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: 9
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


They supposedly took a lot longer to form than how old they say the universe is. Is that true?




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


I see. So then they do not know. Got it. Now that makes sense.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion1
reply to post by sirnex
 


They supposedly took a lot longer to form than how old they say the universe is. Is that true?


From what I've read on the matter, under current understanding of physics it would have taken these structures hundreds of billions of years to form. I think the current estimate is 150 billion years, kind of puts a damper on the estimated age of the universe being 13.7 billion years.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion1

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.


Show me some compassion and love, and tell me how i can figure it out.
There are some many people here claiming to know the truth. I dont know who to believe.
It will save me from doing all this work.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Conclusion1

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.


Show me some compassion and love, and tell me how i can figure it out.
There are some many people here claiming to know the truth. I dont know who to believe.
It will save me from doing all this work.


What is your current understanding and definition of love?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Can you tell me what scientific theory you think is most accurate, and some scientific facts to go with it.
I really would like to check it out for my self.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Conclusion1

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.


Show me some compassion and love, and tell me how i can figure it out.
There are some many people here claiming to know the truth. I dont know who to believe.
It will save me from doing all this work.


What is your current understanding and definition of love?


Can love tell me how God created the universe scientifically. Or if science is telling me the truth?

My present understanding of love is built on moral values, moral understanding and mutual respect.

My love for the truth makes me seek out the answers.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

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

According to the most generally (scientifically) accepted interpretation of Big Banging, causality, as we know it, breaks down beyond event horizon. Which means, that there are either total 'chaos' (lack of order) or a new form of order beyond event horizon.

Some buddhistic cosmogonies/cosmologies support the first option (total chaos) to some extent, while abrahmic theism support the second, a new order beyond event horizon.

No-one has been able to establish anything even slightly conclusive on this question (disregarding self-proclaimed 'truths', circle-argumented to be 'true'), so our information lies at the observable level closest to event horizon. Some patterns are discernable and do make make a comparative examinination between science and some (semi)-religious models possible.

But such a comparative examination is done from an inductive category, making the whole thing uncertain, and as causality (as we know it) at the same time breaks down, the introduction of SPECIFIC 'intent' (originating from beyond event horizon) is just guessing. We don't know the rules of this alleged new order.

But we DO see a pattern, something which is so beloved by adherers to 'sacred geometry', but that pattern means NOTHING except that the OPTION of order beyond event horizon exists.

Please notice the word: 'OPTION'. Embellisments on that word are many and unjustified, only theist fabrications.

As to a specification on my own speculations, the answer is: '3'. That's the basic pattern.

I can later speculate more in the directions of both beyond horizon 'reality' and cosmic formations. Mind you, speculate. Adding more speculations on top of the already, often fascistically presented, other speculations.

As if it isn't enough, that people hijacking science and turn it into 'intelligent design' or quantum religion hardly know the difference between subjective and objective procedure, and the many consequences of these two concepts.

Quote: ["The singularity does represent the energy mass that is our universe today."]

"In the beginning there was nothing, and it exploded". That's for later, when you understand my above basic introduction on positions and methodology.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion1

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.


The initial conditions of both Big Banging and zero-point physics strongly suggest growing complexity to be an intrinsic part of cosmic dynamics.
edit on 8-6-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


You wrote:

["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."]

As an optional 'reality' (though only supported by circle-arguments), possibly. In that case I'll side with Lucifer, the arch-liberal, and seek enligtenment.

Quote: ["We as the created will never ascend to the heights of the Creator."]

This sentence is a self-contained postulate; nothing more. You're operating with circle-argumented 'absolutes'.

Quote: ["So one's view of a situation is relative to their own vanity in life."]

'Perspectives' often carry their own answers from their initial premises. I see, what I'm expected to see.

Quote: ["You speak of humbleness as a bad thing."]

Don't twist my words. I'm talking about submission in a slave-ideology.

Quote: ["As far as being oppressed, I see none of it."]

Please specify the oppression, you don't see. I see plenty, e.g. homosexuals being targeted by some christians.

Quote: ["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?"]

Save me from another round of sugarcoating genesis 2. The two standard apologies: Jahveh only APPEARS to be schizoid ("being a deity we can't really say") OR "it's good, because it's 'god' so it must be good". You're talking to adults with education and critical sense, dude.

Quote: ["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."]

Self-contained again. It's true, because it's true.

Quote: [" 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."]

This humiliation trip is yours, not mine.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





As to a specification on my own speculations, the answer is: '3'. That's the basic pattern.


Thank you.
I am going to come back to you when i have looked into some of the patterns you refer to.

But just as a curiosity right now with what you have been saying: How can you disclose the existence of a creator? When we can only speculate on whats beyond event horizon.

What you have said so far is that different religions, scientific communities and people have different theories about the beginning, but nothing conclusive besides patterns.

What you are saying is that some of these people might be looking at the wrong pattern. The only conclusive conclusion one can make out of that, is that some people are on the wrong track. That only discloses that some people are wrong about their theories and understanding of God.

You are only proving that people are wrong about God work, but you are not proving that God does not exist.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





As to a specification on my own speculations, the answer is: '3'. That's the basic pattern.


Thank you.
I am going to come back to you when i have looked into some of the patterns you refer to.

But just as a curiosity right now with what you have been saying: How can you disclose the existence of a creator? When we can only speculate on whats beyond event horizon.

What you have said so far is that different religions, scientific communities and people have different theories about the beginning, but nothing conclusive besides patterns.

What you are saying is that some of these people might be looking at the wrong pattern. The only conclusive conclusion one can make out of that, is that some people are on the wrong track. That only discloses that some people are wrong about their theories and understanding of God.

You are only proving that people are wrong about Gods work, but you are not proving that God does not exist.




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



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion1
 


You wrote:

["How do you check that your perception is true?"]

Epistemology. That's why I'm a philosophical scepticist.

And hooray, christians 'philosophers'. Relativistic wishy-washy anything-goes is now supported by Bogomil, if we twist his words a bit.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conclusion1

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?


Will you please relate to what I said. Not to what I didn't say.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

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 ?







It may have escaped your attention, but some of what you ask about, is what initially was included in OP, and in the meantime various 'answers' have emerged.

It would be funtional and time-saving if you went back and re-read the thread trying to understand the answers already given, before repeating the original questions again.

I'm not trying to impose any conclusions on you. Just that you understand, what's said already.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Conclusion1

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.


Show me some compassion and love, and tell me how i can figure it out.
There are some many people here claiming to know the truth. I dont know who to believe.
It will save me from doing all this work.


What has love etc to do with misapplied intellectual speculations, guesses or postulates?

If you want to make love, intellect and body go tandem, look at the tri-gunic model.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by sirnex

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Conclusion1

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.


Show me some compassion and love, and tell me how i can figure it out.
There are some many people here claiming to know the truth. I dont know who to believe.
It will save me from doing all this work.


What is your current understanding and definition of love?


Can love tell me how God created the universe scientifically. Or if science is telling me the truth?

My present understanding of love is built on moral values, moral understanding and mutual respect.

My love for the truth makes me seek out the answers.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)


You are ASSUMING there is a creating 'god'. Please first validate this asssumption.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


You wrote:

["What you have said so far is that different religions, scientific communities and people have different theories about the beginning, but nothing conclusive besides patterns."]

Even the patterns can be disputed. My favourite is: '3'.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
What force formed the compressed singularity ?

This question shows a misunderstanding of the nature of a singularity. These are places where all dimensions take on values of either infinity or null. That includes the dimension of time. Asking what caused the big bang makes no sense as time came into existence at that moment.

To clarify this, imagine time as a spatial dimension that appears to you as something like a length of string. In this analogy the big bang would be like the beginning of the piece of string. Asking what caused the big bang is like asking what caused the piece of string to begin.

A better question is why does the piece of string exist at all? The key thing about re-framing the question in this way is it takes the emphasis away from the "beginning" and puts it on to the universe in its entirety.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crayfish

Originally posted by spy66
What force formed the compressed singularity ?

This question shows a misunderstanding of the nature of a singularity. These are places where all dimensions take on values of either infinity or null. That includes the dimension of time. Asking what caused the big bang makes no sense as time came into existence at that moment.

To clarify this, imagine time as a spatial dimension that appears to you as something like a length of string. In this analogy the big bang would be like the beginning of the piece of string. Asking what caused the big bang is like asking what caused the piece of string to begin.

A better question is why does the piece of string exist at all? The key thing about re-framing the question in this way is it takes the emphasis away from the "beginning" and puts it on to the universe in its entirety.


My compliments. Someone with some real knowledge instead of cottage-industry speculations. I'll hang on and refer to my former inclusion of break-down of causality.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join