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.

 

Reality Check

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
reply to post by byteshertz
 


You are adding random possibilities like "how do we even know this is not a dream?" to add to the complexity of the question "is there a god" for no reason at all.

Lets do this with a simple question.

Q: Did you put ketchup on my hot dog last night ?
A: Yes, indeed I did.
Q: Were you in in the factory when the ketchup was bottled ?
A ...
Q : Well that could have been a new unknown type of mustard that taste and looks just like ketchup !
A: ffffuuuuuuuuu
Q :Check and mate !

You can make any question too complex to answer by adding possibilities and assumptions.




edit on 7-3-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: spelling



My point was that any evidence of god we can find, spiritually, physically or biblically exists within this reality - something we can not see beyond - in another reality where everything is already perfect, there may be no god, or need for god. People would likely argue here that god is over all realities - but again we can not know because we have limitations. All I am watching here is how many people can live with saying 'I dont know" - but it is looking like we have become know it all's and just because we can not see that alternate realities could exists we ignore the possibility and instead choose to just live in this reality.

This is like a 3 blind men being in a room made entirely of glass and saying well we can't see anything so nothing else beyond this room matters. 1 man invetigates the room and comes to know all about it - but he still does not know what lies beyond, but that doesnt stop him having an opinion on it. Another man sais he believes there is a god in the room with him, so it does not matter what lies beyond. And these 2 try and convince the third to accept their view. And then they all continue to argue what lies beyond the room or that the room is all there is.
- My point is if we accept our limitations that none of us can see beyond the room and stop trying to get others to agree with us it will make our existance within this room one hell of a lot more peaceful and that the end of the day if their is something beyond the glass room - the glass room is insignicant anyway and knowing everything about it was never really any benefit in the grand scheme, only during your time in the room.
edit on 7-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz
It's not about wanting there to be more it's about realising there probably is more but we are unable to see beyond our limits.


Justify this statement, Please.
How do you come to this conclusion ? It is very apparent you are talking out of your ass when you speak on what is known about how life began and the diversity of life. We fully understand that magic is not needed to create life.

All you are trying to say is science cannot answer everything, so it is just as valid as "God did it". While completely ignoring everything science can and does explain.

Please explain how there is "probably" more then what will ever be in the reach of the scientific method.

I got a invisible pink unicorn is my basement and you cannot prove I don't.
I may have never seen this unicorn but I know it is pink and has a blue tail. I can attach all the empty claims I want to my unicorn. Because you cannot disprove it.

You really do not see a huge logical failure with this statement ?

Your next post is a reply to me what is the same tired old crap.
You do how ever use the word "biblically" ... do you really want me to point out retiredness in the bible and compare it to known science ? If you want to say "God" used abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang, etc. as tools to create the known universe, go ahead. If you want to put the "unknown and unprovable" on the same ground as known fact proven way of the scientific method you belong in the bronze ages. Grow up.

You are doing one of two things.
1. You are ignorant to how much science knows and has shown on these subject.
2. You are just another lying creationist.

Reality Check !
You have yet to try to explain how God, magic, unicorns, etc is even remotely plausible let alone probable.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously

Originally posted by byteshertz
It's not about wanting there to be more it's about realising there probably is more but we are unable to see beyond our limits.


Justify this statement, Please.
How do you come to this conclusion ? It is very apparent you are talking out of your ass when you speak on what is known about how life began and the diversity of life. We fully understand that magic is not needed to create life.


First of all, dont come in to my thread and be RUDE telling me I am talking out of my ass - if you don't agree that is fine but no need to attack - it is a sign of weakness, you should believe your argument is good enough to not attack.


The reason that it is probable more than one reality is quite simple - if one can exist it is probable that more than one exists. Even if we wanted to look to science, or more specifically the mathmatics of the science we would see according to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to be there until it is percieved or observed. Particles occupy uncertain states called superpositions, they appear to be in multiple or different places at the same time. The mere act of observing somehow appears to set a particular state of reality. This is our reality hinting that it is only what we percieve it to be - that there is more than one possible reality - can our science answer if there is another reality - no because it would need to be in that reality - but this is a clearly indicates that nothing we see exists until we observe it - so therefore multiple possibilities of reality are possible. TELL QUANTUM PHYSICISTS THEY ARE TALKING OUT THEIR ASS.
Unobserved particles are described by wave functions which represent likely states. When a perception/observation or measurement is made, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple states.
It is also shown mathematically that the branching structure created by the universe splitting between probable outcomes into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. Mathematics may be something shared between realities and may be our hope of actually proving they exist in the future - although we would still be unable to observe or measure the alternate reality we may be able to calculate it's existance.



All you are trying to say is science cannot answer everything, so it is just as valid as "God did it". While completely ignoring everything science can and does explain.
Please explain how there is "probably" more then what will ever be in the reach of the scientific method.

The science is above, and it agree's with what I say. But as pointed out science can not go beyond this reality - mathmatics may be able to - but so far science shows this is probable. There is answers that come come from other places besides science.


I got a invisible pink unicorn is my basement and you cannot prove I don't.
I may have never seen this unicorn but I know it is pink and has a blue tail. I can attach all the empty claims I want to my unicorn. Because you cannot disprove it.
You really do not see a huge logical failure with this statement ?
Your next post is a reply to me what is the same tired old crap.
You do how ever use the word "biblically" ... do you really want me to point out retiredness in the bible and compare it to known science ? If you want to say "God" used abiogenesis, evolution, the big bang, etc. as tools to create the known universe, go ahead. If you want to put the "unknown and unprovable" on the same ground as known fact proven way of the scientific method you belong in the bronze ages. Grow up.


Again calling my view crap just shows you are incapable of defending yourself without resorting to insulting others and their point of view - way to deny ignorance. I have given you an answer above showing if you want to talk science then accept that science see's that it is also probable these alternate relaities exists - but science can not see any further than that because it is a limitation of being part of this reality.



You are doing one of two things.
1. You are ignorant to how much science knows and has shown on these subject.
2. You are just another lying creationist.

Reality Check !
You have yet to try to explain how God, magic, unicorns, etc is even remotely plausible let alone probable.


1) see above - I think I am up with the play
2) You are incapable of even seeing beyond this reality, who are you to say a creationist is wrong. You are just the blind man in the glass room telling everyone else they are wrong when you have only studied the room - and infact other who are experts who have studied the room disagree with you and acknowledge there is likely more to than this reality because SCIENCE indicates it is there- and math's may one day be able to prove it. BUT WE WOULD NEVER OBSERVE IT - DENY IGNORANCE.
If you actually could see past your own arrogance you would see that I am not supporting science or religion - I am saying neither has the answers, and if people like you would stop attacking others who do not agree with them and realised we all do not know then the world would be a more peaceful place.


NOW YOUR TURN - SHOW ME WHERE YOUR FRIEND SCIENCE SAYS AN ALTERNATE REALITY PROBABLY DOESNT EXIST - OR DO YOU WANT ME TO BELIEVE IN YOUR UNICORNS


edit on 7-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
People study subjects like quantum mechanics because we have results from experiment like the double slit.
The "god theory" has things like a old book and a piece of burnt toast that looks like a character in said book as fundamental reasons to take seriously. Only one of these is science.



The science is above, and it agree's with what I say. But as pointed out science can not go beyond this reality - mathmatics may be able to - but so far science shows this is probable. There is answers that come come from other places besides science.


No it does not. We have things like results and logical reason to spend time studying quantum mechanics. I am not a quantum physicist so I cannot give you a full run down on the subject.

What I do know is you are still trying to put god on the same level as real science. Yet still have not took the time to actually explain why your god is "probable" or even plausible. You see quantum mechanics is testable (we observe the results!). Now stop trying to compare SCIENCE with your god, without showing how god is testable !
(kind of a important part of ... you know ... science)

I already said you can tell the world your god uses the known science as a tool. But you cannot say your god is as valid as said sciences without proving it or at least showing how we can show "God".

In before pics of burnt toast that looks like jesus ?

OT: I always found it funny that these miracles always happen on white bread instead of the more historically correct whole wheat.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
I like how you made the text big and red in your edit.

There was nothing wrong with what I said in reply to you in my first reply. Not even much of a ad hominem. It was a direct attack on your argument that was backed up in my post.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
What I do know is you are still trying to put god on the same level as real science. Yet still have not took the time to actually explain why your god is "probable" or even plausible. You see quantum mechanics is testable (we observe the results!). Now stop trying to compare SCIENCE with your god, without showing how god is testable !
(kind of a important part of ... you know ... science)

I already said you can tell the world your god uses the known science as a tool. But you cannot say your god is as valid as said sciences without proving it or at least showing how we can show "God".

In before pics of burnt toast that looks like jesus ?

OT: I always found it funny that these miracles always happen on white bread instead of the more historically correct whole wheat.


I make a post saying science and religion both know nothing in the grand scheme and you come back with talking about my "God" - Where have I said anywhere in this thread that I have a God, or that I believe in one? And please quote me!!

Then you continue trying to insult me thinking I am christian when you say "In before pics of burnt toast that looks like jesus?" - Hey, if this level of conversation is over your head just say so because you clearly are not keeping up, assuming I am christian and still ranting about how science trumps religion is not helping your case.

Any scientist that was in here would be distancing himself from you very quickly right now and disassosiating you from his argument. You say "Now stop trying to compare SCIENCE with your god, without showing how god is testable ! " Please show me where - and again quote me - I have compared science to "my god" - because this thread is about alternate realities making religion and science irrelevant in the grand scheme of things - but some how you are taking this as me preaching that religion trumps science - go figure?
You are so far off the course of the conversation I am not sure if I should continue to try to reason with logic or recommend a shrink. FOCUS.

edit on 8-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:37 AM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 





I make a post saying science and religion both know nothing in the grand scheme and you come back with talking about my "God" - Where have I said anywhere in this thread that I have a God, or that I believe in one? And please quote me!!

Replace the word "God" with The unknown untestable, religion, Zeus, unicorn,alternate reality, a teapot orbiting Pluto or whatever makes you feel better. My point is these things are nothing like science, and that is all you are trying to do in ANY of the posts in this thread.




They don't - yet all science is based off the assumption that this is reality. Because science measures THIS reality - show me how we could measure an alternate reality using this reality.


[beep]ing magic .. that is all you are saying.

You completely ignore my point that your "alternate reality" is some untestable bullcrap.
Jesus man, you are using this "alternate reality" to put things like ... lets say a deity out of reach of science !

I then have to ask where did this "alternate reality" "theory" come from and how can we test it ?

If it smells like a creationist plot to paint MAGIC as science .. it probably is ..

My jesus/toast comments .. obv. I was trolling for the el oh els there.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
reply to post by byteshertz
 






You completely ignore my point that your "alternate reality" is some untestable bullcrap.
Jesus man, you are using this "alternate reality" to put things like ... lets say a deity out of reach of science !




You don't seem to comprehend much and don't seem to take anything I say seriously, maybe if I post articles where the science behind my belief is shown in black and white and we will see if you continue to ignore the science and dismiss it as "Bull crap" - just because you believe this does not make it true, show me some science that says this.
Evidence of a parallel universe 1

Evidence of a parallel universe 2


"In today's world, a parallel universe (alternate reality) is a scientifically respectable concept. The purpose of this page is not to provide a complete discourse on the subject, but to point out to those of you in the must-see-it-and-touch-it camp, that in this area, science and spirituality are converging. " Source



FAR FROM SCIENCE FICTION OR "BULLCRAP"

- Again, and for the last time I ask do you have any sources supporting your view.



edit on 8-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz


FAR FROM SCIENCE FICTION OR "BULLCRAP"

- Again, and for the last time I ask do you have any sources supporting your view.




Parallel universes ARE FAR FROM FACT OR EVEN A THEORY!



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously

Originally posted by byteshertz


FAR FROM SCIENCE FICTION OR "BULLCRAP"

- Again, and for the last time I ask do you have any sources supporting your view.




Parallel universes ARE FAR FROM FACT OR EVEN A THEORY!



"Serious scientists dismissed all this speculation as absurd. But now it seems the speculation wasn't absurd enough. Parallel universes really do exist and they are much stranger than even the science fiction writers dared to imagine."
BBC

"Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science". "
source

"The idea of multiple universes is more than a fantastic invention—it appears naturally within several scientific theories, and deserves to be taken seriously," stated Aurelien Barrau, a French particle physicist at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). Source

ATS thread on Paralle universes provenl


Parallel Universes: Science-fiction or Plain Facts?

Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist


Now before I label you a troll and ignore you for thinking your view of science should just be accepted for your word - can you provide any source that shows parallel universes have been proven to not exist? or any recent studies that contradict these findings? And if BBC, fox, scienceray, abovetopsecret, daily galaxy and the other sources I posted earlier are not good enough for your sources - please tell me who would you like to hear it from? Your ignorance is astounding. Science once believe parallel universes were science fiction - but that view is long outdated DENY IGNORANCE
edit on 8-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   
In my last 2 posts alone I have provided 11 sources to support my view - I am yet to see you provide one. Not a lot of ignorance denying going on here - besides me denying your ignorance.
edit on 8-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
About dreams.

A week ago I was in dreaming, more importantly I was aware I was dreaming. I have read enough now to know not to push things when in this state so went along with it and remember having a great time (around a day).

When I woke I was so excited I got out of bed and was going to tell the wife about it. I don’t know how or why but I again became aware this was just another dream. Spooky but again went along for the ride and again had a great time.

When I woke for the third time the thought struck me. What if I was/am still dreaming it’s just this time I cannot recognise it?

I don’t remember being born, hey I find it hard to recall much of anything so I cannot be sure as so much of life goes the same way as dreams work.

So yeah I get the OP’s point and his conclusions

S&F



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by colin42
About dreams.

A week ago I was in dreaming, more importantly I was aware I was dreaming. I have read enough now to know not to push things when in this state so went along with it and remember having a great time (around a day).

When I woke I was so excited I got out of bed and was going to tell the wife about it. I don’t know how or why but I again became aware this was just another dream. Spooky but again went along for the ride and again had a great time.

When I woke for the third time the thought struck me. What if I was/am still dreaming it’s just this time I cannot recognise it?

I don’t remember being born, hey I find it hard to recall much of anything so I cannot be sure as so much of life goes the same way as dreams work.

So yeah I get the OP’s point and his conclusions

S&F


Thanks for your input Colin! I had similar experiences on a regular basis when I was younger - and would wake multiple times only to discover later each time I was waking up was still a dream and I would wake up again and again, the dreams can feel so real that it can become impossible to distinguish between them and reality. I found a trick that used to help me was to if I thought it was a dream I would ask myself if I could see myself in 3rd person - and sometimes I could and this and for some reason this had felt normal before hand but this would wake me. Other times this would not work. I also have had dreams that were so real I have woken up and felt like I have lived a whole different life, and sometimes wish that I could go back. I am not making the connection that these dreams are alternate realities - but they sure do feel like them.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by byteshertz
 


I have been trying to have a lucid dream since reading about them so with me its a work in progress.

The thing is everything in the dreams felt real. Time past correctly in the dreams and as you say it felt real but I had the advantage of knowing I was dreaming.

Its not something that worries me and how great if you could do it at will?

It has made me question perception of time and reality and even to a lesser extent attitudes to life as in going along for the ride and enjoying this reality rather than trying to force what I want from it.

The memories of life seem to fade exactly as events in a dream so how would an individual prove this reality is not just another dream?



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Your sources are the BBC and Fox news.
Just because a multi-verse gains ground does not mean parallel universes do. If you just mean multi-verse why not just call it that ? Why did you not say this in your OP ? Instead of being so cryptic ?

You have a few people with a hypothesis .. THAT IS IT.

NASA Find new planet in our Solar system !
Remember this story that ran as if there was solid proof of an unknown planet ?
No bull# there is no actual proof for a distant unknown plant in our solar system.
There is now a decent hypnosis put together, but # all has been proven yet.

Remember this NASA Press release ?
“An astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life”
The media was ALL over this. But as soon as anyone who actually read the papers, were like .. WTF so what ?
The media .. still ate that # up.

The meteorite with microbial life trapped inside . . .. As old as the solar system .. ?

Maybe just maybe you and others (including the people writing some of the papers) are getting a little ahead of yourself ?
edit on 8-3-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-3-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by colin42
 


I do not even recall my dreams these days - once and a while I do - but when I was around a kid there was always a magic about the dreams, they felt so real and I think they really brought my imagination out. Not every dream was lucid - in fact very few, but you know when you have them, you wake up feeling you have lived another life. I have had lucid dreams where I am wealthy, traveling the stars and meetings ETs and my most lucid one was being able to fly by simply focusing on pressing the air downwards with my hands. They have been so real on these rare occasions that I have suffered minor depression days after having them while having to accept none of it was real.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
Your sources are the BBC and Fox news.
Just because a multi-verse gains ground does not mean parallel universes do. If you just mean multi-verse why not just call it that ? Why did you not say this in your OP ? Instead of being so cryptic ?

You have a few people with a hypothesis .. THAT IS IT.

NASA Find new planet in our Solar system !
Remember this story that ran as if there was solid proof of an unknown planet ?
No bull# there is no actual proof for a distant unknown plant in our solar system.
There is now a decent hypnosis put together, but # all has been proven yet.

Remember this NASA Press release ?
“An astrobiology finding that will impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life”
The media was ALL over this. But as soon as anyone who actually read the papers, were like .. WTF so what ?
The media .. still ate that # up.

The meteorite with microbial life trapped inside meteorites . . .. As old as the solar system .. ?

Maybe just maybe you and others (including the people writing some of the papers) are getting a little ahead of yourself ?
edit on 8-3-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)


I provided 11 sources in 2 posts not just fox and BBC - your last post you said it is not even a theory now you are labeling it a "hypnosis" which by I assume you mean hypothesis. How does theory become fact?

"First of all, when a scientists calls something a 'theory', the meaning is different than when a regular person calls something a 'theory'. For a scientist, a 'theory' is something much more than a simple hypothesis. It is a coherent assembly of observations and explanations that works in a wide variety of situations. The difference between a scientific theory and a 'fact' is pretty minimal. The next level up from a 'theory' is a 'law' which is something that is even more encompassing.
It is also the case that when a theory become substantiated enough to be called a law (the Law of Gravity), it is often thew case that people are accustomed to calling it a theory, so that terminology remains. So, example, Quantum Theory is one of the best proved facts about the universe that we have "...
Yahoo answers

Science does not have facts that are this complex, it only has theories and truths which are made up of facts. Because at any stage one fact being wrong can change the whole theory - Parallel universes are a theory that are supported by facts.

"The theories are the explanations proposed in step two of the scientific method. Usually the word "theory" is reserved for more than a first attempt, which might be called a "hypothesis." A theory usually has already survived several falsification attempts, and is pretty well accepted. However, I'll use the word theory to mean any explanation of observations."
FACT OR THEORY

You have not even taken the time to look through this information - instead you dismiss it without even providing a recent source AGAIN which supports your view - you are obviously a troll or someone who is ignorant enough to feel their opinion does not need to be supported by facts so I am going to ignore you from here.



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
How about a actual scientific paper ?
You know what forget about it.

edit on 8-3-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LikeDuhObviously
How about a actual scientific paper ?
You know what forget about it.

edit on 8-3-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)


I am not going to go pay to obtain a scientific paper to prove my point as most papers still cost - but this book looks at the topic from a very in depth scientific point of view for those who can keep up (put your hand down mr hypnosis). There is no shortage of evidence on the internet for those who actually look will see it is solid theory that is backed up by facts.

God, the multiverse, and everything: modern cosmology and the argument from design -
By Rodney D. Holder


But maybe more suited to you is:

String Theory for Dummies By Andrew Zimmerman Jones, Daniel Robbins
edit on 8-3-2011 by byteshertz because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by byteshertz

God, the multiverse, and everything: modern cosmology and the argument from design -
By Rodney D. Holder



Rodney D. Holder, editor of science & Christian belief, member of the John Templeton Foundation, Intelligent design idiot, believer in the fine tuned universe, all around jackass who tries to say religion/magic/god/id/etc is a equal to real science. But most importantly he is a lying POS.

I don't need to read his book to know how retarded it is. He is bending facts to fit a stupid IDea.

Just link to a real published science paper. I will get the paper and send it to you
we can read it together. It will be fun! Me the strident atheist and you the closet theist ... good times.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join