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.

 

What’s your Best EVIDENCE ‘FOR’ or ‘AGAINST’ God? Intellectual debate, please…

page: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by the_grand_pooh-bah
A few of the major problems I have with the concept of a god.

1.define god.If (christian)god is so powerful why did he NEED his son's blood to wash away the sins of mankind,why wouldn't water do it?


Water is not flesh and cannot wash the sins of flesh away. Only one that is like us can save us.
...


Blood is predominately water. Blood is not flesh. By that token if Jesus was O+ blood type, only O+ people's sins would be 'washed away' and their souls 'saved'?




posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:00 PM
link   
You're really clutching at straws on this one are you not?

You are being way too ridiculous for me to even respond to you. I digress.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
Well even from the laws of thermodynamics we can see that the Universe will eventually die out from maximum heat entropy. There's always a beginning and an end, ALWAYS - BEGINNING - END. Infinite - Alpha - Omega.


OUR laws of thermodynamics... we invented the laws... it doesn't mean it has to happen. We are (as a race) too young to fully understand the workings of the universe. If indeed as my theory goes, the universe is a constant cycle of big bangs followed by big crunches, does that mean God is the catalyst in this chain of events?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by texas-pete
 


Are you disagreeing with the laws of thermodynamics? They're pretty well accepted mind-you.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
You're really clutching at straws on this one are you not?

You are being way too ridiculous for me to even respond to you. I digress.


And this is the theist way... You cannot respond to that! It is a valid question. Either way, whether the question was rather jovial or not it still leaves the question unanswered, if God was prepared to sacrifice his son to wash away the sins of mortals, why wouldn't he have done it again before major atrocities of our times. Some of which caused by the catholic church the Malleus Maleficarum anyone?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by texas-pete
 


Are you disagreeing with the laws of thermodynamics? They're pretty well accepted mind-you.


Not disagreeing, merely disputing that one set of laws govern the whole universe. You are forgetting outside input from within the universe such as blackholes? They are an unknown quantity and we do not know the effects of these.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by texas-pete

Originally posted by dusty1
Another proof for God is mathematics. Please bear with me on this one, I am still trying to formulate this in my own mind.

I believe many evolutionists and athiests live in a world that starts with 1 and ends with 9 (1 big bang 1 single celled organism and then we meet our end, pretty simple). How do you explain God? Some believe He has no beginning and no end. Some say there is no God. I believe the proof for God's existence may involve Zero (insert snark hear). The shape itself has no beginning and no end, maybe that is coincidence. Zero is used to represent the absence of something and yet is the start of everything. It is used in mathematics to create higher numbers 10, 1000, 1,000,000 etc. How far can you count? Without zero, complex forumulas would not be possible. Where did we come from, where are we going?

Were the Fixx right?


Was it not 'God' who said "I am the Alpha and the Omega?" the beginning and the end? The problem with a belief in 'God' is that it is so bloody contradictive. Ergo I do not


Why do you think it is contradictive?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by texas-pete

Not disagreeing, merely disputing that one set of laws govern the whole universe. You are forgetting outside input from within the universe such as blackholes? They are an unknown quantity and we do not know the effects of these.


Please explain to me how a blackhole could POSSIBLY hinder the effects of the laws of thermodynamics?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by texas-pete

Blood is predominately water. Blood is not flesh. By that token if Jesus was O+ blood type, only O+ people's sins would be 'washed away' and their souls 'saved'?


Blood is not what causes us to sin, the flesh is.



And this is the theist way... You cannot respond to that! It is a valid question. Either way, whether the question was rather jovial or not it still leaves the question unanswered, if God was prepared to sacrifice his son to wash away the sins of mortals, why wouldn't he have done it again before major atrocities of our times. Some of which caused by the catholic church the Malleus Maleficarum anyone?


One time is all that is needed. Why do it more than once when people didn't even accept it the first time?

I answered your questions respectfully. THAT is the theist way, friend.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dusty1

Originally posted by texas-pete

Originally posted by dusty1
Another proof for God is mathematics. Please bear with me on this one, I am still trying to formulate this in my own mind.

I believe many evolutionists and athiests live in a world that starts with 1 and ends with 9 (1 big bang 1 single celled organism and then we meet our end, pretty simple). How do you explain God? Some believe He has no beginning and no end. Some say there is no God. I believe the proof for God's existence may involve Zero (insert snark hear). The shape itself has no beginning and no end, maybe that is coincidence. Zero is used to represent the absence of something and yet is the start of everything. It is used in mathematics to create higher numbers 10, 1000, 1,000,000 etc. How far can you count? Without zero, complex forumulas would not be possible. Where did we come from, where are we going?

Were the Fixx right?


Was it not 'God' who said "I am the Alpha and the Omega?" the beginning and the end? The problem with a belief in 'God' is that it is so bloody contradictive. Ergo I do not


Why do you think it is contradictive?



Without starting a massive religious debate, the bible is one of the most contradictive 'factual' texts available! The apostles books contradict each other on quite a few issues, not prepared to list here but a quick google search will prove this.

I do not for a minute think any worse of people for having comfort in religion nor am I trying to influence people to change (although most religions are happy to try to influence non-believers). I am merely pointing out the reason why religion as a whole is losing numbers year after year, and why a lot of people are atheist or agnostic.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by texas-pete

Originally posted by dusty1

Originally posted by texas-pete

Originally posted by dusty1
Another proof for God is mathematics. Please bear with me on this one, I am still trying to formulate this in my own mind.

I believe many evolutionists and athiests live in a world that starts with 1 and ends with 9 (1 big bang 1 single celled organism and then we meet our end, pretty simple). How do you explain God? Some believe He has no beginning and no end. Some say there is no God. I believe the proof for God's existence may involve Zero (insert snark hear). The shape itself has no beginning and no end, maybe that is coincidence. Zero is used to represent the absence of something and yet is the start of everything. It is used in mathematics to create higher numbers 10, 1000, 1,000,000 etc. How far can you count? Without zero, complex forumulas would not be possible. Where did we come from, where are we going?

Were the Fixx right?


Was it not 'God' who said "I am the Alpha and the Omega?" the beginning and the end? The problem with a belief in 'God' is that it is so bloody contradictive. Ergo I do not


Why do you think it is contradictive?



Without starting a massive religious debate, the bible is one of the most contradictive 'factual' texts available! The apostles books contradict each other on quite a few issues, not prepared to list here but a quick google search will prove this.

I do not for a minute think any worse of people for having comfort in religion nor am I trying to influence people to change (although most religions are happy to try to influence non-believers). I am merely pointing out the reason why religion as a whole is losing numbers year after year, and why a lot of people are atheist or agnostic.


I hear what you are saying. But in this discussion about God's existence or non existence. Could it be possible that a being could exist outside of time and space, thus, having no beginning and no end?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by texas-pete

Not disagreeing, merely disputing that one set of laws govern the whole universe. You are forgetting outside input from within the universe such as blackholes? They are an unknown quantity and we do not know the effects of these.


Please explain to me how a blackhole could POSSIBLY hinder the effects of the laws of thermodynamics?


Because the shape and indeed the finitity of the universe is still not proven (just like Einsteins theory of relativity isn't), if the universe is infinite then the laws do not apply, if it is finite then the study of black holes could expand on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Just because there isn't an answer yet it doesn't mean there won't ever be? Perpetual motion if ever proved would debunk the law of thermodynamics, perpetual motion being one of the things expected from dark matter, as in an infinite energy supply.



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree

Originally posted by texas-pete

Blood is predominately water. Blood is not flesh. By that token if Jesus was O+ blood type, only O+ people's sins would be 'washed away' and their souls 'saved'?


Blood is not what causes us to sin, the flesh is.



And this is the theist way... You cannot respond to that! It is a valid question. Either way, whether the question was rather jovial or not it still leaves the question unanswered, if God was prepared to sacrifice his son to wash away the sins of mortals, why wouldn't he have done it again before major atrocities of our times. Some of which caused by the catholic church the Malleus Maleficarum anyone?


One time is all that is needed. Why do it more than once when people didn't even accept it the first time?

I answered your questions respectfully. THAT is the theist way, friend.


I thank you for your answers, which have been with the utmost respect, I also would like to apologise for the blood debate. You are religious, and your beliefs are what you take comfort in, so I am wrong to critcise that.

Pete



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by texas-pete
 


If you're going to question the laws of thermodynamics by relation you must question everything we as scientific people have ever done. EVERYTHING. That would mean nothing at this point in time could be proven 100% scientifically valid.

Edit to add: Which would mean this debate with you is totally irrelevant because you'll never accept any evidence for ANYTHING, let alone God.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by texas-pete
 


If you're going to question the laws of thermodynamics by relation you must question everything we as scientific people have ever done. EVERYTHING. That would mean nothing at this point in time could be proven 100% scientifically valid.

Edit to add: Which would mean this debate with you is totally irrelevant because you'll never accept any evidence for ANYTHING, let alone God.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]


How would it mean that it's irrelevant? You believe there is a finite universe, hence your belief in the laws of thermodynamics when applied to a universe. In an infinite universe these wouldn't apply! Since no one has even come close to closing the debate on whether we live in a finite universe or an infinite universe means the laws of thermodynamics applied to a universe is strictly theoretical. If the universe is cyclic (which is held in as high regard as oscillating (in which thermodynamics would apply)) then it would be irrelevant anyways. Their are far too many theories regarding the origins and ultimate fate of the universe.

Also FYI I do accept evidence for lots of things, but how you can accept that one given fate for the universe is beyond me when as I have said, outside of our solar system we know very little about the universe. Black holes and dark matter create all kinds of uncertainty, so until the chaps at the LHC can create dark matter and observe its effects we will be no closer.

Edit: Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking have shown that black holes have the maximum possible entropy of any object of equal size. This makes them likely end points of all entropy-increasing processes, if they are totally effective matter and energy traps.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by texas-pete]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by texas-pete
 


We'll never come close to realising whether or not the Universe is infinite. How does one perceive infinity?



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
reply to post by texas-pete
 


We'll never come close to realising whether or not the Universe is infinite. How does one perceive infinity?


I think infinity can be perceived simply by saying that the universe (thereby time and space) is never ending. The systems in the universe however are not. Maybe thinking of it as a huge indestructable office building with different workers and furniture every few years? Who knows. I am by the way not trying to say the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, they have more or less been proven correct, by (as you say) many revered scientists. My stance is though that because the universe is so uncertain, maybe the laws which we have developed would need rethinking in order to apply it to something with the complexity and scale (if finite) of the universe.

Pete

Edit to improve the mood - TIME WILL TELL


[edit on 23-11-2009 by texas-pete]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by texas-pete

I think infinity can be perceived simply by saying that the universe (thereby time and space) is never ending. The systems in the universe however are not. Maybe thinking of it as a huge indestructable office building with different workers and furniture every few years? Who knows. I am by the way not trying to say the laws of thermodynamics are wrong, they have more or less been proven correct, by (as you say) many revered scientists. My stance is though that because the universe is so uncertain, maybe the laws which we have developed would need rethinking in order to apply it to something with the complexity and scale (if finite) of the universe.

Pete

Edit to improve the mood - TIME WILL TELL


[edit on 23-11-2009 by texas-pete]


I don't think we'll ever be capable of perceiving infinity. If it keeps growing we'll never be able to see the "end". As far as our current laws, they're the only things we can rely on at this point in time and so that's why I refer to them. From what we know NOW, not what we could possibly know in the future. To make claims based off of what we COULD LEARN in the FUTURE is ridiculous and very unscientific in its methodology.

edit to add: without seeing the "end" just as it is now, it's impossible to claim infinite or finite.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by Agree2Disagree]



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by texas-pete
 


Actually I tend to think God works on the hearts of men to reveal his existence. Most knowledge was passed along orally anyway. In other words...we will know more about God tomorrow than we did yesterday. The idea of "older is better" is silly when talking about a living creators interaction with us through our heart and mind. Knowing God involves no history lesson, it is a metaphysical process during and after our life. The very same argument that atheists use to discredit believers, that people don't need a book to know the difference of right and wrong, shows he is not bound by traditions of men to affect a change in peoples lives where a lack of specific knowledge exists (like what what he should be called e.c.t) .



posted on Nov, 23 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agree2Disagree
I don't think we'll ever be capable of perceiving infinity. If it keeps growing we'll never be able to see the "end". As far as our current laws, they're the only things we can rely on at this point in time and so that's why I refer to them. From what we know NOW, not what we could possibly know in the future. To make claims based off of what we COULD LEARN in the FUTURE is ridiculous and very unscientific in its methodology.


Correct, it is very unscientific, but a lot of theories we have built other theories on such as relativity, are held in high regard but as yet unproven. I wasn't for a minute saying that IF the universe is finite, IF the universe is oscillating THEN we in the future can disprove the laws of thermodynamics.
I am merely saying that for us to firmly pin the fate of the universe to a big crunch, with the build up of entropy being responsible, is a bit hasty.

I would like to believe in our lifetime we could once and for all settle the debates of light speed travel, black holes and finitity of the universe, but unfortunately I don't think it will happen.

Either way, what we are talking about is billions of years away, the more imminent dangers to humans are closer to home (sun and asteroids).

Lets just say this debate is best left to the scientists. You are very knowledgable for a 23 year old (I thought I was the only 23 year old who can hold an educated discussion!)

Thanks for your time


Pete



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join