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.

 

Chance accident or Creator. I have proven it. Now refute it.

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:58 PM
link   
On my first thread in this series, I demonstrated the answer to a proof for a Creator. This does not change faith to evidence for God. This requires more fact. I have simply given a reasonable understanding of the evidence of a creator. Now I am after evidence against. Please assist me in refuting my proof.

Answer one question at a time if you can.

First question.

Where do the governing laws of motion originate? For motion to take place, there must be a fixed object to set the other in motion.

Second question.

Assuming you get through this first question with any success, answer this: How can we explain information with purpose encoded into all life and how can this information match the governing laws from question one (apart from a knowledge of them)?

-----------
MY ANSWERS

First question.

Where do the governing laws of motion originate? For motion to take place, there must be a fixed object to set the other in motion.

As science examines the physical laws that govern the universe, the evidence suggests that we live in a multi-dimensional omniverse where all possible realities exist. By examining the dimensions below, we see the hint at the dimensions above. Flatland is a good example of this conceptualization.

"Multiverse: The part of infinity that directly joins a given universe with all possible configurations of that universe."

Our fourth dimensional reality of time is contained within a probability space of the dimension above, which contains all possible outcomes.

This LINK is your best opportunity to explore what I can only hint at here.

So, what am I getting at? God did it? Not my point, but an obvious answer. It is just too complex to be anything but God? Not my point either, but it is. It is so amazing that it must be God? Not my main point at all.

Augustine, from City of God

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

My point is this:

God said he is Alpha and Omega. This is all probability and potential outcomes in an infinity of possibility. "Quantum physics tells us that the subatomic particles that make up our world are collapsed from waves of probability, simply by the act of observation (Rob Brianton)." That means our consciousness creates the material reality, not the material reality creating the observer.

God is NOUS. NOUS is THE ALL. The great I AM.

God has an answer to what science confirms from physics. LIGHT and Wave. That is God (Light-Genesis 1) and Christ (logos-John 1), creating it all from NOUS (Consciousness) in an infinite probability space. Now if you think that the shepherds came up with this, then you have missed God in the image.
-----------------

Second question.

Assuming you get through this first question with any success, answer this: How can we explain information with purpose encoded into all life and how can this information match the governing laws from question one (apart from a knowledge of them)?

-----------------------

I am through the first question with success.

Light is the fundamental particle and wave of all physics. Light (God in Genesis) is both particle and wave. Wave (Logos / Christ - John 1) carries light. Light is enlightenment. This is concrete and abstract, created in consciousness in the form of language, mathematics, symbol, which are functions of NOUS. The Word (LOGOS) is the programming language of the universe. From NOUS, all arises to our perception from the Light of NOUS (Consciousness), carried by the wave.

Done.

Now. Let's hear the counter arguments for evolution and chance.
edit on 19-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
If you claim to have provided proof last time why do you need to spend a lot of time thinking up more stuff??

I think you have mixed up the words opinion and fact....this is your opinion based on your scientific knowledge and religious background.

I find it highly unlikely you have discovered the answer to the life the universe and everything in it. Id suggest if this is truly what you believe and you are confident in your "opinion" , you should take it to a university where some real scientists can have a look and test your "theory".



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


1. Einstein pointed out that motion was relative. If, for instance, the scale measuring distance between two objects changes (perhaps a distortion of the fabric of spacetime), can we then assume that either object has moved? Or are they both moving? Or are they static? There is no way to tell. The perception of movement is illusory and dependent upon point/frame of reference.

This means that your Newtonian definition of movement is only just one particular way to see movement and therefore not a valid basis for such deep questions.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


Is this just a clever way of saying you can't refute it, cause that's what the op is asking for.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by infojunkie2
reply to post by loves a conspiricy
 


Is this just a clever way of saying you can't refute it, cause that's what the op is asking for.


Its late and im going to bed soon...so no i cant debate it and quite frankly dont feel the need to
He/She is the one who made the claims....he/she needs the evidence to back it up.

There are people on here far more eloquent and knowledgeable than myself that will no doubt thrash this out in my absence. Good luck guys and gals...im sure this will be enlightening



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
All you have "proven" is that we are masters of our own reality simply by the act of observation. If god has any reality to it, it is only the reality we give it.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   
It was not the basis for the question. Our current understand of dimensions resides in the fact that it all starts at a point and ends at infinity. From this movement, there exists nothing else. The tenth dimension is a stopping point. Fixed. Einstein did not have the current views or theory to work from. In this day and age, he would be making new theories and expanding his locality of observation.


Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


1. Einstein pointed out that motion was relative. If, for instance, the scale measuring distance between two objects changes (perhaps a distortion of the fabric of spacetime), can we then assume that either object has moved? Or are they both moving? Or are they static? There is no way to tell. The perception of movement is illusory and dependent upon point/frame of reference.

This means that your Newtonian definition of movement is only just one particular way to see movement and therefore not a valid basis for such deep questions.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
2. Emergent patterning to information is dependant upon the rules to which it is applied. The data has to conform to its rules. This is the anthropic principle: We observe the universe being the way it is because we could not observe the universe at all if it was different.

I am a bible believing, born-again Christian but I have to say that you are playing games with words (Semantics) to try and prove what I believe is un-provable by human capability.

Most people are going to glaze over before they have read a few sentences and you are not going to convince those who are running from God.

Far better that you lead others, gently, to a fuller understanding of what God has done for them, on their behalf, and at a personal and individual level, than trying to get into all sorts of pointless debate based on incomplete data and finite mental capability.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 
Einstein might be making new theories, but we aren't.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Whatever. As far as G-d is concerned, he’s G-d. I believe in a higher being and maybe you do to, others don’t. Our actions guide us; let your actions speak for themselves otherwise go back to the skate park. Remember, all your actions have consequences….and they may not be to your liking.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:42 PM
link   
The observer collapses the wave that is already there. I say not a chance you can move it the other way. You must provide a basis for evolution to create life from the material reality. Not the other way around. Quantum physics has already demonstrated it starts with observation creating the reality. The reality is molded by the consciousness, thus pointing the direction toward the creator. God is only the obvious definition of this incomprehensible reality of designed existence. The fact we can perceive it is evidence for what God says about us in an image of him. The image is a mirror reflection of observers. A mirror can only see itself in reflection. This is the way light works by the way. It reflects on matter to illuminate it to perception. Light is not visible. Only what it reflects in a limited wavelength. If you say that light is visible and I don't know what I am talking about, then consider this:

You say you see the ocean from the shore. No. You see the surface and the waves. Light is the same. Light is the ocean you don't see. The surface and waves are what you do see.


Originally posted by kylioneXsushi
All you have "proven" is that we are masters of our own reality simply by the act of observation. If god has any reality to it, it is only the reality we give it.

edit on 19-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   
This is bias. You have not backed it with a statement forming a scientific observation leading to a conclusion. Be specific. Quote something. Define your position. My aim is to hear the other side.


Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 
Einstein might be making new theories, but we aren't.


edit on 19-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Thank you for the advise. Next time, I'll stick with a theory of UFOs and leave God out. The welcome will be warmer most likely.


Originally posted by loves a conspiricy
If you claim to have provided proof last time why do you need to spend a lot of time thinking up more stuff??

I think you have mixed up the words opinion and fact....this is your opinion based on your scientific knowledge and religious background.

I find it highly unlikely you have discovered the answer to the life the universe and everything in it. Id suggest if this is truly what you believe and you are confident in your "opinion" , you should take it to a university where some real scientists can have a look and test your "theory".






posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Well spoken. Possibly one of the most well spoken statements of education I have read since being on ATS. Thank you. But, I'll still search for what God calls evident in Romans 1. Science will reveal the obvious as obvious. It's a matter of time. Faith is a different story. Christ reveals this as fact when he returns and every eye sees. Creation is already here and a fact. I'll defend it with my whole heart. Every eye already sees creation.


Originally posted by chr0naut
2. Emergent patterning to information is dependant upon the rules to which it is applied. The data has to conform to its rules. This is the anthropic principle: We observe the universe being the way it is because we could not observe the universe at all if it was different.

I am a bible believing, born-again Christian but I have to say that you are playing games with words (Semantics) to try and prove what I believe is un-provable by human capability.

Most people are going to glaze over before they have read a few sentences and you are not going to convince those who are running from God.

Far better that you lead others, gently, to a fuller understanding of what God has done for them, on their behalf, and at a personal and individual level, than trying to get into all sorts of pointless debate based on incomplete data and finite mental capability.

edit on 19-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:07 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You never proved it, you're merely asserting that you proved it.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:50 AM
link   
Back that statement up please. Answer the two questions. I have provided logical answers that point to a creator. So far, nothing from the side of evolution. The proof will come when someone steps to the plate and provides the science. As far as I can see, the science backs my statements. Consciousness collapses the wave of probability to form reality. Reality does not collapse the wave to form life. Science backs my view.


Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You never proved it, you're merely asserting that you proved it.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


...so you're telling me that I need to prove that you didn't prove your claims...and then you jump out with a very pedestrian and clearly uninformed idea about quantum mechanics. Hint: Quantum mechanics doesn't work all that well at the level we live (except under extremely low temperatures).

And this isn't evolution vs god. There are millions of theists who accept evolution. The idea of a creator doesn't disprove evolution...because we've already proven evolution. You're trying to refute something that is already proven without actually addressing the issue of what you're trying to disprove. We have observed speciation (I started a thread about it that you and a bunch of other creationists ignored). Evolution is as close to definitive as any scientific concept ever gets.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


1) Why are you creating a thread asking the same questions as in the other thread?
2) You haven't proven anything in your first thread...

Since you obviously ran out of rational arguments (not that you had any in the first place) in the original thread, and got proven wrong over and over again...you probably won't post in that thread again.


So it comes down to this:

Nobody knows how life started in the first place, no one has objective evidence that would prove their position. However, scientists ADMIT they don't know, while the other party (religious people) claim to have the answer when they really know just as little as the rest of us.

This entire thread (and the original one) is a prime example of "god of the gaps", and I'm almost tempted to give SuperiorEd a S&F if he changes the thread title to "god of the gaps - examples"

His entire argumentation is based on:

- Ad hominem attacks: *Insert random bible quote that disses disbelievers*

- Hypothesis Contrary To Fact: "Genesis is correct."

- Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)

- Inflation Of Conflict: "Sooooooooo many scientists disbelieve evolution."

- Argument From Adverse Consequences: "You better believe or you'll pay in the end..."

- Burden Of Proof: "Scientists can't disprove god's existence...ergo he exists."

- Argument By Question: "Where do the physical forces come from? Scientists don't know...see, god is the ONLY rational explanation."

- Reductive Fallacy: "God did it!"

- Fallacy of Origins: "The bible claims XYZ, ergo XYZ must be true...because clearly everything in the bible is truth."

- Wisdom of the Ancients: "Moses wrote that...and what he said has been told for centuries...ergo it must be true."

- Not Invented Here: "Islam/Hinduism/etc are all wrong...only the Christian bible is right."

- Argument By Dismissal: Used a dozen times by SuperiorEd...every time one of his garbage claims are refuted, he simply ignores the rebuttal

- Argument To The Future: "You'll see...in the future god's existence will become evident."

- Argument By Vehemence: Repeating the same nonsense over and over again thinking it'll make people fall for it eventually.

- Argument To Authority: "Professor XYZ said that..." Even if there's been no peer reviews or independent verification Or "Newton said that..." when Newton only had a small portion of the knowledge we have today.

- Appeal To False Authority: "Scientist XYZ claims that evolution is wrong..." Which is especially funny if that scientist doesn't hold a degree allowing him to make such claims

- Bad Analogy: "Israel is a fig tree..." 'nough said

- Appeal To Widespread Belief: "Millions of believers..."

- Argument By Pigheadedness: "Evolution is wrong...woman came from the rib of man, end of story!"

- Argument By Repetition: Repeating the same nonsense over and over again even after it's been totally debunked...

- Argument By Selective Reading: Bible & Creationist websites

- Inconsistency: "The bible always tells the truth...except for the rape/genocide stuff, that's just a misunderstanding and human error."

- Non Sequitur: "Christianity helps millions of people...ergo god exists."

- Meaningless Questions: "irresistible forces meeting immovable objects"

- Error Of Fact: "Scientist can't explain wind."

- Changing The Subject: Every single time his hogwash claims are refuted

- Outdated Information: "Darwin said XYZ and was wrong..." As if science didn't make progress in over 150yrs.

- Least Plausible Hypothesis: "God did it...and no, it doesn't matter if it's backed up by objective evidence."

- Affirming The Consequent: "You shall not kill in the bible is correct, therefore everything is correct..."

- Moving The Goalposts: "Multiverses..."

- Appeal To Complexity: "Scientists can't explain that...ergo god did it, it's the only logical explanation."

- Argument By Laziness: Many of SuperiorEd's post are demonstrably wrong...and he'd realize if he just spent a few minutes doing proper research instead of copy/pasting crap from blogs...

Every single one of the wanna-be proof presented by SuperiorEd is a who's who of fallacious arguments

edit on 20-4-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Of course God (or any "creator" for that matter) could be used to explain everything.

But so could I, if I were to exclaim that a Unicorn pooped out the universe and that's how it came to be.
Gravity, the laws of motion, thermodynamics, all of these things are they way they are because the magic in the Unicorn's intestine made it that way. That's the answer to everything! Why? Because the Unicorn's pooper wanted it that way!

My point being: Simply because we don't know enough to explain something using science rather than religion, doesn't mean that religion is any closer to the truth. Just like Northern Lights aren't caused by the Gods in Asgaard or Volcano's don't erupt because a human sacrifice was not good enough, at some point I hope we will stop attributing things we don't understand to forces we made up to explain exactly those phenomenons.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
You say I cut and past from a blog. Yes. My blog. Your list is almost complete. I also used the argument that creation is evident, easily seen and understood to be a representation of what it symbolizes.

As for the fallacies and argument titles, these are straight form the Atheist defensive playbook. You can twist this around and try and reflect it on me, but you are not providing any substance to the topic at hand. Attack is the main tool when nothing else is left.

I changed threads so the evolutionary perspective could be presented. More attacks are all you offer? If you are not interested in answering the two questions, move on. This is not a topic you believe in so why bother? I am interested so I posted the topic. Post a topic you are interested in and then contribute.

If you only want to say how bad of a person I am for defending my position with solid science, then provide what you consider solid science. Attacks are only a reflection of what your accusations below assume about me. Bias only builds ground for the other person to stand against you. If you want to make headway in a discussion, think for the other person in the manner in which they should be thinking for themselves. Take the upper ground instead of bullying the other person into a posture of defense.



Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


1) Why are you creating a thread asking the same questions as in the other thread?
2) You haven't proven anything in your first thread...

Since you obviously ran out of rational arguments (not that you had any in the first place) in the original thread, and got proven wrong over and over again...you probably won't post in that thread again.


So it comes down to this:

Nobody knows how life started in the first place, no one has objective evidence that would prove their position. However, scientists ADMIT they don't know, while the other party (religious people) claim to have the answer when they really know just as little as the rest of us.

This entire thread (and the original one) is a prime example of "god of the gaps", and I'm almost tempted to give SuperiorEd a S&F if he changes the thread title to "god of the gaps - examples"

His entire argumentation is based on:

- Ad hominem attacks: *Insert random bible quote that disses disbelievers*

- Hypothesis Contrary To Fact: "Genesis is correct."

- Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension)

- Inflation Of Conflict: "Sooooooooo many scientists disbelieve evolution."

- Argument From Adverse Consequences: "You better believe or you'll pay in the end..."

- Burden Of Proof: "Scientists can't disprove god's existence...ergo he exists."

- Argument By Question: "Where do the physical forces come from? Scientists don't know...see, god is the ONLY rational explanation."

- Reductive Fallacy: "God did it!"

- Fallacy of Origins: "The bible claims XYZ, ergo XYZ must be true...because clearly everything in the bible is truth."

- Wisdom of the Ancients: "Moses wrote that...and what he said has been told for centuries...ergo it must be true."

- Not Invented Here: "Islam/Hinduism/etc are all wrong...only the Christian bible is right."

- Argument By Dismissal: Used a dozen times by SuperiorEd...every time one of his garbage claims are refuted, he simply ignores the rebuttal

- Argument To The Future: "You'll see...in the future god's existence will become evident."

- Argument By Vehemence: Repeating the same nonsense over and over again thinking it'll make people fall for it eventually.

- Argument To Authority: "Professor XYZ said that..." Even if there's been no peer reviews or independent verification Or "Newton said that..." when Newton only had a small portion of the knowledge we have today.

- Appeal To False Authority: "Scientist XYZ claims that evolution is wrong..." Which is especially funny if that scientist doesn't hold a degree allowing him to make such claims

- Bad Analogy: "Israel is a fig tree..." 'nough said

- Appeal To Widespread Belief: "Millions of believers..."

- Argument By Pigheadedness: "Evolution is wrong...woman came from the rib of man, end of story!"

- Argument By Repetition: Repeating the same nonsense over and over again even after it's been totally debunked...

- Argument By Selective Reading: Bible & Creationist websites

- Inconsistency: "The bible always tells the truth...except for the rape/genocide stuff, that's just a misunderstanding and human error."

- Non Sequitur: "Christianity helps millions of people...ergo god exists."

- Meaningless Questions: "irresistible forces meeting immovable objects"

- Error Of Fact: "Scientist can't explain wind."

- Changing The Subject: Every single time his hogwash claims are refuted

- Outdated Information: "Darwin said XYZ and was wrong..." As if science didn't make progress in over 150yrs.

- Least Plausible Hypothesis: "God did it...and no, it doesn't matter if it's backed up by objective evidence."

- Affirming The Consequent: "You shall not kill in the bible is correct, therefore everything is correct..."

- Moving The Goalposts: "Multiverses..."

- Appeal To Complexity: "Scientists can't explain that...ergo god did it, it's the only logical explanation."

- Argument By Laziness: Many of SuperiorEd's post are demonstrably wrong...and he'd realize if he just spent a few minutes doing proper research instead of copy/pasting crap from blogs...

Every single one of the wanna-be proof presented by SuperiorEd is a who's who of fallacious arguments

edit on 20-4-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join