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.

 

Evidence of God: Physics

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
oh please,

intelligence let's us see the laws. it's not quantum theory. well maybe.

and it doesn't majicly make us understand and use them either.

or make them up!


something put it all in motion.




posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


I think you're seriously confusing KNOWLEDGE with BELIEF



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


So you believe what Hawkings has to say well here is what Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia who knows Hawkings has to say!


"Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism."

Your own man believes in god .........LOL



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:23 AM
link   
Stephen Hawking's qoute
"I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."
I think Hawking's (one of the greatest intellects of all time) knows there is certainly a god but he also knows to prove as much might forever be beyond the scope of humanity ! Let's face it you just need to look at the man to see that if anyone would be against a belief in god i could be him but he has the intellect (that god has given him) to realise the odds are stacked massively in god's favour. Just watch the video at the start of the thread to see how heavy some of these odds are.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Gravity
 


*le sigh*

1: Logical fallacy: Argument from authority

2: Stephen Hawking is an unashamed atheist.

So if you're going to argue from authority, please use an authority that actually agrees with you.

And one last thing, nobody seems to have addressed that the title of this discussion was dismantled already. We don't have any requirement of a deity for the universe to have consistent laws of physics, it's by far the most classic example of a 'god of the gaps' argument.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


1.Didnt you read the quotes i supplied ? Trying reading something before you argue against it !!!
2. The argument from authority was used against me in the name of Hawking's. In reply i threw Hawking's straight back at him !
3. Get your facts straight !



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 06:49 AM
link   
OK

Next time it wont be an Off Topic, it will be a warning and possible suspension of posting privileges..

If you can not contribute without the silly little snide remarks about someones intellect, then do not post.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.
edit on 11/21/2010 by semperfortis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 08:54 AM
link   
God of Gaps - "There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore the cause must be supernatural." wiki

Yes. I 100% agree with the God of gaps - so quit, for the umptienth time, quit trying to use it.

Sometimes the gap is the most common sense answer.

For instance, if it takes ten to the millionth power to try and explain how life began, or simply to believe that God created it all, I'm going with the most common sense answer.

Yes, given inifinite time (which btw is not even possible), eventually the right conditions for life may allow life to majically spring up but is that really a more logical conclusion than just believing in a creator?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by mrvdreamknight
 



Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
God of Gaps - "There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore the cause must be supernatural." wiki

Yes. I 100% agree with the God of gaps - so quit, for the umptienth time, quit trying to use it.


I guess you think that lightning comes from Zeus, that clouds are made from the brains of the frost giant Ymir, that the sun descends into the underworld every night, rainbows are from Yahweh, and that our Moon is a light.

All of those are "god of the gaps" arguments. You cannot stuff supernatural explanations into gaps of understanding of the natural world without an explicit reason. If you provide evidence that a deity is a rational answer, it's an ok thing to do. But in this case a deity is not the answer. It is an unnecessary postulate for the order in the rules of physics.



Sometimes the gap is the most common sense answer.


Sheesh, how many times am I going to have to repeat this? Common sense is useless is scientific discussions as science is inherently counter-intuitive



For instance, if it takes ten to the millionth power to try and explain how life began, or simply to believe that God created it all, I'm going with the most common sense answer.


Well, that number is a fabrication and a gross misuse of Occam's razor...careful you don't cut yourself on it.

Adding a deity in that equation actually makes things even crazier because you beg the questions of where the deity came from, what methods did it use, why did it do what it did, etc.

So from one logical fallacy, the god of the gaps, you go to the fallacy of begging the question.



Yes, given inifinite time (which btw is not even possible), eventually the right conditions for life may allow life to majically spring up but is that really a more logical conclusion than just believing in a creator?


You're the one speaking about magical. Nobody is even saying 'infinite time'. It was actually a few billion years with a few billion light years of universe to operate in. For all we know, life has arisen elsewhere. We're close to verifying whether or not life ever existed on Mars (which sees to be outside of the domains of Adam and Noah), and there is the possibility of habitable worlds existing in other places.

The natural explanation in this case is the more logical conclusion because positing and omnipotent being to create all life would create all sorts of logical paradoxes and fallacies.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Uncle Gravity
 



Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


1.Didnt you read the quotes i supplied ? Trying reading something before you argue against it !!!


I'm looking at all of your posts in this thread...and there are some quotes that are entirely unsourced. Here I will provide a rebuttal straight from the physicist's vocalizing software:






2. The argument from authority was used against me in the name of Hawking's. In reply i threw Hawking's straight back at him !


No, it wasn't an argument from authority, it was a reference. The entire statement's validity was predicated on the laws of physics, not the statements of Stephen Hawking.



3. Get your facts straight !


I'd implore you to do the same. I just provided video evidence that you're quite off the mark. Sure, back in the late 80's Hawking left a bit of wiggle room for the existence of a deity, but he never stated that a deity was a necessity.

In fact, you should also get your basic logic straight. You posted:


Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
Also i say to people who say god doesnt exist...where is your proof ? Just by your very existence you are living proof ! You are trying to deny yourself.


I'm sorry, but you're trying to put the burden of proof onto the skeptic without providing any actual evidence, that is a logically unsound proposition.

Where is your proof that a deity exists? How am I proof that a deity exists?

Get your facts and basic logic in order before you question mine please
edit on 21/11/10 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 09:58 AM
link   
According to Physics we are made of atoms. Atoms are inanimate. Life is animate. At which point does an assembly of inanimate atoms become animate?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
God of Gaps - "There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore the cause must be supernatural." wiki

Yes. I 100% agree with the God of gaps - so quit, for the umptienth time, quit trying to use it.

Sometimes the gap is the most common sense answer.

For instance, if it takes ten to the millionth power to try and explain how life began, or simply to believe that God created it all, I'm going with the most common sense answer.

Yes, given inifinite time (which btw is not even possible), eventually the right conditions for life may allow life to majically spring up but is that really a more logical conclusion than just believing in a creator?



Common sense would require logic and rationality. Believing in something without having the slightest bit of evidence isn't "common sense", it's called "making stuff up".



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:22 AM
link   
"Common sense would require logic and rationality. Believing in something without having the slightest bit of evidence isn't "common sense", it's called "making stuff up". "

So which is more logical and rational - 1. You believing in something not proven - i.e. life coming from the right set of circumstances to the millionth degree of chance of even happening and then somehow magically occuring or 2. Me believing in something that has not been proven, a supernatural being I personally God?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
"Common sense would require logic and rationality. Believing in something without having the slightest bit of evidence isn't "common sense", it's called "making stuff up". "

So which is more logical and rational - 1. You believing in something not proven - i.e. life coming from the right set of circumstances to the millionth degree of chance of even happening and then somehow magically occuring or 2. Me believing in something that has not been proven, a supernatural being I personally God?




You're saying I'm believing something, but I said multiple times before that I admit we don't have the answer yet. I am saying WE DON'T KNOW! You on the other hand fill a gap of knowledge (as in, we don't know what created everything) with your god...which is the typical god of the gaps trap.



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   
"Common sense would require logic and rationality" -

So by saying you don't know, is that logical? Is that rational?



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia

Quote:"Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism."
Source: www.leaderu.com...

Stephen Hawking

Quote:"I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."

Source: www.allaboutscience.org...
Source:evillusion.wordpress.com... (you would do well to also read Einsteins take on thing's here too)

You said.....((No, it wasn't an argument from authority, it was a reference. The entire statement's validity was predicated on the laws of physics, not the statements of Stephen Hawking.))
Does not an argument from authority and using the a reference to an argument from authority amount to the same thing???

MrXYZ says ....."As for more and more evidence...please enlighten us and post just one piece of evidence that supports the existence of a god. You'd prove Stephen Hawking wrong, good luck! "

"Either way, the thread title is very misleading as nothing in physics supports creationism...as Stephen Hawking stated correctly. Of course your understanding of physics is better than hawking's, so I'm sure you can provide us with some scientific evidence of how physics proves the existence of god."

I think you will find his argument rested on Stephen Hawking ! Obviously he had no knowledeg of the real views of the man. And of course the onus is not on me to prove anything!!! Why dont you disprove it? Although it will be difficult considering the conclusions of such eminent people as Einstein and Hawkings......good luck........lol


You said ....."I'd implore you to do the same. I just provided video evidence that you're quite off the mark. Sure, back in the late 80's Hawking left a bit of wiggle room for the existence of a deity, but he never stated that a deity was a necessity."

No! I will provided quotes that puts all of your argument to bed i.e

Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God."

“It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief."

When asked by a reporter whether he believed that science and Christianity were competing world views, Hawking replied, "...then Newton would not have discovered the law of gravity." He knew that Newton had strong religious convictions.

"Even if there is only one possible unified theory [here he's talking about the unification of quantum mechanics with an understanding of gravity], it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"

When asked why he didn't believe in quantum mechanics, Einstein would say things like, "Well, God doesn't play dice with human beings". Hawking's response is that God not only plays with dice, He sometimes throws them where they can't be seen.

"The idea that God might want to change His mind is an example of the fallacy, pointed out St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, God knew what He intended when He set it up."

And of course the now famous argument buster........."I thought I had left the question of the existence of a Supreme Being completely open. . . It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics."

Source:www.allaboutscience.org...

With all of the intelligence and magnificence of Einstein and Hawkings pointing toward a creator, i say the odds are stacked incredibly in that direction (dont you) So therefore since you are left with unfavourable odds (to say the least) against.
i say it's for you to go against the finest intelligence's the world has had to offer and prove there is no god! At this point the believers hold all of the aces whereas you my friend along with others hold a busted hand. Do yourselves a favour and cash in your chips before you loose your self respect as well as god!!!



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Oh! I almost forgot, you said.........."back in the late 80's Hawking left a bit of wiggle room for the existence of a deity, but he never stated that a deity was a necessity."

Hawkings left a bit of a wiggle.......lmao.

Yeah that sounds like the Great Stephen Hawkings dosent it !



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism
 


I think you're seriously confusing KNOWLEDGE with BELIEF


Knowledge > Evidence > Belief


Isn't that how it is?

Knowledge is used to justify a belief. That justification is called evidence



posted on Nov, 21 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism
 


I think you're seriously confusing KNOWLEDGE with BELIEF


Knowledge > Evidence > Belief


Isn't that how it is?

Knowledge is used to justify a belief. That justification is called evidence


No, in order to validate evidence, you need knowledge. Without knowledge (aka of the existence of a deity), evidence isn't valid and nothing but pure speculation...kinda like your statement that no laws can exist without intelligence. You can't KNOW that, yet you still try to pretend it's evidence.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join