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.

 

Morgan Freeman "I think we invented God."

page: 16
22
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by openminded2011
I do not understand the arrogance of atheists who vehemently attack any form of a belief in God, rationalizing a strong position due to lack of proof of God, when they can give NO proof as to the NON existence of God. I recently saw a documentary about the search for extraterrestrial life, where a scientist stated "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This also applies to God. So please, someone indulge me, please present your PROOF of the non existence of God.


Turning the table are we..? first provide that your god exist, THEN we can DEBATE on testing your method to see if we can disprove that god doesn't exist.

Prove me Santa Claus doesn't exist.(not the st, but the fat guy with red suit that coco cola made, which children belief, which i will believe for this argument sake). while you are at it, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Dwarfs, Elves... etc..




If you want proof, go look in a mirror. If that doesn't suffice, there is no proof I can possibly give you that will.
edit on 11-6-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by openminded2011
I do not understand the arrogance of atheists who vehemently attack any form of a belief in God, rationalizing a strong position due to lack of proof of God, when they can give NO proof as to the NON existence of God. I recently saw a documentary about the search for extraterrestrial life, where a scientist stated "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This also applies to God. So please, someone indulge me, please present your PROOF of the non existence of God.


Turning the table are we..? first provide that your god exist, THEN we can DEBATE on testing your method to see if we can disprove that god doesn't exist.

Prove me Santa Claus doesn't exist.(not the st, but the fat guy with red suit that coco cola made, which children belief, which i will believe for this argument sake). while you are at it, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Dwarfs, Elves... etc..




If you want proof, go look in a mirror. If that doesn't suffice, there is no proof I can possibly give you that will.
edit on 11-6-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)


So you are saying we are god? Doesn't that prove what Freeman said?

Also, do you believe your god is omniscient? (legitimate question, I want to know)



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by openminded2011
I do not understand the arrogance of atheists who vehemently attack any form of a belief in God, rationalizing a strong position due to lack of proof of God, when they can give NO proof as to the NON existence of God. I recently saw a documentary about the search for extraterrestrial life, where a scientist stated "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This also applies to God. So please, someone indulge me, please present your PROOF of the non existence of God.


Turning the table are we..? first provide that your god exist, THEN we can DEBATE on testing your method to see if we can disprove that god doesn't exist.

Prove me Santa Claus doesn't exist.(not the st, but the fat guy with red suit that coco cola made, which children belief, which i will believe for this argument sake). while you are at it, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Dwarfs, Elves... etc..




If you want proof, go look in a mirror. If that doesn't suffice, there is no proof I can possibly give you that will.
edit on 11-6-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)


What I see in the mirror is a reflection of a bipedal primate with the ability to question his surroundings and a burning curiosity to know how things work.

How does this in any way prove the existence of a god ?

Unless your saying I am a god in which case I must surmise that god was indeed created in our image.



posted on Jun, 11 2012 @ 11:26 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I agree and that's the point I was trying to make.

Just imagine the chaos without it



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

Originally posted by openminded2011

Originally posted by luciddream

Originally posted by openminded2011
I do not understand the arrogance of atheists who vehemently attack any form of a belief in God, rationalizing a strong position due to lack of proof of God, when they can give NO proof as to the NON existence of God. I recently saw a documentary about the search for extraterrestrial life, where a scientist stated "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". This also applies to God. So please, someone indulge me, please present your PROOF of the non existence of God.


Turning the table are we..? first provide that your god exist, THEN we can DEBATE on testing your method to see if we can disprove that god doesn't exist.

Prove me Santa Claus doesn't exist.(not the st, but the fat guy with red suit that coco cola made, which children belief, which i will believe for this argument sake). while you are at it, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, Dwarfs, Elves... etc..




If you want proof, go look in a mirror. If that doesn't suffice, there is no proof I can possibly give you that will.
edit on 11-6-2012 by openminded2011 because: (no reason given)


What I see in the mirror is a reflection of a bipedal primate with the ability to question his surroundings and a burning curiosity to know how things work.

How does this in any way prove the existence of a god ?

Unless your saying I am a god in which case I must surmise that god was indeed created in our image.


Can you definitively know the origin of that universe? If not you can neither disprove or verify that a creative intelligence was involved. Neither position carries more weight than the other because neither can be proven.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
I would really like to know, from the opinion of those whose position that there is ABSOLUTELY no way a God can exist, what is the ultimate origin of the universe? Of existence? All existence.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
Can you definitively know the origin of that universe? If not you can neither disprove or verify that a creative intelligence was involved. Neither position carries more weight than the other because neither can be proven.

Irregardless of the origin of the Universe, we have an extremely robust theory for the diversity of life (modern synthesis), which is supported by empirical observations, and up until this day not a single study had provided evidence to the contrary. Then there's the position that a few thousand years ago some desert people just knew everything and everything they wrote down should be considered fact although no experiment/observation what so ever support it but contrast it. I don't find these two positions equal.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
I would really like to know, from the opinion of those whose position that there is ABSOLUTELY no way a God can exist, what is the ultimate origin of the universe? Of existence? All existence.

I don't think there's absolutely no way for a God to exist. Nonetheless, I find the God option infinitely less likely than the natural option, since the God option origin requires an infinitely more complex explanation. Just applying Occam's razor here. God folk always ignore this point and accept that it's just possible that God always was. Why not then take the easier way and just accept that the potential for the origin of existence was always.

Also, I'd like to point out that this is not related to the fact of evolution or personal Gods that 99% of creationists believe in.
edit on 12-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Good Lord. Do we have a face palm icon? Where is "God" in my post that you quoted? I find it absolutely frustrating that even after I explained myself, you are still claiming that. I didn't claim "God" in a roundabout way. Atheists do not believe in God.

Please explain how an atheist can wake up "dead" and go "oops I screwed up" without there being a god to be wrong about! You didn't directly say it, but you heavily implied god or some type of judging entity. If not, then why would it matter to an atheist? Let's be realistic here, anyone with half a brain knew what you were implying.


They do not believe we survive death.

Nope, sorry. I know plenty of atheists that believe in life after death. You don't need a god to have a soul or believe in the afterlife. Just because they reject the idea of a god that judges you, doesn't mean they don't believe in life after death / reincarnation.

edit on 12-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by openminded2011
I would really like to know, from the opinion of those whose position that there is ABSOLUTELY no way a God can exist, what is the ultimate origin of the universe? Of existence? All existence.


And I would really like to know, from the opinion of those whose position that there is no way a God couldn't exist, what is the ultimate origin of God? Who or what created God?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Barcs
Nope, sorry. I know plenty of atheists that believe in life after death.

That's quite interesting. Personally, I don't know a single person who believes in life after death or a soul. At least in the traditional sense, our personality supposedly mirrors our soul. Problem is, that personalities can dramatically change due to physical harm. A good blow to the head can turn a loving husband into an abusive asshole, etc. This quite heavily implies that our personality is 100% tied to our physical body. When that is gone, it can no longer exist. Maybe in the future we can replicate our neural networks in hardware, and thus bypass death (in a sense), but still.. no soul.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Problem is, that personalities can dramatically change due to physical harm. A good blow to the head can turn a loving husband into an abusive asshole, etc. This quite heavily implies that our personality is 100% tied to our physical body.


It could also mean that the physical body can affect the spirit's personality, so that when the abusive husband's physical body dies, his existing spirit reverts back to the original loving person. The question is, does it work the other way? Say, an abusive husband gets a blow to the head and becomes a loving individual. When he dies, does his spirit revert back to the abusive asshole?



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by rhinoceros
Problem is, that personalities can dramatically change due to physical harm. A good blow to the head can turn a loving husband into an abusive asshole, etc. This quite heavily implies that our personality is 100% tied to our physical body.


It could also mean that the physical body can affect the spirit's personality

The problem with this speculation is that it makes an extra, untestable assumption that does not explain known observations any better than the materialist explanation. There could be a spirit and personality could reside in said spirit with repercussions that are identical to the materialist explanation but it's a superfluous assumption that can safely be cut away with Occam's razor.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by openminded2011
 

I don't think anyone on here absolutely.denies the possibility of a god or gods. The biggest problem with the "life couldn't have arose naturally therefore god created it" argument is who created god? If you state that a god or gods have always existed, one can always turn round and state that life has always existed. Although that's extremely unlikely, it's far more plausible than god as it makes far less assumptions and complications and we actually have evidence for life existing.



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:47 AM
link   
I am surprised how many atheist are on the forum, you have greater faith than I,

It takes just as much faith not to believe than to believe, and hope dare I say.


youtu.be...






Help me cope, with this heavy load
Trying to, touch and reach you with,
heart and soul

Maybe this is just the path you have chosen this time around.

If the sun and the moon should doubt,
They'd immediately go out.

There is "true" Knowledge. Learn thou it is this:
To see one changeless Life in all the Lives,
And in the Separate, One Inseparable.
There is imperfect Knowledge: that which sees
The separate existences apart,
And, being separated, holds them real.
There is false Knowledge: that which blindly clings
To one as if 'twere all, seeking no Cause,
Deprived of light, narrow, and dull, and "dark."

Bhagavad Gita

edit on 093030p://bTuesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
It takes just as much faith not to believe than to believe..



Originally posted by Russell
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


It takes just as much faith not to believe than to believe into Russell's tea pot?
edit on 12-6-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
another I have shared a few times on the forum

‘The Ancient Sage’
By Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809–1892)
www.bartleby.com...

IF thou would’st hear the Nameless, and wilt dive
Into the Temple-cave of thine own self,
There, brooding by the central altar, thou
May’st haply learn the Nameless hath a voice,
By which thou wilt abide, if thou be wise,
As if thou knewest, tho’ thou canst not know;
For Knowledge is the swallow on the lake
That sees and stirs the surface-shadow there
But never yet hath dipt into the abysm,
The Abysm of all Abysms, beneath, within
The blue of sky and sea, the green of earth,
And in the million-millionth of a grain
Which cleft and cleft again for evermore,
And ever vanishing, never vanishes,
To me, my son, more mystic than myself,
Or even than the Nameless is to me.
And when thou sendest thy free soul thro’ heaven,
Nor understandest bound nor boundlessness,
Thou seest the Nameless of the hundred names.
And if the Nameless should withdraw from all
Thy frailty counts most real, all thy world
Might vanish like thy shadow in the dark.

‘And since—from when this earth began—
The Nameless never came
Among us, never spake with man,
And never named the Name’—

Thou canst not prove the Nameless, O my son,
Nor canst thou prove the world thou movest in,
Thou canst not prove that thou art body alone,
Nor canst thou prove that thou art spirit alone,
Nor canst thou prove that thou art both in one:
Thou canst not prove thou art immortal, no
Nor yet that thou art mortal—nay my son,
Thou canst not prove that I, who speak with thee,
Am not thyself in converse with thyself,
For nothing worthy proving can be proven,
Nor yet disproven: wherefore thou be wise,
Cleave ever to the sunnier side of doubt,
And cling to Faith beyond the forms of Faith
She reels not in the storm of warring words,
She brightens at the clash of ‘Yes’ and ‘No’,
She sees the Best that glimmers thro’ the Worst,
She feels the Sun is hid but for a night,
She spies the summer thro’ the winter bud,
She tastes the fruit before the blossom falls,
She hears the lark within the songless egg,
She finds the fountain where they wail’d ‘Mirage’!

She finds the fountain where they wail’d ‘Mirage’!



posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 





Nonetheless, I find the God option infinitely less likely than the natural option,


That's if you believe god isn't natural,





posted on Jun, 12 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


Randomly ascribing ambiguous attributes to a fictional entity adds nothing to the discussion nor weight of your argument.







 
22
<< 13  14  15    17 >>

log in

join