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.

 

What is point in doing science...

page: 7
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by OneManArmy
 



We exist therefore God exists.


In some peoples' heads, sure.


Indeed, it took the rise of consciousness in curious sentient beings to create Gods.
No other animal has the capacity to dream up Gods, but sometimes I wonder what my dog thinks when I turn on a light, drive a car or biuld a fire. He just gives me that look of awe, if you know what I mean.




posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Proving existence of God through your existence is the same as proving Bible being accurate by quoting from the Bible. Do you see faultily in this set of thinking?

It is like using of writings of late Tolkien to prove middle earth exists, as well elves.

Or let's get some other 'historical' accounts, for example Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Even if Troy-an war might have some real battle Greeks encountered, it is by far made into mythology with all mythical beings and God who joined in battle.

And to understand how human mind and standards have changed - this was considered moral and historical win for Greek, while today we read it as an earlier account of genocide.

Do you see where we going with this, with both Bible and Qur'an having many calls for death.

And probably to your surprise, science can't disprove God existence, simply because you can't disprove existence either. Same goes for unicorns, elves and rest of mythical creatures...


edit on 6-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:14 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
reply to post by OneManArmy
 



We exist therefore God exists.


In some peoples' heads, sure.


I BELIEVE gods existence is plainly apparent in the building blocks of the universe.
What you or anyone else believes is your business.
Everyones personal beliefs are their own journey, regardless of what those beliefs may be, as long as they dont adversely affect anyone else. As soon as it starts to adversely affect others then there is a problem.
Every major religion(or rather there "leaders") is guilty of adversely affecting the lives of others, believers and non believers alike.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Proving existence of God through your existence is the same as proving Bible being accurate by quoting from the Bible. Do you see faultily in this set of thinking?

It is like using of writings of late Tolkien to prove middle earth exists, as well elves.

Or let's get some other 'historical' accounts, for example Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. Even if Troy-an war might have some real battle Greeks encountered, it is by far made into mythology with all mythical beings and God who joined in battle.

And to understand how human mind and standards have changed - this was considered moral and historical win for Greek, while today we read it as an earlier account of genocide.

Do you see where we going with this, with both Bible and Qur'an having many calls for death.

And probably to your surprise, science can't disprove God existence, simply because you can't disprove existence either. Same goes for unicorns, elves and rest of mythical creatures...


edit on 6-11-2013 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)


Haha, that was just a soundbite I was saying.
My proof for Gods existence doesnt come from religious texts, it comes from the mathematical way in which the universe operates. It is apparent in the fractals, pi, the golden mean, and the various other constants that define how atoms arrange themselves into enzymes, molecules, cells, it is highly intelligent and the whole "it happened by chance" is a more crazy assumption than it being the result of some kind of intelligence.
What the bible and the quran define God as, is irrelevant to my inner thoughts and internal debates and ponderings.
God to me has many names, but to me God is the supreme architect, the consciousness that thought the universe and it came into being. Consciousness is the one thing all life has in common. To me that is God.
It is proof enough for me, what anyone else thinks is irrelevant to me, as I always come to the same conclusion when I ponder the universe in a rational way.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
And yet you have no proof that those things were 'created' or set up.

What I really can't understand is need for creator. Where that comes from.

And please, let's not go to pure chance...



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 12:54 PM
link   

SuperFrog
And yet you have no proof that those things were 'created' or set up.

What I really can't understand is need for creator. Where that comes from.

And please, let's not go to pure chance...


For me its simple, the universe exists, it came from somewhere.
The way that atoms are constructed and combined is pure intelligence.
The inner workings of the cell in deciphering the DNA/RNA is pure intelligence.
Like I said, its enough for me to believe. What others believe is irrelevant to me.

The proof of intelligence is everywhere. Whether that proves God or not to you isnt my concern, I have no care what you believe, Im not looking for converts to manipulate, I just want to make sense of it all in my own head, and Im just explaining how I come to my conclusions and what I consider proof.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
So just as topic said - there is no point in doing science, as everything is example of intelligent design per you?

Who created your architect? How did architect got into existence?



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


A Type 3 Civilization!!

A video shared by another member:

Dr. Michio Kaku about Future Civilizations
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdILmgJGuvw
www.youtube.com...


Maybe even a Type 4 Civilization!!

Carl Sagan says:

Carl Sagan - Cosmos - Drake Equation
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlikCebQSlY
www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
I'm not sure where it came from, but here is a quote that really hits home here:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as if it were magick"

The events described in nearly all the ancient texts describes what I believe is tales of witnessing advanced technology even by today's standards.

A few hundred years ago if someone made an explosive device they would be considered a "wizard" of sorts that preformed "magick"

A good example of this is in the movie 300, the spartans thought they were fighting magick when the bomb creators were throwing bombs at them.


The fact of the matter is, science is backed by physical evidence and fact, such as experimentation and mathematics. Religion is a conglomeration of biased personal views of stories handed down through the generations, which has the personal touch of the creators' culture, perspectives and ideals. Opinions.

It is my personal belief that religion is nothing more than a mental stress reliever and a cultured guideline for flourishing life.

When one believes they have someone to talk to at all times, someone to assist in their everyday strife, it takes a good portion of their worries off their shoulders and places some of the stress on the shoulders of their personal god. (Which I would NEVER want to take that away from anyone) As well as that religion provides a basic structure to do well by other humans and animals on the planet, where-in science says there is no consequence for such things.



In conclusion:
Science helps us understand the "why" of nature.

Religion helps us understand how to keep a positive balance with that nature. Or at least it is supposed to when heeded.

The two should not be enemies, science and religion, as they serve two different functions that are actually synergistic to one another:

Science is for learning why nature does what it does.

Religion is for understanding our relationship to one another and that nature on a "spiritual" level.



For example: science says you need food to survive. Religion says respect the animal in which you feast, because you are of the same essence. Both are correct, and both are synergistic.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   

SuperFrog
So just as topic said - there is no point in doing science, as everything is example of intelligent design per you?

Who created your architect? How did architect got into existence?


That circular argument doesnt apply, as the universe exists, the universe isnt hypothetical.
Its like asking what created the big bang. And the something from nothing argument.
But yet here is the universe and here we are trying to figure it out. It had a beginning, or it has always been.

"My" architect is an immaterial consciousness that gained self realisation and upon doing so was alone in the void. So that creative consciousness spawned the material(perceived) universe that follows strict rules, like a computer program, so its consciousness could create an illusion of seperation through life and experience its creation to understand itself.

Your question also implies that the laws that rule the immaterial void where the consciousness realised itself follow the same material rules in the 3 dimensional universe we reside in. But the nature of quantum physics doesnt follow the same rules as the general perceived reality, so why should an immaterial realm in which we have no clue as to what rules may govern it.

The universe exists and we exist, consciousness exists, life exists...

From that I assume either it all had a beginning or was eternal. The circular "then who created.....blah blah blah", is null and void.

edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmWed, 06 Nov 2013 15:00:47 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   

OneManArmy
"My" architect is an immaterial consciousness that gained self realisation and upon doing so was alone in the void. So that creative consciousness spawned the material(perceived) universe that follows strict rules, like a computer program, so its consciousness could create an illusion of seperation through life and experience its creation to understand itself.

So, your architect could have self-realisation moment, while laws of physics that you see as proof of intelligent design could not be self-created upon universe creation?!




OneManArmyYour question also implies that the laws that rule the immaterial void where the consciousness realised itself follow the same material rules in the 3 dimensional universe we reside in. But the nature of quantum physics doesnt follow the same rules as the general perceived reality, so why should an immaterial realm in which we have no clue as to what rules may govern it.

Rules are rules, imposed by nature of mater, we learned many of them, still in dark on rest of them, but we are learning, trying to understand them. Applying everything we don't know to unknown intelligence is no different than believing in super being that controls all life on earth, watching every step we make... it is based on pure belief, no observable evidence.


OneManArmyThe universe exists and we exist, consciousness exists, life exists...

Good observation...


OneManArmy
From that I assume either it all had a beginning or was eternal. The circular "then who created.....blah blah blah", is null and void.

From what we know about universe, it had its beginning. Creation argument stays only when superpower is provided outside our own realm to 'create and set' our universe - as that power should have its own creation/start (and one before it) But if universe happened following either big bang or some other theory, there is no what you call circular reference...

Back to topic, why do science if we persume what our answer will be? (in your case belief in intelligent power that created universe)

Don't get me wrong, if there is single evidence in what you are saying, if is observable, I would based on observation acknowledge it. But simply, there is nothing like that... same for proof that unicorns exist.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

SuperFrog
But if universe happened following either big bang or some other theory, there is no what you call circular reference...


Of course there is, what created the big bang?

What was before the big bang?

What created that which created the big bang?, the circular argument applies equally.

The only thing I can conclude is that at some point, and only if there was a beginning, that something that we cannot comprehend or quantify created this universe from nothing or from material we still do not understand.

An eternal universe would not require God, but that doesnt necessarily mean God doesnt exist, especially if the universe is all we can perceive of God.
The laws that govern physics suggest intelligence, what name you wish to give that intelligence doesnt really matter, I call it God, you can call it the universe. It really doesnt change anything, its still intelligence.

Ultimately the universe was spawned from something that we cannot conceive or even begin to understand. I doubt we ever will, until we die and find out if there really is any more to existence than what we can touch, feel, taste, smell, see or measure.

Like Bill Hicks said, "Life is just a ride" What each of us takes from it is purely infinitely subjective, and that is what makes it special and gives it meaning, leading to my conclusion that the universe is just the intelligence I call God experiencing its single self in a disconnected and infinitely subjective way, creating an illusion of separation, almost like a person playing around in their own consciousness of split personalities.

IMO science, mathematics and physics prove to me that the universe is ruled by intelligence, what you take from it is your own subjective reality. Its not my goal to judge your reality, nor impose mine on anyone else, my goal is just to expand my own consciousness and spirituality and contribute to the collective consciousness and its evolution to something fairer more refined and for the betterment of all that exists on this ball of water and rock we call Earth.



Don't get me wrong, if there is single evidence in what you are saying, if is observable, I would based on observation acknowledge it. But simply, there is nothing like that... same for proof that unicorns exist.


There is plenty of evidence for intelligence in the universe. You just need to look at the natural world to see it in all its glory. A clue is the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Mean and aesthetics.
If you wish to find that proof of intelligence you just need to go looking for it. If you open your eyes to actually observe the world instead of the inside a text book, you might find what you are looking for, and then you may not.
What have unicorns got to do with anything?
edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 07 Nov 2013 13:41:51 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Vortiki


"Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as if it were magick"



I would refute that by saying "Any sufficiently advanced technology will appear as if it were born of intelligence"

What that intelligence consists of is open to interpretation.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Wait, from telling me you believe in intelligent mechanics that created universe you came to belief in personal God and life after death?!

I would go with John Stewart on how intelligent design really is...

Complete video...






posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:10 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Wait, from telling me you believe in intelligent mechanics that created universe you came to belief in personal God and life after death?!

I would go with John Stewart on how intelligent design really is...

Complete video...







Now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said I believed in life after death.
I said we wouldnt know until our time comes.
I simply do not know, I can only deduce and make assumptions just like anyone else.

I care not what John Stewart defines intelligent design as. He is a comedian and political commentator.
Hes hardly qualified in physics and philosophy. If you want to base your reality on the sh*t that comes out of a TV then knock yourself out, dont let me stop you.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


So just because he is comedian and comedy-political commentator, he can't have opinion on topic of intelligent design?!

Please, tell me where do you see 'intelligent' form of design on most hurtful part of our body being placed in bags where anyone can hit them with baseball bat.

Yes it is funny way, but design definitely is not intelligent.

And sorry, I just followed my gut that you waiting to see if you were right or wrong... my mistake... I was going from base that so far we don't have evidence that anyone ever came back or was able to tell anyone where he 'moved'... My mistake...



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


so humans can't be copied or genetically altered?
see the theory of evolution and genetics, proves that humans and other lifeforms, can not only be changed genetically, their dna can be recombined, creating something entirely new. so what part of creating humans by copying from an original source sounds unscientific to you? sounds just.like.cloning.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:23 PM
link   

SuperFrog
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


So just because he is comedian and comedy-political commentator, he can't have opinion on topic of intelligent design?!

Of course he can have an opinion, as can anyone else. Whether I find his or anyone elses opinion relevant to me is just like my opinion being relevant to you.




Please, tell me where do you see 'intelligent' form of design on most hurtful part of our body being placed in bags where anyone can hit them with baseball bat.

Yes it is funny way, but design definitely is not intelligent.


Have you ever had toothache, it trumps the pain caused by a kick in the nuts. Besides some people enjoy taking hits in the nuts. One mans pain is another mans pleasure.

When you understand the process that a cell uses to decode the RNA from DNA and works like a small intelligent factory, you might change your mind. And thats just a cell.
When you conclude that DNA is an intelligent design for life, all life, the debate is over.




And sorry, I just followed my gut that you waiting to see if you were right or wrong... my mistake... I was going from base that so far we don't have evidence that anyone ever came back or was able to tell anyone where he 'moved'... My mistake...


Oh so you make assumptions too? lol


edit on 201311America/Chicago11pm11pmThu, 07 Nov 2013 14:27:11 -06001113 by OneManArmy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

undo
reply to post by SuperFrog
 


so humans can't be copied or genetically altered?
see the theory of evolution and genetics, proves that humans and other lifeforms, can not only be changed genetically, their dna can be recombined, creating something entirely new. so what part of creating humans by copying from an original source sounds unscientific to you? sounds just.like.cloning.


Exactly, what is genetic modification but hacking the programming of life.
And programming is inherently intelligent.



posted on Nov, 7 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperFrog
 



SuperFrog
reply to post by OneManArmy
 


Wait, from telling me you believe in intelligent mechanics that created universe you came to belief in personal God and life after death?!

I would go with John Stewart on how intelligent design really is...

Complete video...






You do that. Base the Universe on what Jon Stuart says?...

edit on 7-11-2013 by AbleEndangered because: added Question mark




top topics



 
11
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join