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: 21
29
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


By your reason maybe so but I don't reason by what you do or do not believe. Still trying to corner me.

You want what's missing ? What's missing is this. " God excluded himself " a long time ago. That's why "Science fails to exclude God" Science fails to prove God. The parameters of science accept nothing but the material world. God has let us go it alone because we chose to. He left no objective evidence of his existence for a reason. So you're butting your head on the wall. God wants us to have faith in him. If there was objective evidence? Then everyone would believe, we'd all go to heaven and the need for all
this would cease. That's not how it works.
edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Can any of you give me an example of what would be objective evidence for God ?
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 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["By your reason maybe so but I don't reason by what you do or do not believe."]

No worries about that. You have your say, and I have mine.

Quote: ["Still trying to corner me."]

Certainly. I'm making small progress; e.g. you went off-ski and now you're back.

Quote: ["You want what's missing ? What's missing is this. " God excluded himself " a long time ago."]

It has very little bearing to the shroud-argument, but I'm gettig used to your kangaroo-jumpings.

So 'god's' absense is a 'mysterious' argument. When a rational reasoning-chain doesn't function, the 'miraculous/supernatural' can fill out the gaps?

Quote: ["That's why "Science fails to exclude God" Science fails to prove God."]

You ARE coming around. That was your first hurdle.

Quote: ["The parameters of science accept nothing but the material world."]

Very roughly speaking...OK for the duration.

Quote: ["God has let us go it alone because we chose to."]

That's a circle-argument with supernatural self-proving as a part. A postulate.

Quote: ["He left no objective evidence of his existence for a reason."]

Depends on the importance of the bible. In the bible he DID leave proof of his claims being false: Genesis 1.

Quote: ["So you're butting your head on the wall."]

That wall being 'faith', it doesn't hurt.

Quote: ["God wants us to have faith in him."]

Another supernatural circle-argument.

Quote: ["If there was objective evidence? Then everyone would believe, we'd all go to heaven and the need for all this would cease."]

As I've said somewhere else: It's like a bondage-relationship. The slave has to beg for submission.

Quote: ["That's not how it works."]

I thought, that you set out to validate, HOW "it works". Do your validation consist of repeating the same claims either way?



edit on 12-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling and bad syntax



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 




You wrote:

["Can any of you give me an example of what would be objective evidence for God ?"]

Some undebatable footprints would be fine.

You want 'intelligent design' brought in?. That'll be extra fun.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by randyvs
 

You wrote after I wrote


You wrote:


Yes I did.

["By your reason maybe so but I don't reason by what you do or do not believe."]

[No worries about that. You have your say, and I have mine.]

I'm not worried about anything.

Quote: ["Still trying to corner me."]

[Certainly. I'm making small progress; e.g. you went off-ski and now you're back.]

Don't fool yourself !

Quote: ["You want what's missing ? What's missing is this. " God excluded himself " a long time ago."]

[It has very little bearing to the shroud-argument, but I'm gettig used to your kangaroo-jumpings. ]

There is no shroud arguement.

[So 'god's' absense is a 'mysterious' argument. When a rational reaoning-chain doesn't function, the 'miraculous/supernatural' can fill out the gaps?]

No it's how I reason, where you just throw your arms up and say, screw it god just dosn't exist.

Quote: ["That's why "Science fails to exclude God" Science fails to prove God."]

[You ARE coming around. That was your first hurdle.]

No, I've been around and the hurdles are yours.

Quote: ["The parameters of science accept nothing but the material world."]

[Very roughly speaking...OK for the duration.]

No retort here

Quote: ["God has let us go it alone because we chose to."]

[That's a circle-argument with supernatural self-proving as a part. A postulate.]

No this is truth.

Quote: ["He left no objective evidence of his existence for a reason."]

[Depends on the importance of the bible. In the bible he DID leave proof of his claims being false: Genesis 1.]

No he didn't.

Quote: ["So you're butting your head on the wall."]

[That wall being 'faith', it doesn't hurt.]

Maybe not now.

Quote: ["God wants us to have faith in him."]

[Another supernatural circle-argument.]

No, more truth.

Quote: ["If there was objective evidence? Then everyone would believe, we'd all go to heaven and the need for all this would cease."]

[As I've said somewhere else: It's like a bondage-relationship. The slave has to beg for submission.]

Not into bondage. God frees slaves.

Quote: ["That's not how it works."]

[I thought, that you set out to validate, that this is how 'it works'. Do your validation consist of repeating the same claim?]

Validate that science and technology are proving the shroud is not just a hoax ? But an actual burial cloth and quite possibly the one used for Christ? Why would my validation be needed ? I here by validate !

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


Still not cornered.
edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   
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: spelling

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



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


A great deal of your recent post can be compressed into your statement:

"This is truth".

What are your criteria for 'truth' then. How do you find it, and how do you validate it?

Or do you simply mean, that this is YOUR personal truth, which you want to spread without any evidence?

A quote from your post:

["Validate that science and technology are proving the shroud is not just a hoax ? But an actual burial cloth and quite possibly the one used for Christ? Why would my validation be needed ? I here by validate !"]

Giving you a benefit of doubt (even if the doubt is substantial) and accepting that the shroud isn't a hoax, but as old as is claimed, there's just one little troublesome word and some missing link here.

"Quite 'POSSIBLE' the one used by Jesus". How do you estimate 'quite POSSIBLE'. Method and statistical probability, please.

If you don't want to validate, it's just one theist claim more in a world already overburdened by theist claims. You have introduced science on this thread yourself, but obviously not when you have to validate questionable claims.

Sometimes science, sometimes not?

And the other part: A shroud, "quite possible" being imprinted by a certain Jesus. How does that lead to your general religious claims?



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   

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: spelling

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


It's a demonstration of a worthless method for 'truth' seeking.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Bog
Even with your superior debate training? Your love of trying to corner believers and your driven issues? I guess so you can sleep better at night IDK ? It's becoming obvious you're just trolling now. Let me be the mature one here, purpose an agreement to disagree on all points. If not then I'm just gonna let you corner me so you can go have the rest of your life. This is just sick and I don't want to be sick. Comes down to it you'll just have to wait and see if what I believe is true. No matter what goes on here on ATS. You'll have to wait.
Here's something you can't argue against though. In the end I will at the very least be as happy as you with my
choices in life. No more time for you.
edit on 12-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["Even with your superior debate training? Your love of trying to corner believers and your driven issues?"]

Never had a second of debate-training in my life. I just have a natural talent for being glib.

Quote: ["I guess so you can sleep better at night IDK ?"]

Save the pop-psychology for someone else.

Quote: ["It's becoming obvious you're just trolling now."]

Because I appear to be an arrogant bastard? I believe, that my factual post-content stands by itself.

Quote: ["Let me be the mature one here, purpose an agreement to disagree on all points."]

Claiming to be mature doesn't automatically make you so. And as to disagreeing; I do it, because I really, really disagree with you.

Quote: ["If not then I'm just gonna let you corner me so you can go have the rest of your life"]

No cheating.

Quote: ["This is just sick and I don't want to be sick."]

Maybe you're to sensitive to try your hand at preaching on a public forum with many critical non-theists.

Quote: ["Comes down to it you'll just have to wait and see if what I believe is true."]

As they say: Seeing is believing. The end of days have been foretold for two thousand years now, or are you referring to me meeting sky-daddy eventually?

Quote: ["Here's something you can't argue against though. In the end I will at the very least be as happy as you with my choices in life."]

I hope so, it would have been a terrible waste otherwise, if it turns out, that you were not right after all.



posted on Jun, 12 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



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.


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.


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 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...



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:38 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 












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.


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).






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 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 would like if you can answer my post on page 20...



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.



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



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



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.


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.

Due to that fact, I can without a shadow of a doubt inform you, that your creator does not exist.


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.


Of course I don't distinguish between one made up deity compared to another made up deity, the commonality between the two being they are man made concepts without any basis in reality. If we can show that your concept of a singular creator is an adaptation of popular belief of your geographic area intermingled with your own personal musings, then why would I believe in your deity anymore than someone else?


But science actually cant explain the beginning.


Science can't explain a plethora of phenomena, so why not ascribe a deity to each thing science can't explain and call it a day? Is that how thing's should work if one can't explain something readily?


Science has figured out that there was a beginning, but they don't know if there exists a beginner (creator).


No, science assumes a beginning based upon circumstantial evidence due to early observations of supernova explosions. Had quasars been observed first, no such big bang model would have been developed. There is no way of knowing that there was a beginning to anything at this moment and from everything we can understand so far, nature does not allow for nothing to exist.


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.


Popular trend is favoring lack of belief in a creator. The biggest reason for the disappearance of belief in a multitude of deities is due to the rise of this brand new concept of a singular deity violently waging war with those other religious beliefs. There is not a single modern Christian celebration today that is not an adoption of pagan ritual further showing how religious systems evolve and change over time.


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.


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. Furthering the point that you don't really understand these concepts you think you are using for personal validation of your beliefs. In essence, you're guilty of using the words without understanding the words. I think you attempted to blame this on another poster in this thread. The post where you mentioned that you talk with your own understanding and knowledge.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["There is no doubt that man believes in a creator or different God of some sort. That is a proven fact."]

Some people believe, some don't. What exactly is it that is 'proven'.

In any case there are some 3.500 'gods' to choose between, which ofcourse makes the whole theist thing rather irrational.

Quote: ["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)."]

There have been 20+ pages here on metaphysical arguments. And now you're back to filling knowledge-vacuums with speculations.

Quote: [" 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."]

What about Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:20 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





What about Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva?


What about them?
Are they a part of a myth or are they a scientific fact?
I will argue that they are myths.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





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.



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.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





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.


Than you need to prove that there are more than one physical thing that is infinite. When you say its a fact.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





What you 'see in everything' is your subjective impression, which no-one will deny you. But in an objective context it's irrelevant.


This is true Bogomil. But it is also true for everyone no matter what they believe in.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 12:20 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



What about them?
Are they a part of a myth or are they a scientific fact?
I will argue that they are myths.


Any creator concept is a myth generated by the imaginative musings of primitive man. All modern concepts are nothing more than adaptations of those previous myths that either fit current socio-cultural beliefs or modern scientific knowledge of the time.


What scientific facts do you base my personal believes on?


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.


As far as i know my personal believes have never been a part of a scientific study.


One, because it has no scientific basis and two, as far as I know you are the only person who current believes in your personalized version of a creator. Unless you have your own church or following of people who accept your imagined version of truth?


So there is no way you can make any conclusions about what i believe. Or if what i believe is a fact or not.


I don't need to make any conclusions. You have already told me you believe in a singular creator. The rest is simple statistics and archeological/recorded history. Beliefs change and evolve over time. Even Jesus was a Jew, at that time there were no Christians. Christians technically shouldn't even exist, but due to how religious beliefs evolve, we're somewhat stuck with the intolerant backward bastards.


You are the one who is speculating.


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.


Than you need to prove that there are more than one physical thing that is infinite. When you say its a fact.


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.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





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 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.

When it comes to design i dont really care, because design is a opinion that varies from person to person or scientist to scientist. I am satisfied that things are like they are.





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.


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.





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.



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.



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



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



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.


I don't understand why one would worship or believe such an entity like that exists either. Point of the matter however is, your concept of a singular creator is influenced by your geographical regions main religious belief in a singular creator.

Through out human history and religious beliefs, mankind has favored the concept of many different deities coexisting, each with specialized functions they ruled over. There is no less reason to believe those deities to be real anymore than to believe in your personalized adaptation of a singular creator.


The creator i believe in is neutral neither + or -, It dosent pick sides and don't favour some over others.


What evidences would you have for believing such a thing?


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, based on earlier statements you have made, I can fully understand and accept that due to the lack of understanding you have for science.



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.


What reason would you need to have your beliefs changed? Why purposefully seek out such a thing?


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.


You have a lot to learn...
edit on 14-6-2011 by sirnex because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join