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.

 

Colbert explains god of the gaps

page: 5
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 





but the facts are, the people who have asked the right questions have always been spiritual, Isaac Newton believed in God, Aquinas believed in God, Hubble believed in God, Einstein believed in God of order (sound familiar?) Georges Lemaître, a Belgian physicist and Roman Catholic priest gave us the Big Bang theory, Alexander Friedmann who was also a Roman Catholic priest who has whole collage discourses devoted to his works alone...


Ah yes, the good old argument from authority...which scientifically speaking is 100% worthless without backup evidence.

weak indeed young jedi, the evidence is in history and in the encyclopedia for you to discover for yourself, I wonder how many other names I can come up with from various fields of science ?


All those people you mentioned stated a BELIEF,
are you going to try to argue Einstein again? still the belief in the God of order is belief in God. I will not even try to prove your ignorance here and lack of a proper education about history to argue the others I have mentioned.


they didn't do studies on the subject to back up their belief like they did when they came up with their scientific theories. So saying their stated belief is just as valid as the brilliance of their theories is beyond silly
it is actually nothing about their belief actually, it is about what they have done and contributed to science and future generations, for afterall, men or women of science did not begin to associate themselves with the most odious word "atheism" until the 18th century. Even our best questions have came and still come from an integration of both science and spirituality, without this the questions are meaningless.


As for where the elements come from, we know where and how helium and others form...inside stars
now that has to be the the most logical and interesting response you give there, but where did the matter stars are made of come from? why are they there? of course we know all about supernova and then the reconstitution of this star-stuff into new stars in a seemingly endless cycle, every bit as circular and trapped as your logic.


Thanks for proving my point though...the tide comes in, the tide goes out
what point? the point that you are only here to bash and not discover or talk about anything really of any interest? the point that above all this ignorance causes divide and separation and takes us backward because flawed atheism is only out for an impulsive giggle... the professors of this said belief are rather ignorant of history, the point in which Isaac Newton spoke so eloquently about.

Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors. -Isaac Newton

a man even Einstein would admire... are you a professor of this senseless and odious practice?


edit on 2/7/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

What on earth do american law rules have to do with scientific evidence? That is just insanely WTF! And how the hell can something be true, just because more people believe in it? At some point there were more people believing in fairies and unicorns, than non-believers, that didn't make them become real!

This is really... Just.. WTF... The internet is a weird place.


oh these are not exclusive to america, these laws of reality come from the Greek and Judeo-Christian philosophies which is actually the cornerstone of your entire western civilization, even that of the very tongue you speak now.

Majority rule and agrees that the sky does happen to be blue... I wonder how we established this "fact" observed by majority ?

what color do you think it is ?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


And the tide goes in, and the tide goes out


You're like ATS's version of O'Reilly, thanks for helping to prove my point...



weak indeed young jedi, the evidence is in history and in the encyclopedia for you to discover for yourself, I wonder how many other names I can come up with from various fields of science ?


Again, science doesn't care who makes a statement...as long as that statement is backed up by objective evidence. Their statements regarding god aren't backed up by objective evidence, so come up with as many names as you like, it's kinda pointless as it's not evidence of anything other than them stating a BELIEF.




are you going to try to argue Einstein again? still the belief in the God of order is belief in God. I will not even try to prove your ignorance here and lack of a proper education about history to argue the others I have mentioned.


He stated a BELIEF and never backed it up with evidence...the argument from authority is laughable




it is actually nothing about their belief actually, it is about what they have done and contributed to science and future generations, for afterall, men or women of science did not begin to associate themselves with the most odious word "atheism" until the 18th century. Even our best questions have came and still come from an integration of both science and spirituality, without this the questions are meaningless.


Personal opinion that has no foundation in reality. Scientists stating an opinion about god IS a belief, no matter how hard you try to twist it to make it look as if they're talking about facts or stuff they discovered. Here's a little challenge for you, find a scientific study Einstein did that proves god's existence. You can't, because he never did a study, which makes it abundantly clear why he and the others were stating a belief and not facts




now that has to be the the most logical and interesting response you give there, but where did the matter stars are made of come from? why are they there? of course we know all about supernova and then the reconstitution of this star-stuff into new stars in a seemingly endless cycle, every bit as circular and trapped as your logic.


"Where did the tide come from? Tide comes in, tide goes out...never a miscommunication!"

That's pretty much your argumentation, and I would have hoped you see how absolutely silly this is after watching the video. Just because we don't have all the answers, claiming god did it is beyond laughable.




what point?


My point is that it's silly to claim magic (god) is responsible just because we don't have all the answers. You are substituting a lack of knowledge with god, the typical god of the gaps.

Again, thank you for your efforts to prove my point, you're doing a great job



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Thain Esh Kelch

What on earth do american law rules have to do with scientific evidence? That is just insanely WTF! And how the hell can something be true, just because more people believe in it? At some point there were more people believing in fairies and unicorns, than non-believers, that didn't make them become real!

This is really... Just.. WTF... The internet is a weird place.


oh these are not exclusive to america, these laws of reality come from the Greek and Judeo-Christian philosophies which is actually the cornerstone of your entire western civilization, even that of the very tongue you speak now.

Majority rule and agrees that the sky does happen to be blue... I wonder how we established this "fact" observed by majority ?

what color do you think it is ?


You clearly don't understand what scientific evidence is...it's not the same as evidence in court, which are based on Greek and J-C philosophies. Scientific evidence has to be objective, which makes it abundantly clear that witness testimony or majority opinion are absolutely useless in science. Objectivity kinda matters in science



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Also have to say (even thou it doesn't matter) that Einstein did absolutely not believe in God. What he called God is simply the laws/phenomenons that happen in the Universe like evolution or gravitation.
edit on 7-2-2011 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Soke33
 


And again you quote definitions related to LAW...and NOT science!! The definitions aren't the same in law as in science
wow atheists surely are lacking in the education department


"Law" such as the law of thermodynamics and Hubble's "Law" means it has been establish and is ground to stand on when doing further research and study, that is why we call it "a law" for if you go out and harm others that is not abiding by "laws" wouldn't you agree ?

A "theory" on the other hand is just that... a speculation.


In science, witness testimony not backed up by proper evidence is WORTHLESS.
oh no here we go again, that weak sputtering out light-sabre... I am sorry my friend your moves are so predictable that others can now turn sideways (like Neo) and fed you off with out even looking, it is like we can already see it coming. Besides like Agent Smith... you do not even know why you do the things you do or seek what you seek, you act only on impulse.


Subjective evidence is not evidence in science
subjective science is called "a theory" Gods "Law" is called "the Law" and that is for a reason.

man Star Wars is so dated it isn't even funny anymore



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)


That's the quote you were looking for


So yeah, saying Einstein believed in a personal god like Christians or Jews is laughable as he most certainly didn't


A lot of scientists share his views, like Neil DeGrasse Tyson who's imo brilliant:




Sagan and Tyson have the most humble, scientific view of the world imo...purely based on what we actually know rather than made up magic.




posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by noonebutme
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


But you realise that the absence of evidence does not mean the default answer is the correct one. It means we do not yet understand why a particular phenomenon occurs as it does.
no it means if you go out and murder someone, it is quite "evil" and against the "law" oh dear God for the future of humanity give this, the lesser wisdom understanding !


One of the greatest things about science is that it can admit when it's wrong and change its theories accordingly to accomodate new information and understanding.
on of the greatest things and mysterious things to come out of the religious quest to better understand ourselves has been science. Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?


Religion on the otherhand, cannot.
hold on here just a second... we are talking about science and spirituality... if you can not understand the difference and follow a conversation then what really do you have to offer ? I will not even quote the rest of your response here because your logic and understanding is flawed at the source. But my personal religion happens to be the sect of Heavy Metal.


Sure, science does not have the answer to everything.
I agree... most scientists are not good looking.


But at least it makes an attempt to use common sense, logic and reason to understand the world and universe we live it.
admirable really... maybe they should head to the gym, or show a little heart



I'm not bashing Christianity specifically - I'm bashing all religions equally.
oh I am quite sure you are not, Theism and spirituality is not exclusive to spirituality..

you do understand the basic difference correct ? is Christianity all that you know of and see and hear of... humm, I wonder why



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 




wow atheists surely are lacking in the education department


Oh the irony is strong in this one




"Law" such as the law of thermodynamics and Hubble's "Law" means it has been establish and is ground to stand on when doing further research and study, that is why we call it "a law" for if you go out and harm others that is not abiding by "laws" wouldn't you agree ?

A "theory" on the other hand is just that... a speculation.



Talking about a lack of knowledge


Like I and others have told you dozens of times, you are blatantly confusing laws in law with laws in science...and you obviously still don't know what a scientific theory is. It's NOT the same as the world "theory" you use in your daily lives, it's the highest form of certainty bar mathematical laws you can achieve. Only if you have proper objective evidence to back up all your claims, and if there's no evidence contradicting your theory, it is actually called a theory...otherwise it would just be a hypothesis. But of course you're gonna pretend you don't know that there's a difference because it fits your delusion




oh no here we go again, that weak sputtering out light-sabre... I am sorry my friend your moves are so predictable that others can now turn sideways (like Neo) and fed you off with out even looking, it is like we can already see it coming. Besides like Agent Smith... you do not even know why you do the things you do or seek what you seek, you act only on impulse.



Not my fault if I have to repeat the same facts over and over again because you completely ignore reality because it contradicts your fantasy world




subjective science is called "a theory" Gods "Law" is called "the Law" and that is for a reason.


Apart from the fact that science by its very definition can't be subjective, thank you for providing once again that you have no clue what "law" and "theory" in the context of science means



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?

Of course the egg as it's quite old evolutionary invention. Chicken on the other hand is a modern species and in no way ancient.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 






Sure, science does not have the answer to everything.
I agree... most scientists are not good looking.


But at least it makes an attempt to use common sense, logic and reason to understand the world and universe we live it.
admirable really... maybe they should head to the gym, or show a little heart



1) Are you drunk? What does looks have to do with anything he said???

2) Again, drugs? What you typed makes no sense whatsoever as it has NOTHING to do with what he posted.

I guess it's what you do when you run out of proper arguments




Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?


The egg obviously, dinosaurs laid eggs and existed way way way before chickens...a few hundred million years earlier to be exact

edit on 7-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by uva3021
 


Where did the C, N, H, and O come from?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



Is this a serious question? Hydrogen exists because big bang was asymmetric (antimatter and matter didn't cancel out each other completely). The rest comes from stars.
the big bang is only a theory, it is not "law" and is being abandoned because it can not be rationalized, its actually funny to think everything we know of came from a single point in space time so small that we couldn't even see it and spontaneously formed out of the "nothing" haha do you not see it is just how human thought patterns work, it is where they come from... out of the nothing, of course unless one is educated in science, history and spirituality, which give foundation in which to stand on.

science has since moved to trying to wrap their brain around the "Multiverse" which is still kinda laughable really... for we are all individuals out here, we can not all think the same like mindless automatons, and there are individual galaxies... it is all we can observe really with our sight. I consider it only the natural next step really... the next step in trying to understand your fellow human.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


And you're wrong once again




And the multiverse theory doesn't invalidate the big bang theory, just fyi.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
hows this for philosophy or theory ?

each galaxy is a big bang in itself, each of these galaxies is a verse unto itself really,hence we come up with the "Multiverse" thing... it is only human psychology. At the center of each galaxy lay the the nothingness of the singularity in which stars orbit around very fast, at such a fast rate it is hard to imagine... what they are orbiting around we really do not know... we have one of these right in our own backyard really, in the distances as used in measurement out in space-time.

www.astro.ucla.edu...

this stuff here happens to be alot more interesting than your particular self-centered views



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Again, nothing of that contradicts the big bang theory, or the multiverse hypothesis.

Interesting link though



edit on 7-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?

Of course the egg as it's quite old evolutionary invention. Chicken on the other hand is a modern species and in no way ancient.
you got it... and the chicken happens to be atheistic physicist


not too attractive fellows I might add



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
the big bang is only a theory, it is not "law" and is being abandoned because it can not be rationalized

Very ironic that you mentioned Hubble's law just a few posts ago. If Hubble's law "has been establish and is ground to stand (your words)" then this means that also Big Bang has been established.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Again, nothing of that contradicts the big bang theory, or the multiverse hypothesis.

Interesting link though


let journey to the center of eternity shall we ?

what is there, why do they do that ?

the "why" over-rules...



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by rhinoceros

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Do you yet know which came first... the chicken or the egg?

Of course the egg as it's quite old evolutionary invention. Chicken on the other hand is a modern species and in no way ancient.
you got it... and the chicken happens to be atheistic physicist


not too attractive fellows I might add


What the hell are you talking about, step away from the keyboard and finish your drink in front of the TV...your last few posts make no sense whatsoever.



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
since you edited your flawed and olive branch of a response out of embarrassment or fear of not looking "cool" in front of your so called friends... I will give you but another perspective.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Again, nothing of that contradicts the big bang theory, or the multiverse hypothesis.

Interesting link though


a "theory" and "hypothesis" are just that... they are not "Law" or "laws" which offer foundation through establishment of "fact"


edit on 2/7/2011 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join