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.

 

A polite clarification regarding singularities and the common mistake repeated by creationists.....

page: 2
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:03 PM
link   
So.. basically we're reducing something we know a little about to something we know nothing about and saying, "God didn't do it". Is that about the size of it?




posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   
The only ones saying "God didn't do it" are just saying that to counter the "God did it" crowd. In reality, at this time, there is no evidence to support that God did anything because there is no evidence that God even exists. There is no evidence to support that he did not do it either, but proving a negative is a complete waste of time and energy. There is no difference between saying "God didn't create the universe" or "Pink unicorns didn't create the universe". Two nonexistent beings who did not do something because they don't exist. The funny thing is that everyone will easily concede that pink unicorns didn't create the universe, yet many will argue when someone claims the exact same thing about God. What is the difference?

With the absence of evidence to support God, humanity is going to attempt to answer the question the only way we know how, figuring it out little by little. We don't know how the universe was created. We have some good evidence that's indicative of certain theories, but there is no way to tell for sure at this time. The most likely answer will always be the answer with the most evidence and the answer with the most evidence is always subject to change as more evidence is obtained. There are no lies or assumptions in the process***, just a slow, but steady, process of obtaining tiny bits of fact that will eventually grow in to the truth.

(***With the exception of theoretical models but any theoretic assumptions are always based off of evidence and the model will remain theoretical until supporting evidence is obtained)

Anybody who claims otherwise is not being honest, or truthful. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Anybody claiming something as fact, that is not a fact is being dishonest.

DC



posted on Jan, 10 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

xDeadcowx
The funny thing is that everyone will easily concede that pink unicorns didn't create the universe, yet many will argue when someone claims the exact same thing about God. What is the difference?


Well for starters, I won't concede that pink unicorns didn't create the universe. I think maybe they did! Secondly, people have been experiencing God, with form or without form, for millennia. Inside every religion is a mystical tradition, and every mystical tradition shares a goal. Union with God. Before death.

I've been blessed with a taste of that, and I can assure you God is very real. As real as the center of your psyche.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 03:13 AM
link   

BlueMule
So.. basically we're reducing something we know a little about to something we know nothing about and saying, "God didn't do it". Is that about the size of it?


Using God to explain anything is a cop out. It's untestable, it makes no puseful predictions, there's no evidence for it and it doesn't in any way expand out understanding of anything. It may be philosophically pleasing for those who wish to stay within the comforting confines of ignorance but if everyone took that attitude we'd still be living in caves.


Secondly, people have been experiencing God, with form or without form, for millennia. Inside every religion is a mystical tradition, and every mystical tradition shares a goal. Union with God. Before death.

I've been blessed with a taste of that, and I can assure you God is very real. As real as the center of your psyche.


Which god? There are literally thousands to choose from. Catching all experiences under one umbrella and declaring them all the same universal experience that just happens to be your personal God doesn't prove anything except your willingness to validate your faith through faulty logic. I could equally say that these experiences are all evidence of The Great Cthulhu. People have been experiencing all sorts of non-existent phenomena for millennia because it's comforting for them but that doesn't lend it any weight with regards to actually being real.
edit on 11-1-2014 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   

GetHyped

BlueMule
So.. basically we're reducing something we know a little about to something we know nothing about and saying, "God didn't do it". Is that about the size of it?


Using God to explain anything is a cop out. It's untestable, it makes no puseful predictions, there's no evidence for it and it doesn't in any way expand out understanding of anything. It may be philosophically pleasing for those who wish to stay within the comforting confines of ignorance but if everyone took that attitude we'd still be living in caves.


The science narrative is about facts and explaining and feeling smart. The religion narrative is more about putting the psyche in a posture that is conducive to the experience of God, not about mere facts.


Which god? There are literally thousands to choose from.


Yes, there thousands of symbolic forms in world religion and myth. You can choose from among the forms, or you can experience God without form. For each psychological type there is a way.


Catching all experiences under one umbrella and declaring them all the same universal experience that just happens to be your personal God doesn't prove anything except your willingness to validate your faith through faulty logic.


I don't have faith, I have experience.


I could equally say that these experiences are all evidence of The Great Cthulhu.


Go right ahead, I won't object.


People have been experiencing all sorts of non-existent phenomena for millennia because it's comforting for them but that doesn't lend it any weight with regards to actually being real


You're begging the question and flaunting your ignorance of comparative mysticism, comparative religion, comparative mythology, and of course parapsychology. I don't usually waste time debating with people who lack such vital background knowledge. Which is pretty much every atheist.


edit on 11-1-2014 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   

swanne
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


What existed before the Singularity?

No one can answer that.


edit on 10-1-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)


Exactly.

Scientifical its all speculation. Any therory is just basicaly no diffrent from faith.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:24 AM
link   

PerfectAnomoly
reply to post by swanne
 


Well... logic would suggest that another universe existed prior to the forming of the singularity that spewed forth our own universe...



PA



And that Universe came from?

Its all speculation. Saying another universe spawned us is no diffrent from saying God did it.

Fact is we dont know so any therory be it Random Chance or God is Faith. End of.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:27 AM
link   

GetHyped

Who knows? That doesn't mean that God is a valid substitution, though.

Well yes it does. Without any evidence either way A creator is no more valid or invalid to any other theroy.

GetHyped
Saying "we don't know" isn't a religious statement or one of faith, no matter how hard you try and and equate science with religion.

No but saying there deffinatly is no god is a religious statement or one of faith. All you can say is we dont know and Creater or no creator are both equaly valid.



posted on Jan, 11 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   

xDeadcowx

Anybody who claims otherwise is not being honest, or truthful. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Anybody claiming something as fact, that is not a fact is being dishonest.

DC


I would say your being dishonnest too then.

Saying God or even pink unicorns dont exists and that there deffinatly is no god is not based on fact either.

If we are all being honnest then we must all say WE DONT KNOW. Until we do all theorys are valid.

What model we choose to prefer is down to faith.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


You are simply uninformed. There are valid scientific theories that predict the Universe did indeed come from nothing. I actually had to write a paper about this specific topic.

Lawrence Krauss:

Rather, what I find remarkable is the fact that the discoveries of modern particle physics and cosmology over the past half century allow not only a possibility that the Universe arose from nothing, but in fact make this possibility increasingly plausible.

www.samharris.org...
edit on 12-1-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:16 AM
link   

swanne
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


What existed before the Singularity?

No one can answer that.


edit on 10-1-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)


Irrelevant. You have 3 scenario's;

A.) There was nothing then there was something
B.) There always was something
C.) There always was nothing

Because we have eyes and we can see something; C is not true.

So either there was always something or there was nothing and then there was something; neither one supports or refutes either theory.

Therefor; it's irrelevant what that answer is; as it doesn't really matter which way it is, we can say definitively that if we were provided the answer alone; it wouldn't enable or disable either argument.

I.E.

If there was ALWAYS something and never nothing; it doesn't mean intelligent design or god.

If the was nothing and then there was something; it doesn't mean it isn't intelligent design or god.

Both statements are in direct opposition to each other; yet unrelated to the argument being made; therefor; it's a logical fallacy; hence the statement be deemed fallacious.

In other words, irrelevant.

So pray tell, what was your point?
edit on 12-1-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:20 AM
link   

crazyewok

xDeadcowx

Anybody who claims otherwise is not being honest, or truthful. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Anybody claiming something as fact, that is not a fact is being dishonest.

DC


I would say your being dishonnest too then.

Saying God or even pink unicorns dont exists and that there deffinatly is no god is not based on fact either.

If we are all being honnest then we must all say WE DONT KNOW. Until we do all theorys are valid.

What model we choose to prefer is down to faith.


Well that's where you're wrong. It's a fact that God doesn't exist until you show empirical evidence that supports it. That's what a fact is.

You can't prove something DOESN'T exist; you can only prove something DOES exist, and until it's been proven to exist, it's not a fact. That's how facts work.

The fact that there has been insufficient evidence to support that he/her/it does exist since the beginning of time is telling enough; it's no different than an urban legend at this point.

This doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but it can be factually stated that nobody has ever found any reason to believe it does in 10,000+ years. It's like chasing big foot, or any other crypto zoo myth.


What I don't get, is how people who do believe this hogwash can think that big foot is a ridiculous premise, when more evidence exist to imply big foot really does exists when compared to god. All anybody who supports God has is a book that was written by man over a hundred years after the alleged events took place.

We all know how the "telephone" game works don't we? The message gets distorted by the end of a classroom; now imagine trying to tell an accurate account of events over 100 years later when all you had as evidence was sixth party hand me down testimony.

It's essentially the definition of insane and irrational, oh -- but they call it "Faith" and "Hope." It's a delusion.
edit on 12-1-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Laykilla

crazyewok

xDeadcowx

Anybody who claims otherwise is not being honest, or truthful. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Anybody claiming something as fact, that is not a fact is being dishonest.

DC


I would say your being dishonnest too then.

Saying God or even pink unicorns dont exists and that there deffinatly is no god is not based on fact either.

If we are all being honnest then we must all say WE DONT KNOW. Until we do all theorys are valid.

What model we choose to prefer is down to faith.


Well that's where you're wrong. It's a fact that God doesn't exist until you show empirical evidence that supports it. That's what a fact is.

You can't prove something DOESN'T exist; you can only prove something DOES exist, and until it's been proven to exist, it's not a fact. That's how facts work.

Incorrect. Nothing doesn't exist until you prove it doesn't. Otherwise it's probabilities of existing or not existing.

edit on 12-1-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   

swanne
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


What existed before the Singularity?

No one can answer that.


edit on 10-1-2014 by swanne because: (no reason given)


Pick a theory theres a couple to choose from.Like a pocket universe or string theory. Then there's the Black hole theory and the oscillating universe.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   
(removed)
edit on 1/12/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:34 AM
link   

OccamsRazor04

Laykilla

crazyewok

xDeadcowx

Anybody who claims otherwise is not being honest, or truthful. You are entitled to your own opinions and beliefs, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Anybody claiming something as fact, that is not a fact is being dishonest.

DC


I would say your being dishonnest too then.

Saying God or even pink unicorns dont exists and that there deffinatly is no god is not based on fact either.

If we are all being honnest then we must all say WE DONT KNOW. Until we do all theorys are valid.

What model we choose to prefer is down to faith.


Well that's where you're wrong. It's a fact that God doesn't exist until you show empirical evidence that supports it. That's what a fact is.

You can't prove something DOESN'T exist; you can only prove something DOES exist, and until it's been proven to exist, it's not a fact. That's how facts work.

Incorrect. Nothing doesn't exist until you prove it doesn't. Otherwise it's probabilities of existing or not existing.

edit on 12-1-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)


Aha, that's where you're logic fails; you simply cannot ever prove a negative.

I'll demonstrate by making a statement;

The universe is secretly run by Jedi Knights who rebelled against the leaders of Skyrim and were cast upon the stars in time capsules to ensure the safety of all the lands.

Now prove it's not true.

It should become evident really quickly that there is absolutely NO way to prove that wrong. But since I made it up; there is also no way to prove it right. If it was real; there would be a way to prove it right.

Probability be damned; it cannot be proven; and will never be proven; why? Because it's not true. Truth CAN be proven; it's just a matter of how and when; lies cannot ever be proven, the same way they cannot ever be unproven. The only way to prove a lie, is by proving the truth. The only way to prove the truth is with evidence.

So, no; you're mistaken... factually. Or in your own words, simply -- "incorrect." You see; I've proved this with evidence [the thought experiment above]; where as you lack evidence to prove your statement.

So, theoretically, is it possible to prove God exists, maybe; but it's much more probable that it's a story invented by man and used as a tool for control to make up for their lack of technological means. This is even supported by evidence; where the contrary is not.

I suggest anybody chasing evidence to corroborate this myth -- to reevaluate their use of time; as they are chasing something that is most logically and probably a myth; hence, unprovable.


Oh, and that's also supported by Occam's Razor. Ironic; but the simplest solution in this case; is for man to have created a myth to support ulterior motives of slavery and control.
edit on 12-1-2014 by Laykilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   

BlueMule

xDeadcowx
The funny thing is that everyone will easily concede that pink unicorns didn't create the universe, yet many will argue when someone claims the exact same thing about God. What is the difference?


Well for starters, I won't concede that pink unicorns didn't create the universe. I think maybe they did! Secondly, people have been experiencing God, with form or without form, for millennia. Inside every religion is a mystical tradition, and every mystical tradition shares a goal. Union with God. Before death.

I've been blessed with a taste of that, and I can assure you God is very real. As real as the center of your psyche.



Really which god did you choose? There's been hundreds throughout human history. I hoped you picked at least one of the cooler ones like maybe odin i kinda like him.There is no need for science to use god as an excuse.If it did we wouldn't know half the stuff we do.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:53 AM
link   

LaykillaAha, that's where you're logic fails; you simply cannot ever prove a negative.


Sigh, never bring folk logic to a debate where real logic is being used. When you understand why your statement is wrong get back to me. When, if, you do, you should take another look at my previous comment.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   

dragonridr
Pick a theory theres a couple to choose from.Like a pocket universe or string theory. Then there's the Black hole theory and the oscillating universe.


Sure, but how were those created in the first place? It's the Chicken and the Egg paradox.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Laykilla

You can't prove something DOESN'T exist; you can only prove something DOES exist, and until it's been proven to exist, it's not a fact. That's how facts work.


And last time I checked you can prove anything thing Pre universe therefore all theorys are valid until someone comes up with more data.
edit on 13-1-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join