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: 12
105
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 

That is hilarious




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer
I still dont understand why you don't understand yet.


Likewise. You claim a god must be responsible for the big bang simply because we have no certain knowledge on what caused it. This is a variation on what is called the argument from ignorance and it is insufficient in every way.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Nobody claimed that solar systems were random occurrences.


If you don't believe it to be random, then who designed and implemented it?

Why is it's entropy not increasing, in obedience to physics, specifically thermodynamics?

[edit on 2010/5/16 by nenothtu]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Nobody claimed that solar systems were random occurrences.


If you don't believe it to be random, then who designed and implemented it?


Nobody. The universe follows certain physical laws, such as the laws of gravity. The resultant order implies adherence to physical laws, not a designer.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jacktherer
I still dont understand why you don't understand yet.


Likewise. You claim a god must be responsible for the big bang simply because we have no certain knowledge on what caused it. This is a variation on what is called the argument from ignorance and it is insufficient in every way.


Okay after this i'm done because i'm getting dizzy from this circular arguement. I don't claim a god must be responsible, i claim that whatever it is that was responsible was by some definitions God because whatever it was created all the conditions necessary for life to evolve.
Again

if god = creator of all life
and the big bang = the moment of creation
then whatever started the big bang = god

god does not mean zeus, odin, alla, jehova, or anything like that
god simply means creator of all life
or in other words, sparker of the big bang
thats it.

peace & love
jacktherer



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer
if god = creator of all life


That's an unprovable assumption based on religious texts that were wrong about many things. No matter how you define god, you're still claiming god is the cause of the big bang.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


Just trying to get head around this god creation thing

God created Man in his own Image, fair enough, so God actually looks like
one of us. In all the vastness of Universe he only decided to crreate life on
the 3rd rock from the sun. Or there must others through out the Universe that
look identical to us unless they don't look anything like us. So why would he
only put humans on this rock.

As to the Creation Threory then, god must also have been an Intelligent design,
so who created god. Now the typical response is god was always
there, but that must mean we were also always there as well. The laws of
Creation actually contradicts itself.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jacktherer
if god = creator of all life


you're still claiming god is the cause of the big bang.



indeed i am attaching the word god to whatever it is that caused the big bang. So my claim is correct simply for symantecs because the greatest thing about god is that god means whatever your soul wants it to mean.

my definition of god:
God
Noun
The spark that set the big bang into motion, i.e the great creator

so lets reword your sentence to fit my definition, "you're still claiming that the spark that set the big bang into motion is the cause of the big bang"







posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Here's a video that goes along with this thread@!!


Enjoy it and don't miss it !

The Magnificent Universe

Interesting learning:

-Fibonacci Sequence == Spiral Spiral !
-The Golden Ratio
-Cymatics Sound Shaping == See Sound Hear Colors LOL!
-Fractal Universe == Geometry of never ending
-Saturn Hexagon @(remember the Sound of Saturn )!
-Hubble Ultra Deep Field

The Mystery Hexagon on SATURN


[edit on 16-5-2010 by Wolfenz]

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:15 PM
link   
These Albert Einstein quotes are for you atheists,

On whether he considered himself an atheist"I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what that is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the most intelligent human toward God."

On how he regards atheists: "The fanatical atheists...are creatures who cannot hear the music of the spheres. I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist. What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos."



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sliceNodice
These Albert Einstein quotes are for you atheists,


I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

Not that it matters



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:26 PM
link   


Beasties large and small

by Roslyn Taylor

The gentleman who designed my previous kitchen
is unknown to me and nameless
Which does not mean that I hold him blameless,
For he decreed that there should be a gap just
one inch wide
Between the stove and the bench it stood beside.
The gruesome things that can drip, drop, dribble
and drain down such a region
Are legion.
Who knows what horrid creatures wallow
In this dank disgusting hollow?
If there is justice in the Afterlife
This guy has sure earned lots of strife
Such as row upon row of tiny abysses
Between the benches and cooking dishes
Which he's forced to scrub with a tiny brush
While his probing fingers twist and crush
In ungetattable nooks and crannies
Around the greasy pots and pannies
In which the bacon fat can fall
And little beasties creep and crawl ...

I am never benign
About kitchen design,
Tending to ask, before I have seen it,
'Who's going to clean it?'


I loved the picture of the Blue Jay so I thought I'd add something nice too
I poem for you all to enjoy.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by star child
reply to post by BeastMaster2012
 

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

Does sound exist if there is no-one to hear it?




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by skeptic_al
God created Man in his own Image, fair enough, so God actually looks like
one of us.


Well... not quite:

"Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth,” (Gen. 1:26, NASB).

"Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever," (Gen. 3:22, NASB).

“Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech,” (Gen. 11:7, NASB).

"Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!” (Isaiah 6:8, NASB)

It's more like we're made in their image, which begs the question who THEY are and why we we're created for them, the host in 'heaven'.

Just thought I'd toss that into the mix - Intelligent (smarter than us) Designers.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by nenothtu

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Nobody claimed that solar systems were random occurrences.


If you don't believe it to be random, then who designed and implemented it?


Nobody. The universe follows certain physical laws, such as the laws of gravity. The resultant order implies adherence to physical laws, not a designer.


Thanks for clearing that up.

So far, I read you as believing that 'somethingness' indeed comes from 'nothingness' with no cause or reason to do so (as in your take on the alleged 'Big Bang'), that complex systems decide for themselves which laws of physics to follow (as in the way solar systems just ignore thermodynamics, but obey gravity - which, by the way, is very poorly understood as to cause and effect), and that your understanding of science demands a belief that things just 'are' with no motivational factor causing them to 'be'.

Further, you require others to support their extraordinary claims with proof, while at the same time maintaining that you do not have to do so, vis-a-vis YOUR extraordinary claims of existence without cause.

I can see why that is. It would be as exceedingly difficult for you to design experimentation to verify your assertions as it would be for theists to design experimentation requiring their gods to jump through hoops on their demand.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Americanist

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Americanist
I'll do this one more time...


1,2,4,8,7,5 as our boundary/ 3,6,9 as energy. The energy is spun into shape as the appearance of mass along boundary lines. What we would perceive as electrical arching. If you require further explanation, view an earlier thread, my blogs, or the links I provided.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Americanist]


How exactly does the universe's orderly compliance with sequences, formulas and algorithms, etc. imply any sort of causation or interference from intelligent, supernatural forces (gods, designers, prime movers, etc)?



I'd refer you back to my earlier post, but that might involve too much work. We program machines with binary. It's not a stretch to imply this makes us intelligent in some regard. DNA is being utilized as a character set, so what does that indicate to you? In essence we are also creators. We happen to be fractals too. We pop out of one another.

If you find the makings of a machine as well as evidence for its primary function, what implication might you arrive at? If the facts were this: That we are the gears in a device of sorts... What does your take on causation become? This question answers itself.

Intelligence begets intelligence, so the more well-rounded we become to our surroundings, the easier it will be to manifest more evidence.

Btw, you're a drummer. Ever bother to ask yourself where rhythm comes from?

I was the engineer behind the board. You know, the one who had to get up off his butt to mic those drums. Seat the heads properly... And tune the kits. Why? Because 95% of drummers never bothered to learn proper etiquette. They just like beating things to death I guess!
No offense to you of course...



Your argument rests on the presumption that anything that has structure that appears designed must therefore have been designed. It's a subjective opinion. My subjective opinion is that the order in the universe does not appear "designed". Therefore, it isn't. Surely you see that subjective opinion is not evidence that mathematical constants in nature implies a designer/creator.

Rhythm is simply a repeated behavior over time. Nothing unusual about it.



You won't find me walking into this trap.


First off, had you studied rhythm... You'd find it's at the heart of quantum mechanics on up. In fact, it happens to be at the core of what is. Your reasoning... And reasoning the like is a dead-end. Take any debate. Take any topic... Everything is put to rest with subjective opinion. What you're missing is crucial. Ego is the subjective opinion as well as the behavioral pitfall serving as a void to truth. Minus ego... There are no restraints. There are no opinions.

Secondly, as Newton's Cradle would seem to indicate... You keep slamming yourself up against the wall enough times something is bound to give. I imagine it will take a few more attempts for you to bust through.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

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.


You did, and I've explained exactly why and how you did. Please realize that you haven't heard a word that I said. Prime mover means designer in this case, but you know that actually. You sound like a child at this point pretending not to understand what I'm talking about: "whatever that means" hurp durp.
Once again you have missed my point.
Funny how you think I'm using distraction tricks. Very funny actually.
Even though you haven't heard a word I've said I would like to leave you with just one more:


XTERRA





posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


The Bible isn't wrong about anything. It's man who interprets the text and then says it has to be so. Man is wrong about a lot of things; some just aren't willing to admit they are wrong. The Bible proved science wrong when it said the universe was expanding and will die due to a heat death. What was man's scientific theory at the time? The Steady State Theory which Hubble proved wrong.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by masqua
 


Your thoughts were alluded to earlier, and I happen to share those thoughts. I have a hunch the gene pool has been altered throughout history. Look at how fast we've come along sequencing DNA in a matter of a decade.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


did you just find out about the Fibonacci sequence?





new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join