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: 29
29
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





From Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu ofcourse. Where else?


Evidence ?




posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 





From Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu ofcourse. Where else?


Evidence ?


Not in this case. I tried my hand at your method. It's called humour amongst non-believers; you are maybe familiar with the concept?

But if you're interested, it's not difficult to demonstrate, that this variety of a theist 'answer' has a higher reality-probability than yours. You just have to re-read the science-oriented part of this thread, and when you have understood it, I will return with further information.
edit on 12-7-2011 by bogomil because: punctuation, syntax



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by bogomil
 





From Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu ofcourse. Where else?


Evidence ?


Not in this case. I tried my hand at your method. It's called humour amongst non-believers; you are maybe familiar with the concept?

But if you're interested, it's not difficult to demonstrate, that this variety of a theist 'answer' has a higher reality-probability than yours. You just have to re-read the science-oriented part of this thread, and when you have understood it, I will return with further information.
edit on 12-7-2011 by bogomil because: punctuation, syntax


So more trolling then. I thought so.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Hm... well, maybe science fails to disprove the Christian God, but I see no reason why a god has to be included. Scientific occurences do not require the help of a deity. So if you'd like to see science as the way your specific god, be it Allah, YHWH, or whomever, conducts the universe then do so. But I see no need for this.

As for the Big-Bang and the beginning of all things (you know what I mean) I think it's probably beyond human comprehension. And humans like to think there's a conscious force behind everything...

Maybe there's consciousness, unconsciousness, and then a third state somewhere in between or something
And there could very well be some sort of creator, deity, god, etc. But I doubt it's the Christian God or any other man-made religious deity and something we don't-and probably can't-know about.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Where did everything come from then ? If God didn't make it?



I don't know.

The fact that you claim to know, without allowing any possibility that you could be mistaken is something nobody else should take seriously. This is not a personal snipe at you. The same holds true for anyone who makes extremely grandiose claims without being able to substantiate them in any way. Especially when all available evidence points to something else ie. shows the Christian trinity, as portrayed, to not only be inaccurate historically but also conflicts with known truths and therefore based on lies.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Where did everything come from then ? If God didn't make it?



I don't know.

The fact that you claim to know, without allowing any possibility that you could be mistaken is something nobody else should take seriously.


And what evidence can you produce to prove what he is saying is false? I guess everything you say is fact, despite not having the answer. If you don't have the answer yourself how can you say someone is wrong? And don't give me that you don't have to prove anything crap because as I said before, that is the biggest fallacy of all time.
edit on 12-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


But that's why any of your snipes at myself are so fun for me. You don't even understand that these arn't my claims. I claim nothing, so snipe as like, it means not to me. I just try to make sense of the things you claim do not make sense concerning Gods claims thru the Bible.

I myself no matter how much I thought I knew ? I Would never claim anything. Guess why ?




I don't know

edit on 12-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by WhiteLaces
 





Hm... well, maybe science fails to disprove the Christian God, but I see no reason why a god has to be included. Scientific occurences do not require the help of a deity. So if you'd like to see science as the way your specific god, be it Allah, YHWH, or whomever, conducts the universe then do so. But I see no need for this.


You see no reason for the one true oracle ? No reason to want a relationship with the absolute infallible knowledge of the universe ? I wonder did you know your father ? I mean did you have him around for guidance ?
edit on 12-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Forgive me, but I simply do not want anything to do with Christianity and am probably becoming a Pagan soon. Please don't be rude or misunderstanding.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhiteLaces
reply to post by randyvs
 


Forgive me, but I simply do not want anything to do with Christianity and am probably becoming a Pagan soon. Please don't be rude or misunderstanding.


Too late, I already said a prayer and you're indoctrinated.


Despite your preconcieved notions ? I had no intentions Darlin.
edit on 12-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by WhiteLaces
reply to post by randyvs
 


Forgive me, but I simply do not want anything to do with Christianity and am probably becoming a Pagan soon. Please don't be rude or misunderstanding.


Too late, I already said a prayer and you're indoctrinated.


Despite your preconcieved notions ? I had no intentions Darlin.
edit on 12-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


No need for smugness. I asked for you to refrain for being rude or misunderstanding; I was not assuming that were were going to act like a pompous ass. I simply asked you to refrain from doing so if you planned to, and which I was unsure if you were or not...

However, I hope you lead a happy and fulfilling life with the religion of your choosing as I will live mine. Without Christianity or Islam...

Regards and an unsubscribed thread,

WhiteLaces



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





Not more than Randys has failed to exclude the flying spaghetti monster. (Or the tea-pot on Saturn claim).


Yeah, lets delve into the flying spaghetti monsters ancient past, 2005.

On second thought.

I'll exclude it right now.

These are reactionary, satirical arguments. Nothing more.

You know it, and I know it.

How many Pastafarians put their faith in, and are willing to die for their belief in a flying spaghetti monster?

ZERO.


Intelligent design is evident in our daily life. Inventions come from inventors. Scientist use their intelligence to design experiments.

Besides, the rule of this universe is this, life can only come from existing life.

As long as Science has concepts like Dark Energy and Dark Matter, it will always fail to exclude God.



edit on 12-7-2011 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Where did everything come from then ? If God didn't make it?



I don't know.

The fact that you claim to know, without allowing any possibility that you could be mistaken is something nobody else should take seriously.


And what evidence can you produce to prove what he is saying is false? I guess everything you say is fact, despite not having the answer. If you don't have the answer yourself how can you say someone is wrong? And don't give me that you don't have prove anything crap because as I said before, that is the biggest fallacy of all time.


I understand what you say, Seeker. I can never prove God does not exist, in fact I would like such a thing to exist. Though I see no evidence or need for one as yet. The fact that I don't know where everything came from does not make someone else's claims of knowledge correct. It is possible to provide facts without knowing the whole answer, why would you think otherwise? The common garden variety Christian God as portrayed in the bible/book of lies and tall tales, has been well and truly discarded not only by science but also common sense IMO. If there is a God, it isn't this one. The whole story appears to be ridiculous. In every situation where it is possible to make a positive determination either way, God has been discredited. As the boundaries of knowledge increases, the boundaries of God diminishes. The claims below are all verifiable and not an opinion alone. Just a small sample.


-God made man in his image.

No, we know that humans evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes. If there was any doubt (which there wasn't), the latest work in the fields of biology/genetics puts it to rest. Unless God looks like some ancient archaic primate. Evolution and speciation are known and observed. There is even work which shows evolution in progress within humanity over the last 10,000 years or so.

-Snakes cannot talk. Many bird species can, but not snakes. This has never been known to occur by any branch of zoology that I know of. Can you show me where it is, to clarify?

-People don't become impregnated by imaginary friends. Though as excuse for infidelity go, this is one of the more creative ones. Something physical and invasive is required, even if artificial.

-People generally don't walk on water. Gravity forbids it. They sink in water.

-People cannot change the molecular and chemical structure of water or any other substance by willpower.

-People cannot come back to life after three days. Brain damage begins occurring in minutes. They don't resurrect from tombs after years either.

We could go on for some time. Even then eventually we would need to go into areas such as history, archaeology, anthropology etc. which further discredits the Christian myth.

Now, where are your verifiable claims that would make my stance unfounded or unreasonable? I don't want you to prove God exists, that isn't possible. Just provide something substantive to show my very few simple points above to be wrong. I feel that belief in the Christian God is both unfounded and illogical and not worth entertaining even as a notion. Due to the fact that everything we do know discredits such a thing. Though you may personally dispute these things in favour of personal superstitious belief, that will amount to opinion only. Please substantiate it and verifiably discredit all of the above "facts" for starters.


www.talkorigins.org...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

www.thefreedictionary.com...

en.wikipedia.org...







edit on 12-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Now, where are your verifiable claims to God's existence that would make my stance unfounded or unreasonable.? I feel that belief in the Christian God is both unfounded and illogical and not worth entertaining even as a notion....


It is normal to hate what you dont understand. Dont worry this is beyond human understanding. It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.

The inferiority of the human faculties renders it impossible for man to comprehend the essential nature of God. In the infancy of the race, man often confounds the Creator with the creature, and attributes to the former the imperfections of the latter. But, in proportion as his moral sense becomes developed, man's thought penetrates more deeply into the nature of things, and he is able to form to himself a juster and more rational idea of the Divine Being, although his idea of that Being must always be imperfect and incomplete.
edit on 12-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

But that's why any of your snipes at myself are so fun for me.


I am sorry you feel my snipes to be personally directed at you. They are meant to be directed at the myth you espouse. You on the other hand , I find personable and likeable. If they crossed the line I apologize.


You don't even understand that these arn't my claims. I claim nothing


Your right there, I don't understand. It seems that your claims of knowledge have fuelled much resulting debate. Do you now retract the claim the you "know" god exists? Or that you have knowledge that "God did it" to explain creation? Or that Jones was an Athiest?

edit on 12-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jul, 12 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

It is normal to hate what you dont understand. Dont worry this is beyond human understanding. It is unwise to insist upon a literal interpretation of figurative statements of which the inaccuracy may, at any moment, be rendered evident by the progress of scientific discovery; but the fundamental propositions of religion, so far from having anything to fear from the discoveries of science, are strengthened and ennobled by being brought into harmony with those discoveries. And it is only when the religious sentiment shall have been enlightened by its union with scientific truth that religious belief, thus rendered invulnerable to the attacks of skepticism, will take the place of skepticism in the minds and hearts of men.


As politely as possible, it is unwise to assume a position from hatred in others. This might be assuming too much. I neither worry, nor necessarily agree that man made religion is beyond human comprehension. There are genuinely beautiful interpretations of Christianity. The most beautiful I have heard are from those who became extreme narcissists and ran genuine mind control cults. Which doesn't discredit what you say, though "caveat emptor" is a good policy.

The rest I find reasonable and intelligent, whether I agree or not, thank you. Scepticism has a place. To vigorously question or even criticise grandiose claims is not unreasonable. There should be no sacred cows. It is less an attack and more a need to verify. It can help lead to truth.



edit on 13-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Where did everything come from then ? If God didn't make it?



I don't know.

The fact that you claim to know, without allowing any possibility that you could be mistaken is something nobody else should take seriously.


And what evidence can you produce to prove what he is saying is false? I guess everything you say is fact, despite not having the answer. If you don't have the answer yourself how can you say someone is wrong? And don't give me that you don't have prove anything crap because as I said before, that is the biggest fallacy of all time.


www.msnbc.msn.com...

edit on 12-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.


Sorry for the delay, AGT got me clued right now. Anyway,

As always evolutionists begin with the assumption that man has, in fact, evolved from apes. No paleoanthropologists (those who study the fossil evidence for man’s origin) would dare to seriously raise the question, “Did man evolve from apes?” The only permissible question is, “From which apes did man evolve?”

Since evolutionists generally do not believe that man evolved from any ape that is now living, they look to fossils of humans and apes to provide them with their desired evidence. Specifically, they look for any anatomical feature that looks “intermediate” (between that of apes and man). Fossil apes having such features are declared to be ancestral to man (or at least collateral relatives) and are called hominids. Living apes, on the other hand, are not considered to be hominids, but rather are called hominoids because they are only similar to humans but did not evolve into them. Nonetheless, evolutionists are willing to accept mere similarities between the fossilized bones of extinct apes and the bones of living men as “proof ” of our ape ancestry
.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
The fact that I don't know where everything came from does not make someone else's claims of knowledge correct.


I agree. And it doesn't make what your saying correct either. After all, you can't provide a solid answer, you can only give theory.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
It is possible to provide facts without knowing the whole answer, why would you think otherwise?


So in other words, I don't know how it works, I just know that it does. I'll agree with that. Why can't the same rules apply to God. Just because we don't how it could be doesn't mean that it isn't.


Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
No, we know that humans evolved from a common ancestor with the great apes. If there was any doubt (which there wasn't), the latest work in the fields of biology/genetics puts it to rest. Unless God looks like some ancient archaic primate. Evolution and speciation are known and observed. There is even work which shows evolution in progress within certain ethnic human groups over the last 10,000 years or so.


There is no such evidence when it comes to humans, while this might be possible with other spieces, there is no direct proof that humans came from apes. I've yet to see a ape that is also human, or even coming close to being human. If there is such a thing, it could have only been created in a lab.

I won't get into the other ones because I do agree to with science on this matter. I would agree that those things are impossible for most people. However, I wouldn't say these things are impossible.
edit on 13-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





Your right there, I don't understand. It seems that your claims of knowledge have fuelled much resulting debate. Do you now retract the claim the you "know" god exists? Or that you have knowledge that "God did it" to explain creation? Or that Jones was an Athiest?


Ok Do I redact ? That's a negative. I very simply know, God exists by the things I see with open eyes every day
and faith. I'm sure you've experienced being in tune with another person ? Damn it ! I have a feeling you're going to wipe out another part of the human experience now.
Not just the arguable scientific evidence, of a language of information in the genome, biological evidences.
But also in other fields of science as well. Why act as if you don't know ? Of that which you ask for ? I'm sure you do? Jim Jones was an atheist and there is evidence that he absolutly was. So google it. If you havn't already ?

edit on 13-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Do you think that by explaning the mechanics of the design ? That you negate the designer, for cripe sakes ?
edit on 13-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


White laces


No need for smugness.


Funny how you can get a sense of someone and how they are. Even if it's thru a limited amount of text on a PC monitor ? I could tell right away there's no dealing with her.

I mean really was I ?
I wasn't smug was I ?
Kind of like being in tune with someone.
edit on 13-7-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Will man ever become able to comprehend the mystery of the Divinity?

"When his mind shall no longer be obscured by matter, and when, by his perfection, he shall have brought himself nearer to God, be will see and comprehend Him."

"Yes, judging from your point of view, because you think that you sum up everything in those terms; but you must understand that there are things which transcend the intelligence of the most intelligent man, and for which your language, limited to your ideas and sensations, has no expressions. Your reason tells you that God must possess those perfections in the supreme degree; for, if one of them were lacking, or were not possessed by Him in an infinite degree, He would riot be superior to all, and consequently would not be God. In order to be above all things, God must undergo no vicissitudes, He must have none of the imperfections of which the imagination can conceive."

God is eternal. If He had had a beginning, He must either have sprung from nothing, or have been created by some being anterior to Himself. It is thus that, step by step, we arrive at the idea of infinity and eternity.
God is unchangeable. If He were subject to change, the laws which rule the universe would have no stability.

God is immaterial, that is to say, that His nature differs from everything that we call matter, or otherwise. He would not be unchangeable, for He would be subject to the transformations of matter.

God is unique. If there were several Gods, there would be neither unity of plan nor unity of power in the ordaining of the universe.

God is all-powerful because He is unique. If He did not possess sovereign power, there would be something more powerful, or no less powerful, than Himself. He would not have created all things and those which He had not created would be the work of another God.

God is sovereignty just and good. The providential wisdom of the divine laws is revealed as clearly in the smallest things as in the greatest and this wisdom renders it impossible to doubt either His justice or His goodness.
www.spiritwritings.com...

edit on 13-7-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


Thank you for that most excellent post Shadow and the link is in my favorites.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 26  27  28    30  31  32 >>

log in

join