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: 41
29
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr.XYZ
 


Well I guess we know who depends on ridicule the most.
edit on 1-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatAliens
 


No offense taken I consider myself faily well read on science. By no means a scientist. So....point moot.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by The GUT
If Science were ever to breach the mystery of creation I have a feeling it would be some scientist looking through the most powerful telescope and/or microscope the world has ever known and suddenly finding himself staring directly into the astounding & unblinking eye of God.

If Science could...which it can't.

edit on 4-6-2011 by The GUT because: (no reason given)


I know I'm bias to say this but at least I didn't invent the stuff. Gut, I love this fricken post.



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by Q:1984A:1776
reply to post by randyvs
 


No true scientist would every try to disprove the existence of what many call "God". That's just idiotic, it can't be done. Nor, can it be proven that "God" exists. The reason why scientist would like to remove the idea of "God" from science is because it is unscientific to theorize about something that can neither be confirmed or denied by the scientific method.


So true, it's a coin toss either way always has been always will be. There are those that want God and the word of God kept out as to not interfere by way of his morals and laws.


Slow down there. Just because the claim is unfalsifiable does not mean it is a coin toss either way. Not even close. It simply means it is a claim that cannot be proved false. The statement "Unicorns do exist and they can fly' is unfalsifiable. Even though there's no documented proof, no eye witnesses, the fact that flying horses would defy physics, it is always possible someone could find one tomorrow. But to say there's 50/50 chance unicorns exist is a ridiculous perversion of logic. It is almost a given they don't exist, but we will just have to deal with a small chance unicorns might appear because of the nature of the claim.

Similarly, to say there is a 50/50 chance God exists because we can neither confirm nor deny it is being deliberately obtuse.

The reason scientists steer far clear from claims like these is because by definition they fall outside the scope of science. The criteria of demarcation is what you would use to determine if a problem lies inside the bounds of science or not. Basically, only statements that are derived from empirical evidence can be meaningful to others (not that they can't be meaningful to yourself) effectively making any statement not derived from these methods meaningless.

You have to understand that while you may have been indoctrinated in these beliefs, others weren't. I could tell you there is a giant spaghetti monster in the center of the earth, or that we are all just living in a computer simulation, or that you are the only one on this planet that is self-aware. Hopefully you would immediately realize the ridiculous news of these claims. That is how people who were not indoctrinated with religion feel about it, and for good reason. There is zero empirical evidence to support it. In fact, there's a lot of empirical data to directly contradict it.

So in short, you are right that God and science can coexist, but if and only if there is some empirical evidence to support it. Until then, it is a mythical unfalsifiable claim, and has no place in science. You need to understand that belief in god is the very definition of faith, and that faith is essentially the opposite of science.

Note: I do believe in God, maybe not in your sense of it, but I am not refuting you simply because I'm a non-believer.

EDIT: For some reason I thought this topic was only 4 pages, not 40, so many of these points might already be covered. Apologies, it's getting late here

edit on 2-8-2011 by Akasirus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


You are right X I thank you.


I wonder if you and I can reach an agreement at this point. At least on the matter of ridicule. Would it be possible for us to negate the ridicule of each others .......... Well basically we are ridiculing each others lives when you get down tto brass tax. I would love not to see any more ridicule from you. I guarantee I don't like ridiculing yours. Possible ? I really don't like the hate it brings me. I'm not backing down but would welcome a truce of some sort. I don't expect you to give up your quest. I'm just positive you can do it without ridicule. As I know I can also.




edit on 1-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Hehehe, sure...but it won't stop me from correcting you if you misinterpete or misrepresent science


The thing is, I normally don't tend to ridicule people, even if they make a blatantly incorrect statement. I only start to ridicule people...well, not really people, more the content of their posts...if they have been shown FACTS that prove them wrong, and they continue to ignore facts.

For example:

If someone claims that the earth is only 6k years old, I will point out why that is wrong. I'll post sources and information that makes it ABUNDANTLY clear why he/she/it is wrong. Unless they're too ignorant to accept those facts, I won't ridicule them...but that obviously changes if they continue to spread their ignorance. So if someone keeps on claiming the earth is only 6k years old after having seen facts proving the contrary, yes, I will consider him a complete and utter fool. I'd do the same with someone claiming the sky is green with purple stripes



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Whatever X


I don't think all of your ridicule is so innocent my man. But if you want to play it off that way. I'm not gonna challenge you on it.


edit on 2-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


I never said anything about correcting anyone. Pretty obvious I make mistakes just as it is I will own up to them.
.
edit on 2-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Akasirus
 


Ok I undertstand what you're getting at and agree but belief in Christ has much scientific proof.( the video I provided ) If you watch it closely enough it is bringing a lot of evidence to corroborate the resurrection that wasn't around ten and twenty years ago. Therefor the whole point of my thread is like the proof is right there in the pudding. For it's increasing because of science.

What the hell?

How can someone deny that?

I'm never trying to be a know it all, God and everyone on these boards know I'm no big brain. That's why it's hard to offend me really cause I know and accept the fact, that even X has a lot up on me.
I'm kidding X don't hit me.

Like Byrd said tho I do want to learn and I pay attention.I just have a hard time when evidence that is extremely hard to come by just gets knocked aside as if it's not even there ! Kind of gets me pssed really. I 'll say that with a smiley.
:



edit on 2-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Akasirus
 


Ok I undertstand what you're getting at and agree but belief in Christ has much scientific proof.( the video I provided ) If you watch it closely enough it is bringing a lot of evidence to corroborate the resurrection that wasn't around ten and twenty years ago. Therefor the whole point of my thread is like the proof is right there in the pudding. For it's increasing because of science.

What the hell?

How can someone deny that?



Randy, do you have any evidence? There was absolutely none in the shroud video. It couldn't be an image caused by someone being wrapped in the shroud, so it is explained away with black holes and event horizons by people who wrongly claim to be objective scientists. This is more plausible than it being faked? Occam's razor at its finest. Then it's assigned to an imagined resurrection event of some person that may or may not have existed at all, to tie into events that seem not only unlikely to have happened, but pretty much impossible. Yeah, real plausible.

Not only is there still zero scientific evidence for Christ, there is no genuine historical evidence.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Please correct this statement:

Science over the past 20 yrs, has produced more circumstantial evidence, toward corroborating the authenticity of The Shroud and the story behind it. than science has done to disprove or discredit the Shroud or any of the original it's claims. The things science is finding out are pointing in what direction?

Simple question simple answer please.



Not only is there still zero scientific evidence for Christ, there is no genuine historical evidence.


I don't want to call you a liar, but when you persist with crap like this, how do you expect to be taken seriously ? You don't even believe that yourself. So why ?
There must be an untold number of lame ass scholars out there. Maybe you should be correcting them.


edit on 3-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Look, even if there's a shroud, how does that validate all the other claims surrounding Christ's persona? It's not as if the shroud proves he parted the sea, or healed the sick, or all the other stuff. If anything (and the "evidence" isn't even conclusive), it proves there was a guy called Jesus, nothing more.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





it proves there was a guy called Jesus


Really ? Where in the hell does it prove that?



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by MrXYZ
 





it proves there was a guy called Jesus


Really ? Where in the hell does it prove that?


Well, might just be a random guy. I hear people being buried in shrouds weren't that uncommon back then


Anyway, can't post much tonight, some idiots from the Ukraine have been going after my site for a few days now, and I'm busy making some security changes...PM me if you find real proof that everything in the bible (because that's the claim, no?) is true



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
I believe 'god's' existence has already been confirmed by science, or.... we are very close.

Hate quoting Einstein, as he's often so readily misquoted, but when asked, he did specifically say it was a question of definition, and I understand that completely: if one's notion is of an anthropomorphised, white haired, beared all-seeing gent behind a set of pearly gates is 'god', I'd have to disagree vehemently.

We have, today, seen some breaking news of bubble universes, no sign of a Higgs-Boson, and multiple 'Big Bangs'.

It's out there, for sure, we just can't grasp the reality, yet.
edit on 3-8-2011 by chocise because: grammer



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by chocise
I believe 'god's' existence has already been confirmed by science, or.... we are very close.

Hate quoting Einstein, as he's often so readily misquoted, but when asked, he did specifically say it was a question of definition, and I understand that completely: if one's notion is of an anthropomorphised, white haired, beared all-seeing gent behind a set of pearly gates is 'god', I'd have to disagree vehemently.

We have, today, seen some breaking news of bubble universes, no sign of a Higgs-Boson, and multiple 'Big Bangs'.

It's out there, for sure, we just can't grasp the reality, yet.
edit on 3-8-2011 by chocise because: grammer


You can't say that cause you don't have any proof. No? just trying it on.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Hey, that's an old one actually... but the proof, if you indeed needed one, is always going to be on a personal level based on your own personal experience [of it]. No one else can tell you, explain or lead you there. We all make our own paths in this Life, and our experience is what really matters. It's how you, as an individual, interpret them, I think.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by chocise
 


I should apologise to you chocise. Got a little carried away.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


hey, don't be silly, I know what you're up against.

All the best my friend.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:19 PM
link   

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


Please correct this statement:

Science over the past 20 yrs, has produced more circumstantial evidence, toward corroborating the authenticity of The Shroud and the story behind it. than science has done to disprove or discredit the Shroud or any of the original it's claims. The things science is finding out are pointing in what direction?

Simple question simple answer please.



Please show me some evidence that isn't hotly contested. Apart from this, any scientific evidence that Jesus was real to begin with, before claims about a faked cloth. Though please not belief based pseudo science like the video you posted.

Science has corroborated a story?

Huge exaggeration. Some claim it does, though science in general has no access to the article in question and so probably couldn't care less about it.







I don't want to call you a liar, but when you persist with crap like this, how do you expect to be taken seriously ? You don't even believe that yourself. So why ?
There must be an untold number of lame ass scholars out there. Maybe you should be correcting them.



There are good reasons why the shroud is considered to be a fake from the fourteenth century. If it were ever genuinely released for scientific study, the myth wouldn't last long. You only seem to listen to one half of the debate.

Yes, there are many lame ass scholars, though I would prefer to call them delusional. There is a whole branch of them that are historically just an arm of the clergy and church pretending to take forays into objective study. "Religious" and "scholar" in the same sentence is an oxymoron, in any scientific sense.

The evidence for Christ's existence, physical or otherwise, amounts to absolutely nothing. There is none. I don't mind if you call me a liar. I would prefer that you show where this is exactly true though, without resorting to belief. Then I will become a Christian (well not really). It is hard when you find Santa isn't real.



edit on 3-8-2011 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





The evidence for Christ's existence, physical or otherwise, amounts to absolutely nothing. There is none. I don't mind if you call me a liar. I would prefer that you show where this is exactly true though, without resorting to belief. Then I will become a Christian (well not really). It is hard when you find Santa isn't real.


We're not talking about Santa and that was childish.



posted on Aug, 3 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   

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





The evidence for Christ's existence, physical or otherwise, amounts to absolutely nothing. There is none. I don't mind if you call me a liar. I would prefer that you show where this is exactly true though, without resorting to belief. Then I will become a Christian (well not really). It is hard when you find Santa isn't real.


We're not talking about Santa and that was childish.


Perhaps, though it was 100% relevant. Both paranormal beings have the same proof of existence. Absolutely nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 38  39  40    42  43  44 >>

log in

join