So how do you explain existence ?

reply to post by Seede


Not a bad attempt but how do I prove that something that isn't there isn't there?

I guess I worded my last post too open for you. The best theory of creation is no longer a theory it is an observable proven fact that is evolution. We can observe evolution in the embryo of a chicken as an example, the remnants of its evolution from a reptile is visible in the embryo but no longer presents itself in the fully formed chicken.

Have you heard of irreducible complexity? That is the one thing that would give the creationist hope but no organism in this planet is irreducibly complex thus reinforcing the fact of evolution.

The old you'll find out when your dead argument is pointless. I personally believe that when I'm dead I won't know it because I will be dead. I will no longer have consciousness, the machine powering my brain will be spent and so will I. Animals also have a consciousness but their only place in Christianity is for sacrifice. What makes us so special that our consciousness lives on but an animals doesn't?

The thing with all religion is that it is just a belief. There is no facts to reinforce it, it is all in the mind like all delusions. Where atheism has the upper hand over monotheism is that our beliefs are reinforced by scientific facts which in turn makes our beliefs a fact. Maybe not all of them just yet but only having one factual belief puts us above religion.

reply to post by GafferUK1981


@

I personally believe that when I'm dead I won't know it because I will be dead. I will no longer have consciousness, the machine powering my brain will be spent and so will I. Animals also have a consciousness but their only place in Christianity is for sacrifice. What makes us so special that our consciousness lives on but an animals doesn't?

@ GafferUK198

Your above statement is complete theology. You stated the same belief syndrome that Creationists state. The only difference is that a Creationist will admit that his theology is nothing but theology. All scientists have a model before the search and my model is death simply because all living organisms will experience this change and it is the terrestrial demise of every creature and organism on this earth. Nothing can escape this change.

All biologists do not agree and neither do all creationists. In fact some biologists are creationists also. There are some creationists who believe that in the celestial realm there are animals. Enoch taught this very thing. We do not have any proof of this theology but the point here is that we are discussing substance change. Two completely different substances are involved in this theology. One is terrestrial and the other is celestial. Celestial is understood, by creationists, as being outside of the universe while terrestrial is considered as being within the universe. Terrestrial is a finite creation while celestial is understood as being an infinite existence.

The terrestrial substance cannot exist in the celestial realm without a change into that celestial substance. This is called death and death is the final solution of all terrestrial existence. By the way, Christians do not sacrifice any animals.

reply to post by Seede


Creationist assume without any evidence that there is a celestial realm. It is a nice thought that when you die you will enter this realm but without a shred of evidence we simply can't believe it.

Creationist assume without any evidence that there is a celestial realm. It is a nice thought that when you die you will enter this realm but without a shred of evidence we simply can't believe it.

reply to post by GafferUK1981


@ GafferUK1981

I respect your opinion and I also realize that I can not put death (my model) in a petri dish and prove that it is science. I have never claimed that theology was terrestrial science but there are some avenues that can substantiate my theology.

There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of near death experiences that can be verified.. Many by brilliant people in all walks of life. If any one is interested in their future then it might be profitable for that one to Google the "Near Death Experience Foundation" and with an open attitude see what thousands of others have seen. This has nothing to do with disclaiming terrestrial science and might explain some of what I understand as to the celestial world. This is a growing concept which is not a religion nor demands your pocketbook.

reply to post by Seede


Anything other than near death experiences cos I think they can be dismissed as dreams but its the only "evidence" the religious try push

The only thing that matters is that we DO exist. Exactly how this came to be matters not. What matters is how we move forward from this point in time and how we treat others.

Originally posted by Seede

Creationist assume without any evidence that there is a celestial realm. It is a nice thought that when you die you will enter this realm but without a shred of evidence we simply can't believe it.

reply to post by GafferUK1981


@ GafferUK1981

I respect your opinion and I also realize that I can not put death (my model) in a petri dish and prove that it is science. I have never claimed that theology was terrestrial science but there are some avenues that can substantiate my theology.

There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of near death experiences that can be verified.. Many by brilliant people in all walks of life. If any one is interested in their future then it might be profitable for that one to Google the "Near Death Experience Foundation" and with an open attitude see what thousands of others have seen. This has nothing to do with disclaiming terrestrial science and might explain some of what I understand as to the celestial world. This is a growing concept which is not a religion nor demands your pocketbook.

Brain chemistry plays tricks on people's minds when they approach death...take it from someone who had his heart stop...twice (drowning & meningitis, both in the same year).

reply to post by Barcs

The only thing that matters is that we DO exist.

See Barcs, this seems to me, to be a statement that would be just as irresponsible as my saying God exists.
I think you would say, I can't prove it, so I shouldn't say it as if I know ?

Doesn't the same thing apply for your above ststement ?
What if how we exist matters ?

Originally posted by randyvs
See Barcs, this seems to me, to be a statement that would be just as irresponsible as my saying God exists.
I think you would say, I can't prove it, so I shouldn't say it as if I know ?

Doesn't the same thing apply for your above ststement ?
What if how we exist matters ?

I am consciously choosing to type this exact phrase at my keyboard right now, so I can confidently say that I exist. But do you? What if this entire "universe" is nothing more than my hallucination? You wouldn't technically exist, you would have been created by me. Now THAT would be an interesting turn of events. I experience this reality first hand. I am Me. I think therefor I am. From other people's perspectives (assuming you all exist of course ) the opposite would be true. I exist from my perspective. I can't prove I exist to anyone but myself, I also can't prove that anybody besides me exists.

The world I live in (even if simulated or hallucinated) is real and can be experienced through the 5 senses. Saying I exist in this reality is true. Saying god exists in this reality (or any other) is a guess. If the HOW does indeed matter, nobody has figured it out yet beyond guesswork and faith. Sciences knows bits and pieces, but not the whole story, at least not yet.

reply to post by Barcs


Hmmm, well played !
Excellent retort Barcs.

I'm thinking you might have created a new word. Simucination !

The only good thing about religion is its easier to write 2012 as the year rather than 4500000000000.

And yes that's a logical billion rather than the American billion.

reply to post by randyvs


Hi randyvs et. al

Let me start with that I can't offer you a "shiny new" theory of creation, and I understand that therefore I may stray a wee bit off topic, however, I hope you still find my contribution valuable.

I've read almost every posting in this thread, so I'll try my best not to be repetitive.

A few were touching on the classic problem of the "Unmoved Mover" ("Who created the Creator?"). Your response, following the teachings of Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Theologica, is the impossibility of Infinite Regression. Aquinas argues in his second proof, known as the first cause argument: "Everything that happens has a cause, and this cause in turn has a cause and so on in a series which must either be infinite or have its starting point in a first cause. In fact, he says:"Hic autem non est procedere in infinitum - This cannot go on forever"
Aquinas excludes the possibility of an infinite regress of causes, and so concludes that there must be a first cause, which is called God - but he does so just by declaring it.

This always struck me as a pretty obvious cop out.
The question is whether an infinite series of motions, or causes, is conceivable. Integers I think are a very good demonstration of it, 1,2,3,4,5.... -1,-2,-3,-4,-5... There is, as we know, no end term. One could argue that before the "beginning of time" there was an earlier time in which motion was already occurring - if there is no greatest number, why is there a need for a first motion, and therefore an Unmoved Mover?

Allow me another question:

The creation of the Universe by a God requires that being to be omnipotent and almighty. In addition, these are traits being attributed to God.
Inevitably, one cannot help but come across the (again medieval) Omnipotence paradox. For those not familiar with it, the most often cited one is: Can God create a stone so heavy that even he could not lift it? It's not a stupid trick question from a self professed Atheist like me, it is an important philosophical question and whatever the correct answer to it is, it might imply that God could not possibly have created the Universe.

I hope the above makes some sense and you found it interesting enough to be posted.

At the end, let me just say: One of the most important things that Evolution taught me (and Religion had it's shot, but missed) is the fact that we're all Brothers. In this spirit, I wish you happiness, if it is through your Faith, then that's just as good as my way.

reply to post by nv4711


Aside from your conclusion that "infinite regression" is a cop-out ? Of course I found your response informative.
It is information to me. Information you inserted intelligently into my thread or I would never have gotten it. Or would that be another cop - out ? Of course infinite regression is impossible and of course numbers go to infinity in either direction. Don't get me wrong for even a second tho ? I did like your post.

Of course this is the best part.

At the end, let me just say: One of the most important things that Evolution taught me (and Religion had it's shot, but missed) is the fact that we're all Brothers. In this spirit, I wish you happiness, if it is through your Faith, then that's just as good as my way.

Just remember always to your dying day. I tried to warn you, that your illusions are offensive to your maker. Your creator, God, etc. etc.

reply to post by randyvs


Well, as far as Aquina's cop-out, I just think it is a little too comvenient. But then again, I'm not claiming to posess the intellect to debate a philosopher of Aquina's caliber. So, there you go, that's my cop-out ;-)

On another token: I had my DNA tested (for Genealogie reasons) and turns out I have 2.43% Neanderthal DNA. While this may certainly explain my strikingly handsome looks, I was just wondering what, if anything, this means for this discussion.
BTW, Neanderthal DNA in people of European descent is nothing special but rather the norm.
Now why would God create different types of Hominae (the scientific controversy is still ongoing, whether Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal and Homo Floresiensis are different species)?
What happened to his creation - us - (or me, in this case), when I obviously have genes from outside the human family that he created? I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "and God created different types of Man". Neanderthals however were definitely hominid, but developed independently, yet close enough to homo sapiens to be able to mate and produce viable offspring. I'm living proof, some 30,000 years later.

Any ideas?

P.S. All possible jokes referring to my relation to Neanderthals have already been made by my friends (or shall I say former friends) ...and no, I'm not the guy from the Geico commercials..... :-)) lol

Originally posted by nv4711
reply to post by randyvs

 

Well, as far as Aquina's cop-out, I just think it is a little too comvenient. But then again, I'm not claiming to posess the intellect to debate a philosopher of Aquina's caliber. So, there you go, that's my cop-out ;-)

On another token: I had my DNA tested (for Genealogie reasons) and turns out I have 2.43% Neanderthal DNA. While this may certainly explain my strikingly handsome looks, I was just wondering what, if anything, this means for this discussion.
BTW, Neanderthal DNA in people of European descent is nothing special but rather the norm.
Now why would God create different types of Hominae (the scientific controversy is still ongoing, whether Homo Sapiens, Neanderthal and Homo Floresiensis are different species)?
What happened to his creation - us - (or me, in this case), when I obviously have genes from outside the human family that he created? I'm pretty sure it doesn't say "and God created different types of Man". Neanderthals however were definitely hominid, but developed independently, yet close enough to homo sapiens to be able to mate and produce viable offspring. I'm living proof, some 30,000 years later.

Any ideas?

P.S. All possible jokes referring to my relation to Neanderthals have already been made by my friends (or shall I say former friends) ...and no, I'm not the guy from the Geico commercials..... :-)) lol

edit on 23-10-2012 by nv4711 because: (no reason given)

Oh believe me, I can imagine you've done heard all the jokes because you aren't secreting the info obviously. And believe me again I wasn't going there, as I find your last transmission very interesting indeed.

No ideas for that one, but it wouldn't hurt if I pray on it right?

Originally posted by randyvs

No ideas for that one, but it wouldn't hurt if I pray on it right?

No, I'm sure it wouldn't.

Another question came to me, about which I'd be interested to hear your view.

I wonder, if God exists, why did he do all this. What's the point?

According to the religious, he always existed, since eternity. Why, at whatever point, create a Universe, choose one of the least significant Star systems and create sentient beings on one of its Planets? He had to know it kind of will go downhill from there....

It's not like he could have felt lonely (which would be an odd sentiment I suppose for God), given that he has Angels and whoever the 24 Elders mentioned in Revelations are.

My only conclusion: If we need God to exist, then God needs us just as much to exist.

This conclusion would mean: No humans, no God but in turn No God, no humans.

or, it would raise the question: Who created Whom?

See, and you probably thought being an Atheist was easy Philosophy can be a b*****

reply to post by nv4711

I wonder, if God exists, why did he do all this. What's the point?

Remember in Genesis when God said it is good. I can only believe since we start off having a relationship with God. A relationship that got ruined some how, no matter how you look at that part of it, it was ruined. Especially when Adam showed cowardice by pointing the finger at his own wife.

We lost our relationship a higher intelligence than our own. So now for us in this age it's hard to see a reason why he would do all this, at least for most. I believe very simply, that him seeing his creation at first as good. He should have been like what some would call an oracle.

But he would have been the ultimate oracle for sure. So all the pouring over experiments, the testing and starting over from scratch mankind is burdened with, even in science, wouldn't even be necessary. Not if we still had a relationship with our Father in Heaven.

I believe we would be populating the cosmos right now if things hadn't gone so wrong. I believe that's what our maker wanted for us and himself. I believe this in my heart and surely just going to him and asking, would be far more efficient than what we have to do now, on our own. And just as things that go on now with us, grieve him at his heart, as it also says in Genesis. That if things were like he intended it would make him smile.

That's it. And in that, I have the answer to why we are here. So complete and so simple.

We are here to make God smile.

And that day will come. It's just been postponed.

With the guidance of God we would never have to go back to the drawing board. That saying wouldn't exist.

According to the religious

Don't ever color me religious. I'm far from doing anything religiously. I just follow Christ best I can. On my own but by the book as I interpret it.

I think it's ok to write bitch on ATS as long as you aren't referring to someone.

I personally say that I know god does not exist, the reason I say this is that the only thing to suggest there is a god is human philosophy, there is no physical evidence to support any god and statements about creation in the bible have been disproved by science. I simply can't have blind faith in something that doesn't exist without even a shred of evidence to support my beliefs.

The other day a girl at work asked me to put some money in a donation box for cancer, I said I didn't have any cash on me but I'd get some and donate. At this point she said something which I found really disturbing, "Don't forget because I once forgot to make a donation and god gave my mum cancer". I didn't want to belittle her by saying there is no god as I know the delusional rarely change to rationality. I just told her that I am an atheist and don't believe there is a god above me punishing me for the smallest indiscretions and her mothers cancer was a mere coincidence so she has no reason to feel bad.

This reinforces my belief that there is no god because if there was a god surely he would not be so evil as to make an innocent girl feel so guilty for no good reason. The god she believes in would surely be like a kid with a magnifying glass burning his creations simply for fun.

I will always believe in logical rational explanations and when we don't have an answer to a question I will never be so lazy as to say god did it.

I would rather have unanswered questions than unquestioned answers.

Originally posted by GafferUK1981
I personally say that I know god does not exist, the reason I say this is that the only thing to suggest there is a god is human philosophy, there is no physical evidence to support any god and statements about creation in the bible have been disproved by science. I simply can't have blind faith in something that doesn't exist without even a shred of evidence to support my beliefs.

The other day a girl at work asked me to put some money in a donation box for cancer, I said I didn't have any cash on me but I'd get some and donate. At this point she said something which I found really disturbing, "Don't forget because I once forgot to make a donation and god gave my mum cancer". I didn't want to belittle her by saying there is no god as I know the delusional rarely change to rationality. I just told her that I am an atheist and don't believe there is a god above me punishing me for the smallest indiscretions and her mothers cancer was a mere coincidence so she has no reason to feel bad.

This reinforces my belief that there is no god because if there was a god surely he would not be so evil as to make an innocent girl feel so guilty for no good reason. The god she believes in would surely be like a kid with a magnifying glass burning his creations simply for fun.

I will always believe in logical rational explanations and when we don't have an answer to a question I will never be so lazy as to say god did it.

I would rather have unanswered questions than unquestioned answers.

Please know I'm belittling the girl for what she said more than you using her misguided crap as an apex for what you don't believe. But to me, everything you said in the above? Has nothing to do with our Heavenly Father.
I would of told her that sin is the wages of death. Not God . I'll do a thread on this.

reply to post by randyvs


My point is pal that there is no 'heavenly father'. There is absolutely no proof otherwise so from a scientific point of view I would be happy to confirm that god does not exist.

Why would you belittle somebody who has been taught both from her family and the bible that god can see everything you do, hear your thoughts and punish you for your actions. It's all a myth and its about time monotheism went the way of polytheism and died out. Lets face it atheism is the only belief that actually has the weight of any credible evidence behind it.