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.
You wrote:
1. Science can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
2. So science can't exclude the flying spaghetti monster.
Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by bogomil
1. Science can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
Why do you call it the flying spaghetti monster?
I thought you had some understanding of science. Who believes that the creator is a spaghetti monster in he first place. No wonder someone has issues with religion.
2. So science can't exclude the flying spaghetti monster.
No, but you can exclude the flying spaghetti monster from religious believes. Because no one believes in a spaghetti monster either. Neither do you!!! Or is that what you believe?
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: spellingedit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)
Why do you call it the flying spaghetti monster?
I thought you had some understanding of science. Who believes that the creator is a spaghetti monster in he first place. No wonder someone has issues with religion.
No, but you can exclude the flying spaghetti monster from religious believes. Because no one believes in a spaghetti monster either. Neither do you!!! Or is that what you believe?
The whole point of the FSM is to prove a point in regards to religious beliefs. The point being, you can make up just about any damn thing you want and call it the truth. You can't prove the FSM doesn't exist anymore than someone can prove a creator exists. What we can show from the example though is that these deities are man made and nothing more.
The FSM has a HUGE following, for what it is. In retrospect, there are no Judaic-Christians who follow the biblical word of their deity the same way it was a couple thousand years ago. Point being, religious beliefs changes. Ideas of deities changes. It evolves and adapts to the times. You yourself are living proof of that very concept. You believe in a singular creator despite thousands of years of religious history favoring a pantheon of gods with this concept of a singular deity being brand spanking new and only popular through violent bloodshed.
I would like if you can answer my post on page 20...
Yes, but the point is that you treat every aspect of a Creator as false. There is no doubt that man believes in a creator or different God of some sort. That is a proven fact.
But you don't distinguish between the different human Gods and thee creator. You treat them all as one and the same; If a FSM don't exist neither does a creator.
But science actually cant explain the beginning.
Science has figured out that there was a beginning, but they don't know if there exists a beginner (creator).
I agree, a lot of different Gods have disappeared over time, and that is a step forward if you ask me. The only two that are left is your FSM and a creator.
I bet your FSM is the next one to be excluded.
I might: its a big subject to cover our use of different variations of infinite.
If you tell me what infinite that interests you. I could narrow it down.
What about Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?
There are also people who believe in fairies. Just because someone believe something exists, acts as if something exists and treats certain areas as habitation for those things they believe exists, doesn't mean those thing's exist. I already know for a fact that your concept of a creator, your personal deity, does not exist. You adopted the concept of a singular creator despite the fact that throughout human history, humans have favored more than one deity who had specialized functions they ruled over. Your concept of a singular creator is simply an adaptation of popular cultural beliefs of your geographic area mixed with your own personal beliefs of what a creator is.
It does not matter what type of infinite I find interest in, the point is, you assume there is one ultimate infinite in your argument when in fact there is not.
What you 'see in everything' is your subjective impression, which no-one will deny you. But in an objective context it's irrelevant.
What about them?
Are they a part of a myth or are they a scientific fact?
I will argue that they are myths.
What scientific facts do you base my personal believes on?
As far as i know my personal believes have never been a part of a scientific study.
So there is no way you can make any conclusions about what i believe. Or if what i believe is a fact or not.
You are the one who is speculating.
Than you need to prove that there are more than one physical thing that is infinite. When you say its a fact.
What do you mean? Your beliefs have no scientific basis for validity. You believe a singular creator exists or must exist. This is only due to the current popular belief of your geographic area. If you were raised in India, you would most certainly either be a Hindu worshiper or would have at the very least developed your own concept of many deities. This is natural human behavior, we borrow concepts and ideas from one another and adapt them to our own ideals.
I make no speculation of where everything came from or if it even had a beginning to start with. My honest answer to that is, WE DO NOT KNOW. What I can factually state is that nothing in this universe was created by your concept of a creator.
Infinities are mathematical constructs. We do not even know if there is such a thing as a physical infinite 'something'. Be it your made up creator, or some unknown property of nature. Yet when to argue the infinite and use it as if only one type of infinite exists, you're just simply wrong there.
I live in Norway, And i dont believe in Lord God described in our western Bible. And i don't have faith in all the variations of reasons people give to why he kills, and favours some before others and so on. But still argues that we are still created equal? I don't get it.
The creator i believe in is neutral neither + or -, It dosent pick sides and don't favour some over others.
I have very good faith in science and evolution but, it doesn't stop me from believing in a creator. My believes are based on how i understand science and evolution.
Well i have made the choice to speculate on the idea of a creator. There is nothing wrong with doing so, i am not going to start my own church based on it.
I like to argue my speculations on topics like this to see if someone can change my faith. Like come forward with something new that i can learn from. But that has not happened yet, so my faith still stands.
Infinite is more than just mathematical constructs. That is why i told you to mention something specific.
Can a constant be infinite?
A constant is a mathematical construct and a physical one. You have earth gravity for instant. But earth gravity is not infinite.
0 or infinite is often used with describing black holes. But that is just because we lack more understanding.