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.
Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.
Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.
Originally posted by manna2
There is more evidence in this thread alone, let alone the mountains of historical references in song, books, poetry, etc... of those influenced by scripture and scripture itself, than there is that you are real.
Originally posted by manna2
You could be a bot, unthinking, unemotional and inanimate. All we have is some text that might imply a sentient being.
But prove it to me you are not a poser, a bot or even human.
You can be a reptilian for all we know.
Originally posted by manna2
Now after thousands of years we have civilization influenced by a man, some know as the risen Lord, which was witnessed by hundreds after He died on the cross.
And many gave up their lives in belief of this resurrected state of the man they knew walked among them.
Originally posted by manna2
You on the other hand have no chance of bearing witness to yourself as you cannot prove by any anecdotal
evidence that you are even sentient.
But go ahead and spout all the nonsense you want.
What would anyone expect from an automoton???
Originally posted by Dr Cosma
“Would you not say to yourself, “Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule.” Of course you would…” - Allan Sandage
“The random emergence of even the simplest cell is comparable to the likelihood that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein.” - Allan Sandage
“The chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik’s Cube simultaneously.” - Allan Sandage
Think about it, what could possibly have caused all time and space and matter and energy to exist rather than continue not existing for infinity? - Robert Jastrow
Originally posted by Dr Cosma
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Fred Hoyle
Originally posted by Dr Cosma
There's no proof that we understand, to be 100% sure about anything.
Just like there's no 100% proof that it's not an intelligent design.
Originally posted by WakeUpRiseUp
Prove god is real and that you dont believe in fairy tales.
But we can be fairly certain, by collecting evidence from the world around us, and running repeatable verifiable experiments.
Originally posted by Dr Cosma
Certain of what?
Surely you don't have the evidence that reality, existence, is not an intelligent design?
Its just that this claim makes you feel good.
Originally posted by Prezbo369
Originally posted by Dr Cosma
Certain of what?
Surely you don't have the evidence that reality, existence, is not an intelligent design?
Now we're getting into the burden of proof. Those positing that the universe is the result of ID have the burden of proof to prove their claims are true. Its not up to anyone to prove them wrong until this has been done.
Originally posted by Cuervo
[
But why? Why is the default that needs no proof the one of non-intervention evolution? It certainly doesn't follow the pattern of nature which is cyclical and creative. Why isn't the burden of proof on the equally (arguably more) challenging notion that our ghosts in these machines we call bodies are nothing but biological end-results?
Originally posted by Prezbo369
Originally posted by Cuervo
[
But why? Why is the default that needs no proof the one of non-intervention evolution? It certainly doesn't follow the pattern of nature which is cyclical and creative. Why isn't the burden of proof on the equally (arguably more) challenging notion that our ghosts in these machines we call bodies are nothing but biological end-results?
Evolution is as close to absolute knowledge as anything we have ever known. Its considered more than fact, its considered a Scientific Theory, which "comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena."
As proof goes, its the most water tight proof we have ever discovered, and proponents of evolution have indeed met their burden of proof.