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.

 

‘Variability’ % proves God is the SPECIAL CAUSE, skeptics, why are you ignoring?

page: 13
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'll address um sometime today/tomorrow...

Patience my son, btw, you been drinking today?

OT



Nope, but I just got up and didn't have my morning coffee yet. Sry if I sound cranky, I like to educate creationists and defend scientific facts against ignorance...Randy knows


[edit on 13-8-2010 by MrXYZ]

[edit on 13-8-2010 by MrXYZ]




posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by wantsome
The way I see it is. The fact is life has happend in the universe we are proof. With all the other stars in the universe odds are it has happend again. If not it would be one big waste of space.

We know how solar systems form we've seen it. Our solar system is no different then the countless trillons out there. For mankind to conceed and belive the universe was created just for him is nieve. But one shouldn't be suprised of this type of thinking after all mankind thought the universe revolved around him for years.

Hell the catholics wanted to exicute Galileo for sugesting the earth revolved around the sun and that was only 400 years ago.

If there is a god he left no proof of his exsistance other then hearsay. I am an atheist but that don't mean I like it. I hope there is a god but I can't bring myself to believe in something so illogical as religon.

Religous people like to think we (mankind) are special and that everything has a purpose. The fact is we share this planet with many other creatures and just because we are the most intellagent don't mean much. For all we know we could be parasites on a planet like fleas on a dog. I've seen dogs with more intellagence then people. All I have to do is watch the nightly news.


I know this only comes out of a book and movie, but in Angels and Demons, the Camerlengo asked Robert Langdon a very interesting question.
"Do you believe in God Mr. Langdon?"

He then followed up by refrazing the question to ask

"I am not asking if you believe what man says about God, Im asking if you believe in God?"

This really stuck home for me.

What this told me is that at the end of the day, you have to look beyond al the BS, organised religion etc, and you gotta make up your own darn mind! ((Free will as they say))



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 08:06 AM
link   
as usual, arguments for and against a belief are futile. it's when these beliefs are forced on people to live by, or be subject to, that i will become proactive. in other words, keep it in your church or your home and leave the rest of us alone.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Signoregregorio, well done on this post. Worth many stars**** I actually read through it twice. some interesting things to ponder if one reads it in thought.

Originally posted by signoregregorio
You assume that God exists already without evidence, non-evidence is not evidence just because you have faith that something is a certain way, it's still non-evidence.....

Read the full post HERE





posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Jimjolnir
 


JJ, I think there's evidence



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jimjolnir


Originally posted by signoregregorio
You assume that God exists already without evidence, non-evidence is not evidence just because you have faith that something is a certain way, it's still non-evidence.....


Here is a summary of the evidence arguments...


First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God’s existence. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 1 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.



A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?


link: www.gotquestions.org...

[edit on 13-8-2010 by OldThinker]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


bull, absolute horse raddish.

Please someone dig out the drake equation and end this pointless thread.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by OldThinker
 


bull, absolute horse raddish.

Please someone dig out the drake equation and end this pointless thread.


Which part?

And stop begging the mods to remove things you don't understand (yet)



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 


No one understands the origins or the universe or whether we are the ONLY life within the cosmos.

The drake equation is an attempt to probabalise life on planets other than earth taking into account key variables.

I don't understand yet?

I don't understand why anyone could have the means to GUESS how the universe formed. Guessing that it is some magical dictator named "GOD" is an unnessasary assumption.

It was found that the majority of top scientists, in a recent survey, were atheists, a large section of the remaining were Deists, i.e. they believe in God but don't think whatever God is, is as tyranous and evil as depicted in any bible written by man. No one could guess God's desires. And of course i wouldn't dare guess as i believe this guess as false and unnessasary.

Sure, i don't understand, but i'm humble enough to admit that, and so are many scientists, doesn't stop them investigating and gathering information and knowledge.


[edit on 13/8/10 by awake_and_aware]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Oh ok, I'm just not used to my humility with horse raddish?

I just see the evidence: ru looking friend?

While Intelligent Design skeptics may claim there is no evidence of God, the actual scientific evidence for God's existence is overwhelming, scientifically answering the question, "does God exist?".

In science there is a Law of Physics called the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Within it is a Conservation of Energy Law that states, as a key principle that all energy in a closed system must be conserved. Okay, fancy language, but what does that mean? It means that while energy can convert into matter (physical “stuff”), and matter into energy, however much total “stuff” there is (matter and energy), there can never be an increase in that total amount or a decrease in that total amount. So however much total “stuff” there is in the universe, (matter and energy combined), there can never have been more and never have been less. All it can do is convert to different forms, like matter to energy or energy to matter, but the total amount of all of it has to remain the same.

The “closed system” is a scientific term that refers to a system or an “area” that has no outside influence, like the universe. Now, as believers we know, of course, that God does influence the universe, so many believers would consider the universe an “open system”, (one that does get outside influence), but for the atheist who says there is no God, the universe is all there is, so from their perspective and for the sake of conventional science, the universe would get no outside influence and would therefore be considered a “closed system”.

Back to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. If it states that you can never have an increase or decrease of energy/matter, which means that matter/energy can not be created from nothingness, how did we get all the matter and energy in the universe? If science is all there is and there is no God, then the 1st Law of Thermodynamics reigns supreme and therefore it would be impossible to have matter and energy in existence right now. Simply put, when you open your eyes and see matter and experience energy, what you see is impossible according to the known Laws of science if, in fact, there is no God. Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.

Plain and simple, matter/energy can not come into existence. It is scientifically impossible, yet here we see everything around us, so how can that be? There are really only 3 possibilities. Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible). Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics), or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

Believe it or not, a 5 year old child could be an atheistic scientist's worst nightmare by merely asking him “where did everything come from if God didn't make it?” What that child is actually asking in scientific terms is “how do we have a violation of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by the creation of energy and matter in the closed system of the universe if there is no Creator capable of doing that?”


source: toptenproofs.com...



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
I know hoe the universe was created, in fact, it's coded within the word "universe" itself.

UNI = single
VERSE = spoken sentence

A "single spoken sentence".

This single spoken sentence was, "Let there be.."



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

I found this quote that sorta sums up my take quite well, “In most cases, those who reject the reliability of the Bible do so because of false impressions they have gained from sources other than the Bible. Most people’s knowledge about the Bible is derived almost completely from second-, third-, and fourth-hand sources. "


I'd have to take issue with this assertion. In my experience, most people who reject the reliability of the bible do so because they've actually read it.

It takes a lot of gall to actually argue the reliability and accuracy of a book which claims that demons cause disease, rainbows are a covenant, people - not just Jesus even - return from death, that bushes and snakes can talk, etc.

And I'm fairly certain that most people who reject those claims don't do so because a second party told them so. It's because they actually read the bible, knew quite well how ridiculous its claims were, and rejected it accordingly. For you, or anyone else, to claim accuracy and reliability in such a book means you'll have to spend a lot of time squaring the circle. Not that I'm interested... I'm still waiting to get my original question answered properly.

[edit on 13-8-2010 by traditionaldrummer]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by OldThinker
 





Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.


No, what science says is that they don't have all the answers...which can't be considered proof for god's existence. A lack of knowledge isn't PROOF for something else! Do you see why??

This is something that happens a lot on ATS!

Believer: But how can science explain XYZ??

Atheist/Scientist: Well, we can explain how X happened, and that leads to the hypothesis that XYZ can be explained as follows. However, we don't have all the answers yet due to a lack in knowledge/technology.

Believer: See, proof for god...you can't explain it, so the only logical conclusion is that god did it!

Atheist/Scientist: Riiiiiight


Every single "proof" you posted is nothing but philosophic questions and "we don't have an answer, so god is the only explanation" argumentation. This ISN'T science, it's guess work and philosophy...ergo, it's not considered scientific proof.

If you really think you can prove the existence of god, I strongly suggest you read this first as I don't think you know what scientific proof is.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I think it's wrong how they get away with claims like that, "It's scientific fact that God exists".... pfffft, spare me, do some reading, do some learning. Shows how much they know about what science is about.

[edit on 13/8/10 by awake_and_aware]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker[/url]



Therefore, science itself says there must be a God.




That's funny. I actually have a career in science and not once did I hear science tell me that there must be a god.

And, in fact, science has discovered a naturalistic explanation for everything so far in the universe and nothing whatsoever either indicating or requiring a god to make something work.

Just curious, doesn't the bible say something about not lying? I was pretty sure it did.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by OldThinker
 


bull, absolute horse raddish.

Please someone dig out the drake equation and end this pointless thread.


Which part?


Pretty much all of it


1) Ontological argument: So just because we invented the word God it/he/she has to exist??? Here, I'll invent one too "RAZIFALLLLOFINAFOL". If you're curious what it is, it's the thing that created god. By that very definition, it has to exist, because how else could it have created god? Seriously, this whole argument is a play of words and certainly NOT PROOF.

2) Teleological argument: Amazing by who's standard??? Most of it is deadly to us, we have birth defects, natural catastrophes, solar flares that could wipe us out, earthquakes, galaxies colliding, an expanding universe that will eventually cool down to absolute zero, and the list goes on. I don't know about you, but if my goal were to create a place for "my people", I'd design it a bit more intelligently. "Birth defects = god's will?" What kinda god is that???

Watch the following clip!!



As for the earth being in the "goldilocks zone"...scientists found numerous planets that are in the same habitable zone. As far as the "complexity" of our universe goes...complexity can be purely caused by the characteristics of nature.

Scientists have explained sooooooo many things that previously were attributed to god because they seemed so "complex" or "unexplainable". Meteors for example, or fire, or the eruption of a volcano. A few hundred (or thousand) years ago people thought they were "signs of gods"...today we know exactly how they work and what causes them.

So again, the teleological argument is NOT PROOF.

3) Cosmological argument: First you state that every effect must have a cause, and then you state that there has to be something "un-caused". You're contradicting yourself, just like the argument is contradicting itself. Just because we don't know what caused the big bang yet (we have proof of the big bang), doesn't mean it had to be caused by divine intervention. A lack of knowledge is NOT PROOF.

4) Moral argument: Morals are imposed on society by society. Those morals are shaped by the location and environment. That explains why morals CHANGE constantly. Premarital sex for example was a sin and a HUUUUGE problem in the middle ages...today, well...not that much considering most people do it. I'll never get why religious people always use the same "how can you be moral and distinguish right from wrong if you don't believe in God?" as if god was some sort of prerequisite for acting nice and morally correct. Again, this argument doesn't even make sense and certainly is NOT PROOF.

If you'd stop using those "Christian Science" websites, you'd stop using those crappy argumentation. What you're using isn't scientific argumentation and proof, it's BIASED, FLAWED, and TWISTED opinions and guess work.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I'll address um sometime today/tomorrow...

Patience my son, btw, you been drinking today?

OT



Just a reminder to not forget to respond to those bible contradictions...since you still seem posting and I don't want you to forget just because it was 2 pages ago



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
I know hoe the universe was created, in fact, it's coded within the word "universe" itself.

UNI = single
VERSE = spoken sentence

A "single spoken sentence".

This single spoken sentence was, "Let there be.."


Man, the ignorance can be cut with a knife.

The word universe is derived from the Old French word univers, which in turn came from the Latin word universum.



But thanks for weighing in with your massively intellectual contribution to the dicussion; we had a few boxes of "Rice-a-Roni: the San Francisco Treat" as a consolation prize, but the OP has pretty much reserved all the "Participant" recognition. Should have been here sooner.

[edit on 8/13/10 by mothershipzeta]



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZIf you'd stop using those "Christian Science" websites, you'd stop using those crappy argumentation. What you're using isn't scientific argumentation and proof, it's BIASED, FLAWED, and TWISTED opinions and guess work.
nah....here's one of your own..."At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

Boyce Rensberger, How the World Works, William Morrow, NY, 1986, pp. 17–18. Rensberger is an ardently anti-creationist science writer.



posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldThinker
btw, the OP is a creative hypothesis, granted...but the data on varability is proven. OT's a marketer remember


Which explains the big claims that have no actual substance. Best not to let people dwell on them too long and hit 'em with more DAZZLE!

And funny...the OP was stated as absolute fact, not a "creative hypothesis."

And a hypothesis must be falsifiable to be valid. Can we PROVE that it is wrong? Of course not - not any more than you can PROVE that it's right.

Therefore, it's rubbish.

But, if we're taking that route:

My hypothesis is that horrible analogies and fake science that's used to prove that God exists is what Satan does to cast doubt on the Biblical account of Creation.

Another hypothesis would be my previously stated belief that anyone attempting to prove God's existence is suffering a crisis of faith, and is full of doubt himself.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join