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: 22
29
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Objective proof for god's existence?

Simple! Just find anything (really...anything) that verifiably proves his existence. People believe in so many gods, you can't just say "a hair sample", because some have elephant heads and naked. It doesn't matter what the evidence is, as long as it holds up to peer reviews, is testable, and otherwise adheres to scientific method.

Which means subjectivity is clearly not the way to prove his/her/its existence. And the old "just look around you, the complexity...that was clearly god's work" argument is NOT objective evidence for example




posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well X you've failed to answer the question. In this thread we are speaking a bout God. Singular defined as the creator. Do I really have to explain this to you. I know I don't. Why do you feel the need to muddy these waters ?
It's to no benefiet.

By the way why has Madness rejected my thread ? Is he cross with me?
edit on 14-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well X you've failed to answer the question. In this thread we are speaking a bout God. Singular defined as the creator. Do I really have to explain this to you. I know I don't. Why do you feel the need to muddy these waters ?
It's to no benefiet.

By the way why has Madness rejected my thread ? Is he cross with me?
edit on 14-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Your own very flexible approach to both topic and method doesn't justify any 'stay-on-topic', when scientific/logic methodology is put up as a perspective.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Bog
 


Scientific methodogy is only bullet proof as an idea. Not as a perspective.
edit on 15-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)





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


What will I have wasted ?

And

That's what yoiu should worry about.

edit on 15-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





I don't understand why one would worship or believe such an entity like that exists either.


I am not worshiping anything. No one has to worship something just because one believes in something.
My believes makes me want to learn more about it. But i dont read the Bible, I read, practice math and like to solve equations and theories.





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


My beliefs is based on a personal idea. A idea i can not get rid of, it just appeared.
I don't need to have my beliefs changed, but challenged. Because i am not saying i am right, but i think i am.





You have a lot to learn...


True i have a lot to learn, but your not the one to teach me, because you are to afraid to put your self on the line. I have asked you to come forth with what you think is infinite. If you do so, i will probably have to explain to you that you have not understood. That is what you are afraid of.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: spelling



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 





In this thread we are speaking a bout God. Singular defined as the creator.


Again...which one? Hindu god? Christian god? Allah?

Depending on which god you mean, the proof you are looking for might be different...



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



I am not worshiping anything. No one has to worship something just because one believes in something.


That's not what I was saying, read in context.


My believes makes me want to learn more about it.


How would one go about learning about something they arbitrarily created by adapting an older mythological entity to suite their personal ideologies?


But i dont read the Bible, I read, practice math and like to solve equations and theories.


I'm not religious myself, but hell.. even I have read the bible. Knowledge is power my friend.


My beliefs is based on a personal idea. A idea i can not get rid of, it just appeared.


It most certainly did not just appear.


I don't need to have my beliefs changed, but challenged. Because i am not saying i am right, but i think i am.


How can you think you are right when you reject the concept of a singular creator that is the basis and seed for your concept of a singular creator? How is your singular creator more correct than randyvs' concept of singular creator?


True i have a lot to learn, but your not the one to teach me, because you are to afraid to put your self on the line. I have asked you to come forth with what you think is infinite. If you do so, i will probably have to explain to you that you have not understood. That is what you are afraid of.


I am far from afraid, I have no reason to be. Infinities are mathematical constructs, not observed physical phenomena. They are very useful from a mathematical point of view and have no known observable/testable basis in reality. There are many different forms of infinities known to mathematicians/physicists. You arbitrarily assume (incorrectly) that only one *physical infinity* can exist, you simply have no basis for that gross assumption. I can't teach you about the different mathematical infinities because I am not a mathematician. The honest answer I can give you is that there is no logical sound reasoning to assume that only one physical infinity *must* exist. The quest for knowledge should never rest upon idle speculation and pure assumption. This quest we're all on should be the most humbling experience. You're simply on the wrong path, instead having chosen the arrogant approach of assuming you are correct without any basis to make that assumption. Our species is very far from being able to explain the origins of everything or if everything even had a beginning to begin with. With that being a fact, how can you even possibly begin to think your ideas are correct?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 




How would one go about learning about something they arbitrarily created by adapting an older mythological entity to suite their personal ideologies?


If you don't know how to believe, there is no way i can help you to understand. Believing in something, is to have the ability to have thoughts out side the physical box of science.
I guess you are trapped in the Box and can't make compares sing thoughts between whats in the Box and whats outside of the Box.





I'm not religious myself, but hell.. even I have read the bible. Knowledge is power my friend.


You are so very wrong. Your knowledge is very limited to whats inside the box.

Like Einstein said: Imagination is more important than knowledge.

If you have a imagination you can see the knowledge that is inside the Box. If you know what that means?
We can see the box, but you can't because your are trapped in it.






I don't need to have my beliefs changed, but challenged. Because i am not saying i am right, but i think i am.


How can you think you are right when you reject the concept of a singular creator that is the basis and seed for your concept of a singular creator? How is your singular creator more correct than randyvs' concept of singular creator?


If i was to make a guess; Randys concept of understanding the creator is within the pages of the Bible. I am trying to see out side the scientific Box. Thereby my way of viewing and explaining the creator becomes different. But we are still talking about the same creator.





Infinities are mathematical constructs,


Mathematical constructs are based on physical measured quantities ONLY. The finite quantity.

Infinite mathematical constructs are present to replace the unidentified physical values not yet discovered, with symbols or the number 0 (zero).

You know; to make complicated equations add up.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


All of them.

Spy


If i was to make a guess; Randys concept of understanding the creator is within the pages of the Bible. I am trying to see out side the scientific Box. Thereby my way of viewing and explaining the creator becomes different. But we are still talking about the same creator


Holy Robin ! Batman you really do get it. It's simply thinking out side the box, to find the answers to the questions that seemingly don' t make any sense. It's refusing to throw your hands in the air and say, " This makes no sense ". Which I feel most of science is to willing to jump on the first horse out of town. Excellent.

Spy ! You get a cookie.




I hope you like peanut butter.
edit on 15-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Hehe
Thanks


And you are right its all about not giving up. I wouldn't trade my ability to think outside the box for anything.

And atheist's wont trade their ability to think inside the box for anything,at least that is the impression i get from them in here.




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



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



If you don't know how to believe, there is no way i can help you to understand. Believing in something, is to have the ability to have thoughts out side the physical box of science.
I guess you are trapped in the Box and can't make compares sing thoughts between whats in the Box and whats outside of the Box.


Scientific inquiry is the utmost imaginative process of thinking outside the box. It's the explicit reason why we are a technologically progressive species. Without those imaginative inquiries and the discoveries made as a result, we would still be living under the rule of the Christian Dark Ages. What science thankfully is not is the blind acceptance that one thing is the absolute truth. When one just settles on an answer without evidence of that answer being true to any extent, they are essentially giving up, not pressing forward to understand this amazing universe we live in.


You are so very wrong. Your knowledge is very limited to whats inside the box.

Like Einstein said: Imagination is more important than knowledge.

If you have a imagination you can see the knowledge that is inside the Box. If you know what that means?
We can see the box, but you can't because your are trapped in it.


There is a HUGE difference between using imagination to further understand our world compared to using ones imagination to settle upon an imagined idea without testing it's validity.


If i was to make a guess; Randys concept of understanding the creator is within the pages of the Bible. I am trying to see out side the scientific Box. Thereby my way of viewing and explaining the creator becomes different. But we are still talking about the same creator.


Incorrect. Your singular creator is simply based upon his singular creator. You already exclaimed that you don't understand how people can accept the creator he believes in. You already pointed out that you accept evolutionary theory, whereas in his belief of his creator in his religious doctrine, such a concept is simply unacceptable. There are many differences between your concept of a creator and his.


Mathematical constructs are based on physical measured quantities ONLY. The finite quantity.

Infinite mathematical constructs are present to replace the unidentified physical values not yet discovered, with symbols or the number 0 (zero).

You know; to make complicated equations add up.


So I assume you really know nothing about higher dimensional physics either.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
Singular deity that is (I'm guessing here) omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and (possibly) omnibenevolent, answers prayers, and has regularly intervened in human affairs in varying degrees? Perfectly within the realm of science to test.

Give me more specifics. Is this the Christian deity? If so, I can give you all sorts of tests, especially if you get more specific about which version of Christian theology you're referring to.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



It's simply thinking out side the box, to find the answers to the questions that seemingly don' t make any sense. It's refusing to throw your hands in the air and say, " This makes no sense ". Which I feel most of science is to willing to jump on the first horse out of town.


How is not settling on an arbitrarily conceived idea a sign of giving up in our quest to understand reality? There is no evidence of a creator, be it a singular creator or a whole host of specialized functioning deities each having specific roles in creation. If there was evidence, it would be self evident. Gravity for instance is self evident. Light is self evident. The requirement for oxygen is self evident, etc. A creator unfortunately is not self evident. There simply is no basis to assume one exists, nor to even further conjecture that this supposed creator created a vast cosmos for the sole benefit of a single species who is not even technologically capable of utilizing such a vast expanse.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Singular deity that is (I'm guessing here) omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and (possibly) omnibenevolent, answers prayers, and has regularly intervened in human affairs in varying degrees? Perfectly within the realm of science to test.

Give me more specifics. Is this the Christian deity? If so, I can give you all sorts of tests, especially if you get more specific about which version of Christian theology you're referring to.


God hates amputees... Just want to get that out of the way.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





So I assume you really know nothing about higher dimensional physics either.


That field is my thing, so try me


I didn't hint to the white paper sheet for nothing. Everything you observe within science must be on the white sheet of paper. That is the simplest way i know how to explain physical dimensions on a large scale.

And if you can prove me wrong, i would be happy to learn.

If you think back to our talk about absolute vacuum. You should know what the infinite dimension is and what the white sheet of paper represents.

I know that you will bring up your scientific argument that a absolute vacuum cant be proven. And i know that, but it dosent stop me from taking the liberty to think past it.




You already exclaimed that you don't understand how people can accept the creator he believes in.


The reason for that is because have questions about Lord God. To me there are two Gods mentioned in the Bible; Lord God and God. I think Lord God is a impostor. But i am not a expert on the Bible.




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



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well good to see you Madness, I thought you were going to boycott my whole thread.

Yes, The Heavenly Father, who thru Jesus Christ we must pray, as Christ is the only way to the Father." No one comes to the Father but by me". The God of the Bible who has left mankind on his own, because that's what
man chose.The God who according to the Bible, wants only those of the mind who can figure out there must be a God. Therefore believing in him purely on faith. He who has left us no objective evidence of his existence for this specific reason. Not those who would use that reason to say there be no God.

It's a failsafe.


edit on 16-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["Scientific methodogy is only bullet proof as an idea. Not as a perspective."]

NOTHING is bullet-proof; least of all subjective guesses used in religion.

But some 'perspectives' have on their own ground a high degree of 'truth'. This is the case with science/logic.

Get some basic knowledge about science/logic, before you start to compare it with your own methods.



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





Get some basic knowledge about science/logic, before you start to compare it with your own methods.


I'm getting more than enough from you. I thank you.




NOTHING is bullet-proof


I take that back. This statement is a oh Why not you're right !

edit on 16-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Well good to see you Madness, I thought you were going to boycott my whole thread.

Yes, The Heavenly Father, who thru Jesus Christ we must pray, as Christ is the only way to the Father." No one comes to the Father but by me". The God of the Bible who has left mankind on his own, because that's what
man chose.The God who according to the Bible, wants only those of the mind who can figure out there must be a God. Therefore believing in him purely on faith. He who has left us no objective evidence of his existence for this specific reason. Not those who would use that reason to say there be no God.

It's a failsafe.


edit on 16-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Now when we're down to, what it's all about, ......faith and as demonstrated here, a chance to preach, ....why was the pseudo-science (doomed to failure from page 1) included?

No-one with the smallest knowledge of standard science accepts the theist science-plagiate. And whatever some people think about it, rational attitudes are becoming increasingly popular, and faith is reduced to being a personal interest for those wanting it.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



Now when we're down to, what it's all about, ......faith and as demonstrated here, a chance to preach, ....why was the pseudo-science (doomed to failure from page 1) included?


If you forgot ? Go back and read it again. This time with an open mind.

I thought I was supposed to be the zealot ?
edit on 17-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join