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.

 

Do you want "scientific proof"?

page: 9
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
You can't argue with religous people they lack common sense. I worked with a deeply religous man at one point. He was studying to become a EMT. He came up to me and said I learned something today "did you know that black spot in the middle of your eye is a hole?" I said "really your 30 years old and just figuring this out?".

My grandmother is a devout catholic. I was talking with her one day and she had no idea the sun was a star.

The problem with religous people is they are brainwashed. If it's not writen in thier 2000 year old book it don't matter to them.




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by wantsome
You can't argue with religous people they lack common sense. I worked with a deeply religous man at one point. He was studying to become a EMT. He came up to me and said I learned something today "did you know that black spot in the middle of your eye is a hole?" I said "really your 30 years old and just figuring this out?".

My grandmother is a devout catholic. I was talking with her one day and she had no idea the sun was a star.

The problem with religous people is they are brainwashed. If it's not writen in thier 2000 year old book it don't matter to them.


I have met athiest, agnostics just as stupid as that. Stupid is not exclusive to religion.. if you think soo... that kind of makes you stupid.. but not because you are non religious..



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:17 PM
link   
So this thread is saying that science has no real scientific proof? that statement is flawed for sure. If i would apply science to something say called a computer, wouldn't that be proof? Oh wait nevermind, god created the computer so science has no proof.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

A = A


your arguement is flawed in many ways... I will point out just 1...

A = B^2

prove that wrong...

100 years ago we had our known science and we believed them completely... then a new theory came along and changed things.

science does in fact change

what we believe today,

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia

A = A


might turn out differently in the future

A=B^2



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I am extremely confused by this statement:


Originally posted by wantsome
You can't argue with religous people they lack common sense. I worked with a deeply religous man at one point. He was studying to become a EMT. He came up to me and said I learned something today "did you know that black spot in the middle of your eye is a hole?" I said "really your 30 years old and just figuring this out?".

My grandmother is a devout catholic. I was talking with her one day and she had no idea the sun was a star.

The problem with religous people is they are brainwashed. If it's not writen in thier 2000 year old book it don't matter to them.


and this statement:


Originally posted by anthonygillespie2012
So this thread is saying that science has no real scientific proof? that statement is flawed for sure. If i would apply science to something say called a computer, wouldn't that be proof? Oh wait nevermind, god created the computer so science has no proof.


Where on Earth did you get the idea that this thread had anything to do with religion and God? Did I accidentally post this in the Religious Thread? No, I am pretty sure it is in Science & Technology and not once did I mention Religion or "God" in my arguments or OP.

Neither of those two posts are relevant to anything being debated within this thread and half of them do not even make sense.

Please refrain from derailing the thread into religious babble. Thank you.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by angellicview

1. The Earth is a living organism with a consciousness.
2. Time is an illusion and does not really exist.
3. We are coming to a time when people will be awakened to their true self.
4. Reincarnation is a fact.
5. What religion you belong to (and whether or not you believe in Jesus) has no effect on your "afterlife".
6. We plan out our lives (contract or blueprint) before we are born.


I agree with most of these statements with little exception.

however, 'ghosts' are a function of reincarnation(4). Due to either tramatic deaths or a belief/lack of belief(5) in their lifetime, for some reason these souls are not able to commit fully to the afterlife that the majority of souls experience.

other than that, I believe you are dead on with the 6 points you have made

ETA: I believe in a duality in life... there is a Love side of light, and a Hate side of darkness. this is the basis for the concepts of heaven and hell. If a persons beliefs in life have their souls walking in the light, when they pass, they will move on into Love... while if a person walks in darkness knowingly and willingly, they will be condemned to experience just Hate in their afterlife
edit on 13-1-2012 by kalisdad because: noted above



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by Harte
 


en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

nuff said...

edit on 13-1-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-1-2012 by minor007 because: (no reason given)


Dude, I'm a math teacher and I teach physics.

Science purports to "prove" absolutely nothing, regardless of how many wiki pages you link to.

Harte



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
Nope... Colour is determined by frequency and wavelength.


while this is a true statement, as a person with partial red/green colorblindness, I know for a FACT that what he said about people seeing colors differently(ETA) is true. there is no way to know because despite the fact that I see these colors differently than others, identify colors based on how I see them and what I was told as far as what color they actually are.
edit on 13-1-2012 by kalisdad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by 46ACE

following you here : What do "you" call it when I can take a circuit schematic; a calculator, and a legal pad and predict the values of voltage and current present to several decimal places across components .
Then:
Go to the actual piece of equipment and verify my "predictions"(calculatons)by measurement ???
?
"faith"?
Or reproducible science and therefore "truth". I call it "truth" and verifiable/reproducible"proof" and anybody else can get the same results.People like to say we don't "know" the universe; we know quite abit at least at the "macro" level.



you fail to recognize that science IS a beielf system no different from a religious one.

we were once told to believe that the stars and planets revolved around the Earth, and to question or deny this 'fact' of the time had dire consequences.

however because science evolves, we moved onto the heliocentric model that we know to be true today.

Newton reigned for hundreds of years with his physics, but Einstein came along and broadened our understanding of the Universe

why do you have absolute FAITH that there is not a better theory out there that will show our current understanding is flawed?

people throw out the fact that our current technology works based on modern science and the standard theory, but I equate it to being a multiple choice question that we happend to guess correctly... does that mean we fully understand the formulas that are correct in finding the answer, or that we are just guessing and making things up to validiate what we observe?. alot of quantum theory has never and will most likely never be proven in our lifetime. Dark Matter, Gravitational Constant, FTL speeds just to name a few



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
man if anyhing this is proof we deserve ignorance.
just like we can apply what ah supposedly credible scienist has discovered, tested, or proven to see the legitimacy behind it...

one too can go out of ones way to prove that "ertaNiaGia" isnt just being ah dick about his opinion by reading the posts, but that would only give them the opinion that he is being ah dick.

not that i think he is wrong or the OP is right.
nor does comming off as ah dick make you one.
i sound like one now.

i always read both sides of anything on ats with an unbiased attitutde.
without opposition on the issue we would have missed out on some good points and allot of which helped others understand how they feel on the matter now, upon initially not having much of an opinion or knowledge on the matter.

aye do however find it hard not ta be pulling fer the more civil and respectable party when reading these developing arguments when the other side presents its self in such ah childish and arrogant matter.

ive enjoyed this post
this is an example of the many times on this site i think seeing the lives these people lead would explain much of their angst and thick headedness
it really invokes ah uncomfortable feeling inside when people make you feel that way.
like when someone has an annoying voice.
you know they cant help it.
nor can yer ears not acknowledge that they particularly dont enjoy it.
there are many lovely people posting here,

aye just believe ertainiagia has an annoying voice though science may never prove it...

j



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jiggyfly

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by redoubt
 



You can dissect your selected opponents replies, spin them to your advantage in text format... but it doesn't make you or your argument right.


This is correct.

Me being RIGHT, however, *DOES* make me right.

I was just attempting to explain WHY I am right to you.

I can see that I still have a ways to go before my teaching style is sufficient to explain my correctness to you.


Again, I suggest a more human approach. Leave the arrogance behind and you might learn something.


This coming from someone who states that Knowledge is unknowable?

That's quite humorous.


May I suggest this:


I'll allow your suggestion for now.


Submit what you might consider to be an undeniable scientific truth.


Not very good at paying attention, are you?

A = A

Checkmate.


Then, if you don't mind, allow that undeniable truth to be challenged.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....

You are more than welcome to try.




If I am am not overstepping, I would also suggest that you defend your truth based on that truth and not insults.


If you think that you can disprove the validity of my statement, then by all means.... Defend your position like you have one.


'Sup to you. I'll check back in on this.


I think your reply in this matter will be quite hilarious, actually, So I will be checking back also.

See you then.


Cheers



edit on 12-1-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)




Just stop! You add nothing to the conversation, and simply repeating A = A louder doesn't do anything for your case.

I'll indulge your argument with something equally juvenile. Just this once.

A = A
A = 1
Therefore, 1 = 1
1 = 3/3
3/3 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3
1/3 = .3333333333 (repeating, of course)
.333333333333 + .333333333333 +.33333333333 = .9999999999999

1 does not = .9999999999999
Therefore A does not = A. In this case, A infinitely approaches A, but never = A.


Point being, A = A is a definition. It is arbitrary, and has no relevance when discussing matters of scientific reliability, or even the nature of knowledge. It is used, as all definitions are, as a starting point for a line of reasoning. It's is not an observation of the physical world, or an empirical truth in any fashion. It is also not true for all variables, depending on the reasoning from that base.

I'm glad you read some Descartes in your Intro to Philosophy class. There's more out there though, and you should probably read it before you go all in on one simple soundbite.

So please, drop the A = A so checkmate, I'm smart and you're dumb act.


0.333 + 0.333 + 0.333 = 0.999

0.333infinity+0.333infinity+0.333infinity = 1

If you divide an apple in three equal pieces you will have three thirds of an apple meaning 1/3, in other words 0.333infinity(how many decimal places you use is up to you, as an engineer I usually only go to three because going further is just pointless and the effects are minuscule). Now put the apple back together 0.0000000~1 doesn't disappear. If you add 3 x 1/3 apples you will have a complete apple ie 1

Your psuedo maths is stupid and irritating, the said poster is just making a point that we can observe the truth, we can observe gravity, we can observe physics so you can't say the science is flawed, experiments are open to be replicated by anyone.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Openeye
Touche, however there are things that NO human could survive like 10 minutes of exposure in the vacuum of space without a space suit.


Not to sound adamant about this but I would have to say "Put every human in existence into space without a space suit." if you wanted "proof". Of course, I understand that isn't rational, but we can't say we know everything about every single individual. I am not against the idea of "miracles". Although, I hate to use that word as it is generally assumed I mean "in terms of Religion or God".



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
I am extremely confused by this statement:


Originally posted by wantsome
You can't argue with religous people they lack common sense. I worked with a deeply religous man at one point. He was studying to become a EMT. He came up to me and said I learned something today "did you know that black spot in the middle of your eye is a hole?" I said "really your 30 years old and just figuring this out?".

My grandmother is a devout catholic. I was talking with her one day and she had no idea the sun was a star.

The problem with religous people is they are brainwashed. If it's not writen in thier 2000 year old book it don't matter to them.


and this statement:


Originally posted by anthonygillespie2012
So this thread is saying that science has no real scientific proof? that statement is flawed for sure. If i would apply science to something say called a computer, wouldn't that be proof? Oh wait nevermind, god created the computer so science has no proof.


Where on Earth did you get the idea that this thread had anything to do with religion and God? Did I accidentally post this in the Religious Thread? No, I am pretty sure it is in Science & Technology and not once did I mention Religion or "God" in my arguments or OP.

Neither of those two posts are relevant to anything being debated within this thread and half of them do not even make sense.

Please refrain from derailing the thread into religious babble. Thank you.


You were extremely confused because scientific proof is logic. This non scientific proof theory you posted a link to called 'psychology today' and your statements is considered and will lead to religious babble. Oh and it would help to post a link nextime to a science related website.

This post below described is my point of even saying the 'god created' idea.



Originally posted by kalisdad

Originally posted by angellicview

1. The Earth is a living organism with a consciousness.
2. Time is an illusion and does not really exist.
3. We are coming to a time when people will be awakened to their true self.
4. Reincarnation is a fact.
5. What religion you belong to (and whether or not you believe in Jesus) has no effect on your "afterlife".
6. We plan out our lives (contract or blueprint) before we are born.


I agree with most of these statements with little exception.

however, 'ghosts' are a function of reincarnation(4). Due to either tramatic deaths or a belief/lack of belief(5) in their lifetime, for some reason these souls are not able to commit fully to the afterlife that the majority of souls experience.

other than that, I believe you are dead on with the 6 points you have made

ETA: I believe in a duality in life... there is a Love side of light, and a Hate side of darkness. this is the basis for the concepts of heaven and hell. If a persons beliefs in life have their souls walking in the light, when they pass, they will move on into Love... while if a person walks in darkness knowingly and willingly, they will be condemned to experience just Hate in their afterlife
edit on 13-1-2012 by kalisdad because: noted above

edit on 13-1-2012 by anthonygillespie2012 because: spelled scientific wrong

edit on 13-1-2012 by anthonygillespie2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by anthonygillespie2012
 


not sure how to take your statements regarding my post...

I am not a believer in any of the mainstream religions, I simply used the most common terms, being heaven and hell, to describe the concepts...

I could have easliy used Nirvana or Gehenna in my examples of an afterlife of love and hate.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by anthonygillespie2012
You were extremely confused because scientific proof is logic. This non scientific proof theory you posted a link to and your statements is religious babble. This post below described is my point of even saying the 'god created' idea.


Eh?? I'm sorry, and I mean no offense, but I really do not think you know what you are talking about. How can you even possibly make an assumption as to what my post is when there is no reference to that which you think? I have never stated religion, I have no religious affiliate, and I wish to refrain from religion even getting mentioned in this thread. This thread is about the comparison of absolute truth from both science and mathematics and logic. Secondly, the post you quoted below was not written by me (the OP). It was written by another user, whom of which has free say.

You previous post was as follows:



So this thread is saying that science has no real scientific proof? that statement is flawed for sure. If i would apply science to something say called a computer, wouldn't that be proof? Oh wait nevermind, god created the computer so science has no proof.


I'm really not even sure how do dissect this post but I am going to go out on a limb here and say that English may not be your first language.

This thread does not say that "science has no real scientific proof". It says that sciences has no absolute truth. If you want to break it down to semantics you could say that absolute truth = proof. I'm not going argue over dictionary rulings again. Of course, the statement "science has no real scientific proof" is flawed. It is a completely moronic statement. That would be defining something by itself, it would insist upon itself. I am saying that "science has no absolute truth/proof" ergo "scientific absolution does not exist".

Then you ask what would happen if you apply science to a computer. You mean a computer that uses logic and mathematics to supply a binary result that does have absolution? A binary result that I have already stated in my OP exists? Mathematics/logic does not equal science.

And as far as your last sentence goes... I am not even going to touch that.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
So if i see a rock on the ground are you telling me that science could not prove its a rock?


This is especially true. While the standard says it is a "rock" it could very well change one day, even if it is a very slim chance. From my work in mycology I see this all the time with living organisms. For years two different type of mushrooms were being classified as the same species because they were nearly identical, and even grew together in the same area. Eventually, however, somebody found that there were, in fact, two different of species mixed together. Now they both have unique species names.

Names get changed all the time, because they are not "set in stone". No pun intended to your rock.


You can call anything whatever you want. That doesn't change what "it" is. I am not "zach," I'm a collection of hundreds of millions of microscopic living organisms that were at one point particles of dust in space, forged in the centers of stars. Science is the means of trying to understand the universe. It doesn't create anything new, it only discovers what already exists, and the manipulations possible. Every thing that could ever possibly be discovered exists right now, in some form.


While it's true that you are a collection of atoms, the question then becomes "What is an atom?"

The only answer to this is definition-based, not mathematically based.

An atom is what we define it to be. What it actually is is completely unknown.

Harte


I forgot this stuff from school but I remember an atom can be split over and over, consisting of protons and neutrons etc.

Just because the atom isn't the smallest particle in the universe anymore it wasn't disproved, the theory was correct but with better technology it can be extended and better understood.. Even thought its a theory we can determine that they are going in the right direction, and that science usually does... In other words replicatable science isn't wrong it can be more understood with better technology.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
I have never stated religion, I have no religious affiliate, and I wish to refrain from religion even getting mentioned in this thread. This thread is about the comparison of absolute truth from both science and mathematics and logic.


I apologize for any of my posts seem out of place, I was
1) simply responding to the 3rd post in the thread in regards to the 6 points she made about spirituality and it didn't appear that you had issues with their posting their thoughts.
2) using the comparison of blind faith in our current understanding of science to the similar things I see with religion.

I concur with your OP in regards to we have no proof of anything really, based soley on the fact that the theories we use today could be invalidated in the future, in which case things we thought we had proof of were in fact falsely understood.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kalisdad
I apologize for any of my posts seem out of place, I was
1) simply responding to the 3rd post in the thread in regards to the 6 points she made about spirituality and it didn't appear that you had issues with their posting their thoughts.
2) using the comparison of blind faith in our current understanding of science to the similar things I see with religion.

I concur with your OP in regards to we have no proof of anything really, based soley on the fact that the theories we use today could be invalidated in the future, in which case things we thought we had proof of were in fact falsely understood.


No reason to apologize! Nor was I calling you out, specifically. I understand if two individuals wish to debate about spirituality and religion but to claim that my original post is "against science and for religion" is really upsetting. Of course, I know you did not make that claim, but some users have.

I also understand the comparison of science to religion but it is not necessarily needed in this thread. However, you are correct, in my opinion, of your statement that people who shun religious people for their blind faith are committing acts of hypocrisy by also blindly beleving scientific absolutions.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


S&F op Really interesting opinion on the stand point that some here take.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by indisputable
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


S&F op Really interesting opinion on the stand point that some here take.


Thank you. I am glad you have enjoyed the thread. I too have.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join