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: chr0naut
I have read through some of your posts.
Have you presented any evidence for your opinions on any post on ATS?
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut
Sorry pal, you've got no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods creating the universe, nice try though.
EDIT
You have faith and speculation, nothing more.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: Timely
I'm with you, with an open mind, but I've got to play this thread like the evolution one, no verifiable facts to prove the argument then it has to be BS.
I'm presenting an alternative thread for equity and balance.
originally posted by: Invision123
God set the rules laws to enable life to emerge, it was inevitable.
Before that he created the universe with his grand plan in mind so that life could eventually emerge planets form etc.
Evolution is one of gods methods.
originally posted by: SummerRain
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: chr0naut
Sorry pal, you've got no verifiable evidence to support claims of gods creating the universe, nice try though.
EDIT
You have faith and speculation, nothing more.
I have evidence that god exists and created everything. If he lets me, I'll come back with it to prove to you.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: surfer_soul
I don't state 'there are no gods' and I'm not trying to prove there are none.
This thread is a mirror of the 'evolution' one for equity and balance, merely asking for the evidence or 'facts' to confirm or verify creationism.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
So no evidence to support your claims either?
Come back to me when you have some, that is what the thread is asking for.
originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
You mentioned intelligent design.
One of the tenets of intelligent design is that irreducible complexity underpins most of the observed biome. There are many instance of species interdependence and rapid genetic change that cannot be explained by evolutionary gradualism or anything other than that the processes of biological change and diversity was 'directed' towards maximum variability in the minimum time.
i have never heard this argument, could you please expand on this?
There is also ample proof of irreducible complexity in number theory, infinite series and chaotic systems. It does exist and is strongly represented in nature, yet there are those who would consider themselves 'scientific' and yet deny such obvious and overtly evidenced proof (perhaps because science itself is a reductionist process and so is useless in determining anything that doesn't fit is myopic view).
I mean if science can't explain it, it can't exist (like turbulent flow, chaotic determinancy and the natural sequence of prime numbers). < - - sarcasm.
Similarly, the laws of thermodynamics point to a system that can only degrade, tending towards a state of pure entropy. Yet somehow things ordered themselves and became complex and have contined to do so over a period of 13.4 billion years (which by now should have negated any original 'accidental' instances of order).
Also, in nature as observed, all systems tend towards the lowest energy solution. You mix chemicals A and B and get simple mixtures, not rainbows of incredible variety. By theoretically tweaking the primary constants and variables of physics and seeing how the universe plays out, we usually generate very boring and single state outcomes. Yet the reality of the particular balance of forces and values that underlie this universe, leads to incredible observed variety.
rare things happen a lot in a universe as expanse as ours. Stars explode at an average rate of 1 per galaxy per every hundred years. But, since there are 100’s of billions of galaxies, we can observe them every day. To calculate how probable an event is, we must first observe it, or calculate based on other related observations
Then we look at probabiliy. The universe expresses incredible levels of improbability on all scales, everywhere we may choose to look. How does that work?
i’m going to answer this as if you are not being sarcastic.
But if the observed universe doesn't conform to complete explanation by science (which is a mathematical impossibility according to Incompleteness), then it is obvious that the universe is what is wrong? < - - more sarcasm.
ontological arguments are not “proofs” for anything. They require you to accept absurd assumptions at the beginning of the process. Therefore could be used to argue for any unfounded claim, making them useless.
... and as for proofs of God, there are several, perhaps the strongest and most mathematically rigourous being Gödel's ontological proof.
until you ask people to lay these proofs on the table, and that table remains empty in perpetuity.
If you care to search on Amazon for "Proof of the existence of God" you will find there are nearly 200 books, so it would appear that insistence on there being 'no proof ofthe existence of God', is probably an extremely ill informed opinion. < - - irony?
You do realise that we do count the stars. With computers.
originally posted by: Incandescent
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
So no evidence to support your claims either?
Come back to me when you have some, that is what the thread is asking for.
Be honest here, you wont accept anything as "evidence" short of God announcing in the sky loud and clear that he exists. If God does exist, then he is not bound by the limitations of the scientific method.
When it comes to figuring out whether God exists or not, rationalism is more important than empiricism.
When was the last time claims like "there are over 200 billion stars in our galaxy" were verified by somebody counting each one individually and reaching over 200 billion?
Nature is proof of evolution, chemistry, geology, mathematics, and a few more things, but when have you ever observed a god in nature?
originally posted by: Invision123
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
Nature is proof itself, it's self evidence we are the evidence
originally posted by: Woodcarver
You do realise that we do count the stars. With computers.
originally posted by: Invision123
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
Nature is proof itself, it's self evidence we are the evidence