by other people. Unfortunately we cannot prove the beginning our our existence, or in fact earths existence. Religions answer this question by feeding us this story that an almighty god created us and we are children of that god.

I do not believe that.

I merely feel that something started our creation, the "prime mover" not "god" religions take God as a nurisher who watches over us and guides us as we grow. But I believe we are to fend for ourselves so to speak and determine our own course of development.

Soo sirnex to answer your question. Niether is true because i can not base facts on things i do not know. i can only give my opinion and hope people will be enlightened by them. Hope that has helped.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by enigma14
 



I merely feel that something started our creation, the "prime mover" not "god" religions take God as a nurisher who watches over us and guides us as we grow. But I believe we are to fend for ourselves so to speak and determine our own course of development.


Just out of pure speculation and argument, what would be the creation of the 'prime mover'? The simple answer for me is an eternal universe without causation. I can't comprehend a first causation without need for being caused in itself as that would lead one to assume an infinite prime causes.

IDK, I guess the way I see the universe is if this whole virtual particle/quantum foam stuff is true, then there must exist some mechanism that allows for matter to form in at least finite amounts in an infinite space. Meaning that regardless of space being infinite, only a finite amount of matter would exist at one single moment due to whatever mechanism allowing for this quantum foam to condense into matter as we know it.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ineverknew
 


You wont find God on ATS, no one can find god for you,



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
if thier was this so called invisable man (GOD) then he is not doing his job to let them do this to us instead of waiting for 7yrs to save us I believe the
revalation but GOD not really, besides if he is such a great person why did he kill over 10million people doesn't make any sense he loves us all until you don't follow his rules then he kills us, he only loves him self if thier is a god its an alien and just full of him self and wants us to worship him I won't worship either one of the losers unless I see god come down from heaven and not in a spaceship either he must just float down for me to believe fully in GOD other screw him becuase if he is going to send me to hell for taking a chip then **** him to he should be in hell for killing millions, I really believe god will be an alien.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by slipknotrules2009
if thier was this so called invisable man (GOD) then he is not doing his job to let them do this to us instead of waiting for 7yrs to save us I believe the
revalation but GOD not really, besides if he is such a great person why did he kill over 10million people doesn't make any sense he loves us all until you don't follow his rules then he kills us, he only loves him self if thier is a god its an alien and just full of him self and wants us to worship him I won't worship either one of the losers unless I see god come down from heaven and not in a spaceship either he must just float down for me to believe fully in GOD other screw him becuase if he is going to send me to hell for taking a chip then **** him to he should be in hell for killing millions, I really believe god will be an alien.


You have to remember God is only a observer. God became a observer when he gave his creation free will to evolve as it self chooses to do.

And its quite logical that a Observer can observe his creation. Just like we can observe the things we do and have done.

And its logical that the observer can be sorry for his mistake as well. Just like we can be sorry for what we have created. And its in his full right to make changes to his creation like he intended it to be. Just like we can make any changes to the things we create. We humans also like to improve our mistakes.

We humans observe from a position that is far far from the beginning. We observe from position 1. God observes everything from position 0.

EDIT:

Why does God say that no one knows the day or the hour of the END?

Well because God is only a observer and cant inter wean with our decisions because he gave us free will. But as a very intelligent observer he knows where we are all heading. And we are heading for our own destruction created all by our own free will.



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Well, in all honesty that is quiet a different account than any monotheistic account of God. Which in essence is where the conception of a one god came into being. The monotheistic version of God does play a major role in intervening with the daily goings of mankind. If, as the bible depicts him, he is the sole reason for monotheistic account of God taking such a strong hold on the world. He commanded his people/followers to convert and destroy those who resisted conversion and through various interpretations of the holy scripture, we now have different 'cults' of this one original concept.

To liken God as an observer and nothing more is to liken the biblical account, or the very first account of God as a concept as a false testimony of the very people's who created him in the first place. Really, this is just another iteration of the evolutionary thoughts on religious doctrine, just as all the other 'cults' came into being based on that original conception of God.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


These people are considered determinist... they believe that their lives are pre-determined by some higher entity...there are also extremist who believe every part of their lives have been determined before they were born. They believe there are no such things as accidents.

But does that mean that my life is already determined before i even do it?... that i cant change or alter the course of my life.. because eventually i end up in that same path.

NO.. that is not true.....

You can change you life who you see fit, there are such things as accidents, nothing is pre determined because we make our own choices, because i make my own choices my life cannot be predetermined because i shape the course of my life as i see fit.

God knows the outcome..because God can see into the future.. but like mentioned above God is only an observer, nothing more.



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by enigma14
 


Well, let's suppose God is only an observer, wouldn't the simple act of being able to observe an outcome from initiation to end technically deem it as determined? Meaning, God observes your birth and from that onset can see your future from day one up until death, meaning any 'choice' you make has already been seen to occur.

How can you change an outcome already observed if you have never observed the final outcome or any event between present and its end point when someone else has already observed the entire thing as occurring.

Wouldn't the simple act of observing you claiming freedom of choice be an indication that one lacks freedom of choice and ability to change the outcome all because that event was already observed?

IDK, just trying to wrap my head around it, doesn't really make much sense to me right now. I can live my life accordingly to how I choose, but someone else has already 'seen' how I will choose to live my life, including any changes I choose to make. I don't understand how an act of seeing something as occurring from start to end allows that process to change.

If you flip a coin and can accurately predict with 100% hit rate which side it will land, does that not then 'determine' the outcome?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join