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: 37
29
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 07:08 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


You wrote:

["Now with atheism the universe becomes a "closed system " meaning there is no outside influence (God). With believers the opposite is true. "open system"]

New labels on the same concepts. Not better nor worse than the old ones for intrinsic meaning, but possible more semantically applicable to rational thinking.

Quote: ["If matter and energy can not increase or decrease and can not come from nothing ?
Where do matter and energy come from ?"]

The question is rhetorical.

Quote: ["If scientists are the supeme being or if science is your God ?"]

You are using theist concepts, imposing them on opposition.

Quote: ["Or if there is no God ?"]

Building up to the regressive arguement again. It HAS lost most of its dramatic or scholastic value by now. You're stuck in an eternal circle of: "Is, isn't, is, isn't", just dressing up the same repetitive postulates in new forms.

Quote: ["Then we are left with the impossibility of matter and energy according to the known laws of science."]

The 'impossibilty' of using a sound logic procedure, and also having the honesty not to promote mythological speculations and other guessing to 'truth'. Round and around in the circle of theist preaching.

Quote: ["the impossibility of matter and energy according to the known laws of science. According to the laws of science there must be a God, That's why I say"]

To use science this way, you have to be at least somewhat familiar with science first.

Quote: ["Science fails to exclude God"]

Correct. Science fails to exclude 'god'. Who are you arguing with, anybody needing to be convinced here? Why the repetitaion of this mantra, if you have no opposition on this point.

Quote: [".And saying " I/we don't know " is a cop out."]

Only according to your premises, which as demonstrated by yourself on this thread, can be very flexible.




posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["The first three verses of Genesis accurately expresses all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).”

How could the writer have know what time, space, matter and energy was? No one had even heard of such a thing back then?"]

As does most competing truth/reality-seeking systems (already back then), and as does 'the man in the street'.

Besides the semantic interpretations are symbolic, and quite vague.

According to the understanding and knowledge of science/logic you have demonstrated sofar, this appears to be a pre-digested 'argument', you have borrowed from some christian manual of 'answers'. Can you back it up yourself? (I just come from having spent a couple of weeks on some other threads, on the practically identical claims).



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





You wrote:

["From something that cant be created or destroyed, like infinite energy."]

From a logic perspective, this is meaningless. You're just dusting off the regression-argument. Why do you believe it will be true THIS time?


Because if you read up on "energy - mass" that is the conclusion you will get.





Quote: ["I cant prove it; but finite energy mass cant come from non existing energy."]

As above.


I have no idea why you are saying this? Well actually i do because we have already discussed this earlier. And i personally think you haven't read much about it.





Quote: ["Our universe is not infinite, our universe is formed by the infinite,..."]

That's repeating the design postulate just using other words. As above.


No, not at all.
Remember our talk about vacuum, and particles popping out of nowhere?
Well the particles actually came from somewhere. The vacuum.





Quote: ["and our universe must exist within the infinite universe. There is no other place our universe or any other universe can be/exist."]

There are some alternative models corresponding slightly better to what we actually do know. E.g. the holographic cosmos.


Maybe so, i haven't read much about the holographic cosmos. All i know is that it is still being research. But i have to add: This study is about energy.

But i have to mention the vacuum again. Where did the particles show up? Within the vacuum or out side of the vacuum/chamber?





Quote: ["If our universe exist within the infinite universe, than that makes our existing universe a finite. And our universe will change/expand because of it. Because there is a differential between the two."]

The 'IF's from your earlier assumptions should be sorted out, before you add more 'if's to them.



My replay, my choice of words.


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

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



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote (on the regression-argument)

["Because if you read up on "energy - mass" that is the conclusion you will get."]

No, that's not the issue. Logic is (ofcourse as in formal logic. Not any home-cooked version). A regression-argument is a chain of logic, not what specific details it's about. Science and logic are not identical, they compliment each other, though sometimes being dual parts of the same 'tool'. E.g. mathematics.

Quote (on finite energy depending on another more initial energy-source): ["I have no idea why you are saying this? Well actually i do because we have already discussed this earlier. And i personally think you haven't read much about it."]

You are ofcourse free to evaluate the extent of my reading about it. But as above, this is based on your assumption, that the question is about causality as we know it from cosmos, instead of the logic implied in the method you use.

Quote: ["Remember our talk about vacuum, and particles popping out of nowhere? Well the particles actually came from somewhere. The vacuum."]

I haven't forgotten, especially not as I meet this kind of argument several times a month. The first hurdle here is to establish the factual existence of a trans-cosmos. Not to take it for granted. Secondly to establish the possible 'order' (if any) of that trans-cosmos. THEN we can consider the bridge from one existence-level to the other (=design).

Quote: ["Maybe so, i haven't read much about the holographic cosmos. All i know is that it is still being research. But i have to add: This study is about energy."]

I only proposed the holographic model as an alternative to your 'design' reasoning-chain. Not as an absolute model. Energy is easily included in the holographic model.

Quote: [" But i have to mention the vacuum again. Where did the particles show up? Within the vacuum or out side of the vacuum/chamber?"]

Vacuum in this context doesn't mean a vacuum-chamber.

For good reasons we can only observe, what we can observe (as different from speculations). So the exact origin of matter/energy is unknown, and our only knowledge (as far as I know and in an objective-procedure context) rests on quantum-entanglement taking place 'outside' the known cosmos. Apparantly the wave/particle phenomenon also exists beyond present possible observation.

Opinions/positions on this can as usual range from faith and guesses to hypotheses and possibly later accepted theories.



edit on 17-7-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["Well I'm not a scientist that's for sure but I do know that Creation is made of particles and that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. But I didn't need science to tell me this for it is written right here:

Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible."]

This is what all theism is about. Why should the bible-version of it be a special proof for the bible's 'truth'?

They tell about two different creation scenarios, with the order of events reversed.


So when the writer said "the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." What do you think he was talking about? I know your smart enough to see the truth in that scripture, but like just all other atheist you only reject it because of pride. You know that verse is saying something that the writer should not have know at that time. But you reject it just to be rejecting it.

In the case of Genesis 2, if you really can't see that it is just extra details then I recommend you take a refreshers course in comprehension because it's really not that hard to figure out.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["The first three verses of Genesis accurately expresses all known aspects of the creation (Genesis 1:1-3). Science expresses the universe in terms of: time, space, matter, and energy. In Genesis chapter one we read: “In the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)…Then God said, “Let there be light (energy).”

How could the writer have know what time, space, matter and energy was? No one had even heard of such a thing back then?"]

As does most competing truth/reality-seeking systems (already back then), and as does 'the man in the street'.

Besides the semantic interpretations are symbolic, and quite vague.

According to the understanding and knowledge of science/logic you have demonstrated sofar, this appears to be a pre-digested 'argument', you have borrowed from some christian manual of 'answers'. Can you back it up yourself? (I just come from having spent a couple of weeks on some other threads, on the practically identical claims).




You'll come with anything to keep the truth from your lips. Why don't you do a translation and then tell me that it's false. And I didn't need a manual to tell that, I understand Hebrew and it pretty much says what it says, there is no way to refute it. How can time, space, matter and energy be symbolic?

Just face the fact that Gen 1 can't be refuted by science, no scientist has been successful yet, so what makes you think that you are really smart enough to do so.
edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
They do refute the existence of the Judeo-Christian image of God due to making the bible obsolete.


Come on now, that is a very silly statement. Now matter how hard science tries it will never make the Bible obsolete. People need to face the fact that the Bible is here to stay, it's not going anywhere. The teachings are to powerful to be destroyed by a few scientist.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein "The World as I See It", Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

"There's no way that scientists can ever rule out religion, or even have anything significant to say about the abstract idea of a divine creator," - Brian Greene a world-renowned physicist and author of "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality".

I just think it's funny how every time science makes a break through atheist start doing back flips as if that evidence will wipe religion right off the map
. To bad such a thing will never happen, no matter what they find.

People also need to realize that science is not against religion, it's the atheist who take the scientific knowledge and then try to produce facts that the evidence disproves the Bible.

I agree with Einstein, how lame.


edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



Seeker, this is what Albert Einstein wrote of the type of religious nonsense you are peddling, in a personal letter towards the end of his life.

In his own words...........


"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish"

Another one from a book you have already quoted..........

"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves."


Couldn't agree more with that.

It seems what he called religion and what you believe, are very different things.

www.newscientist.com...



edit on 17-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
They do refute the existence of the Judeo-Christian image of God due to making the bible obsolete.


Come on now, that is a very silly statement. Now matter how hard science tries it will never make the Bible obsolete. People need to face the fact that the Bible is here to stay, it's not going anywhere. The teachings are to powerful to be destroyed by a few scientist.

"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." —Albert Einstein "The World as I See It", Philosophical Library, New York, 1949, pp. 24 - 28.

"There's no way that scientists can ever rule out religion, or even have anything significant to say about the abstract idea of a divine creator," - Brian Greene a world-renowned physicist and author of "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality".

I just think it's funny how every time science makes a break through atheist start doing back flips as if that evidence will wipe religion right off the map
. To bad such a thing will never happen, no matter what they find.

People also need to realize that science is not against religion, it's the atheist who take the scientific knowledge and then try to produce facts that the evidence disproves the Bible.

I agree with Einstein, how lame.


edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



Seeker, this is what Albert Einstein wrote of the type of religious nonsense you are peddling, in a personal letter towards the end of his life.

In his own words...........


"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends, which are nevertheless pretty childish"

Albert Einstein

Couldn't agree more with that.


www.newscientist.com...



edit on 17-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it


We can go back and forth with the quotes of Einstein, the bottom line is that he was smart enough to recognize that we didn't magically put our self's here. People can hate the Bible all they want, but that won't change anything, people will still believe it and keep living happy lives because of it. Just because you have a personal problem with scripture doesn't mean that it's false.

With that said, is it your mission to disprove the Bible? If so, what for?



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["So when the writer said "the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible." What do you think he was talking about?"]

Obviously about invisible things being 'behind' visible things. Most, if not all, religions/semi-religions have similar speculations.

Quote: ["I know your smart enough to see the truth in that scripture,...."]

A rather trite commonplace speculation isn't a sign of exclusive 'truth'. Especially not if the details don't stand a reality-test.

Quote: ["but like just all other atheist ....."]

AM I an atheists? How do you position me as such?

Quote continued: [".....you only reject it because of pride."]

Save the pop-psychology, it's completely irrelevant.

Quote: ["You know that verse is saying something that the writer should not have know at that time."]

The 'translation' of it to scientific terms being YOUR work; through the use of generously liberal symbolism.

And that beginnings, places, objects and dynamics were unknown concepts of that time is a constructed argument.

Quote: ["But you reject it just to be rejecting it."]

More pop-psychology.

Quote: ["In the case of Genesis 2, if you really can't see that it is just extra details then I recommend you take a refreshers course in comprehension because it's really not that hard to figure out."]

In the context of any rational reasoning-chain, trying to establish valid points, it certainly would be important if event A happens before event B every time the situation is mentioned. Apparantly not so in 'faith-reasoning'.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   

With that said, is it your mission to disprove the Bible? If so, what for?



No, it disproves itself IMO. If people want to believe it, fine. If you want to proclaim it as truth in a way that infers it being more than a personal belief, you may need to back it up. It has caused the odd problem or two million throughout history and spawned thousands of charlatans.

It should never influence/meddle in important world or domestic affairs (any religion). Surely we are "evolved" enough by now that we can make our own intelligent and compassionate decisions. It should not be forced on young impressionable minds either. No tax concessions. Apart from that, not too many problems with it at all.


I have an interest in the workings of cults and cult psychology. This doesn't leave me with a very favourable opinion of organised religious regimes in general. Though surprisingly I know people with many varied beliefs who I admire and get along with fine. Until............



ps. So Einstien was a creationist now ?



edit on 17-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
In the context of any rational reasoning-chain, trying to establish valid points, it certainly would be important if event A happens before event B every time the situation is mentioned. Apparantly not so in 'faith-reasoning'.


How retarded. That's like saying if someone gives a speech they are not allowed to go back to add a few extra details to help others understand, yet they should give the exact same speech every time word for word. You can do better than that. I know you want it to be a contradiction, the truth is it's not, but you sure are trying really hard to make it so.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


Quote:

["You'll come with anything to keep the truth from your lips."]

I certainly have my own standards, so 'anything' won't do for me.

By 'truth' .... do you mean YOUR 'truth'. This is what we're trying to look at, and not exclusively on your premises.

Quote: ["Why don't you do a translation and then tell me that it's false."]

I don't speak hebrew or any other classical language. I'm relating to english (and my native language) translations.

Quote: ["And I didn't need a manual to tell that, I understand Hebrew and it pretty much says what it says, there is no way to refute it."]

And what does it 'pretty much' say then. In an exact translation, not first passing your symbolism processing.

The manual reference I used was about your contextual use of the symbolism you arrived at.

Quote: ["How can time, space, matter and energy be symbolic?"]

In standard science they aren't. The 'symbolism' is about YOUR symbolism.

Quote: ["Just face the fact that Gen 1 can't be refuted by science,...."]

We haven't even finished step one (because you can't understand my examples), and now you have the answer ready-made. Where did that come from?

Quote: ["no scientist has been successful yet, so what makes you think that you are really smart enough to do so."]

It's very simple, and has been done again and again. You probaly just rely on other sources than I do. I refer to real science and logic.

Did you ever get around to making a diagram of the genesis 1 cosmos?



edit on 17-7-2011 by bogomil because: grammar and punctuation



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum


With that said, is it your mission to disprove the Bible? If so, what for?



It has caused the odd problem or two million throughout history and spawned thousands of charlatans.


Why do people keep trying to use this a proof? Throughout history their has only been 123 of 1,763 wars that have been classified to involve a religious conflict. - Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod.

Just tell the truth, you hate the Bible because neither you or anyone else can shut it up. That must be frustrating, more and more come to Christianity everyday, while that tiny atheist group is struggling to find new recruits. I wonder why that is





edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   


Why do people keep trying to use this a proof? Throughout history their has only been 123 of 1,763 wars that have been classified to involve a religious conflict. - Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod.

Just tell the truth, you hate the Bible because neither you or anyone else can shut it up. That must be frustrating, more and more come to Christianity everyday, while that tiny athiesist group is struggling to find new recruits. I wonder why that is





I never mentioned wars.........make that 2,000,123 problems then.

So now you know what my truth should also be? Thank you for enlightening me.

I sense a little venom. If you are not careful I feel your true Christian colours are about to show.

Whatever would God say?



edit on 17-7-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


atheism on the rise in the us

cuny

now that the internet is everywhere and ppl can research their beliefs and have unlimited knowledge at their fingertips, it's only a matter of time until religion phases out.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote:

["How retarded."]

Well, .... you have your debate standards, I have mine.

Quote: ["That's like saying if someone gives a speech they are not allowed to go back to add a few extra details to help others understand,"]

So genesis 1 is like giving a speech. I had the impression, that it is meant to be a cornerstone of a system claiming to be 'truth'. But then ofcourse christians can decide on their own version of 'reasoning' and how to arrive at 'truth'. The important thing is to distinguish this from the standard science/logic procedure, so no confusion arises on which method is used.

Quote: ["You can do better than that."]

Sure. In a context of presenting a science/logic argument, I have the familiar science/logic procedure to use. Once you know it, it's not so difficult.

Quote: ["I know you want it to be a contradiction, the truth is it's not, but you sure are trying really hard to make it so."]

In a science/logic context event A before event B isn't the same as event B before event A. I can't say about faith-contexts, I've never really tried such.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 

it's only a matter of time until religion phases out.


Aliens will land before such a thing ever happens.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


you're right, which is sad really...

edit: sad because the main reason that Christianity,or any other religion, is still going is because of indoctrination of children. a barbaric act imo. some children will never even get a chance of developing their full potential, at least not until they're 18.
edit on 17-7-2011 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Why do people keep trying to use this a proof? Throughout history their has only been 123 of 1,763 wars that have been classified to involve a religious conflict. - Encyclopedia of Wars by Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod.

Just tell the truth, you hate the Bible because neither you or anyone else can shut it up. That must be frustrating, more and more come to Christianity everyday, while that tiny athiesist group is struggling to find new recruits. I wonder why that is





I never mentioned wars.........make that 2,000,123 problems then.

So you know my truth also now? Thank you for enlightening me.

I sense a little venom. If you are not careful I feel your true Christian colours are about to show. Whatever would God say?


All debate aside, I'm really a nice guy and don't have anything against anyone, we are all free to believe as we wish. I'm just a little more aggressive than others.

Now back to the matter at hand.

I just think it's funny how people are putting in so much effort to try and debunk the Bible. And I still haven't seen any solid evidence that literally would put such a book at the back of the shelf.
edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
The important thing is to distinguish this from the standard science/logic procedure, so no confusion arises on which method is used.


That's the problem, you can't put your bias aside and read it for what it truly says. You've already made your mind up that it is flawed, so because of that you will never understand what is being said.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join