It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
As with the idea of "causality". 225 years ago David Hume advanced an argument against its existence that stands undefeated to this day and yet we all know that causality exists. How do we know? Noam Chomsky of MIT who is the preeminent expert on philosophy of language has a proposition called the " Poverty of The Stimulus" in which Chomsky ( an avowed atheist) concludes that at any given point in the development of an individual, that person "knows" more about language than he could possibly have learned. And his conclusions don't change from Swahili to Chinese to American English etc. In essence he is stating that there is an innate capacity for imposing a linguistic order on our thoughts and experiences. That is similar to Kants Transcendental Idealism in which we impose an order on reality that we cant really justify empirically or rationally but that we all understand and use. [sic]Personally I think its the imageo dei in us...
They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.
For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.
Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.
Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .
“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”
I just want to know where DNA came from?
It is encoded, right?
Who wrote that code?
Gone are the days, when this group could point to the rains and draughts as evidence of their god's pleasure or wrath. Gone are the days, when they could point to the nightly dance of the heavenly bodies or the life and death rivalry of the sun and moon. Gone are the days that they could point to monsoon and earthquake as signs of their god's judgement.
Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by intrptr
Ok, so your preferred "terminology" is "blueprint". Who drew up the first plans?
Way to ignore the rest of that post.
Your parents "drew up the plan" together when they decided to make you exist.
~ Wandering Scribe
"Two people return to their long neglected garden and find, among the weeds, that a few of the old plants are surprisingly vigorous. One says to the other, 'It must be that a gardener has been coming and doing something about these weeds.' The other disagrees and an argument ensues. They pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. The believer wonders if there is an invisible gardener, so they patrol with bloodhounds but the bloodhounds never give a cry. Yet the believer remains unconvinced, and insists that the gardener is invisible, has no scent and gives no sound. The skeptic doesn't agree, and asks how a so-called invisible, intangible, elusive gardener differs from an imaginary gardener, or even no gardener at all."