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.
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?
Quote: ["I cant prove it; but finite energy mass cant come from non existing energy."]
As above.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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)
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
With that said, is it your mission to disprove the Bible? If so, what for?
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'.
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 athiesist group is struggling to find new recruits. I wonder why that is
Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
it's only a matter of time until religion phases out.
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?
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.