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.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 31
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
But all is not lost as I'm about to explain to you the SIGNIFICANCE of the four letters.

You see - it's NOT the four letters (what they stand for matters), IT'S THE WAY THEY ARE PUT TOGETHER - in layman's terms - MATTERS. In other words, IT'S THE SEQUENCE OF THESE FOUR LETTERS THAT COUNTS!!

In other words it's the way the letters - codes - are arranged - sequenced - together that GIVES them MEANING.

If you still don't get this - let me give you a very simple example.

This word: udmb - if the letters are NOT properly SEQUENCED it doesn't mean a squat. But by arranging them properly the meaning of the letters will be revealed.

So what do you think udmb means - if I arrange the four letters this way: DUMB


How many other words can you make out of udmb? As usual you miss my point. You are arguing that genetic code shows a complex language. There is no such thing as complex language that uses only 4 letters. Even the earliest written languages on earth have way more characters and symbols. If this is a language, it is way more primitive than any human invented language on earth, which puts the designer's intellect way below the capability of being able to design DNA. Not only that, but that code you posted was written by humans to describe the DNA. It is not the DNA itself. It's not like if you zoom into a piece of DNA you will see AGACAGTC...


Based in your response above - I'm expecting NO - they don't exist because the DNA code is just a bunch of FOUR LETTERS.

I said it isn't a complex LANGUAGE, not that it doesn't exist or have function. It's a man made code. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Find real evidence, not wishful thinking. I admit that DNA seems complex and we aren't sure of its exact origins and evolution. Heck, maybe it was designed, but if you want to assert that as fact, you need a way stronger case. You need tangible evidence.
edit on 14-7-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Sorry if this has already been posted..


An uncomfortable truth for some? I digress....
Enjoy.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


A personal delusion is one thing, yet it is really quite amazing the lengths people go to to dress up and peddle their delusion as science, expecting others to believe. Submitting science to scrutiny is not always a bad thing IMO. Or theorizing on possibilities, no doubt there is far more to existence than we realize at the moment. Yet that is not what is happening here, this thread is simple religious proselytizing. No doubt a preemptive attack while the possibility still exists, with the expectation that knowledge in this area will see gods domain dwindle even further, to virtually nothing.

It's obvious that "I don't know" is not a positive claim. It is the opposite, an acknowledgement that no point of view can be sufficiently substantiated to an acceptable level, at the moment.

Saying with scientific certainty that a magical and evil sky fairy did it, is a positive claim. It's not unreasonable first to ask for a way to verify this sky fairy's existence, directly. Not via logical fallacy, secondary assumption or inference, but directly. Please point us to the scientific experiment that brought such knowledge, so that we can repeat it. Thanks.

Or perhaps use your arguments in philosophical discussion, where they belong?

Perhaps you should brace yourself for the possibility that when understanding of the origin of life arrives, god might not be required. A suggestion below for a suitable epitaph, on the odd chance god will be found to be superflous, perhaps they could adorn churches everywhere.

In fond memory of god,
born of superstition,
flourished in savage medieval ignorance,
threatened by Copernicus,
weakened by Galileo,
assailed by Darwin,
finally succumbed to his mortal enemy, knowledge (and common sense),
now a redundant concept,
lives on only in indoctrinated minds and their resultant logical fallacies.
RIP god of the gaps.



posted on Jul, 15 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 





In fond memory of god,
born of superstition,
flourished in savage medieval ignorance,
threatened by Copernicus,
weakened by Galileo,
assailed by Darwin,
finally succumbed to his mortal enemy, knowledge (and common sense),
now a redundant concept,
lives on only in indoctrinated minds and their resultant logical fallacies.
RIP god of the gaps.




Brilliant summary of what's happening


Over the past few years you do notice believers getting more desperate. In another thread one of them even invents words to argue his position



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Response to edmc: Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...


happybunny not so happy??? lately???

Since you're the "grown up" here as you claim - may I suggest to hop, hop hop around like a happy bunny and smell the roses then come back when the rainbows and unicorns are over the horizon.

In short take a brake dude.



That's Mrs. Dude to you, buddy. And learn how to spell. Another sign of your total, all-encompassing ignorance.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs

Originally posted by edmc^2
OK let me update my list of your circular counter argument tactic when you can't refute something.

First you use just an "OPINION"

if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY"

if this doesn't work use "ARGUMENT FROM FALLACY"

then the latest - "ARGUMENT FROM COMPLEXITY"

anything you want me to add?


Look up each fallacy and you will understand why it is blatantly obvious that you are using them. You forgot equivocation, and god of the gaps. Those are also a huge part of your faulty arguments. I think you could also throw in appeal to magic and hasty generalization. Did I miss any of them?


Argument from incredulity? Wishful thinking? False dilemma? Argument from ignorance (intended to shift the burden of proof)?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


hehehe...still trying to turn the table on me huh? Not gonna work..

Remember you're the one who said this:


Wow, what an amazingly complex language! It has a grand total of 4 letters that repeat over and over again.


But like I said - it's NOT the number of letters or phrases or syntax's that counts - but the meaning of the codes that counts.

That is - the WAY THEY ARE SEQUENCED / ARRANGED together that counts. It's what gives them meaning.

As for the combination of the four letters - may I remind you again - they ARE NOT "just a bunch of FOUR LETTERS" but are the BASES of the DNA structure.

That is, they stand for:

adenine (A)
guanine (G)
cytosine (C)
and thymine (T)

It's the combination and sequence of these four letters that is important. By these "bunch of FOUR LETTERS" we come to understand and know how the inner workings of the DNA molecule - what make it tick!

By way of a simple illustration, they function like MORSE CODE!! The operator sends signals (INTELLIGENT MEANINGFUL INFORMATION) from a transmitter to a receiver who can then decipher and translate the codes into a MEANINGFUL LANGUANGE - i.e. instruction.

In other words the DNA CODE is NOT "just a bunch of FOUR LETTERS" but are instead the blueprint for Life!

BTW - curious, if you know - can you explain to me how the four letters came to be and what is the FUNCTION of each of the letters?

adenine (A)
guanine (G)
cytosine (C)
thymine (T)

Here's the chemical structure of Adenine:



Here's Thymine:



hal.weihenstephan.de...

Any idea what each letter represents and their function? What would happen if one "letter" is out sequence or missing a pair?

Furthermore is Intelligence required to construct the structures?

Or did they all just came to be - by chance event?

As for this:



I said it isn't a complex LANGUAGE, not that it doesn't exist or have function. It's a man made code. Don't hate the player, hate the game. Find real evidence, not wishful thinking. I admit that DNA seems complex and we aren't sure of its exact origins and evolution. Heck, maybe it was designed, but if you want to assert that as fact, you need a way stronger case. You need tangible evidence.


Say aint so...joe

If as you say the DNA Code


isn't a complex LANGUAGE
meaning "simple"

By all means then explain to me:

If a simple Morse Code (with just two characters mind you - a line and a dot) requires intelligence to construct, send, read and translate, what about the as you say "simple" DNA CODE?

Can such "simple functional" INFORMATIONAL (DNA) CODE write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

What say you?


And one more thing if as you say:

There is no such thing as complex language that uses only 4 letters

Yeah, tell that to the Human Genome Project team.


The Human Genome Project (HGP) is an international scientific research project with a primary goal of determining the sequence of chemical base pairs which make up DNA, and of identifying and mapping the approximately 20,000–25,000 genes of the human genome from both a physical and functional standpoint.[1] ^ Robert Krulwich (2001-04-17). Cracking the Code of Life (Television Show). PBS. ISBN 1-5375-16-9. www.pbs.org... en.wikipedia.org...


dumbdarumdumdumdumb!!



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 



It's obvious that "I don't know" is not a positive claim.

Of course it's "a positive claim" if the person claiming it refuses to see the obvious answer.

On the other hand it is NOT a positive claim if there's no legitimate evidence available to the claim. But the problem is - WE have ample verifiable evidence to the claim.

That is, I claim that Life only comes from pre-existing life! Is there scientific evidence of this? Yes there is!

I claim that man with all of his knowledge and technology IS NOT able to create life from non life. Nope. No evidence of this.

I claim that meaningful information require an intelligent source! Of course!

I claim that a Fine Tuned System require an Intelligent Fine Tuner!

I claim that an Intelligent Design require an Intelligent Designer!

But to say "We Don't Know" to the above facts or to such simple questions as:

-- Can "simple functional" INFORMATIONAL CODE such as the DNA CODE write itself - without any intelligent guidance?

-- is not only a BLATANT IGNORANCE but blatant disregard of the FACTS.

And only someone who is delusional IMHO will accept such premise.

And like you said:


A personal delusion is one thing, yet it is really quite amazing the lengths people go to to dress up and peddle their delusion as science, expecting others to believe.


On this I agree.

A delusional person IMHO will accept that an Intelligent Life-form can arise from non-living materials without even a hint of evidence or even an ounce of Intelligence. The "I DON'T KNOW" becomes the de facto answer in the hopes that someday - against all odds - it becomes a fact.

A delusional person imho will accept spontaneous generation of life from non life then call it scientific because the alternative is unpalatable. And the "I DON'T KNOW" becomes the de facto answer in the hopes that someday - against all logic - it becomes a fact.

A delusional person imho will accept abiogenesis hypothesis as THE basis for the Origin of Life even if the very idea is rooted in unproven ancient philosophy and will BLINDLY accept it because the alternative is unacceptable. The "I DON'T KNOW" becomes the de facto answer in the hopes that someday - against all common sense - it becomes a fact.

But you say:


Submitting science to scrutiny is not always a bad thing IMO.


It's always a good thing because it makes sense and best of all make one honest. It's when we stop questioning science or for that matter any form of belief system that one becomes more than delusional but a fanatic.

It's when we stop making SURE of all things we become blinded by unproven theories, hypothesis and sophisticated philosophies of men.

Thus by my questioning and scrutinizing the abiogeneis hypothesis , it led me to conclude that it's not just a hypothesis but a silly ignorant idea founded in ancient philosophy masquerading as science.

And no it's not as you say:


a preemptive attack while the possibility still exists, with the expectation that knowledge in this area will see gods domain dwindle even further, to virtually nothing.


because your expectation of the outcome (from time immemorial) is just NOT POSSIBLE but seriously questionable - an insanity.

I mean - like I said, what's the chance of life spontaneously generating from non living matter without any intelligent guidance? Zero!

Of course you're free to keep on dreaming for the impossible dream.

As for my belief - the existence of the Creator of Life Jehovah God - I have no doubt about it.

He does exist as evidence by fundamental facts of nature and what we've seen demonstrated in (true) scientific sense.

Such as:

Law requires a law maker - law giver.

Intelligent Meaningful Information requires Intelligence.

Life can only come from pre-existing life.

Furthermore the evidence of his existence is also readily available from his letters to mankind.

As for the "direct" evidence you asked for.

I ask - how can you explain the color of the sky to a person born blind?

Or to paraphrase the late Dr. Sagan -

what is a third dimension to a two dimensional being?

How can you explain facts to someone who only accepts the unknowable and laugh at the obvious?

It's difficult if not impossible to do so because the foundation and experience is just not there.

Of course I'm not here to stop you from believing it nor "proselyte" you to believe otherwise.

It's all up to you - believe it or not.

edit:

finally before I forget RIP abiogenesis hypothesis - you've been proven to be a lie.


edit on 16-7-2012 by edmc^2 because: edit.



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by HappyBunny

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by HappyBunny
 





Response to edmc: Excuse me while I lose my temper. I'm really sick and tired of stupid people who refuse to educate themselves, so...


happybunny not so happy??? lately???

Since you're the "grown up" here as you claim - may I suggest to hop, hop hop around like a happy bunny and smell the roses then come back when the rainbows and unicorns are over the horizon.

In short take a brake dude.



That's Mrs. Dude to you, buddy. And learn how to spell. Another sign of your total, all-encompassing ignorance.


my apologies Mrs. HappyBunny - s/ be dudette then - happy now?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


What this thread proves, is that you have an opinion (one that appears to have been largely biased by religious beliefs). It also highlights how easily religious bias and wishful thinking can turn science into pseudo science. The preemptive and inherent bias in the negative statement (put forward as fact) that life cannot arise naturally, is obvious. You have no way of knowing that as a fact, short of having magical powers yourself. That we haven't observed it in the "twinkling of an eye" that humanity has been around (so far), means only that and no more. No doubt similar religious bias can often be found in those who deny the fact of evolution.

No matter how many roundabout arguments you put forward, so far there is nothing scientific in your ultimate point that god exists.

The idea that we should stop looking and accept a certain god, is about as genuinely scientific in principle as it was when they made Galileo recant.

There could well be more (intelligence wise) to the universe and it could be a fascinating subject to ponder if approached honestly.

Please cut the bulls--t and back your claim that god exists, which is obviously the point of your thread. Not through indirect means, or personal opinion/interpretation of secondary phenomena, but god directly. Show us where god is. If you do this, it won't necessarily mean "god did it", exactly how that occurred is something else you would need to explain.

While you are doing this, please also keep in mind that "I don't know" is not an acceptable answer to yourself, as has been pointed out many times.

Until this happens, you will simply be another zealot with a biased opinion (that has been overestimated and confused with fact) towards one particular version of an (as yet) mythical god.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by edmc^2
 


You really haven't looked up the definition of "argument of ignorance", have you?


Edmc, using one argumentative fallacy after the other while pretending his opinion is scientific



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 07:50 AM
link   
I suggest some research into Gödel theory of incompleteness for reference into the true nature of science and it's methods and what constitutes proof and the fact that more truths exist that can be proven. Be carefull you may loose your mind as Gödel did if you can fathom the depths of what he was describing and discovered. Most will be certainly safe


He often began his explanation with “The Liar’s Paradox” — which is the statement “I am lying.”
“I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true. He amazingly turned this into a mathematical formula.

In simplistic terms.

All closed systems depend on something outside the system. You can always draw a bigger circle but there will still be something outside the circle. You can draw a circle around a car but the car cannot explain itself. it's existance relies on a factory outside of the circle.

Gödel proved that there are ALWAYS more things that are true than you can prove. Any system of logic will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions. This caused great waves in mathematics and science. A theory of everything was shown to be impossible.

All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws. This cannot be proven as Gödel demonstrated. You cannot prove that tommorow will come. With inductive reasoning we can be reasonably sure it will. The example I gave when I first posted is another example of inductive reasoning. Most of science is based on inductive reasoning because even some simple truths cannot be proven.

What if we draw a circle around the entire universe? The universe cannot explan itself it's existance relies on something outside the circle, outside matter, outside energy, outside time. Applying Gödel theorem we know that what is outside the circle is not matter,energy or time it is immaterial.

prescriptive information symbolised by codes is also immaterial, since all codes stem from consciousness, outside the circle of material things like letters numbers and the code of nucleotides must be... according to Gödels theory, consiousness.

A truth that cannot be proven just like any other. Just as the basic Euclid’s five postulates of geometry cannot be proven but everyone knows they are true.

Yet atheist demand proof of God, This is rediculous when we cannot prove basic theories of geometry either!

The materialist/atheists view of naturalism is something like this-

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

Gödel demonstrated this is not logical, as I said atheism is not logical because it relies on the premise that everything can be explained by materialism or a belief that it can. Gödel destroyed this assumption. Don't blame me! Blame one the greatest mathematicians who ever lived.

Don't confuse religion with the transcendental or God or whatever you want to call it.

Continue with the mindless bickering.
edit on 17-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Yet atheist demand proof of God, This is rediculous when we cannot prove basic theories of geometry either!
The "proof" you speak of is not some impossible standard. Scientific proofs are found by gathering evidence and assessing probability. They aren't absolutes, and nobody in the history of science has ever suggested they are absolutes. When we speak of "proof" of some god, we are merely asking for evidence to be shown with which one can draw inferences based on knowledge we already know. Nobody will ever be able to gather evidence, and thus assess the probability of god's existence because god is said to exist outside the natural laws of physics and chemistry, in a supernatural world that humans have created. Because of this, saying a talking sock is the creator is just as logical as saying god did it. Ironically, a sock that talks is a more descriptive characterization than any there has been for god, so at least we can all visualize the same thing.

Why did you pick consciousness as a trait that exists outside the universe. Because conscious beings can make automobiles? Certainly there is enough evidence to assume whales, simians, corvids, elephants, and horses all have something that is analogous to consciousness. Mostly all organisms, however, have a germ plasm. Why can't there be a giant mass of germ plasm that exists outside the universe? Germ plasm creates life. I would think if there is anything that exists outside the universe it would be the one responsible for the continued existence of life.

Invoking Godel's theorem for proof of god? Godel's theorem concerned language conventions and the limits of generalities. If I have a set of all non-sets, what kind of set do I have? Or a set of sets of non-sets. If I keep creating a chain of sets within sets, sooner or later I'll have close to an infinite amount of sets. Then I can say I have a set of all sets, even though I have an infinite number of sets of sets of non-sets.

Can one ever "prove" that 52352345*623445235253 equals the number we can derive from the basic multiplication algorithm? Certainly we can't have teams of people count the number of squares inside a 52352345 x 623445235253 rectangle, it would take far too long. And somewhere along the way somebody is bound to make a mistake. But are we to say since we can't literally count all the little squares that god must exist? That's absurd.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021


When we speak of "proof" of some god, we are merely asking for evidence to be shown with which one can draw inferences based on knowledge we already know.


Bingo! It's been done. No one has been able to falsify the origin of code with a physical cause.


Why did you pick consciousness as a trait that exists outside the universe. Because conscious beings can make automobiles?


I didn't exactly, I said consciousness exists outside the material elements of codes.



Certainly there is enough evidence to assume whales, simians, corvids, elephants, and horses all have something that is analogous to consciousness.


Indeed, even the cell, natural genetic engineering as a built in function of the cell drives evolution. Consciousness drives evolution.



Mostly all organisms, however, have a germ plasm. Why can't there be a giant mass of germ plasm that exists outside the universe?


Because it is physical and couldn't exist outside the physical universe.



Invoking Godel's theorem for proof of god?


Yes. That is what he did. Perhaps you should do some more research. There are critics of course, there always are.


But are we to say since we can't literally count all the little squares that god must exist? That's absurd.


No the squares must be explained by something outside of the squares, If it's absurd then Godels theory is also absurd. Which is absurd.
How do you have near infinity anyway? That is absurd in itself. You can circle any amount of data sets you want and keep going. There is no such thing as near infinity.

I actually agree with a little of what you wrote though.
edit on 17-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


How is being an atheist a closed system??? Atheists simply admit that we don't know how first life (or the universe) started, so how can we at the same time make the claim it's a closed system? Tons of stuff could have influenced it, it's just that we have ZERO evidence for a creator.

Also, I don't think you fully understand Kurt's statements



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Bingo! It's been done. No one has been able to falsify the origin of code with a physical cause.


And nobody has been able to falsify the origin of code with a super natural cause. So we're stuck in agreement that neither of us knows the answer, right?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


I've already explained it. I don't think I can dumb it down any further for you.

reply to post by Barcs
 



Originally posted by Barcs

And nobody has been able to falsify the origin of code with a super natural cause. So we're stuck in agreement that neither of us knows the answer, right?


Ha, your mind truly baffles me. Super natural is a term of ignorance, when the mechanisms of a supposed super natural effect are known it then becomes natural so it was never super natural to begin with. It's a relative term to current understanding. And no it has not been falsified by "super natural cause" . What does that even mean? If we could falsify it with a "super natural cause" then that in itself is proof of "super natural cause". We'd be stuck in an infinite loop without anyway way to resolve it. How can something be falsified with an unknown?

Or, according to your logic, intelligence is super natural, because we KNOW intelligence is the cause of symbolic code.

An appeal to ignorance is a safe place, I do understand.
edit on 17-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 
A consciousness that exists outside the known laws of physics and chemistry is by definition supernatural, unless you are saying there have yet to be molecular interactions that can not be explained by known laws of nature. If that is the case, it is a case for science to merely extend the "laws" of chemistry and physics to accommodate this newly found interaction. Certainly one can not call this god, and obviously something that can willingly change chemistry to suit the evolution of molecules is itself absurd, just like Godel's theorem to prove the existence of god is absurd. Its misguided and was devised before scientists had a complete understanding of organic chemistry.

You have these skewed notions of DNA as being a code intended for a specific purposes. Its convenient to describe genes as being units of intent for a specific purpose, but that's merely a way to mathematically quantify genes. Just like we can mathematically quantify electrons, or sound waves. Its a device that humans have created. There is no mechanism that would explain DNA and its consequences as being the result of anything other than random chemical reactions. All the known elements of a living organism have been shown to arrive through natural causes.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

What if we draw a circle around the entire universe? The universe cannot explan itself it's existance relies on something outside the circle, outside matter, outside energy, outside time. Applying Gödel theorem we know that what is outside the circle is not matter,energy or time it is immaterial.


Forgive my ignorance where Godel is concerned, I will read up on his theorem when I get time. Though I do see problems in your analogy, which could stem from my lack of familiarity re Godels work.

What do you call the universe? The observable universe, or simply all that is? We don't know all that much (relatively speaking) about inside of the circle of the observable universe yet, so far our observations haven't necessitated a conscious creator to gain understanding. How can you claim to know what properties exist outside of this circle, if it can't be observed? If the by the universe you mean "all that is", by definition the circle itself and everything including hypothetical god, would be within the universe.

What if we were to find god and then draw your circle around him? How can he explain himself? Will it refer us to another god? An endless procession of gods/creators? Or are you assigning special properties to this one "creator/force/god", exempting it from all of the very same logic that you feel proves his existence?

This would appear no different to religious myth, unsupportable in a scientific sense, or in any direct way.


Any system of logic will always rest on at least a few unprovable assumptions.


Including Godels?



All of science rests on an assumption that the universe is orderly, logical and mathematical based on fixed discoverable laws. This cannot be proven as Gödel demonstrated. You cannot prove that tommorow will come. .


Common sense seems to indicate that in the truest sense, nothing can be completely proven. Therefore science is dynamic and always being refined.

The closest we have been to discovering any sort of god, has been Einstien/Spinoza's god IMO (which really isn't god in any religious sense). Yet quantum physics did it no favors.


Yet atheist demand proof of God,


I am far from an atheist. I actually enjoy some of your arguments, even if I personally disagree with the logic behind many of them. I can see possibilities in this area, but at this stage that is all they are, possibilities. It's when things are stated as a definite that there seems to be problems.

When people claim that their own particular brand of primitive superstition is valid science, it doesn't seem at all unfair to ask for something to substantiate this, or point out why it isn't scientific in principle.

If you are saying that a creator is possible, you probably won't get as many arguments. Opinions will no doubt be mixed. Who knows?

If you are making a statement that a creator exists, this will need to be substantiated with more than inference or assumption, regardless of the logic employed. So far this has not been forthcoming. Which isn't to say it won't ever.


The materialist/atheists view of naturalism is something like this-

“Naturalism is the hypothesis that the natural world is a closed system, which means that nothing that is not part of the natural world affects it.”

Gödel demonstrated this is not logical, as I said atheism is not logical because it relies on the premise that everything can be explained by materialism or a belief that it can. Gödel destroyed this assumption. Don't blame me! Blame one the greatest mathematicians who ever lived.



By what mechanism can some being/force affect changes in our universe without entering it in some form and hence being observable? Magic?

I still feel that your best arguments have outlined why you personally feel there is a creator, or why you feel that logically it could be possible, not that there definitely is one.

Though I agree that the primitive notion of a religious god has turned many away from this subject and towards atheism. That there is more to existence than we yet know, is undoubtably true. Whether some type of creative force or intelligence exists waiting to be discovered, is not outside the realms of possibility IMO.

Though I still think it will be within the fabric of nature itself (just IMO), which has been noticed as some logical order and wrongfully inferred as being proof of some sort of original creator outside of the universe. This would be one assumption too many IMO. The idea that it comes from intelligence at all, can only be inferred, this won't necessarily make it so

If you are talking about some original designer/creator who originally set it all in motion and then left it alone? Being outside of the universe would mean that there is no way to observe or prove or disprove such a thing and therefore is not within the remit of science. Which is where god always seems to find himself.

The only thing that is always missing when support for god is being offered, in amongst all of the logic and opinions, is any genuine direct observable support for god. Something that isn't secondary, inferred, speculative or assumed, that doesn't require that leap of faith beyond what science would normally be willing to extend. Seems very telling.....



edit on 18-7-2012 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jul, 18 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


No, what you've done is misapplying Godel's statements

edit on 18-7-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
14
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join