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.
It is not a logical fallacy to dismiss the burden of falsifying someone's unsupported claims. It is the responsibility of the claimant to substantiate the claim, especially in areas such as metaphysics which is characterized by containing no evidence whatsoever.
Originally posted by faceoff85
WRONG, the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming ANYTHING including the calim that there is no god.
Originally posted by faceoff85
To bad you indirectly had to call me ignorant... for the rest I like our discussion. I am very critical and feel personaly offended. maybe something you should take into consideration (or you can read the bible to learn how to interact properly with people) -read: cynical joke-
For the rest of your comment the direct oposite aplies as well... there is absolutely no evidence to prove a universal deity does not exist. So we are left with what is most likely... hence the difference in opinions
Yes. It was well known in ancient societies that the earth was not flat. It only came into being "scientific fact" that it was flat by the same people or their descendants who decided what books would and would not be allowed into the Christian bible. The dark ages and early to middle middle ages where a tragic loss of knowledge time period in history.
Really? So if you were wrongly arrested for murder, it's down to you to prove you didn't do it? You claim you didn't do it, though you have no proof that you didn't commit murder - you're guilty... ? No, I don't think so. For someone claiming the not-null value of something, i.e., the existence or belief in something, it is down to them to show their evidence for it - not for the not-null/negative side to prove otherwise.
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
Really? Science has proven why? So why does the universe exist. Not how. Randomized occurrence is NOT a why, it is a how. It explains to us the process involved in how the universe came to be. But it does not address the role of the universe. Why universes exist. If there is a specific purpose or reason behind why universes have come to be in the manner that they have?
----
I mean science basically says everything happened for no reason. It just did. Things happened. Stuff was here, it was just sitting here, from no where. It didn't decide to come together, it just fell together the way it did because that is the way stuff falls together sometimes?
Science has yet to extract a WHY from anything. Science only deals with matter and energy, both of which are one in the same. Outside of this, science knows nothing else.
Firstly, no "why" was specified. You claimed science didn't provide "whys", but it does. However, why the universe is exists is still a mystery. There is a common misconception you've presented: that "science says everything happened for no reason" or "everything is random". I personally have never encountered any scientist who has presented any such argument, even theoretical astrophysicists who actually ponder things such as the big bang theory. Science generally operates with an assumption that there is a reason and sets out to discover it.
Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by Conclusion
Explain how it's upside down.
2nd..
Originally posted by Conclusion
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
It is not a logical fallacy to dismiss the burden of falsifying someone's unsupported claims. It is the responsibility of the claimant to substantiate the claim, especially in areas such as metaphysics which is characterized by containing no evidence whatsoever.
LOL!!
Really?! The man on the video was an atheist until something made him think about it seriously. He description of DNA was to the T. The statical odds of it coming into existence by randomness is so great that to state that it did is not very scientific in any way, shape, or form no matter the length of time.
Those who claim their god is just beyond our discoveries face the challenge of constantly and eternally moving the goalposts as human knowledge advances
Originally posted by Utopian
I would like to make clear that i would class myself as being agnostic as i am open minded to all possibilities regarding creation.
Originally posted by Conclusion
Science can never explain why. Only how. Give me one, just one answer that science has given to why.
Originally posted by PowerSlave
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
Those who claim their god is just beyond our discoveries face the challenge of constantly and eternally moving the goalposts as human knowledge advances
Isn't this essentially what "science" does? Not to mention almost everything in life, even Darwins theory requires life to move its own goal posts, ie adaptation, survival.
When man/science makes a new discovery or "creates" a new theory, the goal posts must be moved to accomodate new knowledge.
Our sentience
Our need to know
Our need to know why and how
Our love our hate
Our incessant search of creation/origin
Our incessant need to explore the unknown from the depths of Earth and its oceans to the far reaches of the universe.
The perfection of physical life
The conscious/sub-conscious and un-tapped spiritual mind
These are the reasons I would never rule out an intelligent creator/god/designer/entity or whatever name you prefer.
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
If science allegedly proves that things can function without a creator, then it is basically stating that yes, things can come out of nowhere for no reason.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by Conclusion
Science can never explain why. Only how. Give me one, just one answer that science has given to why.
Science has both explained to us why and how the earth revolves around the sun, how and why the Grand Canyon came to exist, how and why mountains form, how and why contrails appear behind aircrft engines, etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Originally posted by SentientBeyondDesign
If science allegedly proves that things can function without a creator, then it is basically stating that yes, things can come out of nowhere for no reason.
That's not "what it basically states". That may be your interpretation of it but I'd do a bit more research into the sciences before jumping to that conclusion.