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: 8
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 







["Can you explain what caused the Big Bang?"]


Yes, but not in such detail, that it would be an inclusive answer. Neither in such a way, that it would satisfy objective criteria.

But I'm afraid, that you wouldn't understand my answer. It's rather specialist (but that's not a claim of patronizing 'authority' from me).


Well i want you to try me. I have read a lot about this theory
of the existence of our universe.

I have studied compression and expansion for many years. Science covers the expansion of our universe very well, but it covers the compression theory of the singularity very poorly. All you have to tell me is how the compression was made possible, and identify the force which compressed all the energies that formed the singularity.

The singularity does represent the energy mass that is our universe today.




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




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedoctorswife

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by randyvs
 


Why does it have to be a god then? Why couldn't the origin be a big ball of energy? Or maybe they are one in the same, and man just wrote some crap he made up.

Because, forgive me for sounding possibly naive and utterly cliched, i dont see why big balls of enery would produce things like The Mona lisa, and Bach's toccata and fugue in d minor. This is MY god/no god dilemma.


I just have to say that "THAT!" was exquisite. I have never heard it put like that.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


You wrote:

[""God damn that Age of Enlightenment". Perhaps it was the will of God that people were "created" sceptical?"]

Those sometimes pre-destination and determinism claims from christians, of 'opposition' being a part of the original blueprint, have some fascinating feedback options on the nature of this Jahveh. The submission of mankind is sweeter to Jahveh, if it has been preceded by humiliation and oppression.

An allegory (the waterhole of many theists).

I've been told, that de-conditioned young christian girls often are the perfect submissive partners in bondage relationships. "I've been a naughty girl, spank me". They still carry psychological guilt with them.

Well knowing that my opinion won't be popular with some christians, I'm afraid that my impression of Jahveh is like that. He enjoys having a master-role in emotional vampirism. Liking mankind to ask for being spanked.

While this is a colourful way of presenting it, it's actually a sound optional perspective of some of the central parts of Pauline christianity.

Quote: ["All we can do is entertain possibilities; some are more logical than others. But all are illogical in the sense that it's on a scale beyond our imagination, perhaps we are too "young" to understand, or perhaps we never will."]

After the above free-flight speculation on the emotional motivation of Jahveh, it's probably more thread-topic related to consider the rational implications in Jahvehs character. OP did include a lot of 'science' (albeit in a special way). And while I personally entertain many ideas of the high weirdness outside common, mundane existence, I feel it's a mistake to call this 'god', when there are so many other useful words available.

The unknown, the un-nameable, the void, infinity....People are less inclined to invade each others lives or to kill each other for such labels. A lot of religionism has turned into semantic fights.

So trying to get this thread straight on topic again, I can offer my participation in a process where Jahveh eventually can be positioned in such a way, that both religious AND rational (science/logic) perspectives can be applied (after all it was OP, which dragged science into it).

A semantic compromise and ofcourse the intrinsic rational components of the concept at hand.

I am eagerly awating responses.




Hmmm. Or maybe it's just that since he created us for his own pleasure that we are his to do whatever he wishes to us. Whether we agree with that concept or not, holding that the statement is true, it is how it is. We as the created will never ascend to the heights of the Creator. So one's view of a situation is relative to their own vanity in life. You speak of humbleness as a bad thing. It is not, I can assure you of this. I have found that the company of the humble is more superior than the company of the obnoxious. As far as being oppressed, I see none of it. If you are referring to the do what is right and not what is wrong, then I would ask what kind of Parent would want any of their children to do wrong? Then maybe you would ask why is the things he say are wrong wrong? I would answer to that because he made everything so he would know better than us. Humiliation let us have a look at that word.
Why is one humiliated? Either it is because they thought they were better than they are or it is because someone did something the consider bad to them. There is a good humiliating experience which only the wise learn from, and then their is the bad humiliating experience, which can still be learned from, but through no fault of one's own.

Perception is the key to faith. Everyone has faith in something.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 





Perception is the key to faith. Everyone has faith in something


You say that perception is the key to faith. You are absolutely right.

How do you check that your perceptions is true?

How do you check if someone else's perception is true?

How do you check if your perception of the Bible is true?

How do you check if your perception of science is true?

How do you check if science is telling you the truth?

If some one is going to make me have faith in something new; let it be science or religion, Then their perceptions must make sense. It must add up.
No one can make anyone have faith based on their own perception of the facts. Because they might not be right.
Perception in it self is not factual. Its a perception of what is factual.
Perception is all about how you as a individual view and understand facts.







edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: spelling



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by bogomil
 







["Can you explain what caused the Big Bang?"]


Yes, but not in such detail, that it would be an inclusive answer. Neither in such a way, that it would satisfy objective criteria.

But I'm afraid, that you wouldn't understand my answer. It's rather specialist (but that's not a claim of patronizing 'authority' from me).


Well i want you to try me. I have read a lot about this theory
of the existence of our universe.

I have studied compression and expansion for many years. Science covers the expansion of our universe very well, but it covers the compression theory of the singularity very poorly. All you have to tell me is how the compression was made possible, and identify the force which compressed all the energies that formed the singularity.

The singularity does represent the energy mass that is our universe today.




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


Compression? There is no mention in the big bang model of some outside force compressing the singularity. The singularity existed due to it's gravitational effects, like how a blackhole works. In fact, according to the theories the two are so damn similar that some scientists are starting to wonder if perhaps blackholes actually form universes themselves.

I personally don't subscribe to any of those theories, just wanted to correct you on the compression issue.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs
 


Even if there was 100% irrefutable evidence Jesus existed...it still doesn't prove the "miracles" are true, or that god exists.


Well then congrdulations X. You're more impossible than God.


It's one thing to claim agnostic 'immunity' outside mundane life, because the methods of science/logic don't function there, but on mundane ground extra-ordinary claims must be proved.

I, Bogomil can actually fly; all on my own, no technology, prove I'm wrong.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by thedoctorswife
 


Well balls of energy create crop circles, then why not? Nothing can be created without energy





posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Conclusion1
 





Perception is the key to faith. Everyone has faith in something


You say that perception is the key to faith. You are absolutely right.

How do you check that your perceptions is true?

How do you check if someone else's perception is true?

How do you check if your perception of the Bible is true?

How do you check if your perception of science is true?

How do you check if science is telling you the truth?

If some one is going to make me have faith in something new; let it be science or religion, Then their perceptions must make sense. It must add up.
No one can make anyone have faith based on their own perception of the facts. Because they might not be right.
Perception in it self is not factual. Its a perception of what is factual.
Perception is all about how you as a individual view and understand facts.







edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: spelling


How do you check that your perception is true?
Very good question. That is one of the greatest goals of mankind. Do not think with just your mind, include your heart in the debate. By that I mean we are given feelings for a reason. We love, yet it cannot be proven. Everyone knows the truth inside of them. Knowing the truth and accepting the truth are two different things though.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by randyvs
 


Even if there was 100% irrefutable evidence Jesus existed...it still doesn't prove the "miracles" are true, or that god exists.


Well then congrdulations X. You're more impossible than God.


It's one thing to claim agnostic 'immunity' outside mundane life, because the methods of science/logic don't function there, but on mundane ground extra-ordinary claims must be proved.

I, Bogomil can actually fly; all on my own, no technology, prove I'm wrong.


Prove that we feel love?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by bogomil
 







["Can you explain what caused the Big Bang?"]


Yes, but not in such detail, that it would be an inclusive answer. Neither in such a way, that it would satisfy objective criteria.

But I'm afraid, that you wouldn't understand my answer. It's rather specialist (but that's not a claim of patronizing 'authority' from me).


Well i want you to try me. I have read a lot about this theory
of the existence of our universe.

I have studied compression and expansion for many years. Science covers the expansion of our universe very well, but it covers the compression theory of the singularity very poorly. All you have to tell me is how the compression was made possible, and identify the force which compressed all the energies that formed the singularity.

The singularity does represent the energy mass that is our universe today.




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


Compression? There is no mention in the big bang model of some outside force compressing the singularity. The singularity existed due to it's gravitational effects, like how a blackhole works. In fact, according to the theories the two are so damn similar that some scientists are starting to wonder if perhaps blackholes actually form universes themselves.

I personally don't subscribe to any of those theories, just wanted to correct you on the compression issue.



The singularity "energy mass" has expanded to what it is today, it makes up our total universe "mass". So all the black holes you are talking about exists within the expanded singularity.

Science can't observe or prove anything out side the expanded singularity which makes up our total energy mass "universe".

What force formed the compressed singularity ?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by TheDebunkMachine
 





Everytime i see a creationist spew this out i laugh, read this : www.talkorigins.org...


Okay I will bite. Question kind Sir. If it is that simple then why has it not been duplicated in a lab?
It is just more of the same bs. And that is not even taking into account how long it would take to evolve. How do evolutionist get around this? By saying that evolution speeds up and slows down. lol. So for all you take charge of your own life, controlling you own destinies people out there, either way you go, God or Evolution, you are do not control your reality.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


There are people that cannot feel love.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I wonder how they know how big the universe is? If all we can see is light from years to billions of years in the past how can we know how big it is?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


There are people that cannot feel love.


Does it include everyone?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 





Everyone knows the truth inside of them.


How do you know that you know the truth?

Feelings are individual and so is the perception of knowledge and facts.

Can we both have different opinions about how we perceive the truth and still both be right?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



Science can't observe or prove anything out side the expanded singularity which makes up our total energy mass "universe".


Not science, technological capacity is more accurate. People of just a few centuries ago firmly believed in a geocentric universe, it wasn't until various technological advances and observation were made that this view was put to rest.


What force formed the compressed singularity ?


I already answered that question, there was no compression. There is no theory that currently describes an outside force compressing upon the singularity that supposedly gave birth to the universe. A singularity exists due to it's immense gravitational pull. The more mass an object has, the greater it's gravity. The Earth pulls you down on it. Nothing in space compresses you down onto the earth.

Again, just in case it was missed the first time. I do not personally believe the big bang model to be an accurate depiction of our universe' beginning. I think it's utterly wrong and recent observations seem to indicate that as a possibility.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Conclusion1
 





Everyone knows the truth inside of them.


How do you know that you know the truth?

Feelings are individual and so is the perception of knowledge and facts.

Can we both have different opinions about how we perceive the truth and still both be right?







How is up to you to figure out. Why is the superior question.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Are you talking about the walls, or whatever they are calling them?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by sirnex
 


Are you talking about the walls, or whatever they are calling them?


Yea, the walls, the huge void, quasars, amongst other things. If we observed quasars before supernova, the big bang model never would have been conceived in the first place.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by spy66
 


I wonder how they know how big the universe is? If all we can see is light from years to billions of years in the past how can we know how big it is?


They don't know the exact size of our total universe. They only know how far they can measure with present technology.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join