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.

 

Creationists, I can easily prove you wrong (even though you don't even have a theory)

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Interesting answers Sinter Klass but I hope that you believe also that there are deeper meanings to all of these things not just the physical/superficial kind – just a means to an end.

For if you say an endearing word to someone especially to the wife (spouse) and don’t really mean it then you might or might not “survive and reproduce”( as Wertdagf puts it).

Or say the wrong words about beauty then you might not “survive and reproduce”!

Or say the food that you just ate taste bad then you might not “survive and reproduce”!
(you might get hit w/ the flying frying pan)

Or that you are slow about hearing when the ‘wify’ is talking then you might or might not “survive and reproduce”!

Or say that she doesn’t smell good then you definitely will not “survive and reproduce”!

But on a serious note (as if the above are not serious enuff) – there are living things on earth that don’t have all the senses (that we humans have) yet they not only survive but thrive.

In fact there are people who can’t taste food at all, can’t see, can’t smell, and can’t hear, etc yet they are surviving and reproducing.

Question though is what kind of existence will it be if one or two of these faculties are missing?

I guess it's fine to a monkey. But for humans who posses such attribute as love, wisdom, power and justice, I disagree (although some behaved like animals showing the traits of beastly animals).

But imagine for a moment living in an island with all the food needed to survive and reproduce but are tasteless, what kind of existence will it be? Or all delicious food but can’t smell them, or able to taste, smell and feel them but can’t see them in color? What kind of life will that be?

As for beauty, you say is in the eye of the beholder – yes that is true, yet everyone can appreciate the beautiful varieties of colors present in nature. For it brightens our senses and enjoy life as we know it (imperfect at the moment). Or the beauty of the majestic mountains! Or the lellies on the field, etc.

So my point is, did somehow evolution knew that we needed these “things” in order to “survive and reproduce”?

Or is it a gift from the giver of life in order to understand what life is all about?

So I hope that when one says “I love you” to the other important one, one really means it and not just a REACTION to a circumstance – that is, a chemical reaction to an “ignorant babble [that] just takes my breath away” as Wertdagf puts it.

Ciao,
edmc2


p.s.
Notice how evolution tends to stay away from what matters the most? That is, what makes life worth living! All feelings and senses are broken down into just products of evolution – a means to an end, nothing more nothing less.

A chemical reaction to circumstances, a sad meaningless existence.

Creation on the other hand explains and gives true meaning to life.




posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Odd that you didn't address my answers...at least you addressed someone's though.


Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


Interesting answers Sinter Klass but I hope that you believe also that there are deeper meanings to all of these things not just the physical/superficial kind – just a means to an end.


Except that I can easily give you these 'superficial' answers that have a logical progression of ideas and lots of evidence to support it, but you cannot prove any deeper meanings.



For if you say an endearing word to someone especially to the wife (spouse) and don’t really mean it then you might or might not “survive and reproduce”( as Wertdagf puts it).


Well, deceit is a part of evolution. Being able to lie is an evolutionary advantage.



Or say the wrong words about beauty then you might not “survive and reproduce”!


If you do it enough times.



Or say the food that you just ate taste bad then you might not “survive and reproduce”!
(you might get hit w/ the flying frying pan)


Now you're being ridiculous, the sense of taste obviously is a warning/reward system for nutrition and freshness. Good taste? Probably loaded with energy and/or vitamins. Bad taste? Possibly rotten or poisonous.
It's interesting to note that starving people don't really utilize their sense of taste for refined enjoyment of food. If you're in the wild you won't say that something you eat tastes bad, you just won't eat it. Picky eaters only survive in a society of plenty.



Or that you are slow about hearing when the ‘wify’ is talking then you might or might not “survive and reproduce”!


I love how you're deliberately ignoring everything I said previously. This seems to be a common creationist tactic: Ignore and repeat.

If you're a paleolithic man and your mate tries to communicate with you, being slow can be a matter of life or death in certain circumstances. Like "don't eat that mushroom" or "there's a bear in that bush".



Or say that she doesn’t smell good then you definitely will not “survive and reproduce”!


You're just being ridiculous now, deserving of ridicule. Did you not read what I wrote? I explained the uses of the senses quite clearly.



But on a serious note (as if the above are not serious enuff) – there are living things on earth that don’t have all the senses (that we humans have) yet they not only survive but thrive.


And there are living things that have more senses than us but they don't manage to thrive as well as us. And the creatures with different senses don't live in the same environments.



In fact there are people who can’t taste food at all, can’t see, can’t smell, and can’t hear, etc yet they are surviving and reproducing.


Because of society. Compassion for those who lack what we have is something that has enabled the species to survive, taking care of the sick or disabled. However, in pre-societal times you're looking at people who would need taste to know if something was good to eat. Or who would need to see where they're going in the wild. Who would need to smell not just food, but possibly threats or rotting corpses that might attract them. People who couldn't hear would get a surprise attack from a predator or fail to heed a warning.

Now you've described a bunch of scenarios. However, take this into account: our senses are tools. Our nose might not have evolved for certain specific purposes, but we can still exploit them in different ways. The understanding of beauty is something that comes from a misapplication of the senses.



Question though is what kind of existence will it be if one or two of these faculties are missing?


I don't know. Ask Helen Keller. She seemed to make the most out of being deaf and blind, she even became a talented orator and champion for the rights of the disabled. She found beauty and meaning in her own life and her story has been a tale of hope for others.



I guess it's fine to a monkey.


Except that the monkey would be dead in a week.



But for humans who posses such attribute as love, wisdom, power and justice, I disagree (although some behaved like animals showing the traits of beastly animals).


We don't really possess an 'attribute' of power or justice. Justice is something that is somewhat relative and power is something that is found throughout the animal kingdom.



But imagine for a moment living in an island with all the food needed to survive and reproduce but are tasteless, what kind of existence will it be? Or all delicious food but can’t smell them, or able to taste, smell and feel them but can’t see them in color? What kind of life will that be?


One where literature would flourish. As would black and white film, the theatre, poetry and music. It would be a great place to live if we didn't need to worry about survival but only had to trade off smell and taste...but touch wouldn't go away. Without a sense of touch there isn't as much of an instinct to reproduce...I think everyone is quite aware of that.



As for beauty, you say is in the eye of the beholder – yes that is true, yet everyone can appreciate the beautiful varieties of colors present in nature.


Not everyone enjoys colors in nature. Some people find nature downright revolting. Don't make blanket statements like that. However, that doesn't actually provide a case for anything.
We can appreciate beauty
Therefore evolution is false.
Our understanding of beauty with regard to color is probably an extension of pattern recognition. You wouldn't find something that's just a mix of bright colors beautiful, but if there's a level of intention and good color coordination you'll like it.



For it brightens our senses and enjoy life as we know it (imperfect at the moment). Or the beauty of the majestic mountains! Or the lellies on the field, etc.


So we've learned to enjoy beauty since we have all this downtime because we're too damn good at surviving and reproducing. What's your point? We've learned to use our senses for leisure.



So my point is, did somehow evolution knew that we needed these “things” in order to “survive and reproduce”?


I already addressed this. Evolution is a process, it doesn't know anything. If an organism is blind and lives in a forest, it will die and not reproduce. If an organism has sight and lives in a forest, it will reproduce and the trait of sight will carry on. The more detailed description can be found in my previous post.
More "ignore and repeat"



Or is it a gift from the giver of life in order to understand what life is all about?


See, I don't see the logical leap there. We have senses that we can use to appreciate beauty ergo god doesn't make sense.



Notice how evolution tends to stay away from what matters the most? That is, what makes life worth living!


Evolution is a biological science, of course it stays away from those things. Just like physics doesn't address the works of Chaucer or chemistry has nothing to say about Mozart.
Evolution is actually more concerned with the living of life. The evolutionary process that you and I and every other living thing are the current product of is the descendant of something that managed to survive and reproduce. We only care about things that 'make life worth living' because we have a society that allows us to concern ourselves with more than survival.



All feelings and senses are broken down into just products of evolution – a means to an end, nothing more nothing less.


No, they're a means to an end that are highly successful and easy to apply to other situations to create entertainment.



A chemical reaction to circumstances, a sad meaningless existence.

Creation on the other hand explains and gives true meaning to life.


Ah, I love this argument. Evolution doesn't satisfy your metaphysical and existential needs to have an external meaning imposed upon your life therefore it must be false?

I take it that you're still one of those people that thinks that I'm speaking about the existence of a deity rather than a biological process.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Thanks for proving my point madnessinmysoul.

ciao,
edmc2



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
This isn't even a discussion, this is an entirely useless thread, where one guy is sitting here defending his opinion. I got news no one is trying to argue that you're wrong or that I'm right. All I'm simply saying is sit there like you got all the anwsers and one day you will be woken up to the fact that you didn't have a single anwser at all, just like the rest of us...

The thing is I don't know what kind of argument you're expecting or what exactly is the point of this thread? Because I surely missed. If it was to use the same arguments to say there is no creator and that the universe is just physical, again if it was that simple there wouldn't be people that beleive, because the arguments you're using would have stopped people from beleiving long ago. Here was my argument in case you missed it, that both evolution and a creator exist take it as you will. Again you don't know what people go through, which gives them beleif in a creator, which is why the argument for ID is even a discussion at all. You'd have to go through and personally debunk all people spiritual happenings and disuade each person individually, only way.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 



Interesting answers Sinter Klass but I hope that you believe also that there are deeper meanings to all of these things not just the physical/superficial kind – just a means to an end.


Actually... Yes, I do.

Creation isn't even a problem in my book. It is the Christian explanation that is absurd.
Even that isn't a problem actually. What bothers me more is that the majority do not even have the slightest clue about evolution, but still try and argue about it.

It's like giving sex lessons when you are still a virgin.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


That's not a proper technique for discussion. You can't simply claim that I proved your point. It doesn't work like that with reasonable people. How have I proved your point and exactly how does your point prove anything?


reply to post by agentofchaos
 




Originally posted by agentofchaos
This isn't even a discussion, this is an entirely useless thread, where one guy is sitting here defending his opinion.


Attacking the fact that I'm arguing rather than attacking my arguments.



I got news no one is trying to argue that you're wrong or that I'm right.


Except that they are. There are people actively trying to put creationism into classrooms.



All I'm simply saying is sit there like you got all the anwsers and one day you will be woken up to the fact that you didn't have a single anwser at all, just like the rest of us...


What is the rate at which an object falls? Hmm...don't know the answer to that. I'm sure there's a calculation that factors in the volume of an object, surface area, gravity, and wind resistance, but I don't know it.
However, I do know that it's a better theory than saying "a deity pushes it down"
I may not be an expert on evolution, but I'm fairly well educated on it to the point where I can discuss the faults of creationism.




The thing is I don't know what kind of argument you're expecting or what exactly is the point of this thread?


One that helps me to expose that creationism isn't science.



Because I surely missed. If it was to use the same arguments to say there is no creator and that the universe is just physical, again if it was that simple there wouldn't be people that beleive, because the arguments you're using would have stopped people from beleiving long ago.


I'm not arguing against the existence of a creator. As I have repeatedly stated this thread is about evolution, not theism. If a deity exists it would be okay with evolutionary theory. If seven deities existed, evolutionary theory would still remain unchanged.



Here was my argument in case you missed it, that both evolution and a creator exist take it as you will.


I never opposed that idea. However, if the creator created all life forms as we know it in their present forms, I do. If the creator simply sparked the first cell then that is a discussion for another thread but it is still compatible with what I'm saying in this one.



Again you don't know what people go through, which gives them beleif in a creator, which is why the argument for ID is even a discussion at all.

I've repeatedly pointed out that this is a discussion for another thread. I'm not talking about the existence of a deity here, I'm talking about biological science which is unconcerned with metaphysics.



You'd have to go through and personally debunk all people spiritual happenings and disuade each person individually, only way.


No, that would be convincing people. We've definitively proven that the Earth is round and goes around the Sun but there are still people who cling to geocentrism and flat-Earthism. People don't necessarily accept the truth, even if it's scientific.
However, this thread is not about the existence of a deity.
This thread over here is about that though

reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 





Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
Creation isn't even a problem in my book. It is the Christian explanation that is absurd.


Eh...with regards to current life as it exists now I do have a problem. Simply the fact that there is too much evidence to support everything against it.



Even that isn't a problem actually. What bothers me more is that the majority do not even have the slightest clue about evolution, but still try and argue about it.


100% in agreement.



It's like giving sex lessons when you are still a virgin.


Well...where I come from you have to get marriage and sex lessons from a Catholic Priest before you get married...


edit on 9/15/10 by madnessinmysoul because: Added 'reply to' formating



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Well...where I come from you have to get marriage and sex lessons from a Catholic Priest before you get married...




You know... weird thing is. Not a single one of those child abusers pay for their crimes. I'm starting to suspect a hail Mary actually works.

Where I come from, marriage is somthing you do when your kids hit puberty. For about a year that is.



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jennybee35
 



Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by xiphias
 





Anyone else notice Stephen Hawking seems to be #ting bricks lately?


Too much!!


But seriously, I have noticed he can't help but run off at the mouth about God, aliens and space at every opportunity now. What's up with that, huh?


maybe he was abducted by an alien and thought he would try to come to terms with the experience by logically explaining to himself that his experience was scientifically impossible within current paradigms and therefore a figment of his imagination... much in the same way "god" is to us creationists, in his atheist opinion... despite the fact we are all experiencing creation as it occurs anyway...

this thread lasted surprisingly long...*sarcasm*. these debates will continue until our sun implodes, im sure of it. lol.


edit on 15/9/2010 by DizzyDayDream because: needingfurtherexplanation




edit on 15/9/2010 by DizzyDayDream because: quoteadded



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 


Guaranteed! I don't know why I feel like I have to come and argue with folks. It is entertaining, though!

Beats washing dishes any day



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 


I love how so many of the replies are like this: scoffing at the title while not addressing it.

If my ideas are so easy to refute why haven't they been refuted?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Actually, you quit answering me on like the second page. What kind of proof are you looking for? What will it take to prove to you, imperically, physically, spritually, that God created everything? What do you expect to happen that will put you completely past the point of doubt?



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 


I love how so many of the replies are like this: scoffing at the title while not addressing it.

If my ideas are so easy to refute why haven't they been refuted?


oh you love that do you... and how do you think your experience of love is possible? Or more to the point why is the human experience of love possible!?

....because reality is awesome... haha please say that in reply i will love you forever, please your itching to arent you i can tell.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jennybee35
 



Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Actually, you quit answering me on like the second page.


I apologize. In my defense, there have been a lot of posts in this thread and I'm a bit short of time lately, so I haven't been incredibly careful with making sure I reply to everything.



What kind of proof are you looking for? What will it take to prove to you, imperically, physically, spritually, that God created everything?


Well, technically I don't want evidence that a deity created everything, as we're only talking about biology on here. For the creationist theory to disprove evolution I'd need first something that countered evolution, like a bunny found in the geologic strata of the Cambrian explosion.

However, to truly prove divine creatorship of all biological lifeforms in their present state I would need to have a few specific things:
Evidence that the current lifeforms have not changed over the entire course of life on this planet
Evidence that lifeforms cannot change, contradicting all the evidence to the contrary
An explanation for the plethora of transitional forms we have found
An explanation for why we don't see any modern lifeforms in the lower levels of geologic strata, like the bunny in the Cambrian

That would be a start to disproving evolution. Then:

You would have to show how divine creatorship makes more sense with regard to the physical data we have
You would have to demonstrate a prediction that could be made based on the theory that we are all designed by a divine creator and then test and prove that prediction to be true
And people would have to publish scientific papers in various peer reviewed journals to cement this in the scientific community, as I wouldn't be able to counter more specific arguments with regard to biology but the experts would be able to draw upon their expertise to see if the drawn conclusions were correct.




What do you expect to happen that will put you completely past the point of doubt?


More or less? For creationism to attempt to be science. If it doesn't attempt to be science than it has no weight as an alternative explanation to evolution.

reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 



Originally posted by DizzyDayDream

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 


I love how so many of the replies are like this: scoffing at the title while not addressing it.

If my ideas are so easy to refute why haven't they been refuted?


oh you love that do you... and how do you think your experience of love is possible?


The firing of synapses due to a positive response to people avoiding my points thus confirming that they're either unwilling or unable to address them. Even when I directly point out that you're not addressing my points you reply with something that avoids the issue.




Or more to the point why is the human experience of love possible!?


I already explained this in a previous post. Humanity has evolved to share a communal sense of love and a personal sense of love for survival. It helps us survive to work together and it helps us survive to love each other. If humans aren't killing each other more humans survive. If I take care of the woman carrying my child, she survives and my genes are passed on. The feeling of love, though an evolutionary construct, can still be a beautiful thing to experience. I'm currently in love with my girlfriend and I have no problem reconciling it with the theory of evolution.



....because reality is awesome... haha please say that in reply i will love you forever, please your itching to arent you i can tell.


You can badger and flame me all you want but you'll still lose the discussion if you're no even going to address my points.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well madness, I don't know what to tell you. You know as well as I do that what you want is not gonna happen. God purposely made that sort of scientific proof impossible so that we would have to have faith. Faith is an intangible, ethereal thing. Faith involves the soul and spirit, and science still cannot explain those things. Science can tell you about all of the biological functions of every human, but it cannot tell you why Jane is a real sweetheart but Dick is just a real A-hole. The essence of WHO each person is has always been about soul, spirit, whatever name you choose to give it. That is why although we can understand how biological life works from the first division of cells, we cannot prove what makes an individual.
God intends for us each to seek out the basic truths about creation, and to look for Him as the root cause of it all. For those who do truly seek the real thing, they find truth. I can only tell you what I BELIEVE. See, that's all there is to faith. Belief. I hope you find something that makes you happy with life. I can tell you that the God you have always been taught about, that you have read about all your life has been terribly misrepresented by men with an agenda. I hope that you will go here:www.thechronicleproject.org... and do a little reading, just to see if you feel that this a more the truth than other things you have been taught.
Good luck and let me know how it goes! Jenny



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

“ That's not a proper technique for discussion. You can't simply claim that I proved your point. It doesn't work like that with reasonable people. How have I proved your point and exactly how does your point prove anything?”


I hope I did not offend you for saying that ‘you prove my point’. Not my intention.

But you did indeed prove my point when I said:


Notice how evolution tends to stay away from what matters the most? That is, what makes life worth living!


Your reply:


Evolution is a biological science, of course it stays away from those things. Just like physics doesn't address the works of Chaucer or chemistry has nothing to say about Mozart.
Evolution is actually more concerned with the living of life. The evolutionary process that you and I and every other living thing are the current product of is the descendant of something that managed to survive and reproduce. We only care about things that 'make life worth living' because we have a society that allows us to concern ourselves with more than survival.


So evolution can’t address it satisfactorily. And if tries to, it always falls short because the explanation tends to (if not always) deal with the physical and superficial. But anyway, I hope that you’ll have a change of heart – that the emotions / feelings that we have are not just chemical reactions to circumstances – just a means to an end. That is, these emotions / feelings have deeper meaning which make life that more meaningful. That they are not just “metaphysical and existential needs” but have a greater and deeper meaning, not “imposed” on us but a part and a gift of life from the giver of life - God.

I’m happy for you though and wish you greater happiness and success with your gf and hopefully your expressions of endearment to her has deeper meaning – other than a ‘chemical reaction’ or just the firing of synapses.

Ty,
edmc2.



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas
 


"The reason a lot of scientists are also atheist is because scientists are people who are educated and think for them selves. "
I have a Bachelor in Science, I'm educated, and I think for myself, and yet I still believe in God. What's wrong with that?



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   



....because reality is awesome... haha please say that in reply i will love you forever, please your itching to aren't you i can tell.


You can badger and flame me all you want but you'll still lose the discussion if you're no even going to address my points.


"Reality is Awesome". Point adressed already, but to be more explicit, read as follows:


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by jennybee35
 


Well, technically I don't want evidence that a deity created everything, as we're only talking about biology on here. For the creationist theory to disprove evolution I'd need first something that countered evolution, like a bunny found in the geologic strata of the Cambrian explosion.


I am not looking to disprove evolution; Because "Reality is Awesome":


However, to truly prove divine creatorship of all biological lifeforms in their present state I would need to have a few specific things:
Evidence that the current lifeforms have not changed over the entire course of life on this planet
Evidence that lifeforms cannot change, contradicting all the evidence to the contrary
An explanation for the plethora of transitional forms we have found
An explanation for why we don't see any modern lifeforms in the lower levels of geologic strata, like the bunny in the Cambrian


"because reality is awesome", and again:



You would have to show how divine creatorship makes more sense with regard to the physical data we have


The "data we have" equals Reality as it currently is. Awesome, and again:


reply to post by DizzyDayDream
 



Originally posted by DizzyDayDream
...how do you think your experience of love is possible?


The firing of synapses due to a positive response to people avoiding my points thus confirming that they're either unwilling or unable to address them. Even when I directly point out that you're not addressing my points you reply with something that avoids the issue[DDD: not true, as follows:]



Or more to the point why is the human experience of love possible!?


I already explained this in a previous post. Humanity has evolved to share a communal sense of love and a personal sense of love for survival.

"reality is awesome"

It helps us survive to work together and it helps us survive to love each other.

"reality is awesome"
If humans aren't killing each other more humans survive. If I take care of the woman carrying my child, she survives and my genes are passed on. The feeling of love, though an evolutionary construct, can still be a beautiful thing to experience.

"reality is awesome"

I'm currently in love with my girlfriend and I have no problem reconciling it with the theory of evolution.


Great! Neither do I!

infact i beleive evolution explains this all perfectly well; Reality is Awesome


Ask yourself about the beauty of science~nature~earth~evolution~life.. and maybe you will come to see my point of view..

There are profound mysteries you are choosing to ignore. profound synchronicities which clearly Unify the Universe. All mammals have warm blood, Five fingers and toes, two eyes and emotions science has no explanation for, yet. Physics is quickly closing the gap between science and religion... stars shine THROUGHOUT the Universe... look at the amazing common characteristics occurring from the prime movement till now.. what caused that first movement into existence? Intention, consciousness, a pure dimensionless energy. In my opinion anyway. You may still disagree. But i like to see things as originating from one source, mainly due to how everything appears to originate from such a place. Fractalising downwards into infinity, life, complexity ever growing. Science has a long way to go yet.. we haven't even properly left this dimension, we've destroyed atoms on the quantum scale, thanks to Einstein, who proved that everything is just Energy.. which is never lost according to physics, it only ever Dissipates, into the environment.. from where? Dimensionless awareness, or to use an ancient, raped and pillaged term, hijacked by false prophets and rectified elegantly by spiritualists, free thinkers and enlightened souls of humanity, throughout our turbulent history: God. Because Reality is awesome. Whereas religions are mostly fiction.




edit on 16/9/2010 by DizzyDayDream because: quotation added



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sickofitall2012
 


A bad day for you atheists, no?

Where are you all, come on, show me some elegant reason explaining why i am wrong! please. i need to proof! proove this is all .... erm ......

Real? ....

prove to me please that consciousness doesn't exists... oh wait.. how do we know that E = MCsquared? someone must have thought it into awareness. .. soo proove to me go on, that my soul doesnt exist... im mean physically exist in this dimension... and prove to me that it's any less of a mystery, objectively, than any traditional understanding of a the non-material. Why can't we start seeing this physical as this spiritual. mysteriously physical, somehow evolved form quantum matter, into particles, into dust clouds, into stars, into planets, into organisms, into cells, into tissue, into organs, into complex ecology ~ into life, into feeling alive... how did matter RANDOMLY spark the most epic sequence of events leading to its own manifestation as something called a synapse, a complex biological nervous system, allowing sensations to occur, allowing thoughts to flow, allowing souls to flourish, allowing this all to happen...existentially, we cannot escape all this happening..

and ask yourself, really, where did the knowledge come from to cause this beautiful happening? for anything to occur, energy needs to be invested into it, from somewhere with intention for any meaningful cause to occur. This cause simply requires intention, due to its meaningfulness. I choose to understand this mystery as being explained by the power of intent, or consciousness, dimensionless energy, infinite, eternal.. otherwise...well nothing would occur.. and why would it!? haha what would the purpose of a nothingness? lol there isn't one.. this rabbit hole does go deeper if your willing to chase me down it,, but to save time, just recognise that life DOES happen in a beautiful spiritual, yet scientific and Physical way.

Give yourself time to absorb my arguments.. in the very least you may learn to appreciate life a little more, not that you already don't, just that sometimes we take this mysterious occurrence for granted.

Be peacuful wherever your thoughts take you



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DizzyDayDream
maybe he was abducted by an alien and thought he would try to come to terms with the experience by logically explaining to himself that his experience was scientifically impossible within current paradigms and therefore a figment of his imagination... much in the same way "god" is to us creationists, in his atheist opinion... despite the fact we are all experiencing creation as it occurs anyway...

this thread lasted surprisingly long...*sarcasm*. these debates will continue until our sun implodes, im sure of it. lol.


Yes, please go ahead and ignore the two hour special where he explicitly talked about several types of aliens and even exotic aliens that have the possibility of living in space itself.
Nah, he's just a close minded elitist scientist, right?


The rest of this is just the god of the gaps where someone thinks OH MY GOD SCIENCE HASNT EXPLAINED EVERYTHING YET, LETS SLIP GOD IN THERE!
Just wait, the gaps have been getting smaller and smaller for centuries.


edit on 16-9-2010 by hippomchippo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


hahah palm

to palm.

nice to meet you,

perhaps you would like to meet my above posts.

lol

you didn't read them did you. if you did then re-read them.

As for Stephen Hawking, I am nothing compared to his greatness, how dare you even attempt to imply i think otherwise. Stop misinterpreting my posts, open your eyes perhaps, and look at your closed mind. I have nothing but respect for the man,

have you read brief history of time?

or the universe in a nut shell?

if not then i highly reccomed you do,

He is responsable for most of my spiritual beleifs! haha wrap your eyes around that one. lol.. seriously though, read these posts properly, you may learn something about this topic.




edit on 16/9/2010 by DizzyDayDream because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join