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.

 

Science fails to exclude God

page: 11
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


You wrote:

["There is no reason to even postulate a different causality when the one we have works perfectly fine. You would need to give an actual reason to even postulate it for the event horizon"]

I don't hope, that I have given the impression of postulating FOR a trans-event horizon causality.

Quote on time: ["I did not understand. Please, elaborate"]

We simply don't know one way or another.




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
You are the event horizon.
Where else is there for this experience we call life to happen?
You are surfing the event of life.

youtu.be...



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["There is no difference between null and infinite."]

In a non-dualistic context there's no difference.

Quote: ["There was no time before existance and there is no time now. Time is a construct of your mind.
Time 'appears' to exist when you 'think' it into existance."]

As always, you over-emphasize the importance of observation from a sentient mind.

Quote: ["It is now and i can 'think' of tomorrow. This makes time 'appear' to exist. Time is in fact an illusion made out of the belief of future/past."]

Taken from a cosmic context, the illusion is only in how we define it. Time exists in cosmos.

Quote: ["Nothing exists as such."]

From what perspective doesn't anything exist?

Quote: ["Only this space from which you are seeing from 'exists'. Can space 'exist'?"]

Go read Tao-te-king instead of sending out this pseudo-mysticism.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
A general suggestion. What about relating at least SOMEWHAT to topic.

Personally I'm not that keen on getting too far out in speculative quantum-religion or pseudo-mysticism in the present context.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
That topic being? That science and technology seem to be doing more to substatiate a belief in God. Then it is to prove God is just a myth.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

I don't hope, that I have given the impression of postulating FOR a trans-event horizon causality.

We simply don't know one way or another.


Then you need to elaborate further than simply arguing for a different causality. There is no need for one, and we can establish its existence at t = 0.

I agree that we don't know whether time exists before event horizon, but I still believe it is safe to assume that if it exists, it is not the same "time" we have now, as "time" is part of the fabric of this Universe.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
If we continue on this discussion, we may well find that science in fact can't disprove God.
Darwin started all of this off with his hate of God.
He knew God, he saw God, he had experienced and witnessed God. He was a great believer.
His faith was tested and he published a book full of questions, questions that he was asking himself. He tried to understand why there was such cruelty in what had appeared to be a beautiful world. This was a reflection after the loss of his daughter. He was awash with death and destruction. His grief made the world look cruel.
He didn't see that this was his turning away from God, what he believed made sense to him at that time because of the events that where surrounding him.
What Darwin has written has made everyone who believes him, feel like he did, when he was composing it.
Empty of God. Like God had left him.
Readers of The origin of species will be led down a road to hell because that was where Darwin was residing when he wrote it.
edit on 8-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
That topic being? That science and technology seem to be doing more to substatiate a belief in God. Then it is to prove God is just a myth.


I can start by referring to the title first. As far as I can see, the (active) claim, that science tries to exclude 'god has not yet been demonstrated. Most pro-theists not even knowing the difference between agnostic and gnostic postions and what science actually is.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


The title of this thread should be changed to:

Science fails to exclude super-duper mega-wizard, who sees all, knows all...




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["If we continue on this discussion, we may well find that science in fact can't disprove God."]

You're stating the obvious. This has already been said several times on this thread and uncounted times on other threads, and I doubt anyone disgrees.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


Where you stand right now leahn, is it.
Where ever you stand, is it.
Where you are is 'now', you can check at this point. Or maybe i should say 'when' you are is now and 'where' you are is 'here'. This is the place and time. Here and now.
This placeless place (nowhere-now+here), is the event horizon.
edit on 8-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:18 AM
link   
reply to post by coastlinekid
 


This, that you are, the one you call I, is the super dupper one that sees and knows all. It is the all seeing, all knowing presence that you are. Without which nothing would or could be known.

To be or not to be?
This is the question.
Without you being..........?
What else could be?
edit on 8-6-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I only made the statement in case the topic was in question. Not in favor of anything or to change the course of the conversation in any way. Please continue I think the topic involves a wide enough range.
edit on 8-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


LoL i knew you were nothing but a troll.

You say that time didn't exist before our universe. But you imply that more than one dimension existed before ours? What!!! were they all constant dimensions that never had any changes?





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by bogomil
 


LoL i knew you were nothing but a troll.

You say that time didn't exist before our universe. But you imply that more than one dimension existed before ours? What!!! were they all constant dimensions that never had any changes?





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Maybe I expressed myself imprecisely. This direction is terminated on my part.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by bogomil
 


LoL i knew you were nothing but a troll.

You say that time didn't exist before our universe. But you imply that more than one dimension existed before ours? What!!! were they all constant dimensions that never had any changes?





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Maybe I expressed myself imprecisely. This direction is terminated on my part.


Yeah, because you have no clue as to what your talking about. You cant even answer a easy question.

All my questions were very easy, but they demand some understanding to answer.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by randyvs
 


The reason why scientists would like to remove the idea of "God" from science is because it is unscientific to theorize about something that can neither be confirmed or denied by the scientific method.


If this were true then Evolution couldn't be taught either as it is neither confirmed or denied through Scientific method



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by theindependentjournal
 


But evolution is taught. It is told to us as though it is the truth. Believers in evolution have learned this because it is a widely held belief. But it has been taught.
A man called Darwin 'thought' it up and now it is being taught and believed as truth.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by sirnex
 



Can you tell me what scientific theory you think is most accurate, and some scientific facts to go with it.
I really would like to check it out for my self.




In regards to the origins of existence? I personally don't think any are accurate at the moment. Our knowledge and technology is so young right now.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Can love tell me how God created the universe scientifically.


I can not because I don't believe in man made mythologies as being accurate depictions of reality either.


Or if science is telling me the truth?


Science tells the truth in regards to the workings of certain things, but only makes guesses as to where everything came from initially.


My present understanding of love is built on moral values, moral understanding and mutual respect.


My current understanding of love is a physical process due to a hormonal response driven by an evolutionary need to procreate.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join