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.

 

Non-Believers who think science has all the answers, riddle me this

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by AQuestion
Dear InfaRedMan,
How convenient, then you disagree with science and religion, what do you believe, not what don't you believe. Don't be a coward and only attack, put forth your belief and lets examine them. I put forth mine on many posts.


Firstly, I'm not your 'Dear'. Try not to be so patronising. Secondly, the only thing I believe in is myself. If you don't like the answer, then tough! I personally don't understand why you feel it's so important that we have to believe in any particular thing such as yourself.

All religious myth is completely unproven, Thousands of years on not one shred of proof for god. Faith does not constitute proof. I can have faith that the universe rests on the back of a giant celestial squid named Trevor but it still does not make it true. The result would still be the same if 6 billion people believed in Trevor.

Science is still learning. It's far from a complete knowledge that is still evolving but at least most of their theories are testable, repeatable and will generate a result. If I had to back a horse in this race, I believe science is at least going about it the right way. That does not mean that I have blind faith that every theory is true.

I am by nature a skeptic.

IRM


Dear InfaRedMan,

Your first sentence says so much about you, like the fact that you do not understand how to begin a correspondence. It is called a salutation and is quite standard for people that knew how to write letters, it is not a term of endearment. Move on. It is not patronizing, it is courtesy, your answer is patronizing.

As for you lack of an answer, I asked a question it was on science, if you cannot answer it, why do you bother talking to be on this thread about religion? This is not that hard, it is a question about science, your answer is that you don't know and you trust on faith, okay and I didn't ask and you are off topic and rather rude.




posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by mblahnikluver
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I believe both can be wrong and right but that depends on one beliefs.

Science and religion are man made and both can be proven wrong, man isn't perfect so things get disproven over time.

I am more science oriented than religious, religion to me is more faith and I dont need a religion to have faith in anything.


Dear mblahnikluver,

I am sorry but I want to have people actually stay on topic and answer the question I asked, "Explain how multi-universes and quantum physics makes sense?", why is it so hard for people to do this? I didn't say science was wrong, I didn't say religion was right, those would be separate threads and I will not have this one hijacked. The rules of the website are that people stay on topic, yet, nobody has even attempted to answer my question directly, this speaks very poorly of the logic on non-believers. If you cannot answer the question than yours science is just faith and fear. Be well. By the way, I happen to like science and have answered questions regarding quantum physics, read my others posts and see.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by forall2see
reply to post by AQuestion
 


No attempt to misdirect. Just calling it like I see it. And I see things and multiple levels



Food for thought. DREAM PREMONITIONS. I have had them and they have come true in real time. My experience with them is that they are never quite clear to the point of what is to come, but reveal some sort of warning and/or insight to the event(s) which end up occurring.

Having had these experiences in my lifetime leads me to believe that there are in fact several outer dimensions within our conscience that which we are somehow restricted at this time of visualizing and/or experiencing at our own conscious will.

This leads me to believe that multiple dimensions do in fact exist and only time will tell what the make up and meaning behind each dimensional portal truly is.


Dear forall2see,

I do not have a problem with what you are saying but it is not responsive to what I asked and I have too many trying to avoid the question so I cannot accept a non-responsive answer. Happy to discuss what you have brought up on another thread. Be well.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion
 


My next question:

You wrote:

["I will make it even easier, read this article and come back and explain it with simple, straight forward words that everyone will understand, if it is so sensible than this should be easy."]

Since you for three pages have insisted on a strict adherence to the formal OP requests, I ask:

What "is simple, straightforward" in this context and who are "everyone".

What's "simple" to me, may be complex to you. "Everyone" could include individuals not even able to speak, read or write.




Dear bogomil,

Semantics won't change the question, straightforward, how bout responsive? Any attempt will be noteworthy as none have made the effort yet.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Aquestion,

The multiverse theorem is unfalsifiable, much like your God theory.

You've heard of the double-slit experiment? A key experiment that explains quantam theory. We have results, and we have some findings, No scientists states Quantam Theory is true, it's a theory in progression, and may ultimately be proved wrong, but the initial findings are still there; Quantam computers are being built. Call it whatever theory you like, the fundamental propositions of Quantam Theory are based on results.

While, multiverse theorem is unfalsifiable, it's "predicted" using the data and theory we have formed by studyging our own universe. Multiverse theorem is undemonstratable.

What reasoning, logic has the "GOD" theory been created with? We are creations therefore we must be created by a creator, and that creator must be a single entity that we call "GOD".

We can assume a watch has a creator, those parts don't just magically appear together in nature. We could assume if we found one in nature that they didn't magically form together.

Now take humans, is that the same? Are we created? Or do we evolve by mutation over a long period of time?

Careful which you choose; we have evidence for one of those theories. I think you'll find that the intelligent design or "creationist" argument has long since been refuted, so there's 1 version of "GOD" that has been falsified.
edit on 4/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Dear awake_and_aware,

Why do you insist upon discussing God when it was not my question, if you don't know the answer that is fine, you want to compare theories when I didn't ask about God, why are you so preoccupied with someone that you don't believe exists?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gastrok

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by Gastrok
reply to post by AQuestion
 


You asked THREE questions in the OP.

Which ONE was it that you wanted answered?


Dear Gastrok,

I don't want to tax your thinking, how bout you answer this, "Explain how multi-universes and quantum physics makes sense?" explain how parallel universes make sense in science. I gave a link to the article, read it and explain it in simple terms to the rest of us and show us how it is obvious or a matter of faith. Does that make it easier for you?


Yes, much easier. But I'm not claiming to be qualified nor am would I be inclined to attempt an answer if I was. You are a negative, close-minded, angry person, bent on putting others down so you can feel superior. I view these traits as characteristic of someone who has succumb to faith, hope, and fear.

In any case, I was hoping to help focus the thread because you appear to be looking for one answer that somehow satisfied your 3 questions (plus the other implied questions, along with meeting the implied pre-requisites for being qualified to answer them).

I had no malicious intent, but clearly you do.





Dear Gastrok,

What does it matter who I am or what I am to the question I asked, it does not matter at all. You cannot answer it, fine, most cant, apparently on ATS none can. If you cannot then don't troll to accuse believers of not having answers, go somewhere else. I have answers and you none, I am good with that and apparently you are good with it also as you say you have no answers.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Is this a question to non-believers? Or is it not? I'm only answering and expanding on my position.

I'll re-quote a previous post by myself:-


Multiverses can't be proved, nor can God. That's the point.

The difference between the two hypothesis are that one is founded in coherence with fundamental understandings of Quantam Theorem; one is not. God is semantical game in which we are to assume there is a single cause to reality/cosmos/universe.

Multiverse theorem doesn't claim any "truth" to any moral position either.


Atheism has nothing to do with science, but most atheists certainly require a sufficient ammount of empirical evidence before they put faith in a hypothesis, as there is no evidence for multiverse theorem, there is no reason to put "faith" in such hypothesis. It's coherence with quantam theory could be argued that it is a logical hypothesis, but many disagree.

No one is suggesting it "makes sense". Just that it could fit with quantam theory if that's how the cosmos operates.

To suggest a multiverse hypothesis doesn't mean you have to have faith, you don't need to believe in it, only consider it. It fully acknowledges that it's undemonstratable, while on the other side of the house the believers allude that the evidence is "obvious" for a God, or that there is good reason to have faith in one.
edit on 4/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by AdamAnt
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I really enjoyed reading the lack of answers in this thread, I feel the OP proved a very valid point in displaying the true characteristics of these so-called atheist on this site. There are not many true intellects here.

However, the only way I could prove quantum physics, and other sciences mentioned here true, is by expressing my belief in a supreme being. Since my god is Omnipotent, making multi universes is an easy task for him.

I simply believe anything the mind can believe and conceive the mind can achieve. That sentence itself has been proven with science. Soooo If the mind conceives and believes that there is an omnipotent God, then it has to be so... Or if the mind truly believes there is no god, then that is its truth.

Science with out religion is lame, religion with out science blind




Dear AdamAnt,

I might have to give you a star. Not one of them has addressed what I asked and all want me to prove God. They are hypocrites trolling the faith forum to prove we are illogical; but, fail to prove anything they believe is logical, they give up so quickly, it is sad. Science has so much to offer and they take it on blind faith out of fear of the unknown. If they understood science they would answer me and understand that all knowledge is limited. Be well.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion
 


My next question:

You wrote:

["I will make it even easier, read this article and come back and explain it with simple, straight forward words that everyone will understand, if it is so sensible than this should be easy."]

Since you for three pages have insisted on a strict adherence to the formal OP requests, I ask:

What "is simple, straightforward" in this context and who are "everyone".

What's "simple" to me, may be complex to you. "Everyone" could include individuals not even able to speak, read or write.




Dear bogomil,

Semantics won't change the question, straightforward, how bout responsive? Any attempt will be noteworthy as none have made the effort yet.


Has nothing to do with semantics. Any science/logic procedure operates with strict conditions; as you know, if your claims of familiarity with science are true.

OP actually contains several questions, and some claims (one of which you unjustifiably have imposed on scientific procedure), so considering how closely you expect answers to relate to OP, it (OP) has to be defined precisely.

If you have no objections to such a proposal, I will consider silence from you as a 'go ahead' signal and soon comment on the article you linked to. Though it would be easier, if I was more certain of your specific requests.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I take the OPs view into account all the time, and it's one of the reasons why I find some atheist to be just as bigoted and annoying, who incessantly harass anybody who believes in spirituality or an afterlife. Stephen Hawking for example is a brilliant man, and an accomplished physicist. But this man stated that heaven or hell, or any afterlife does not exist as if it's a fact. What I find counterintuitive about this is that one of his favorite subjects to discuss is infinite dimensions and parallel universes, all of which may be completely different than ours. So in one universe magic does exist, and so do literal superheroes, and so do mythical creatures, etc, etc. I find it strange how those who only adhere to science and will come up with an endless number of theories think that an afterlife is so hard to comprehend. Truth is nobody knows what happens after physical death, not me, not you, NOT Mr. Hawking. Perhaps you're correct and nothing happens, and your consciousness ceases to exist for the rest of eternity. Perhaps not. But it's getting incredibly tiring listening to these pseudo-intellectuals pretend they're above and beyond anyone who's religious or even spiritual in nature, when I fact I find it a sign of close-mindedness.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Quote from A_a_a's recent post:

["No one is suggesting it "makes sense". Just that it could fit with quantam theory if that's how the cosmos operates."]

Exactly, 'making sense' is a claim from the OP author, not a scientific claim, and any relating to the linked article will have such an un-asked-for personal additon to science to relate to also.

edit on 4-6-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Raelsatu
I take the OPs view into account all the time, and it's one of the reasons why I find some atheist to be just as bigoted and annoying, who incessantly harass anybody who believes in spirituality or an afterlife. Stephen Hawking for example is a brilliant man, and an accomplished physicist. But this man stated that heaven or hell, or any afterlife does not exist as if it's a fact. What I find counterintuitive about this is that one of his favorite subjects to discuss is infinite dimensions and parallel universes, all of which may be completely different than ours. So in one universe magic does exist, and so do literal superheroes, and so do mythical creatures, etc, etc. I find it strange how those who only adhere to science and will come up with an endless number of theories think that an afterlife is so hard to comprehend. Truth is nobody knows what happens after physical death, not me, not you, NOT Mr. Hawking. Perhaps you're correct and nothing happens, and your consciousness ceases to exist for the rest of eternity. Perhaps not. But it's getting incredibly tiring listening to these pseudo-intellectuals pretend they're above and beyond anyone who's religious or even spiritual in nature, when I fact I find it a sign of close-mindedness.


You are exclusively relating to gnostic atheists. A point which alread has been brought up and answered here to at least my satisfaction (I can't speak for others, naturally).



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by AQuestion

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by AQuestion
 


My next question:

You wrote:

["I will make it even easier, read this article and come back and explain it with simple, straight forward words that everyone will understand, if it is so sensible than this should be easy."]

Since you for three pages have insisted on a strict adherence to the formal OP requests, I ask:

What "is simple, straightforward" in this context and who are "everyone".

What's "simple" to me, may be complex to you. "Everyone" could include individuals not even able to speak, read or write.




Dear bogomil,

Semantics won't change the question, straightforward, how bout responsive? Any attempt will be noteworthy as none have made the effort yet.


Has nothing to do with semantics. Any science/logic procedure operates with strict conditions; as you know, if your claims of familiarity with science are true.

OP actually contains several questions, and some claims (one of which you unjustifiably have imposed on scientific procedure), so considering how closely you expect answers to relate to OP, it (OP) has to be defined precisely.

If you have no objections to such a proposal, I will consider silence from you as a 'go ahead' signal and soon comment on the article you linked to. Though it would be easier, if I was more certain of your specific requests.


Dear bogomil,

Please you have the go ahead, read the article, take your time and respond to the one question (you asked me to narrow it and I did, we can stick with that one question). Answer the question any way you want, I just ask that someone be responsive and stop talking about God, I didn't ask about him or heaven or hell or belief, I asked about science. You question if I understand science, read my other posts and you will see that I do follow quantum physics quite closely and can restate it in common language, that is all I ask of others. I would be happy if someone just denied the current state of quantum physics and said what they did believe. Be well.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The words 'making sense'.
The mind makes stories up and believes them.
But what makes sense?

Where is sense appearing?
Sense. Vision, noise, taste, touch.
When and where is sense appearing.

What is it that MAKES sense?
And what is it sensing?



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


I guess the semantics are; "is it a coherent/perfect theory?"

Sense has many connotations:-


A faculty by which the body perceives an external stimulus; one of the faculties of sight, smell, hearing, taste, and touch


i.e. Feedback from our body parts that have evolved to the environment.


A feeling that something is the case


e.g. "He could sense that he wasn't liked." ( and sense can be wrong sometimes)


A reasonable or comprehensible rationale


e,g "Does the multiverse theory make sense"

I think the etymology was the latter connotation.
edit on 4/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Nice to see the nay-sayers struggling to defend their position for a change. I would give you a star and flag OP, if I knew what all that meant. Never mind, the new religion of Science and their high priests, the scientists will one day catch up with the rest of us believers when all the clues lead them to the greatest scientist, the creator of All That Is - GOD.

I like the one about the scientists about to discover the last peice of knowledge to complete their full understanding. As they claw their way over the last mountain top of knowledge and peek over to take in the full glory of the discovery, what do they see. A group of mystics sitting there calmly taking in the view.



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


If there is no conscious contact then it does not make sense.
Anything that is not apparent, not obvious.

Fabrication, the making of something.
Nothing can be believed, all past and future are fabrication.

All we can ask is what is this?
Art....?
edit on 4-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



Nothing can be believed, all past and future are fabrication.


Well do you believe the Roman Empire existed or not? Is it a fabrication or is it an experience passed on from generation to generatinon?


All we can ask is what is this?


And we have been doing so, it seems to be what separates us from other animals on Earth.


Art....?


Art is but in the eye of the beholder, Do you consider a sunset art? People have considered it enough to replicate it and romanticise it. The universe certainly is chaotic, yet chaos isn't an argument against beauty.

To me, i have never considered that the universe or my "experience" had an artist. I don't think it's a wish of mine, not that that's an argument for there being no artist.
edit on 4/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


I don't think the universe is chaotic.
Surely each vision is of the beholder and if it is consciously veiwed it will be seen as a living breathing work art.
If it is not see as is, it will be strpped of it's beauty and it will be a dead 'thing'.

edit on 4-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


Thank you AQuestion.

Here it goes:

The main-point of the article is about the (sofar) unsettled relationship between micro-cosmos and macro-cosmos, and especially if there's only one cosmos, why it stays as it is, alternatively if there are several cosmoses.

There's nothing revolutionary in the article and the research it's based on, maybe some of the essential points have been refined.

If there's only one cosmos (the one we observe) it's not such a troublesome question.

If several cosmoses are suggested, some conditions will have to be examined.

Present knowledge indicates, that the basic manifestations in cosmos pop in and out. If EVERY basic cosmic manifestation 'popped' simultaneously, optional parallel cosmoses would be possible without any objections.

If the basic cosmic manifestations 'pops' irregularly in relationship to each other, the question to examine would be, if they 'pop' into a position waiting for them (forming them). I.e. adapting to 'historical cosmic memory', resulting in one steady unbroken cosmos.

In other words: Something 'neutral' pops into observable existence and get 'qualities' in the process. Like putting clay in a form.

There are ofcourse all kinds of middle-scenarios, where some 'popping' will be influenced by 'historical cosmic memory', some not; reducing the amount of parallel cosmoses from infinite to finite.

* I do on purpose use the word 'cosmos' instead of 'universe', as it's uncertain where the 'event horizon' actually IS. Our present 'event horizon' may very well move, into area of sofar unknown 'natural laws' (this is important in the context of causality, an issue in metaphysical speculations).

Further speculations on request.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join