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: 38
29
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


the burden of proof is on you. the bible is false until you can show us your religion is the correct one. btw you may want to talk to the jews before you talk to atheists.




posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


the burden of proof is on you. the bible is false until you can show us your religion is the correct one. btw you may want to talk to the jews before you talk to atheists.


Correction, the burden of proof is on you. Atheists are the ones claiming they have evidence that destroys 1,000's of years of belief, yet they still haven't produce anything to back up their claim.

Keep in mind that atheists have had just as long as theists to try and prove that God does or doesn't exist. In all that time atheist have only be able attract a very small group so what does that tell you?
edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

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)


Your professed beliefs are something I have little time for. You personally, on the other hand I don't doubt are anything other than a nice fellow.

You will never see any evidence to contradict the bible because you believe it to be divine and infallible. I know people who are sure aliens will soon pick them up and take them to Ganymede before Armageddon/ Wormwood etc (seriously). It would be easy to say "nutter", yet they are also nice intelligent people with university degrees, successful business etc. They also have strong belief in a divine infallible doctrine. Actually, the same one you believe in, interpreted a bit differently.

I don't take God as seriously as he takes himself. He isn't even real for starters. At least the common mythical one, isn't. If there is one, I hope he isn't as full of himself as the mythical biblical one we have grown accustomed to. A sense of humour wouldn't go astray.



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



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


ok guy, lets say that there is a god. ill give it to you, there is a god.

WHOSE GOD?

not everyone's god is the same.

christians cant even make up their minds about the bible, that's why there is so many denominations.

atheists are 0. theists are +1.(there is something, in this case a god)

why should we believe you? out of all the religions and gods out there, why is your religion which has only been around for 2000 years max, the correct one?

edit;atheism originated in greece, which was the epicenter of critical thinking at the time imo.
there are more theists simply because it's the easy answer. everything is explained to you in a little pamphlet, but sometimes the easiest answers aren't always the correct ones.

edit on 17-7-2011 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

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.


As I do put much trust in the rational approach, it's somehow natural, that I find YOUR mythological manual flawed. Using the specially created system of 'faith-reasoning', I would ofcourse arrive at the expected pro-bible conclusions.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum


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)


Your professed beliefs are something I have little time for. You personally, on the other hand I don't doubt are anything other than a nice fellow.

You will never see any evidence to contradict the bible because you believe it to be divine and infallible. I know people who are sure aliens will soon pick them up and take them to Ganymede before Armageddon (seriously). It would be easy to say "nutter", yet they are also nice intelligent people with university degrees, successful business etc. They also have strong belief in a divine infallible doctrine.

I don't take God as seriously as he takes himself. He isn't even real for starters. At least the common mythical one, as portrayed, isn't.


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


Don't you think it would be better to say that you don't believe instead of saying He's not real? After all, you can't prove that statement.

I'll have to agree with you on the Alien thing, I know alot of those who claim to be christian giving into these deceptions.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


the burden of proof is on you. the bible is false until you can show us your religion is the correct one. btw you may want to talk to the jews before you talk to atheists.


Correction, the burden of proof is on you. Atheists are the ones claiming they have evidence that destroys 1,000's of years of belief, yet they still haven't produce anything to back up their claim.

Keep in mind that atheists have had just as long as theists to try and prove that God does or doesn't exist. In all that time atheist have only be able attract a very small group so what does that tell you?
edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)


You are ofcourse again referring to YOUR version of logic. Not to the 'official' one, which actually WOULD place the burden of truth on you. But I won't bother you with the details, as you seem to be satisfied with your own method. I'm not here to convert you.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 




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.



Explain why you say this then:


Apparantly the wave/particle phenomenon also exists beyond present possible observation.


Isn't this wave/particle a form of net energy. A net energy - mass with momentum?

My question to you: Is there a net energy - mass momentum in a absolute vacuum?



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


ok guy, lets say that there is a god. ill give it to you, there is a god.

WHOSE GOD?

not everyone's god is the same.

christians cant even make up their minds about the bible, that's why there is so many denominations.

atheists are 0. theists are +1.(there is something, in this case a god)

why should we believe you? out of all the religions and gods out there, why is your religion which has only been around for 2000 years max, the correct one?


I won't pretend to have the answer to that. Naturally you would not accept my reason of why I think the Bible is more correct. But if you really want to know I will give my answer.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by RealTruthSeeker

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


the burden of proof is on you. the bible is false until you can show us your religion is the correct one. btw you may want to talk to the jews before you talk to atheists.


Correction, the burden of proof is on you. Atheists are the ones claiming they have evidence that destroys 1,000's of years of belief, yet they still haven't produce anything to back up their claim.

Keep in mind that atheists have had just as long as theists to try and prove that God does or doesn't exist. In all that time atheist have only be able attract a very small group so what does that tell you?
edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)


You are ofcourse again referring to YOUR version of logic. Not to the 'official' one, which actually WOULD place the burden of truth on you. But I won't bother you with the details, as you seem to be satisfied with your own method. I'm not here to convert you.


And where can I find the so-called "official one"?



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


no one should care for your reasons or anyone's reason. you shouldn't care for anyone's reason.

if truth came down to personal experience, everyone would be right.

im pretty sure jews and muslims have the same reasons you do. so why would personal experiences matter?

they dont.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   


Don't you think it would be better to say that you don't believe instead of saying He's not real? After all, you can't prove that statement.

I'll have to agree with you on the Alien thing, I know alot of those who claim to be christian giving into these deceptions.


How about...I believe God to be a complete superstitious fallacy?

Though I do have more to prove his non existence than believers have of his existence.

All we have are claims. Take away believers we still have zero evidence of God, zero need for god and also zero claims. God is not a genuinely documented phenomena by science or anyone else. Delusions, lies, superstition, cults, charlatans etc are all well known documented. He exists in delusion and anecdote among the afflicted only. Like Nessie, only with 0% chance of existing instead of an extremely slim chance for Nessie. People created God, people sustain him. All available evidence points to god being a people driven cult phenomena.

Neither side can prove, though they are not equal.



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



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


As a matter of fact many scientists believe in God and have their own religions. Having a religion does not prevent sensible scientits from writing good papers. On the delireous atheists are going fundamental on the whole idea of god. Why engage with the Atheist's posturings?
edit on 17-7-2011 by Tiger5 because: damn apostrophe (tadpole)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:11 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["Isn't this wave/particle a form of net energy. A net energy - mass with momentum?

My question to you: Is there a net energy - mass momentum in a absolute vacuum?"]

We know, that the wave/particle somehow has existence beyond the presently observable cosmos, but what the existence is, we don't know.

We also don't know, if this trans-cosmic existence is an absolute vacuum, or a relative vacuum, though it's reasonable to suppose that it's relative.

As we've been around before, a nothing-nothingness or a something-nothingness. But for the duration this is more a philosophical question than a scientific one.

Bridging the known to the unknown can't be performed through methods of the known. The 'bridge' is based on the use of logic principles, but these probably ALSO break down at event horizon, as the present scientific ones with certainty do.



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



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by randyvs
 


As a matter of fact many scientists believe in God and have their own religions.


Yeah, must be real then.



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


You wrote (on 'official' logic):

["And where can I find the so-called "official one"?"]

Wiki has an excellent little article on inductive (and deductive) logic. I can find it for you, if you can't find it yourself (no offence, it's genuine offer of help, not patronizing).



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiger5
reply to post by randyvs
 


As a matter of fact many scientists believe in God and have their own religions. Having a religion does not prevent sensible scientits from writing good papers. On the delireous atheists are going fundamental on the whole idea of god. Why engage with the Atheist's posturings?
edit on 17-7-2011 by Tiger5 because: damn apostrophe (tadpole)


The 'engaging' actually started by the thread-author posting some peculiar statements, fighting against windmills on one hand and on the other making theist absolute claims. Kind of confused positions, begging for critical comments and opposition.

So your self-righteous indignation is misplaced.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by vjr1113
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


no one should care for your reasons or anyone's reason. you shouldn't care for anyone's reason.

if truth came down to personal experience, everyone would be right.

im pretty sure jews and muslims have the same reasons you do. so why would personal experiences matter?

they dont.


I never said anything about a personal experience. You asked why I think my is more true.



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by RealTruthSeeker
 


You wrote (on 'official' logic):

["And where can I find the so-called "official one"?"]

Wiki has an excellent little article on inductive (and deductive) logic. I can find it for you, if you can't find it yourself (no offence, it's genuine offer of help, not patronizing).




Man, people quote Wiki like it's the Bible. Don't you know I could login right now and change the text to anything I want to? As long as it sounds reasonable, it would never be removed. I respect Wiki but the information there is just to untrustworthy. Point me to book or something other than Wiki.
edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Though I do have more to prove his non existence than believers have of his existence.


I'd love to see it.
edit on 17-7-2011 by RealTruthSeeker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join