The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by grainofsand
 



Still no evidence of any gods doing it though so I remain equally unconvinced by the faith based inteligent design idea.


What makes you think intelligent design is based on faith? You think that all of physical reality just came together that way? An explosion into a space that never existed before suddenly yielding matter and laws of physics that happen to make every piece fit just right. And then grow life out of the primordial soup of elements, when it would have been so easy to knock everything off balance and grow a new Mars instead of an Earth. Is that what you believe? Just random chance, again and again and again and again, never losing a single coin toss out of a hundred...from something completely unorganized? I mean, we're assuming atoms are unintelligent, right?

You don't know what did it. Great. That's fine. But don't insult the rest of us by suggesting that intelligent design is absent from the formation of this world. When all the math has been completed, processes, analyzed, and concluded, it's undeniable. There's a distinct element to the design of this reality that suggests an intent to it. The same way your measurements of a house reveal a hidden room. There's some level of AI somewhere in all this.




so what you're saying is....any action in this universe that humans observe was done by intelligent design, the modern name for god. this is not new, this is the same "faith" dogma that has existed for millenia, you just put a modern "lipstick" on this old pig.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by iSHRED
Heard a man by the name of Dr. Jeffress on the radio today. He wrote a book called "How Can I Know"

This link has the two parts of his talk on the subject of how there is no other option in the universe but intelligent design.

THE LINK

Whether you believe in God or not I encourage you to listen to it.



Those who are not of the seed of God will never believe, try as you may. Even if they could see the truth they will simply refuse it. Those who are of the light come to the light, and those who are of the darkness will stay away and deny the light.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by iSHRED
Heard a man by the name of Dr. Jeffress on the radio today. He wrote a book called "How Can I Know"

This link has the two parts of his talk on the subject of how there is no other option in the universe but intelligent design.

THE LINK

Whether you believe in God or not I encourage you to listen to it.



Those who are not of the seed of God will never believe, try as you may. Even if they could see the truth they will simply refuse it. Those who are of the light come to the light, and those who are of the darkness will stay away and deny the light.


uhmm.... yes, they will believe when they see some type of proof. and to say they will refuse to see it, even when it is shown to be true, is religous nonsense to make non-believers seem as if they are stupid, and worthy of being ignored.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 




Those who are not of the seed of God will never believe, try as you may. Even if they could see the truth they will simply refuse it. Those who are of the light come to the light, and those who are of the darkness will stay away and deny the light.


Those who are truly of the light will not judge those of the dark, for they understand those of the dark and sympathize for the difficulties that have lead to such weakness. To judge is not of the light. Light is simply the evolution of the dark, and so light must guide the dark instead of condemning it. How else are they to make use of their vision? They share it with those whose vision is darkened. Your resignation is highly unbecoming of the light.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by homeskillet
reply to post by vasaga
 


that video does nothing to explain further the supposed list of dogmas. i guess you'll have to buy his book to get a more in depth analysis.
I read the book, and I personally loved it. It has good reviews in general, so it's worth a look. But you can also watch this seminar, which is a more in-depth explanation.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by rodredux
I see it this way. The universe seems to have a dual nature. Everything seems to have an opposite. Light/dark. Fast/slow. Hot/cold. Yes/no. Matter/antimatter. Etc. So why then would the mechanistic properties of reality (the laws of physics) not have a "supernatural" opposite. Science/anti-science. How would we recognize something as existing without its opposite with which to identify it by comparison? Hot is a meaningless concept without cold. Yet I am supposed to believe that the mechanistic rules of the universe stand alone? Miracles, souls, esp, dreams, and yes, even God, are just as real as E=MC2, quarks, gravity and entropy. You cannot prove them because it is not in their nature to be provable things.


The comparative tendencies of human intellect is what's limited.

Not the universe. The universe cares not for the state of human incapacity.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SplitInfinity
reply to post by vasaga
 


Evolution is a FACT and has been so for some time. There is no possible way to disprove it as it is reality. All life is encoded with the same Viral DNA that had infected the very first Single Celled Organizm. This is 100% Proof Positive.

A Virus is NOT a living thing and it is an example of how something can have DNA and not be a life form. A Virus is just a step below a Living Organizm and is an example of Evolution.

Split Infinity


I had to think about this, I am stumped by it, mental gridlock of sorts of which never happens to me.


What considers an organism a living thing?
A brain?
Movement? (no, tree's don't move on their own other than growing)

A virus is not a life form?
What about bacteria?

Are you sure about this?



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   
God is the root of human existence without god all we have is evolution but even that has a little bit of god in it.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Toadmund
 


Hi Toadmund.

It's true that viruses are not considered to alive. They're more like genetic robots.........?


What are viruses?
Viruses can not reproduce by themselves like bacteria or cells. They must attach themselves to the cell membrane of animals, or cell wall of plants and inject a part of their DNA into the cells of the host organism.. They do this by using a hollow tube structure to puncture the cell wall/membrane and pass its DNA into the cell. New virus cells are incubated inside the invaded cell. Once the virus DNA reproduces itself inside the cell, it uses the natural process of osmosis to leave the cell. These new virus cells attach to other healthy cells and infect them too.

Viruses are non-living microscopic particles that attack healthy cells within living things. They do not have the characteristics of living things and are not able to metabolize food. To metabolize means to change food energy into chemical energy that the body can use. Viruses are not alive, so they do not have a need for food like living oganisms. Viruses do not have an organized cell structure. They are so light that they can float in the air or water, be passed on to other organisims if touched, and fit anywhere. The virus injects its own DNA structure into healthy cells where new virus cells grow.
library.thinkquest.org...




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by grainofsand
 



Still no evidence of any gods doing it though so I remain equally unconvinced by the faith based inteligent design idea.
What makes you think intelligent design is based on faith?

The fact that it is unable to be proven absolutely. It therefore remains a position of faith.


You think that all of physical reality just came together that way? An explosion into a space that never existed before suddenly yielding matter and laws of physics that happen to make every piece fit just right. And then grow life out of the primordial soup of elements, when it would have been so easy to knock everything off balance and grow a new Mars instead of an Earth. Is that what you believe? Just random chance, again and again and again and again, never losing a single coin toss out of a hundred...from something completely unorganized? I mean, we're assuming atoms are unintelligent, right?

I make no assertions, I just remind those who do that their claims remain unproven and a faith based position.
As yet there has been no worldwide paradigm shift regarding evidence of gods so it remains up to those who claim 'there are gods' on ATS to shoulder the burden of proof.
You will note as in all of my posts here, I do not claim 'there are no gods'.


You don't know what did it. Great. That's fine.

Neither do you. Great. Thats fine. I support your right to hold a belief though.


But don't insult the rest of us by suggesting that intelligent design is absent from the formation of this world. When all the math has been completed, processes, analyzed, and concluded, it's undeniable.

No, it's a faith based theory and again, I support your right to hold that belief.


There's a distinct element to the design of this reality that suggests an intent to it.

Suggestions are not definitive proof.


The same way your measurements of a house reveal a hidden room. There's some level of AI somewhere in all this.

Again, faith based assertions presented as fact, no matter how much you believe you hold the definitive proof, it remains a belief in a theory, nothing more.




posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


my analogy was to say that crazy high odds still happen in general. of course there are lots of factors. basically the laws of physics. if you want to say god made the physical and quantum laws of the universe then fine. but i seriously doubt that it was a conscience effort and if so there is no physical proof for it.
also, atoms have rules that they can't break but have no decision in the matter. they do not have conscience in the sense you seem to be implying. if i poured water on the ground with a slight decline to the left, thats where the water would go. "it" has no choice. water and all matter is bound by the laws of physics. a lot of new-agers love the "microcosm is the same as the macrocosm" saying but usually look at it from the wrong direction. we are the result, not the beginning.

and i'm not going to get into the whole entropy conversation with you again.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by vasaga
Still having a blind faith in science aren't you?
Still clinging on to logical fallacies that have nothing to do with science I see! Still don't understand the very basics of science, I see.


That nature is mechanical.
by definition it's NOT. Science doesn't claim that, articles might have used it as a metaphor, but can you provide the scientific paper that addresses this?


That matter is unconscious.
Really? You do realize that people are composed of MATTER, right? Science claims no such thing.


The laws of nature are fixed.
You have evidence of them changing? If they weren't fixed, life would have been destroyed millions of years ago.


The totally amount of matter and energy are always the same.
Look up thermodynamics. It's a LAW. Matter = energy, so yearh, they are always the same
Energy isn't created or destroyed, it changes forms. Science 101 right there.


That nature is purposeless.
Please quote me the scientific study on that one. K thanks.


Biological inheritance is material.
Um. What? Source please


That memories are stored as material traces.
Um. What? Source please.


The mind is in the brain.
You have evidence to suggest it is located outside of the body? You do realize that we know a LOT about how the brain functions. We can see the process where thoughts are stored and has observed neural activity. It's pretty obvious the mind is in the brain.
By mind, do you mean soul... ie the thing that can't even be proven to exist?


Telepathy and other psychic phenomena are illusory.

These get funnier and funnier. Neither of those phenomena can be proven to be real. None of it. Start with that before claiming that science says that. Quote the paper that says it please.


Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.
Um. What? Source please.

Vasaga, stop joking yourself, man. You quote speculative articles with a pre disposition to your world view so you think it's true. Not a single point in there is dogmatic. They are either A. proven or B. not claimed by science. Nice try. If only you'd provide tangible real sources to these alleged science claims.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



by definition it's NOT. Science doesn't claim that, articles might have used it as a metaphor, but can you provide the scientific paper that addresses this?


Nature IS mechanical. Anything that is not mechanical is unorganized, and anything that is unorganized is inefficient. Enter low immune response, malnutrition, poor motor functions, etc etc. Essentially, to not be mechanical is to drastically increase chances of disease, injury, even death. This lowers the likelihood of procreation, resulting in the endangerment and eventual extinction of nonmechanical nature. It's called "biomechanics". If you need further examples, we are able to recreate biological functions using machines.

I should say that settles the matter.


You have evidence to suggest it is located outside of the body? You do realize that we know a LOT about how the brain functions. We can see the process where thoughts are stored and has observed neural activity. It's pretty obvious the mind is in the brain. By mind, do you mean soul... ie the thing that can't even be proven to exist?


Actually, scientists have not yet successfully located the mind. The brain is a material expression of the mind's activities, but the mind itself remains a mystery.

Other than that, good post.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
And if there's 50 girls instead of just one, and they've all rejected your pleas for a date 10 billion times, and then suddenly they are all asking you out, you would wonder about it. No one ever said the universal odds were just one gamble. It was many, many gambles, all with the same odds, and all of them came out on top.

FALSE. That's not even close to the same thing. So far we have only ONE known planet that has developed life. ONE. not 50. You don't need it to happen 100% of the time. That's absurd and only shows you don't really understand probability. The universe is huge, it's bound to happen somewhere when you've literally got 100 billion+ rolls of the dice. That many rolls, you're bound to hit that 1 in 1 billion chance 100 times over. You still haven't proved anything about those odds. Creationist websites don't over ride odds that are impossible to calculate without complete knowledge of the universe... but you seem to know this.


When you take entropy, or the 2nd law of thermodynamics into consideration, it is nothing short of astounding to think that a random explosion of unintelligent atoms managed to arrange itself not only in a perfectly choreographed dance of the celestial bodies, but managed to cultivate life forms. And not just life forms...but life forms able to question the nature of the star dust from which they came. All despite entropy, despite hellish odds.

Clearly you have studied the laws of thermodynamics and didn't just get your info from creationist type sites, right???
Please explain the 1st law of thermodynamics. It is nothing short of astounding to think that a random intelligent force just happens to exist and predate everything in the entire universe and is capable of intelligently arranging the universe, creating life and all those other things you mentioned.... despite entropy and ridiculous odds AND thermodynamics that goes against it. Why doesn't entropy apply to your magical force? Why is there no evidence whatsoever to suggest this "force" exists?
at hellish odds. You don't even know the odds, you are guessing / rehashing somebody's OPINION.


That's not chance. That's desigon. Not a conscious superpowerful overlord - but definitely a divine principle, a law. Something written in the very fabric of existence. Some fundamental property of energy...

And who wrote this? If something is written, it needs a writer. Where did this force come from? You can't just say, "oh it was written into the fabric of existence". You can't even prove it exists, it's just your guess.


What makes you think intelligent design is based on faith?

There is no objective evidence to suggest it. It's all opinion based on how the universe APPEARS to YOU. Therefor faith is necessary to make that leap of logic.


You think that all of physical reality just came together that way?

You may want to research this force known as gravity. You think that all physical reality is the result of a magical designing force?


An explosion into a space that never existed before suddenly yielding matter and laws of physics that happen to make every piece fit just right.

Um, you may want to research the big bang. It doesn't claim that the matter never existed. It claims that it was condensed and expanded.


And then grow life out of the primordial soup of elements, when it would have been so easy to knock everything off balance and grow a new Mars instead of an Earth. Is that what you believe?

Grow a new mars instead of earth? What in the high heavens are you rambling about now? The universe is huge, and there are tons of planets / solar systems devoid of any life whatsoever. You are appealing to odds that you cannot even verify. Again, even if you have a 1 in a billion chance of something, and you roll the dice 100 billion times, the chance of it happening is actually INEVITABLE and will happen 100 times over.


You don't know what did it. Great. That's fine. But don't insult the rest of us by suggesting that intelligent design is absent from the formation of this world.

I don't know what exactly caused the big bang, and last I checked neither do you. Don't insult us by suggesting that ID has any objective evidence behind it. Intelligent design IS absent because pretty much everything on earth can be explained by natural causes, and just because there may be some things we don't understand yet, doesn't mean there's a magical creating force in the universe.


When all the math has been completed, processes, analyzed, and concluded, it's undeniable. There's a distinct element to the design of this reality that suggests an intent to it. The same way your measurements of a house reveal a hidden room. There's some level of AI somewhere in all this.
Why is 99.9% of the universe incapable of supporting life if there really is this magic intelligent force that organizes things and makes life? You really how little sense that makes? If that's your personal opinion, I'm cool with that but you are acting like it's undeniable, which is completely wrong. It's easy to deny it because the evidence is circumstantial and is based on what we do not yet know.
edit on 11-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fromabove

Originally posted by iSHRED
Heard a man by the name of Dr. Jeffress on the radio today. He wrote a book called "How Can I Know"

This link has the two parts of his talk on the subject of how there is no other option in the universe but intelligent design.

THE LINK

Whether you believe in God or not I encourage you to listen to it.



Those who are not of the seed of God will never believe, try as you may. Even if they could see the truth they will simply refuse it. Those who are of the light come to the light, and those who are of the darkness will stay away and deny the light.


Ah, the typical, "all atheists are evil" drivel. No need to insult people because they don't buy into your worldview. All I'm asking for is for god to acknowledge his presence to me. If that is really too difficult for an all powerful being, then I don't want any part of this blind faith.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



FALSE. That's not even close to the same thing. So far we have only ONE known planet that has developed life. ONE. not 50. You don't need it to happen 100% of the time. That's absurd and only shows you don't really understand probability. The universe is huge, it's bound to happen somewhere when you've literally got 100 billion+ rolls of the dice. That many rolls, you're bound to hit that 1 in 1 billion chance 100 times over. You still haven't proved anything about those odds. Creationist websites don't over ride odds that are impossible to calculate without complete knowledge of the universe... but you seem to know this.


You raise a good point. But let's assume that, for the sake of comprehensible discussion, this universe had a 1 in 500 quintillion (that's 1/500,000,000,000,000,000,000) chance of happening exactly as it is today. So for every 500 quintillion Big Bangs, only one succeeded in creating this earth. Additionally, it was a staggered gamble. As in 1,000 tosses with the odds demonstrated above. So 1,000 tosses had to yield the exact winning number picked out from a multiquintillion digit range. Each - and - every - time. So we're not just talking about a single lucky toss. We're talking about multiple lucky tosses with the same odds every time.

I know, I know. That means it still has a chance. But you know, if you have that kind of faith, then I'm surprised you can afford an internet connection with that gambling habit.


Clearly you have studied the laws of thermodynamics and didn't just get your info from creationist type sites, right??? Please explain the 1st law of thermodynamics.


Eh, no. I actually saw it recently mentioned on an atheism page, believe it or not. The first law of thermodynamics says nothing about a change in energy. And as we all should know, change in energy can yield some interesting results. You know, a shift in the balance?


It is nothing short of astounding to think that a random intelligent force just happens to exist and predate everything in the entire universe and is capable of intelligently arranging the universe, creating life and all those other things you mentioned....


And your intelligent rebuttal is that it all happened randomly. That watch theory does hold some weight, because as much as ATSers may ridicule it, I have not seen any of them provide evidence proving that an exploded watch can reassemble itself in the aftermath of said explosion. And produce the energy required to operate it. By itself.


despite entropy and ridiculous odds AND thermodynamics that goes against it. Why doesn't entropy apply to your magical force? Why is there no evidence whatsoever to suggest this "force" exists? at hellish odds. You don't even know the odds, you are guessing / rehashing somebody's OPINION.


There IS evidence to suggest it exists. Try any number of search engines, type in "evidence of cosmic evidence" and cherry pick your way to a skeptic's heaven. Opinion? Then please, show me your math. I can see all these arguments, and yet not one bit of evidence to prove my case wrong.

It's your turn to substantiate.


And who wrote this? If something is written, it needs a writer. Where did this force come from? You can't just say, "oh it was written into the fabric of existence". You can't even prove it exists, it's just your guess.


Oh yes. I am speculating. And yet, as hard as you might bluster, you have not provided much argument against my theories.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Nature IS mechanical. Anything that is not mechanical is unorganized, and anything that is unorganized is inefficient. Enter low immune response, malnutrition, poor motor functions, etc etc. Essentially, to not be mechanical is to drastically increase chances of disease, injury, even death. This lowers the likelihood of procreation, resulting in the endangerment and eventual extinction of nonmechanical nature. It's called "biomechanics". If you need further examples, we are able to recreate biological functions using machines.

They are using the layman's version of mechanical, which is metaphor for being "like a machine". But "like a machine" does not mean "is a machine". Machines are created. The body is like a machine, but it's not one. Machines need maintenance and part replacement. They don't age, reproduce or have a brain. They have design manuals and the design can be tweaked or upgraded. This is not the case with the human body, the solar system or whatever other moving thing in the universe you want to call a machine. But again, Vasaga claimed that "Nature is mechanical" is a dogma that science follows and you went against him so I can dig that.



Actually, scientists have not yet successfully located the mind. The brain is a material expression of the mind's activities, but the mind itself remains a mystery.


Please define the "mind". I don't really understand what that means.
edit on 11-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
You raise a good point. But let's assume that, for the sake of comprehensible discussion, this universe had a 1 in 500 quintillion (that's 1/500,000,000,000,000,000,000) chance of happening exactly as it is today. So for every 500 quintillion Big Bangs, only one succeeded in creating this earth. Additionally, it was a staggered gamble. As in 1,000 tosses with the odds demonstrated above. So 1,000 tosses had to yield the exact winning number picked out from a multiquintillion digit range. Each - and - every - time. So we're not just talking about a single lucky toss. We're talking about multiple lucky tosses with the same odds every time.

I know, I know. That means it still has a chance. But you know, if you have that kind of faith, then I'm surprised you can afford an internet connection with that gambling habit.


We could go back and forth on this all day. When the dice roll that many times, life becomes an inevitability, not a rare occurrence, at least when looking at the universe as a whole. It may be rare in it's respective section of the universe, but based on the vastness and amount of stars and galaxies there are, and the fact that the universal forces are constant, it might not be rare at all. If it turns out that we are the only planet with life in the universe, then yeah, I'd agree that the chances are incredibly rare and there might be more to the puzzle. At this point, your guess is as good as mine. I'd rather just wait and see what science has to say after more work is done. I plead the 5th when it comes to god/creator/intelligent force. I don't know the answer and I'm not afraid to admit it.


Eh, no. I actually saw it recently mentioned on an atheism page, believe it or not. The first law of thermodynamics says nothing about a change in energy. And as we all should know, change in energy can yield some interesting results. You know, a shift in the balance?
Maybe I should get into the Jedi religion.


And your intelligent rebuttal is that it all happened randomly.

My rebuttal is that it happened NATURALLY, not randomly. Again, you can't explain the existence of a universal force that randomly exists. How do you explain the origin of this force without randomness? Either the force was created or it just happens to be there. See, you can use the same exact arguments against it that you can use for it.


That watch theory does hold some weight, because as much as ATSers may ridicule it, I have not seen any of them provide evidence proving that an exploded watch can reassemble itself in the aftermath of said explosion. And produce the energy required to operate it. By itself.

The theory is absurd because the watch is designed by a human being and we know it. Why would anybody logically assume that destroying it would make it come back together as whole? The big bang didn't explode and then reassemble itself into exactly what it was before, and it's not a literal explosion, it's an expansion. People mix that up because of the term "big bang". The watchmaker theory is bogus because it doesn't work unless you ASSUME that the earth was designed, or that life was designed. They say a creation needs a creator, but first you need to prove it's a creation before assuming that.


There IS evidence to suggest it exists. Try any number of search engines, type in "evidence of cosmic evidence" and cherry pick your way to a skeptic's heaven. Opinion? Then please, show me your math. I can see all these arguments, and yet not one bit of evidence to prove my case wrong.


I looked at that before when you posted it and checked the first result. It wasn't a scientific site. The evidence is all subjective and I don't have time to go threw dozens of results to find the one you are talking about with the evidence that scientist have allegedly found. My point was that you need complete knowledge of the universe to even begin to develop a formula for the probability of life. Life could exist inside the cores of every planet in the universe, but we simply don't know. I can't prove your case wrong, but likewise you can't prove it correct. It's based on personal opinion and not objective evidence. That was my point.



Oh yes. I am speculating. And yet, as hard as you might bluster, you have not provided much argument against my theories.
The only thing I'm saying about your theories is that they are faith based. That's fine with me, I just try to keep people honest when they claim there is evidence of something when there really isn't anything tangible or objective. You are definitely welcome to believe in the force. You might be right, who knows. I just haven't seen the evidence. You may not think so, but I'm very open minded about potential things. I ponder it all the time, but as far as accepting something as truth or fact, I need the evidence first.
edit on 11-1-2013 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Watch this, then we'll talk. And I hope you realize, that your ridiculing attitude only enforces the perspective of those premises being dogmas.
edit on 11-1-2013 by vasaga because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by rodredux
 



I see it this way. The universe seems to have a dual nature. Everything seems to have an opposite. Light/dark. Fast/slow. Hot/cold. Yes/no. Matter/antimatter. Etc. So why then would the mechanistic properties of reality (the laws of physics) not have a "supernatural" opposite. Science/anti-science. How would we recognize something as existing without its opposite with which to identify it by comparison? Hot is a meaningless concept without cold. Yet I am supposed to believe that the mechanistic rules of the universe stand alone? Miracles, souls, esp, dreams, and yes, even God, are just as real as E=MC2, quarks, gravity and entropy. You cannot prove them because it is not in their nature to be provable things.

This dichotomy you suggest is a human construct. For example, light/dark. Why not light, dim, dark? How about fast/slow. Why not fast slow stopped? Is hot a meaningless concept without cold? Depends on how you define things. If I started from absolute zero, then everything is hot. There is no instance known in which absolute zero is reached. Depending on the starting point everything can be considered hot or cold.

In such a poorly defined system your claim of god might or might not exist depending on the starting point. It seems to me that you could end up claiming a mouse is a god to a stone.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join