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: 19
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Oh No ?


We haves two start being ratinal again there's an Athiest in teh room.

Everyone straightens up, quicklie.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 







Remember that YOU are the missionary, trying to push your message to the man in the street


And so are you. But how certain are you about your own missionary skills?

You are probably just a person who reads about science. And probably a lot compared to some. But how much of what you read do you really understand?
Do you understand every thing, or can you just link to a site or a author who has written about what he/she understands from a scientific measurement/field, And use the link to cover your tracks?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You don't HAVE to be rational...but it would most certainly help your credibility, which is arguably pretty low right now



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You don't HAVE to be rational...but it would most certainly help your credibility, which is arguably pretty low right now


Do I need credibility?

Am I running for office and am unaware?

I'll have to consider how this will affect my public relations, thanks for your concern.

Star for you!



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



If a scientist is going to prove that a isolated vacuum can produce particles or matter from nothing. They have to prove that the tank that is isolating the vacuum don't contaminate the vacuum ,and become the values that they measure.


The point the vacuum box aspect of the video was trying to tell you was a vacuum still is something. Nature doesn't allow for nothing to exist, at least as far as we are able to determine right now with our limited technology.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by sirnex
 


Sirnex
I must admit you crack me up sometimes. When you're not driven me right up a wall !


I was refering to the fact that just because they've dissected mammals and found that they have brains? That dosn't mean that you or I have one. But please enjoy the game.

edit on 10-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


I love driving you up a wall.


Instead of dissecting every living thing's head open to see if there is a brain there... can we instead do something less gruesome and use cat scans?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Oh No ?


We haves two start being ratinal again there's an Athiest in teh room.

Everyone straightens up, quicklie.


Wait I'll get my tie !


Sirnex

I know you do Sir. I suppose cat scans would be less primitive. lol Good one.

edit on 11-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Bogomil

Hey Bog you can crank it up all you want. I only showed appreciation for turning it down guy. Never said you can't do what you want. This isn't even my thread since it 's been posted. Property of ATS. I'm pleased with the job I've done for them and believe that's what matters most. And with that you can all carry on as you like.
I'll be keeping tabs but for now, as Chevy used to say,".I am out of here".
edit on 11-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by spy66
 



If a scientist is going to prove that a isolated vacuum can produce particles or matter from nothing. They have to prove that the tank that is isolating the vacuum don't contaminate the vacuum ,and become the values that they measure.


The point the vacuum box aspect of the video was trying to tell you was a vacuum still is something. Nature doesn't allow for nothing to exist, at least as far as we are able to determine right now with our limited technology.


Well i haven't made any other claims either. I have stated that energy never can be created or destroyed. As the box experiment suggest. It always was and always is, but it can be compressed. Energy can be compressed into different states of "energy mass", Like matter/particles.

Only matter/particles can expand (change). A absolute g (vacuum) can not expand. Unless you know of a scientific field that covers that aspect, and that have scientific evidence that a absolute vacuum "g" can expand on its own. Remember that a vacuum only has a negative g when matter/particles are present within it.

When i mentioned the white sheet of paper. Everything you can or will observe must exist on the sheet of paper. Just like matter and particles must exist within a vacuum, they can never exist out side it.

If you remember!

If the white sheet of paper was absolute black, you would observe what nothingness would look like.

If a absolute vacuum is neither expanding or retracting it must be a constant, because a absolute vacuum is neither + or -
What force formed the positive matter/particles within a absolute vacuum?

Or how can a white sheet of paper create a dot without your help?

The only thing you can answer is that you don't know.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



When i mentioned the white sheet of paper. Everything you can or will observe must exist on the sheet of paper. Just like matter and particles must exist within a vacuum, they can never exist out side it.


Why arbitrarily assume there is no other state of existence other than what is within our known universe and observable with our limited technologies?


If the white sheet of paper was absolute black, you would observe what nothingness would look like.


No, it would be a perfect block body sheet of paper. The point of the video again is to inform you that absolute nothingness as far as we can tell is not allowed by nature.


What force formed the positive matter/particles within a absolute vacuum?


That's what scientists are trying to understand. Rather than just saying some benevolent entity is creating particles willy nilly for no reason other than because it can, scientists are instead asking real questions and trying to find real answers.


Or how can a white sheet of paper create a dot without your help?


You still assume that a complex system requires a benevolent entity to create it. Are you sure you don't believe in storm gods?


The only thing you can answer is that you don't know.


I fully acknowledge that our human science and technology, in all it's infancy is incapable of answering every question we have about the world around us, our universe, and where it all came from. That is the most honest and humblest response any person can factually give.

Unlike those who demand we accept an arbitrary deity who was conceived of in a book a few thousand years ago as the true answer.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




Why arbitrarily assume there is no other state of existence other than what is within our known universe and observable with our limited technologies?


I have never said there couldn't be other states of existence beyond our own. But if there is; it would still be within the infinite (absolute vacuum).

"That would be like having two dots on the white sheet of paper instead of one".

But it would be pure speculation beyond our scientific knowledge.





What force formed the positive matter/particles within a absolute vacuum?


That's what scientists are trying to understand. Rather than just saying some benevolent entity is creating particles willy nilly for no reason other than because it can, scientists are instead asking real questions and trying to find real answers.


I totally agree. Science is trying to understand and gather knowledge, before they make a conclusion about a creator.


But many people do say that science can prove that a creator don't exist. But there is no way they can prove it.
If they can't prove it.
Their call must be based on their own believes.




I fully acknowledge that our human science and technology, in all it's infancy is incapable of answering every question we have about the world around us, our universe, and where it all came from. That is the most honest and humblest response any person can factually give.

Unlike those who demand we accept an arbitrary deity who was conceived of in a book a few thousand years ago as the true answer.


I agree again. The word of God is pure human inspiration. People should use what scientific knowledge we have so that no one gets hurt by other humans misinterpreting prehistoric human inspiration.

I told this to some Jehovah's witnesses, and i haven't seen them since.


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



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 





Do I need credibility?


Of course not, but you look silly without it. But apparently you don't care, so it's all good



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


No it's zealot moralists who think they know and speak for God. Didn't Jesus say, "Thy will be done?" I don't think he was talking about your will. Please don't project your lunatic rantings and straight-jacket morality on the rest of us, whether we are God-fearing worshipers or not. Most Scientists don't study or even care to study something they can neither prove or disprove. It's just not worth their time. If you want to worship an invisible guy-in-the-sky then that's why we have Preachers. If you want a cure for Cancer, Aids, Diabetes or want to know something about the tangible world around us, that's why we have Scientists.

I think you're using your God-rant to disguise the fact that you're a closet Luddite.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ferdberffle
 


Everyone has a right to believe what ever they want. There is nothing you can do about it.

What you are doing is judging he's believes. Even if he cant prove the existence of God in a way that will satisfy you.
What you are doing is comparing your own beliefs of what God is, and implying that; that is also what he must be believing in. And therefore he must be wrong.
You dont understand that your believes are your own. We dont all share your way of visualizing God.
So you got to stop talking like you know how or what other people believes God to be.

The only one who has gotten he's believes all wrong is you. Because you admit to what "you" believe in is wrong.


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



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by bogomil
 







Remember that YOU are the missionary, trying to push your message to the man in the street


And so are you. But how certain are you about your own missionary skills?

You are probably just a person who reads about science. And probably a lot compared to some. But how much of what you read do you really understand?
Do you understand every thing, or can you just link to a site or a author who has written about what he/she understands from a scientific measurement/field, And use the link to cover your tracks?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


Yes, I mission FOR egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy, which is the place, where all the different ideologies eventually meet. I believe, I'm fairly good at it, though not a genius.

These days I only read about science, but my eduction contained a lot of practical experiments (parallel to the math I also learned).

I don't understand everything; e.g. do I have some problems with Einstein's twin-brother allegory.

WHEN I look for information, I ofcourse rely on outside sources. No-one can be an expert on everything. I then analyse the information according to my own understanding. I sometimes rely on 'authority', but actually prefer to draw my own conclusions.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


You don't HAVE to be rational...but it would most certainly help your credibility, which is arguably pretty low right now


Do I need credibility?

Am I running for office and am unaware?

I'll have to consider how this will affect my public relations, thanks for your concern.

Star for you!



Depends on what your purpose of participating here is. You manifest rather black/whitish'ly polarized, and if you just send out unvalidated claims, it reflects on you as a person and on the position you have.

There's some soap-box preaching in your posts, But free speech and all, that's your choice.
edit on 12-6-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["I have stated that energy never can be created or destroyed."]

Energy is the outcome of interation between polarities charged with different intensity.

An existence-level such as a possible non-dualistic beyond-event-horizon would not have energy, such as we know it.

Quote: ["If a absolute vacuum is neither expanding or retracting it must be a constant, because a absolute vacuum is neither + or -"]

Theist and metaphysical claims do not operate with an absolute vacuum. It's an alleged situation with its own + and - (the + and - being of different types than the cosmic ones).



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["But many people do say that science can prove that a creator don't exist. But there is no way they can prove it."]

The 'Many' people you refer to, are the gnostic atheists.

Try get a grip on the positions of 'gnostic' and 'agnostic'.

A majority of of the atheists on this forum are agnostic atheists (and some have a parallel position in methaphysics). Building a generalized argument around a minor group representing everybody is intellectual dishonesty or plain lying propaganda.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["I'll be keeping tabs but for now, as Chevy used to say,".I am out of here"."]

You have from the base of creating a false category made some claims/conclusions, which you don't want to validate.

And now you're off-ski.

Your choice, but I certainly want to emphasize, that this makes your intentent with this thread into a badly disguised preaching.

Preachings, not dialogues, being the trademark of missionaries.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["But many people do say that science can prove that a creator don't exist. But there is no way they can prove it."]

The 'Many' people you refer to, are the gnostic atheists.

Try get a grip on the positions of 'gnostic' and 'agnostic'.

A majority of of the atheists on this forum are agnostic atheists (and some have a parallel position in methaphysics). Building a generalized argument around a minor group representing everybody is intellectual dishonesty or plain lying propaganda.




I don't put a label on people, i dont care if they are Christians, agnostic, gnostic, atheists or what ever. I am just interested in how people argue their own believes. Because we are all human beings.
I don't even bother to know which group i belong to. Its what i believe that matters.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["But many people do say that science can prove that a creator don't exist. But there is no way they can prove it."]

The 'Many' people you refer to, are the gnostic atheists.

Try get a grip on the positions of 'gnostic' and 'agnostic'.

A majority of of the atheists on this forum are agnostic atheists (and some have a parallel position in methaphysics). Building a generalized argument around a minor group representing everybody is intellectual dishonesty or plain lying propaganda.




I don't put a label on people, i dont care if they are Christians, agnostic, gnostic, atheists or what ever. I am just interested in how people argue their own believes. Because we are all human beings.
I don't even bother to know which group i belong to. Its what i believe that matters.


If an argument is started by creating a category, in this case gnostic atheism, it's darned important, that you put the RIGHT people into that category instead of using it generally for everybody.

In the present case it makes a world of difference to be precise about peoples' position.

It would the same, as if I said ALL christians (or theists) are genocidal, sociopathic missionaries of a fascistic religion (which is not true for the majority of christians/theists).



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join