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: 23
29
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
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)


You have created a scenario, where you argue against gnostic atheists, and in spite of early protests on the thread you vaguely make them represent non-theism generally.

You yourself is clearly a gnostic theist; but nonetheless you initially hijacked the name of science, to 'prove' your gnostic theism. Obviously you're rather unfamiliar with real science, but exceeding your competence in that area appears to be no problem for you.

In the reversed situation when requested to validate the bible, you refuse to join, because it (the bible) is not to be questioned.

And finally you end up by preaching. The only thing on this thread you have demonstrated clearly is your own blind faith.

Just repeating that you are right, without any evidence and by ignoring central questions (asked by me and others), don't make you right.




posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 




Just repeating that you are right, without any evidence and by ignoring central questions (asked by me and others), don't make you right


I suppose you're right ! On the other hand ?
Dosn't make me wrong either. You know?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 




Just repeating that you are right, without any evidence and by ignoring central questions (asked by me and others), don't make you right


I suppose you're right ! On the other hand ?
Dosn't make me wrong either. You know?


For starters i see that you have never been in a fox whole


if you had been, one always prays to a higher power, regradless, life is easy to be atheist, when sitting in your armchair behind a computer allday, but what if your life changes and starts to throw out a clear directive for you to come out of your chair


lol fabricated hypothesis ,but history shows that their is no athiest in fox holes just give it time, so again what was the question


owe sorry throwing a synopsis into this thread that cannot either be proven or dis-proven, just a op: trying to get more points on this thread, without an ounce of having evidence to his question

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



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 




Just repeating that you are right, without any evidence and by ignoring central questions (asked by me and others), don't make you right


I suppose you're right ! On the other hand ?
Dosn't make me wrong either. You know?


Not not more wrong than any other fabulated claim; like e.g. the flying spaghetti monster.

Try to get a grip on 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' positions.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



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.


Yet this is patently wrong as it describes an absolute with no explicit evidence that some singular ultimate infinite dimension must exist and only one can exist.

You simply can't explain something as true without evidence of it being true.


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


You could try being more humble and exclaim, I don't know. I don't have the answer to origins. I don't have the knowledge of thing's I have no direct explicit evidence for. Then, you can continue on happily learning knowing that you are indeed learning and not making up answers and just settling upon them to fill in gaps of knowledge you currently lack.


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.


There is no logical reasoning behind your assertion. It's nothing more than an arbitrary assumption.


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.


Thinking past it is all well and fine, settling upon it and saying it *must* be so is not fine in my opinion.


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.


There are three creator gods in the bible and the acceptance of many other deities. Most Judaic-Christians deny this though as they are taught that only one of the main god heads is the only one, and even then it's unclear which of the three it is!



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 




Just repeating that you are right, without any evidence and by ignoring central questions (asked by me and others), don't make you right


I suppose you're right ! On the other hand ?
Dosn't make me wrong either. You know?


Not not more wrong than any other fabulated claim; like e.g. the flying spaghetti monster.

Try to get a grip on 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' positions.


Seems to me that your grip on the gnostic agnostic has given you some obvious issues. Is that where you get this idea that there is a "flying speghetti monster". If you believe in monsters then you're simply prejudice. Try to stay on topic, if you haven't noticed there isn't a single blemish in 22 pages . I would hate to see one now. Grow up Bog.
edit on 17-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Alright, some juicy details.


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."


Okay, first bit of the claim there involves a person by the name of "Jesus Christ"...where is the evidence of this person's existence? Absence of such evidence would shed some doubt on the claim itself, though not invalidate it.



"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.


Alright, where's the evidence of previous interaction? Also, are you saying that there is no modern interaction between humanity and this "God of the Bible"?
Furthermore, is this a claim of the infallibility of the book known as 'the Bible'?



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.


...and how would one figure this out?



He who has left us no objective evidence of his existence for this specific reason.


Wait...then how would one figure this out?



Not those who would use that reason to say there be no God.

It's a failsafe.


...so your deity is a fundamentally immoral being that wants its creations to believe in something that is counterfactual? I'm sorry, but this is a cruel being by any standard, forcing its creations to eternal separation from it merely because of how it set up the system.

Also, hell of a failsafe. Though I'd like to see justification of this book from this "Bible" you are referring to....please, back up your claims on this Biblical deity using the Biblical material.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["Seems to me that your grip on the gnostic agnostic has given you some obvious issues. Is that where you get this idea that there is a "flying speghetti monster".]

The flying spaghetti monster is an example (in the form of a parody) of common theist (lack of) reasoning.

Quote: ["If you believe in monsters then you're simply prejudice."]

I have an agnostic position on monsters, angels, ghosts, demons, 'gods'. But I DON'T have an agnostic position on the use of objective procedure.

Quote: ["Try to stay on topic, if you haven't noticed there isn't a single blemish in 22 pages ."]

Half of which are theist postulates, carefully avoided questions and pseudo-science. Personally I have higher standards for unblemished.

Quote: ["Grow up Bog."]

According to what criteria?



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



Okay, first bit of the claim there involves a person by the name of "Jesus Christ"...where is the evidence of this person's existence? Absence of such evidence would shed some doubt on the claim itself, though not invalidate it.


There is no doubt in my mind that you are aware of the recordings of Tiberius and Josephus that I would site as scholarly, even ancient evidences, for the existance of Christ. Not to mention the books of the new testament themselves are considered by many scholars as evidence. Not without some arguement, never the less,
Evidence. I believe this arguable evidence stands tall in the face of only casting" doubt ".




Alright, where's the evidence of previous interaction? Also, are you saying that there is no modern interaction between humanity and this "God of the Bible"?


There isn't any evidence. It's a matter of faith in Christ according to his words, that he is the one who interacts with the Heavenly Father. Between heaven and earth for mankind, where upon he makes a case for all those of the proper spirit, validated by wheather or not they truely in their heart believed in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
The way I make understanding of this, is that only sinless blood, can wash away the sins of the whole world.
Therefore my acceoptance of the shroud ie is naturally going to be different from yours. In fact, the exact opposite.




...and how would one figure this out?


I suppose for you, it would be at the same point you decided there wasn't one.




Wait...then how would one figure this out?


Madness, there are so many avenues available to figuring this out, I'd be here for a month trying to describe them all. But the first one, is one you are supposed to possess at all times anyway being a scientist as I believe you are. By faith mind you. An open mind ? Please if your going to use a cliche here or a comeback. Just save it.




...so your deity is a fundamentally immoral being that wants its creations to believe in something that is counterfactual? I'm sorry, but this is a cruel being by any standard, forcing its creations to eternal separation from it merely because of how it set up the system.


This is matter of opinion based on your perspective. Where you simply don't know any better than to sit in judgement of God.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["Madness, there are so many avenues available to figuring this out, I'd be here for a month trying to describe them all."]

Considering that you've been around for 23 pages and STILL haven't come to the point, it would maybe be time to start on just one of your claimed 'avenues' (personally I have my doubts, you never answer anything, but skip around, when things get too precise and demanding).

But first it would be practical if you make clear, which of the three simultaneous tracks on this thread you want to follow up and explain.

a/ Scientists can't exclude 'god'

b/ The shroud

c/ Faith per se



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I'm saving all my explanations to you for a superduper climactic end to the thread. Which upon reading you will immediatly convert to Christianity and be left with drop jaw.

Stay tuned.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
The burden of proof falls on those who claim he is real to prove so, not those who disbelieve to do your leg work for you, just like any other case.

To simply say you "know" he exists because you have faith is by far the biggest cop out in history, I can claim I know in my heart unicorns exist, that doesn't make it so.

Again the burden of proof rests with those who believe in a god, not those who can think rationally.



posted on Jun, 17 2011 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gakus
 


Why would there be any "burden of proof" on any one. Nice try Bog.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Gakus
 


Why would there be any "burden of proof" on any one. Nice try Bog.


Lol yourself. Don't you know, what post you're answering? This is from someone called Gakus.

But under certain circumstances, Gakus is right. Though you'll have to get a grip on 'agnostic' and 'gnostic' positions first.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 


I'm saving all my explanations to you for a superduper climactic end to the thread. Which upon reading you will immediatly convert to Christianity and be left with drop jaw.

Stay tuned.


It's more likely, that you're using the common theist maneuver of endless and elaborate circle-argumentation to numb the intellect of opponents, in the hope that they eventually will be as confused as the theist him/herself.

Get on with it, then.

This is probably your last chance for an extensive and deep-going communication. Next time you join a thread like this, it's enough to link to this thread to demonstrate your inconclusive and circumstantial 'arguments': That person with many claims, but no answers..
edit on 18-6-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Originally posted by randyvs
There is no doubt in my mind that you are aware of the recordings of Tiberius and Josephus that I would site as scholarly, even ancient evidences, for the existance of Christ.


Even though neither was written during his lifetime, Josephus is a known forgery and Tiberius is...a Roman emperor who didn't write anything about Jesus...do you mean Tacitus? The guy who wrote about the followers of "Christus" while not commenting on the supposed details of this person's life?



Not to mention the books of the new testament themselves are considered by many scholars as evidence. Not without some arguement, never the less,


Not without circumventing what counts as evidence. Contradictory characterizations written after the death of an individual which are really only considered as evidence by the scholars who already believe the doctrines of Christianity don't particularly count.



Evidence. I believe this arguable evidence stands tall in the face of only casting" doubt ".


...nope. Wrong there.





Alright, where's the evidence of previous interaction? Also, are you saying that there is no modern interaction between humanity and this "God of the Bible"?


There isn't any evidence.


So an omnipotent being interacted with humanity without leaving some evidence?



It's a matter of faith in Christ according to his words, that he is the one who interacts with the Heavenly Father.


Which words? And again, faith? So we have to accept something in light of any evidence? How does that make the claims of Christianity any more valid than those of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Animism, Judaism, or Paganism?



Between heaven and earth for mankind, where upon he makes a case for all those of the proper spirit, validated by wheather or not they truely in their heart believed in the shed blood of Jesus Christ.


...so you're just spouting off doctrine?



The way I make understanding of this, is that only sinless blood, can wash away the sins of the whole world.
Therefore my acceoptance of the shroud ie is naturally going to be different from yours. In fact, the exact opposite.


...yes, mine relates to the physical evidence, yours relates to prior belief.





...and how would one figure this out?


I suppose for you, it would be at the same point you decided there wasn't one.


I didn't decide that there wasn't a deity and you should know better than to claim that. I've decided that there's no good reason to believe in any of the proposed deities.

pquote]


Wait...then how would one figure this out?


Madness, there are so many avenues available to figuring this out, I'd be here for a month trying to describe them all.


Well, if it relates to the eternal salvation of souls...wouldn't that be quite possibly the ultimate gift you could give to this world?



But the first one, is one you are supposed to possess at all times anyway being a scientist as I believe you are. By faith mind you. An open mind ? Please if your going to use a cliche here or a comeback. Just save it.


I do have an open mind. I'm not using some cliche, I'm just saying it. My mind is open to any claim, I just have to have someone support that claim with evidence or argument (depending on the type of claim).

How does an open mind lead one to Christianity rather than skepticism?





...so your deity is a fundamentally immoral being that wants its creations to believe in something that is counterfactual? I'm sorry, but this is a cruel being by any standard, forcing its creations to eternal separation from it merely because of how it set up the system.


This is matter of opinion based on your perspective. Where you simply don't know any better than to sit in judgement of God.


I'm not standing in judgement of anything other than what seems to be a fictional being who is fundamentally immoral. I can judge Zeus too. Odin. Allah. Krishna. Why? Because they don't have a morality that is seemingly separate from the group of people who created them. Your morality seems to come from a semi-priestly class of individuals who would tell people that belief without evidence is a virtue.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I disagree with the OP.

There are many "mystic" scientists or even mystic Atheists that search for evidence for a deity, some even search for the Deity as described by religion, i think that would be foolish as the claim was formed without evidence, i'd be happy to reconsider if i've missed or misunderstood the alleged "evidence".

Peace, and civility.



posted on Jun, 18 2011 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Thank you Madness for the correction, of course I meant Tacitus. I kind of figured you would be more accurate.
Great responses Everyone ! I'm going to be reading back through the thread for awhile, as I know I missed some responses. Feel free to carry on though.
edit on 18-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-6-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
circular logic is impossible to prove wrong, thats the point
they only way to disprove religion is to know what follows death and luckily for theists this cannot be done..



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by dilapidated
circular logic is impossible to prove wrong, thats the point
they only way to disprove religion is to know what follows death and luckily for theists this cannot be done..


You're ofcourse correct, but this is not obvious to some theists, who either ignore it or can't wrap their minds around simple logic.

This is why I almost have made: "Try to get a grip on 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' positions" my mantra on this thread.

As it is now, a considerable part of the thread has been about if green is better than tuesday...though some prefer football.
edit on 19-6-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join