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.

 

God's Fingerprint On Creation Found!

page: 11
105
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer
I already gave my evidence as to why big things don't just bang. To me it makes sense. What is it you need?


You made an assumption about the big bang and used gasoline as an analogy. You make another assumption that "god" caused it. Assumptions aren't evidence, they're hypotheses.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Okay maybe it was nonsense to say it is unprovable but it is very unlikely. In principle if the Universe were infinite then one could never prove it since no proof could be given with absolute certainty. I like how you say if one day we are correct then we will prove the multiverse hypothesis. Very unlikely... If the Universe continues to expand at an exponential rate then space will continue to expand faster than light if it doesn't already do so.

The math can be correct all it wants if proofs aren't put forth then the argument is moot until further proofs can be given.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jacktherer
I already gave my evidence as to why big things don't just bang. To me it makes sense. What is it you need?


You made an assumption about the big bang and used gasoline as an analogy. You make another assumption that "god" caused it. Assumptions aren't evidence, they're hypotheses.


without hypotheses the scientific method is moot so assumptions are a lot more important than one might think.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by jacktherer]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by TheMythLives
 


However, while physics exists, life does not flow into all the crevasses the law of physics allows it to exist within. Life exists by these numbers. These numbers are, but do not control. Physics is, but does control. One can imagine it as if you are driving down a freeway in the desert with an all terrain vehicles. The laws of physics enables the vehicle to quite literally go anywhere the laws of physics calls it to go. Wind, rain, etc. The numbers would be like the gravel road. There is no benefit gained by staying on or off the road. The same energy id required to travel down it. And yet, the car stays. There is no reason for it other than the driver, who chooses the path.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Blind Watchmaker
There is no God, there is no creator. All life evolved.


Thank you for these statements, as I will use them as examples of how we, as humanity, can look at each other as mirrors of the nasty and good we have within ourselves.


When will people wake up from their stupid delusions. Go an read The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins. Inspire your mind with something intelligent and worthwhile for once.


If humanity was to wake up to quickly, the lessons we are to learn here would stop, and there are far to many that are not finished with this school. As for your last two statements, why read The Greatest Show on Earth, when they can just read what you have written and learn what kind of nastiness they need to evolve away from?


Religion is the cancer of mankind. Move along.


Yes it is, and it`s even worse, when you try and tie our creator in with religion. It`s like saying our creator is religion, when there is no tie between them. Religion can be the worship of any one thing we can think about.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer
without hypotheses the scientific method is moot so assumptions are a lot more important than one might think.


The scientific method also requires evidence, testing, reproducibility, falsification, etc. How is this possible with your hypothesis?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
isn't this sacred geometry?

2nd line



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jacktherer
without hypotheses the scientific method is moot so assumptions are a lot more important than one might think.


The scientific method also requires evidence, testing, reproducibility, falsification, etc. How is this possible with your hypothesis?


evidence: things don't just explode randomly

test: watch a patch of gasoline for a few days
watch a patch of grass for a few days
watch t.v for a few days.

observations: indeed gasoline does not ignite randomly, although i noticed a curious reaction. when i applied an already lit flame to the gasoline it burned! surely this is a scientific breakthrough! The same results can be measured for the grass and the television


based on this data, why would you assume that the pre-bang bubble of the universe just decided to explode one day?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
I hesitate to even get involved in this. I have almost completed a Master's degree in math.

To me, it is just a language. There are other systems of mathematics in use also.

I hesitate to get involved in such things as - I am not the world's best communicator, it is hard to articulate what I am thinking here.

I think the philosophical argument would be along the lines of: correlation does not imply causation.

Math is just a language. It does not necessarily mean anything. Things are being described, is all.

And many things do not fit the sequence discussed here. A chopped up worm does not regrow into a "spiral" - it regrows into a tube.

I went to a lecture recently, on space photography, they showed a galaxy that is being burnt up and consumed by another. This is nothing even close to a 'spiral'.

I would think - and I know very little of biology - that certain organisms reproduce in certain sequences as that is most efficient. 1 goes to 2 which add one each - that works for *some* things. I do not think alot of other things work this way. Amoeba? Fungi?
Things reproduce and spread out in all sorts of ways.

And these things can be described in many ways. The 'math' in use now is not the 'only' math that could be used. Just as 'alien beings' wouldn't understand English, they likely would not understand our 'Math'. There are innumerable ways of describing things. Which even ourselves use. Various systems of calculus, hex, binary, yadda - besides 'computer code' - you can base whole systems of mathematics off these things.

I'm really rusty on all this stuff - but you can google 'the history of math' and see many different systems in use in the past and now.

Me personally, I don't think you can just lay a similar description on certain things and call it some "law" or "religious epiphany". You can't work backward like that. I don't know how to articulate this thought here.

I suppose just because you found a way to describe things, that works for a few things, that's no reason to jump to conclusion that it was "designed" that way. You're taking 'design' from coincidence.

There is too much interference of other variables as well. Some one posting here mentioned something like - look how complex our buildings/architecture/ sciences in general are. Doesn't that show complexity?

No to me this shows 'simplicity'. These things are actually very easy that humans easily do on an everyday basis. It just 'looks' complex because alot of time and effort go into it, lot of people work on these things, etc. But the basic principles are actually quite simple.

And if human beings can easily make such things - why couldn't some "god" do a WAY better job?

I personally don't think anything is really 'amazing' - I think its all rather crappy. *I* could do a better job.

I don't find a "spiral" shape amazing either. Again I know little of biology but to me its just an "organism" or "molecule" that's coughing out replicas of itself in the easiest way possible, based on its conditions. It may even have to do with simple things like gravity. The conditions likely dictate the outcome.

I don't think there is any 'design'. I should hope not - The Designer could've easily done a much better job.

Why aren't we holograms? Why are we even discussing this subject in primitive ways?

Yeah 'back work' it again and say "god" doesn't want us to know.

I don't think there is any sort of 'person' running things. I think the whole 'system' is likely much more simpler and accidental than people want to think.

They're might be 'higher beings' and some truth to religion also, I'm not discounting it.

But don't extrapolate ideas off a language, please. Especially if you use the language to describe something, and then use this *description* to justify some other grand idea just because something else fits the description.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
It is nice that we can now be superstitious at a much higher level of questioning than our forbears.

It is also sad that we are still not sophisticated enough to throw off the shackles of the aforementioned superstitions.

When will we replace the:
"Wow! A pattern or sequence that is commonly seen..There was a creator!" with
" Wow! the universe kicks a$$, it almost invariably finds the best way to do things and isn't afraid to use it."



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer

evidence: things don't just explode randomly


I know of nobody that has ever claimed that the big bang was a random explosion. We may not yet know what caused it, but a claim that a god caused it is unsupported and untestable. Let's reverse things. Why would a god randomly decide to cause a huge explosion?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 

Sometime in the 1st century Paul wrote...

"Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;" Romans 1:20

The Fibonacci sequence is an example of this.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

The solar system is sufficient. It is a complex system. You say all complex systems imply design. Using the solar system as the example, prove it was designed.


Left to random chance, entropy increases. Entropy is disorder, chaos. Far from being disorderly or chaotic, the solar system obeys complex and well-defined laws. It's a finely-tuned machine. This implies that there is a design, which in turn implies a designer. Otherwise, the solar system would just entropically fly apart, as order breaks down with the entropic increase. Same goes for everything, from atoms to galaxies.

Is this scientific 'proof' for a deity? No, of course not. One would think that a deity would refuse to stand still for scientific testing and the repeated experimentation required by scientific dogma. In other words, a deity is unlikely to jump through hoops and perform tricks at the command of its subordinates. That would tend to make one question whether it was truly a deity or not, wouldn't it? Logically, then it's irrational in extremis to demand scientific 'proof' of things that wold not subject themselves to experimentation.

Science and religion, while not necessarily at odds with one another, are entirely separate realms of inquiry, and it's as irrational to demand 'scientific proof' for religion as it is to demand 'religious proof' for science.

Now, back to my initial paragraph. I've shown you why I believe that the solar system, indeed ALL solar systems, are not random occurences. Now it's your turn. Show me why you believe the LACK of entropy implies randomness in celestial mechanics.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
You ARE making that claim! You are too blinded by your pre-planned argument that you use on religious people that you can't see the inverse of what you are saying. Claiming that there is no prime mover means you are making the reverse claim. You have no evidence. You just demand it from me and ignore it when I point it out to you.
Again it's about awareness, but I don't think you are really paying attention to what I'm saying. You are locked in and that's not likely to change.


I neither claimed that there is no prime mover or that nothing started the universe. Those are your faulty assumptions. YOU have made claims that are extraordinary and cannot seem to support them. That's your problem. Don't ask me for evidence to support claims I never made. Instead, support your own claims for the gazillionth time.



You are making that claim when you claim that there is no prime mover. If I posted a picture of my 2002 Xterra and told people it had no designer everyone would laugh at me. They all would know that Nissan designed it. My point is that shortly afterwards people would be demanding that I prove that it had no designer. They would say "prove your claim"
See? You might, but I don't know if you would admit it to yourself, much less publicly. You don't understand that you are making the claim that there is no designer when you say that it can exist all on it's own.
My Xterra exists just because it does! Yay! That's just how it is ! And I'm not obliged to back up my claim in any way , shape , or form! Yay!



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragonsmusic

Name one then, and don't say the solar system. You don't have evidence for there NOT being a designer anymore than I can fly you to NYC to have drinks with me and the creator. Your hypocrisy is astounding and your inability to see it is amazing.


The solar system is sufficient. It is a complex system. You say all complex systems imply design. Using the solar system as the example, prove it was designed.


Xterra.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Math(numerology ) and Geometry and Sound through Cymatic's is the Fingerprint of intelligence !

www.cymaticsource.com...

making shapes through sound vibration ! Non intelligent but Intelligence is needed to understand in how it is created!

STEVEN HALPERN Cymatic Imagery of Sacred Chant recorded Inside the Great Pyramid



Enjoy ! this video and Interesting ! the Vocal (like Tibetan monks chant )
recorded inside the Giza Pyramid ! and what is created through Cymatic's

watch at the 3.00 min mark its truly amazing ! the second part of the chant
you see octagons squares etc..

just like any number by a 3 point connection would always make a triangle
S&F how true it is but thats only the building , construction part !


[edit on 16-5-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jacktherer

evidence: things don't just explode randomly


I know of nobody that has ever claimed that the big bang was a random explosion. We may not yet know what caused it, but a claim that a god caused it is unsupported and untestable. Let's reverse things. Why would a god randomly decide to cause a huge explosion?


I still dont understand why you don't understand yet. I'm going to try to put this as simply as possible okay?

if god = creator and nothing more
and big bang = creation of the universe
god = whatever started big bang

Maybe it wasn't a random decision. To understand it all I assume (yeah i made another one, sue me) you also have to factor in the questions of what was that ball of pre-bang universe mass made of exactly, and how did it come into existence in the first place



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by BeastMaster2012
 

Just one question to ask, Would God exist if no one believed in him.?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
Now, back to my initial paragraph. I've shown you why I believe that the solar system, indeed ALL solar systems, are not random occurences. Now it's your turn. Show me why you believe the LACK of entropy implies randomness in celestial mechanics.



Nobody claimed that solar systems were random occurrences. A claim was made that complex orderly systems implied design. I asked for evidence that the solar system, a complex, orderly system was in fact designed. Your argument is: "It's a finely-tuned machine. This implies that there is a design, which in turn implies a designer." This is merely the claim repeated, with another claim that entropy would make it fly apart. The natural effects of gravity keep it from "flying apart". The comlex, orderly structure of the solar system does NOT imply design, it implies adherence to physical laws.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
You are making that claim when you claim that there is no prime mover.


I never claimed there was no prime mover. Please read things more carefully. You claimed there was a "prime mover" (whatever that is). I've consistently asked you to support your claim and you have consistently failed to do so. And please stop the pointless comparison of things that were designed with things the appear designed. No more assumptions and distraction tricks. Support your claim once and for all.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join