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 mrvdreamknight
God of Gaps - "There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore the cause must be supernatural." wiki
Yes. I 100% agree with the God of gaps - so quit, for the umptienth time, quit trying to use it.
Sometimes the gap is the most common sense answer.
For instance, if it takes ten to the millionth power to try and explain how life began, or simply to believe that God created it all, I'm going with the most common sense answer.
Yes, given inifinite time (which btw is not even possible), eventually the right conditions for life may allow life to majically spring up but is that really a more logical conclusion than just believing in a creator?
Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
1.Didnt you read the quotes i supplied ? Trying reading something before you argue against it !!!
2. The argument from authority was used against me in the name of Hawking's. In reply i threw Hawking's straight back at him !
3. Get your facts straight !
Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
Also i say to people who say god doesnt exist...where is your proof ? Just by your very existence you are living proof ! You are trying to deny yourself.
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
God of Gaps - "There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore the cause must be supernatural." wiki
Yes. I 100% agree with the God of gaps - so quit, for the umptienth time, quit trying to use it.
Sometimes the gap is the most common sense answer.
For instance, if it takes ten to the millionth power to try and explain how life began, or simply to believe that God created it all, I'm going with the most common sense answer.
Yes, given inifinite time (which btw is not even possible), eventually the right conditions for life may allow life to majically spring up but is that really a more logical conclusion than just believing in a creator?
Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
"Common sense would require logic and rationality. Believing in something without having the slightest bit of evidence isn't "common sense", it's called "making stuff up". "
So which is more logical and rational - 1. You believing in something not proven - i.e. life coming from the right set of circumstances to the millionth degree of chance of even happening and then somehow magically occuring or 2. Me believing in something that has not been proven, a supernatural being I personally God?
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism
I think you're seriously confusing KNOWLEDGE with BELIEF
Originally posted by oozyism
Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by oozyism
I think you're seriously confusing KNOWLEDGE with BELIEF
Knowledge > Evidence > Belief
Isn't that how it is?
Knowledge is used to justify a belief. That justification is called evidence