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: 20
29
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 







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


That is true. I have mentioned that as well when i talked about dimensions. Our energy mass can not be as the energy mass of the infinite. Because our universe wouldn't have been a different dimension if it where. Our dimension would have still been infinite. (The white sheet of paper would still be white without any dots).

Our dimension can not be like the infinite. Our dimension must be totally different. But our dimension must be of the infinite.

But again, you don't understand how to use dimensions as a concept to understand science.
So you don't understand how i argue.
If you understand science you should be able to use and understand different concepts to check your facts besides reading wikipedia pages.

Why don't you take a white sheet of paper and start thinking?
Then you would realize that we are arguing the same thing but very differently. You argue with the exact same words as one would read from a scientific news paper. I speak from my own understanding and with my own words.




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


True when you have two different charged polarities. But what is a vacuum then. A vacuum has neither + or - ?

How would it create + and - polarities?

What about pressure. How does a absolute vacuum create pressure? A positive energy mass.
Your box experiment is no use, because the vacuum is already surrounded by a positive energy mass. Unless you can prove that the tank or the environment out side the tank dosent give of any charged particles into the vacuum.

Is the tank so compressed and solid that a electron or any other particle never would pass straight through it?

Would the tank be so compressed/hardened that it wouldn't give off any particles to the vacuum?













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




posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



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).


Right... Let me ask again. Why do you arbitrarily assume there couldn't be other states of existence beyond our own? Now that that's out of the way, did you know there is more than one form of infinite? Infinite is not just one thing all by itself. There are really quite a few types of infinite known about now. So why are you arbitrarily assuming only one infinite thing can exist that contains all of reality? Do you even understand what infinities are?


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


Science doesn't allow for making conclusions based on negatives. If it had, it wouldn't be called science anymore.


But many people do say that science can prove that a creator don't exist.


No one says that. What we do say is that we can prove that no deity conceived of by man exists. Be the the Egyptian Gods, the Biblical God, or your own personal imagining of a singular deity based off Judaic-Christian beliefs.


I agree again. The word of God is pure human inspiration.


Not just the word, but the entire concept of deity. The idea of a deity could have initially arisen from shamanistic animism practices of prehistoric early man all the way to an ancient alien visitation.


People should use what scientific knowledge we have so that no one gets hurt by other humans misinterpreting prehistoric human inspiration.


This is one of the reasons we know deities are not real. The concept of them continuously evolves and changes. You yourself are living proof of this type of adaptive belief. Rather than sticking to the Judaic-Christian mythology, you are borrowing from it to conceptualize your own personal deity based around the beliefs that a singular deity exists. Why one deity and not many? Why one complex system requires a deity and no other complex system does?


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


UGH! They really are the worst of the god pushers out there. I dated a girl who's mom was a jehova witness, didn't work out for me.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





So what did you think of the video in the OP ?
edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:35 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



But many people do say that science can prove that a creator don't exist


See my new thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is not an argument for non-existence, but an argument against the notion that "GOD" is an "intelligent" designer. Please consider all the arguments and points proposed, there's even very descriptive videos included, scientific videos.
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   


Right... Let me ask again. Why do you arbitrarily assume there couldn't be other states of existence beyond our own? Now that that's out of the way, did you know there is more than one form of infinite? Infinite is not just one thing all by itself. There are really quite a few types of infinite known about now. So why are you arbitrarily assuming only one infinite thing can exist that contains all of reality? Do you even understand what infinities are?


Help me out and name a few so i know what you are talking about.







But many people do say that science can prove that a creator don't exist.


No one says that. What we do say is that we can prove that no deity conceived of by man exists. Be the the Egyptian Gods, the Biblical God, or your own personal imagining of a singular deity based off Judaic-Christian beliefs.


Is that because science haven't been able to establish communication with a deity conceived by man?

I don't know what proof you have of your claim? Science can only deal with the energy mass within our own universe? The rest is pure speculation, that is confirmed by the scientific community.
What you are claiming a bow is based on your conclusion of how you understand and perceive science.

You are speculating in what people might believe a diety is. But to be honest so am i. I do have questions too.



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



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 





So what did you think of the video in the OP ?
edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


In that video, they are basically saying "it's a mystery, we don't know....BUT, here's what we BELIEVE could be true".

That's not objective science!! And hell, even if for some reason they find out it was a man called Jesus who's face is on there, opposite to it being a forgery, it still wouldn't prove all the rest in the bible is true.

I rather stick to real facts where we KNOW the answers, like the fact that a global flood never happened



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:10 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I rather stick to real facts where we KNOW the answers, like the fact that a global flood never happened


I suppose you can prove that?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by spy66
 



But many people do say that science can prove that a creator don't exist


See my new thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is not an argument for non-existence, but an argument against the notion that "GOD" is an "intelligent" designer. Please consider all the arguments and points proposed, there's even very descriptive videos included, scientific videos.
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


I have nothing to argue against evolution. Evolution is one of the fields where i also think bible believers are arguing on pure imagination. That is also why i think science can be a useful tool to exclude prehistoric human imaginary inspiration.

I think everyone who have been told about what they should have faith in, should start to read more than just the Bible or what ever religious word they have put their faith in.

But the Bible more or less demands people to have faith in things that don't make sense. To me that seams like a dangerous trap to fall in.

I have asked a Jehovah witness if he is trying to get me to believe in the same things as he is. And he said yes.

I told him; how can i believe in something that dont make sense to me?
Then he told me to read the Bible. I told him; its the Bible that don't make sense to me.

I also asked him if he would change he's believes based on my arguments. He said no.
He's faith was with their Bible and Jehovah and nothing else.

The only thing i could say was; that is your loos and your choice. It is not mine. I wont bind my self to a faith that doesn't make sense to me. Because than i wouldn't be faithful to my own believes. I would be lying to my self.






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



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





I rather stick to real facts where we KNOW the answers, like the fact that a global flood never happened


I suppose you can prove that?


Of course you can prove the global flood never happened...something as gigantic as a global flood would leave behind plenty of evidence...but guess what, there's NONE supporting the claim of a global flood. Also, a global flood would result in pretty much all species being wiped out (including all fish) around the time the bible claims this happened...and guess what, that also didn't happen.

But who cares about facts, right? Like NotYourTypical said earlier, he doesn't want to be credible, he's content in just making stuff up...



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But who cares about facts, right? Like NotYourTypical said earlier, he doesn't want to be credible, he's content in just making stuff up...


I just didn't think it was possible to prove a negative.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





But who cares about facts, right? Like NotYourTypical said earlier, he doesn't want to be credible, he's content in just making stuff up...


I just didn't think it was possible to prove a negative.


Well, we can prove pigs can't fly...so you're clearly mistaken



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


We can't. You CAN'T prove pigs don't fly
If you're careful to add the flying pigs just havn't been recorded by academics.

But that doesn't mean that it's a true hypothetical. It's just the typical argumentum ad ignorantiam coming from one party of the debate - "God" is a failed hypothesis (in my opinion)
edit on 12/6/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 





So what did you think of the video in the OP ?
edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


If my memory serves me, I have already said, that I can't look at videos. Nor am I especially interested, as texts usually are more information-reliable and useful.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You wrote:

["That's not objective science!! And hell, even if for some reason they find out it was a man called Jesus who's face is on there, opposite to it being a forgery, it still wouldn't prove all the rest in the bible is true."]

Ofcourse I agree with you, but I wanted Randyvs to come close to that point him/herself. (S)he has imo some problems with precision on positions.

And starting from a questionable basic statement and then by skipping 10 steps of reasoning arriving at an 'answer' doesn't make it better.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Are you talking about any SPECIFIC vacuum, which one then?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





And starting from a questionable basic statement and then by skipping 10 steps of reasoning arriving at an 'answer' doesn't make it better.


!0 steps by way of your reasoning? Arriving at what answer?

edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 





And starting from a questionable basic statement and then by skipping 10 steps of reasoning arriving at an 'answer' doesn't make it better.


!0 steps by way of your reasoning? Arriving at what answer?


That "science fails to exclude 'god' ", which is a shadow-argument used for bringing in gnostic theism through the back-door.



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


1.Science can't prove God does not exist. So 2. "Science fails to exclude God". 3.The video provides very good evidence, that as science and technology evolve, they are providing more evidence for the validity of the shroud, being an actual burial cloth.

Who has a problem with 1 2 or 3 from the above?[

X



That's not objective science!! And hell, even if for some reason they find out it was a man called Jesus who's face is on there, opposite to it being a forgery, it still wouldn't prove all the rest in the bible is true


Well that's not even information.
edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 


1.Science can't prove God does not exist. So 2. "Science fails to exclude God". 3.The video provides very good evidence, that as science and technology evolve, they are providing more evidence for the validity of the shroud, being an actual burial cloth.

Who has a problem with 1 2 or 3 from the above?[

X



That's not objective science!! And hell, even if for some reason they find out it was a man called Jesus who's face is on there, opposite to it being a forgery, it still wouldn't prove all the rest in the bible is true


Well that's not even information.
edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


1. Science can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

2. So science can't exclude the flying spaghetti monster.

3. After what I've been told about the OP video, it demonstrates growing science/technology, so a shroud and an imprint of a person on it is demonstrated.

Quote: ["Well that's not even information"]

It's information about a shroud and an imprint on it. How do we get to gnostic theist claims from there (that's your missing reasoning-steps)?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Help me out and name a few so i know what you are talking about.


The wikipedia article is a decent starting point. I'm not a mathematician, so can't really describe the various forms of infinities properly.


Is that because science haven't been able to establish communication with a deity conceived by man?


I would say no, with you being living evidence that no creator exists due to your adoption of the Judaic-Christian deity adapted to your own personal belief system. Have you had contact with your concept of a creator?


I don't know what proof you have of your claim? Science can only deal with the energy mass within our own universe? The rest is pure speculation, that is confirmed by the scientific community.
What you are claiming a bow is based on your conclusion of how you understand and perceive science.


Archeology and recorded history.


You are speculating in what people might believe a diety is. But to be honest so am i. I do have questions too.


Please do elaborate.




top topics



 
29
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join