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: 9
105
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



scientifically explain the creation of the universe then.


The best explanation we have at this point in our knowledge is the Big Bang Theory. The most illogical and lazy one we have is that it was popped into existence by some kind of creator.




posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by daggyz
I look foward to the debunkers who can explain how nearly everything in existance has a similar pattern.


Because the universe follows a set of predictable mathematical formulas called "the laws of physics".

I'm looking forward to someone presenting evidence that mathematical sequences implies an intelligent design.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jacktherer
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 



scientifically explain the creation of the universe then.


The best explanation we have at this point in our knowledge is the Big Bang Theory. The most illogical and lazy one we have is that it was popped into existence by some kind of creator.


even if you believe in the big bang theory, there still must have been a spark. things dont just bang and create universes.

whether that spark was intelligent or not is up for debate. but something caused it to bang. that something would be our "God" but then if we found out what that something was, there would still be a question of what made that something. and then what made the something that made the something that caused the big bang and so on and so forth thus proving the existence of a higher being.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by jacktherer]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   
Also the 1.618 ratio. They both go hand in hand and I believe that mathematically speaking...those are the closest and best evidence of us humans being able to even begin to understand God. Leaves no doubt in my mind that none other than a Supreme Being could be responsible for this. Our universe and everything in it did not happen by chance alone.

www.youtube.com...

My .02



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jacktherer
I havn't watched the vid yet or read any of the replies to this thread yet but I would just like to say that anyone who doesn't believe in some kind of higher power is in a dangerous form of denial. You don't have to be Christian or Catholic or Jewish or belong to any organized religion or even have a mathematical equation to see that facts lurk about everywhere proving the existence of a higher being. Just look at the diversity of life on this planet. It's miraculous. Look at some pictures from hubble. There are some things in this universe too beautiful to deny the presence of "God".


Another argument from personal incredulity. The things in the universe you of which you stand in awe are easily explained scientifically and without the need for creators or gods. I'll reverse your claim and state that those unable to reckon a world without creators and gods are in a more dangerous form of denial than otherwise.



Actually, they're only able to explain things of immediate relevance. As you go further back, things start to make less sense. For instance, the nature of the universe is by the function of "always having existed", which seems to be fundamentally illogical.

How does something exist without ever having begun? The question of infinite regress is sometimes addressed with reality being cyclonic by nature, which brings a certain question to mind, where did the materials that make up reality come from?

The answer "it just exists" "it just always has existed" seems like the type of answer a religious person would give you, doesn't it?

And while things can be explained without the element of a god, they can also be explained with the element of god, and still remain inherently scientific by design.

Faith on the other hand cannot be explained in its entirety while ignoring the presence of god. You know why? Because that would be like trying to explain the progression and evolution of life on earth, while ignoring the Sun. You just wouldn't make sense. You would sound like a nut because you're ignoring a fundamental variable in the equation.

So, when science tries to discredit the bible, in ignoring a creator and trying to prove that these things can be explained without the need of adding a creator, it violates the fundamental setup of the equation by meddling and altering the variables.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]

[edit on 16-5-2010 by SentientBeyondDesign]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer
even if you believe in the big bang theory, there still must have been a spark. things dont just bang and create universes.


Maybe they do. We don't know yet.



whether that spark was intelligent or not is up for debate. but something caused it to bang. that something would be our "God" but then if we found out what that something was, there would still be a question of what made that something. and then what made the something that made the something that caused the big bang and so on and so forth thus proving the existence of a higher being.


Where is the evidence that whatever sparked the "big bang" is god? Just your claim?

And yes, the notion of a god existing causes an infinite regression of questions. That also does not imply a higher being.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SentientBeyondDesign
 


well said sir



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
We allready know who the humans "God" is. Not a secret anymore,if you dont know what am talking about the governments of the world has a plan to inform the public within 18 months. The human "GOD" also belives there is a GOD above them again.

The numbers works just like the number 23- It can fit into ALOT of things.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by jacktherer
even if you believe in the big bang theory, there still must have been a spark. things dont just bang and create universes.


Maybe they do. We don't know yet.



whether that spark was intelligent or not is up for debate. but something caused it to bang. that something would be our "God" but then if we found out what that something was, there would still be a question of what made that something. and then what made the something that made the something that caused the big bang and so on and so forth thus proving the existence of a higher being.


Where is the evidence that whatever sparked the "big bang" is god? Just your claim?

And yes, the notion of a god existing causes an infinite regression of questions. That also does not imply a higher being.



god created life so going by that logic, whatever caused the big bang is god.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

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...



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
And while things can be explained without the element of a god, they can also be explained with the element of god, and still remain inherently scientific by design.


I could also explain things with an invisible pink unicorn too but one must provide evidence to support it. Nothing within our knowledge has required a creator, and creators/god(s) only and always inhabit the frontiers beyond our knowledge. The argument from incredulity is insufficient evidence.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   


god created life so going by that logic, whatever caused the big bang is god.


That is not logic, that is an unsupported assumption leading to another unsupported assumption.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
And while things can be explained without the element of a god, they can also be explained with the element of god, and still remain inherently scientific by design.


I could also explain things with an invisible pink unicorn too but one must provide evidence to support it. Nothing within our knowledge has required a creator, and creators/god(s) only and always inhabit the frontiers beyond our knowledge. The argument from incredulity is insufficient evidence.


Well, you're right. I can't provide you with any scientific evidence to conclude the evidence of a creator.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   

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.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer


god created life so going by that logic, whatever caused the big bang is god.


That is not logic, that is an unsupported assumption leading to another unsupported assumption.



as i said i don't believe god is still around personally but i was just going by the bible. the bible says god created all life. so according to the bible, whatever caused the big bang, is god. i agree, the assumption that god created all life is for the most part unsupported by hard scientific evidence but i firmly stand behind my theory that big things dont just bang. evidence: gasoline doesn't just randomly decide it wants to light on fire, something sparks that fire. The assumption that the bubble that was the universe pre-bang just decided it wanted to explode and create the universe is unsupported and illogical.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by jacktherer]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



If there are multiple universes (which maths is used to prove btw), then it stands to reason that every single permeation of numbers is played out. We just happen to be in the one universe where these numbers work as they do.

So basically..........................still atheist.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 



Math Formula Identifies Creator!


Maths formulae identify patterns in nature, not how nature came about.


Math does not evolve, it was/is created


Genetic evolution has nothing to do with Maths. Nobody is claiming maths evolved, as we did. Numerical sequences are defined by our own perception of numeracy as 1 = once, 2 = twice etc.

Mathematical constants in the universe aren't as neat and tidy as you would think, and seem fairly random. I think the multiverse explanation best explains why universal constants appear randomised.


Think about it


I have and sorry no flag and no reward for your pitiful attempt to prove god.

[edit on 16-5-2010 by john124]



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
The evidence I would like to provide you with is a telescope. I will buy one for you and then you can observe the gigantic astrolabe-like universe that surrounds you. As far as petulance goes, what could be more petulant than demanding that I show evidence for a prime mover when you live on a world that just so happens to provide you with a star to keep you alive, water, food, and air to breathe? Not to mention you are surrounded by massive heavenly bodies all of which follow courses, the precision of which, is baffling.


As I suspected, you cannot support your point with evidence and resort to the notion that your subjective opinion is sufficient support of an absurd claim. My contention still stands true: the solar system is an organized structure that requires no designer.

Otherwise, you operate on the argument of personal incredulity. The adherence of nature to mathematical constants "baffles" you, therefore it infers supernatural causation. At some point you're going to have to pony up some positive evidence in favor of your claim.


Now who's being smug? Can you support your belief with evidence? What's your evidence? And who's making the absurd claim here when you belong to a race of beings with very little understanding, surrounded by a seemingly endless universe while making the claim that nothing started it? How the hell is that scientific? Does science give you absolute proof that this is all random? It does not! So you are a hypocrite. The solar system requires no designer based on what? Tell me! Use science to tell me how it does not requrie a desinger!
Name one complex system that humans DO understand that exists from a completely arbitrary or random cause. Can you? Please do.
The universe existing is the evidence, as I've already mentioned. And this is not a claim, sonny. It's my belief system. And in that case it's no different from yours. Again, I ask you, where's your evidence to the contrary?
It's not personal incredulity. It's the awareness that I am nothing more than a domesticated primate , just like you are, and that my knowledge is limited.
Whether you are Stephen Hawking or Richard Dawkins or some other genious it's all the same because the sun will still set tonight (hopefully) and then it will rise again (hopefully) And at the end of the day you are still a domesticated primate that does not know how the solar system was created. You belong to a race of beings notorious for muder, rape, and crime. Not to mention the rampant starvation on this planet where there is more than enough to sustain everyone if resources were properly managed.

And now you want me to believe it's scientific to say that the universe has no designer/designers.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jacktherer

as i said i don't believe god is still around personally but i was just going by the bible. the bible says god created all life. so according to the bible, whatever caused the big bang, is god.


The bible said that demons caused diseases. It was wrong, and likely is wrong in all of its metaphysical claims.



i agree, the assumption that god created all life is for the most part unsupported by hard scientific evidence but i firmly stand behind my theory that big things dont just bang. evidence: gasoline doesn't just randomly decide it wants to light on fire, something sparks that fire. The assumption that the bubble that was the universe pre-bang just decided it wanted to explode and create the universe is unsupported and illogical.


Who claims that "it just banged" or "just decided to explode"? Assuming that the primary cause must have been a god is presumptuous. As I said before, god(s) only exist beyond the frontiers of our knowledge.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Good video.

But I don't like the ending.

I am more inclined to ask "What" is God? Instead of "Who".

As I think it's just too unbelievable to think there is a single entinty running the entire universe. If so, who came before him/her. Also who's of the thousands of Gods is the "real" one.

I'll tell you. For 75% plus of you, it's whatever god your Mommy and Daddy TOLD YOU is the Correct one.

I think there is a force, that has always been and always will be. positive and negative equal parts. Makes alot more sense to me, than a man with a beard living in the Sky.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join