It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
Ignorance, stupidity, disbelief... there could be a thousand different reasons.
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
Do you want some specific observable phenomena? I would tell you to take a look at literally anything in the universe, but I assume that that wouldn't be enough for you either.
Yes. Specific observable phenomena would be the very FIRST place to start. Let me look at the glass of whisky sitting next to me on my desk.
How does it's existence point to your Intelligent First Cause?
Ordinary and extraordinary are subjective terms. For the Sng'oi of Malaysia, it's ordinary to have a conversation with the jungle. But to you it's extraordinary. Who is right? Who is wrong? Please don't point to "Science" and use that as your authoritative arbiter of right and wrong. Therefore the terms 'extraordinary' and 'ordinary' are unfit to use in debate. Carl never seemed to get that. I don't even believe in the supernatural, but my definition of natural encompasses a lot that other people consider to be supernatural.
Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by HarryTZ
Argument from ignorance....Argument from complexity.... blah blah blah blah...
You should do a bit of research on why you shouldn't use such poor arguments. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
There was a gentleman (I assume he was male) that retorted, in a reply to the first section of the OP:
Not if this universe is one of the longer-lasting failures in an infinite series of failures.[...]
Originally posted by seamus
"success" and "failure" are only relevant to the intent. Since it's impossible to Know the intent of a posited Creator, it is useless and distracting to bother with "success" and "failure" in this context.
Originally posted by S3rvoV3ritas
Originally posted by HarryTZ
I am a bit familiar with superstring theory, however I have no desire to look too deeply into a thing that cannot truly be comprehended.
Says the guy who is arguing for the existence of "God".
Sorry buddy I have no desire to look any further into this post than page one simply from this one claim alone. You have no desire to educate yourself because you admit you cannot fully comprehend the subject, yet here you are trying to prove the existence of "God". If God did exist (I am atheist btw) then you would not be able to comprehend him because he is such a "perfect" being.
You just shot yourself in the foot.
Actually you shot yourself in the foot, fell down then shot your other foot.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by Liquesence
I am not trying to understand god, I am simply pointing to god's existence. There is a difference.
Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee
Originally posted by HarryTZ
Ignorance, stupidity, disbelief... there could be a thousand different reasons.
Ah, and here we have the crux of it.
You see yourself as 'better' because you have figured it all out when others can't see it.
You have -zero- empirical evidence and prop yourself up with superstition because -you- are too ignorant or stupid (to use your words), as evidenced by your unwillingness to even entertain M theory, to wrap your head around the same complex calculations that come from God.
The creator is infinite in an infinitude of infinitely diverse aspects. It is, literally, the unmanifest potential of infinite intelligence.
The universe is not more complex than the creator (the Absolute), it is simply the manifestation of the infinite complexity.
So 'before' the Big Bang, there was just the beingness of timeless infinite consciousness... Do not try to comprehend this... You may, however, experience it. This we call Nirvana.
Astyanax:
We see no effects in the universe that would lead us to suppose they were caused by a god.
HarryTZ
Except the fact that something as complex as 'dark matter' even exists. You are asking for proof and I tell you, look at the universe! Look at its splendor and its beauty! But that is not and cannot be satisfactory to you...
Even the smallest of subatomic particles must be defined with infinite specificality for it to exist in the midst of a void.
If a certain combination of elements is able to generate a certain effect, it is because the entire system of mathematical relations and proportions that modeled and determined this possibility preceded from eternity its manifestation.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
While it cannot be proved, it is, which now should be obvious, the only logical explanation.
Had the fundamental mathematics been different, something ELSE would be in my glass, not whisky.
It is a curious fact, and one to which no one knows quite how much importance to attach, that something like 85% of all known worlds in the Galaxy, be they primitive or highly advanced, have invented a drink called jynnan tonnyx, or gee-N'N-T'N-ix, or jinond-o-nicks, or any one of a thousand or more variations on the same phonetic theme. The drinks themselves are not the same, and vary between the Sivolvian 'chinanto/mnigs' which is ordinary water served at slightly above room temperature, and the Gagrakackan 'tzjin-anthony-ks' which kill cows at a hundred paces; and in fact the one common factor between all of them, beyond the fact that the names sound the same, is that they were all invented and named before the worlds concerned made contact with any other worlds.
What can be made of this fact? It exists in total isolation. As far as any theory of structural linguistics is concerned it is right off the graph, and yet it persists. Old structural linguists get very angry when young structural linguists go on about it. Young structural linguists get deeply excited about it and stay up late at night convinced that they are very close to something of profound importance, and end up becoming old structural linguists before their time, getting very angry with the young ones. Structural linguistics is a bitterly divided and unhappy discipline, and a large number of its practitioners spend too many nights drowning their problems in Ouisghian Zodahs.
– Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Originally posted by winofiend
If the complexity of everything is beyond our comprehension, yet we willing then bring in god as the answer for it all, leaving it at that and enjoying our ability to ignore facts if it's too hard to bother, then it still falls over at a crucial point of the entire thing.
Who made god.
"Universe, big bang? Impossible, Too complex. God did it."
"Who made god? "
"Oh don't ask such silly questions, it's rude and god won't like it."
So we either have gods creating gods creating gods creating everything. Or we have that thing we cannot know.
It's funny that god has only existed as long as humans have. And even less so in the form that he is accepted generally now, by the major religions.
He must have been really bored for the billions of years after he flicked a switch and said "Let there be ignorance."
Originally posted by Power_Semi
Trying to talk about science and bringing God into the equation is a contradiction in terms.
Originally posted by HarryTZ
Originally posted by Power_Semi
Trying to talk about science and bringing God into the equation is a contradiction in terms.
So god can't have anything to do with science? That simply does not make sense, for obvious reasons.
Originally posted by Power_Semi
This is the Human response to things it cannot understand - it must be some unseen force whether it's God, ghosts, demons, or aliens - the attempt to rationalise the unknown with a superior being.
The universe, how it works, the maths, everything - none of it infers or requires a God
Originally posted by HarryTZ
The universe, how it works, the maths, everything - none of it infers or requires a God
So baseless, infinitely complex math can 'just exist' for 'no reason' other than it being there? If that's not utterly irrational, I don't know what is...edit on 26-5-2013 by HarryTZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by squiz
Originally posted by NorEaster
Quantum physics isn't just some other guy's research. Seriously. Max Planck and Albert Einstein debunked infinity. I didn't.
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."
Max Planck - The Nature of Matter speech 1944