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.

 

"God of the Gaps" and other things.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
That wasn't the point of my response, as the point I was trying to get you to see is that you dont have the authority to say that no God described in any religions ancient scriptures exist. Thats a sweeping statement. How do you honestly make that statement with any authority?


I suppose to me I'm saying it with the same amount of authority as those who say the opposite. I don't claim to be more "Right" about what I say than those who say different. But I also don't any of them are more "Right" about what they say than myself. We both admit that it's not Provable so we have to admit nobody holds any more authority over this topic than anyone else. Each of us has our own opinion on the subject and they all possess the same merit.

I may speak about it as if I have authority to do so, but that comes from the fact that I believe in what I'm saying just like everyone else. I am offering a counter argument that's all. One that I think is just as legit as the one it opposes.



Can you disprove every religions God? Not that you would have to do that for me it would only be one.


You can see here how you are also speaking with some authority yourself. You speak about there being only One God as if having the authority to say all others are invalid except the one you believe in. I am doing the same exact thing only taking it that one last step further and questioning the existence of that last one you hold on to as well.

This makes a great example as to just how similar Believers and Non-Believers actually are in their thinking, at least in this case. We've both taken the same steps in dismissing what we perceive as invalid choices of Divinity for whatever reasons. Only I've simply taken that last step where you have not, that's all.


Well that is quite the opposite. When you see and touch and taste what we consider physical reality those are all sensations experienced in the mind, and the physical is nothing more than a very good illusion. Many things exist that you don't experience with your senses. Do you deny that the laws of logic exist? What about math?


That's true. All interactions are not physical in the way we think of normally. I understand that. However, just because what is normally defined as "Real" is shown to be "Illusion" doesn't mean that which is normally defined as "Illusion" suddenly becomes "Real".

All you've done is remove more concepts of what Reality is. Showing that what we normally think of as "Reality" isn't "Real" doesn't help make what we think of as "Illusion" any less of an "Illusion".




Give me some idea of what you consider evidence?


Evidence of the Biblical God??

Hard to say. But it needs to be more than just a book written a couple thousand years ago filled with questionable theories, contradictory logic and dubious morality.




posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
Because of the communications, as I said earlier.
If the Biblical God actually says "I do these things", then the logical options are.
1) God does it, and the people who say "natural causes do it" are wrong.
2) Natural causes do it, and God's claim is not to be believed.
3) God does it working through natural causes, so both are right.



But you first must assume that God said "I do these things". That there even was/is a God that was there to say anything.

Once you make that assumption it doesn't even matter what the answer is to those other questions actually. You've already made a choice to include God as the answer for any possible question that may arise.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm
But you first must assume that God said "I do these things". That there even was/is a God that was there to say anything.

Yes, as I said, it's a question of believing that communication has taken place (as described on a number of occasions).
If one DOES believe that communication has taken place, then that automatically answers the question of whether the communicator exists.
That's why the right procedure is to take the questions in that order. Was there a communication? If there was, then there must necessarily have been a communicator.


You've already made a choice to include God as the answer for any possible question that may arise.

Not necessarily. Just any question where he says "I am the answer".


edit on 24-8-2014 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: DISRAELI
If one DOES believe that communication has taken place, then that automatically answers the question of whether the communicator exists.


Right. So that is basically the crux of the matter isn't it?? You believe Communication happened between a Divine Being and Mankind. That communication was made physical in the form of The Bible so that it would be available to everyone of future generations since not everyone was around at that specific time to hear it for themselves. Correct?? Basically??

Whereas I doubt the validity of The Bible being the source of Divine Truth.

I think that pretty much ends our debate too. Which is fine. I don't see a problem with either of us having our chosen opinion in this matter either. As long as neither of us use our choice to harm the other it simply remains a topic of conversation and debate if we so choose to engage in one.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm
I think that just about sums it up, yes.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Dear Servant of the Lamb,

Please forgive me for implying that you sought the approval of men. I don't think that's true of you. I ask for particular patience with me, as I have started taking some pain pills and my true meaning might be obscured a little. (It feels like have my head is cotton candy and the other half is a bee hive with an eternal fire in it.)

I can't find anything objectionable in your comments. It is refreshing and encouraging to find a Christian companion along the way.


I believe that trying to express how God is represented in Science is unexplainable to an nonbeliever because they don't know God. You cannot prove him in Science, but you can definitely see his attributes. I believe that there are other ways of reaching people, but a person must be open minded to the idea of belief.


That's all quite true. For some, I wonder if presenting an old truth in a new way will get past the "Knee-jerk reaction" reflex, and allow the beginning of a discussion. C.S. Lewis does a good job of that with his pool table and cash drawer examples in [I]Miracles[/I].


"You may not want to bring it up, because it is controversial, but there are bad religions."

"I am not a fan of religion in general. I would say the majority of people go looking for God and find religion instead (This statement does not exclude members of local church buildings); Religion is probably one of Satan's most useful tools against humans."


I agree that the goal is an intimate relationship with God. But unless I'm pretty sure that I can agree with the definition of "Religion" being used, conversations tend to degenerate.

Thanks for your post, I continue to regard you

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 03:42 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

are you going to answer my queston?



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Dear mOjOm,

This is wonderful! I get another response from you! I see a fruitful discussion shaping up. Generally, I write three or four times more than I need to. I'll make a serious effort to correct that here.

ATHEIST (SCIENCE) THEORY VS. RELIGIOUS THEORY:

The religious theory of God's existence (and I'll use "Christian" as the example because it's what I'm most familiar with) is based on eye-witness recorded testimony occurring over centuries. Jesus' words and various miracles are all supporting evidence. Logical arguments have been provided to provide a framework for the evidence. This is not absolute proof, but a very convincing argument to mankind since the first century.

Science doesn't have an explanation for the creation of the universe (or multiverse) which is almost unanimously accepted among scientists, let alone the rest of the world.

Dear MOjOm, I'm sorry, but we are not going to "know," test tube certain, as long as we're alive. The best we can do is study the question openly and honestly and come to a conclusion for ourselves. I can't think of a more important question in the history of existence, now or in the future, than "Is there a God?" I feel pretty safe in trusting that you will chew at this question until you come up with an answer. You might not be 100% certain, but making choices is what humans do.

"Keeping all options open?" For a while, maybe. You do have time to study, get answers to the questions you have, etc. But, how much time? Fifty years? It's a little hard on people I suppose, but absolutely no one who says "I never chose one side or the other," is ever correct. They did.

I've re-read part of your response over and over. For about the third time on ATS, I'm frightened.


I think before anyone can try and Disprove something, you'd first have to have some evidence of it being there.


Nope, explorers have no idea whether there is anything to find. Doctors look for cures for diseases based on the hope that a cure is there. But in this case there is evidence for God. Is the only evidence for God that which you have been shown? You're relying on other people to get information on what is an extremely personal matter?


What I've been shown as evidence of God so far is either too conflicting, illogical, flimsy, or unsubstantiated for me to buy into.


Please explain what level of evidence you need to accept as evidence. Not proof, just evidence.


That doesn't mean I don't believe in something larger and more vast and impressive within the universe though. You can call it God if you want to, but that all seems much to personal and limiting.


Did this "something" create the Universe, or did it come into being as the Universe did? How does calling it "god" make it more limited?


All such characteristics and definitions given by Religions Everywhere just seem like man trying to control everything because humanity fears what is beyond their understanding.


So you believe in a large, vast, impressive, force within the Universe. It is something beyond man's understanding. What else can you tell us about this, and what was your evidence for reaching this belief?


Personally, I'd rather keep searching for the right answer rather than accept an incorrect one just because it was simpler that way. Besides, who's to say that there is an answer to be found in the first place.


How are you searching? There will have to be an answer, but it won't be given to you, you have to provide it. Your life, your being, will give an answer to the question "Do you believe in God?"

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: TzarChasm

well the words reliable terms means I was looking for a bit more than yes they can be called wrong. I mean obviously someone can decide to call them wrong...



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

I just wanted to make sure you knew that my post here are not about me. They are simply posted out of love for other humans and the desire to eventually meet them all in heaven.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

I can testify that there is an energy shift that you can experience where you body can feel much more than usual and sometimes use that energy flowing thru your body to help other relax for instance with tools like Reiki. Sometime the synchronicity become so high between the two bodies that you feel what the other person feels (empath). Even limited telepathy and knowing can occur.

www.brainwavetraining.com...



Harmonic Waves of Love

What these studies prove—not only through brain states, but subjective experience—is that real healing is occurring through Reiki. We know this because brain wave frequencies are not confined to the brain, but cascade via harmonic wave motion into every cell and atom in the body (see Oschmann). The frequencies conducted by the healer jumpstart the “body electric” and instruct repair systems to do their repair work. In the process, light flowing into every level of one’s being carries intuitive insights into the mind, love into the heart, and illumination to the spirit.

Researchers have shown that an increase in the strength of brain waves, whether from the awakened and evolved mind patterns or gamma waves, increases the output of energy from the fingers and this energy ripples into infinity, with the consequence of healing the world. While this is a precious service to humanity, equally magnificent is the ability of energy work to heal and evolve the healer’s brain waves and consciousness as much if not more than the person being healed.

Of course, no one needs to see brain wave patterns to know that healing has occurred. We can feel, experience and know this. And yet, it’s always good for the doubting ego to logically understand the process, so that it can unreservedly believe, trust and surrender to the divine Light which so deeply loves and heals us and all things.


I can if I think about it make this energy shift be the holy spirit/Christ consciousness or en-light-ment that religions talk about. Where the spiritual water and the fire energy is the cooling gentle energy from above my bodies head and the warmth that is felt in the bottom of my spine warming up my backside. If the holy spirit is something else then I have not yet experienced it.

Did not need any religion to get the energy shift so if this is from god/divinethen god/divine did not care that I was not religious. But then I always like beings who can see things objectively and disregard subjective judgement.
edit on 24-8-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-8-2014 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
The religious theory of God's existence (and I'll use "Christian" as the example because it's what I'm most familiar with) is based on eye-witness recorded testimony occurring over centuries. Jesus' words and various miracles are all supporting evidence. Logical arguments have been provided to provide a framework for the evidence. This is not absolute proof, but a very convincing argument to mankind since the first century.


Actually all such evidence that has been recorded is all just Testimony, defined here as "a public recounting of a religious conversion or experience." Now, not all recorded (written) testimony was even first hand accounts. Much of it was passed down through story telling through generations with just the spoken word. In the NT we do have some alleged First Hand Testimony from the followers of Jesus and the letters they wrote. However, we have nothing from Jesus himself let alone something recorded directly from a Divine Source (God). So at best what we have recorded is some possible First Hand Accounts of events and many stories passed down through spoken word. None of which can be verified except through maybe other similar testimony if there is any.

Testimony alone, especially when it's only someone's perception of what happened or what was said, to me, needs to be backed up with something more concrete than just testimony alone. Add to that the fact that most of it was simply "inspired writing", Centuries Old, Lacking in Credibility from other Outside Sources, Having Debatable Logical Contradictions and/or Completely Refuted by Other Religious Institutions makes it even more questionable. I agree that it may be a convincing argument in some ways but hardly makes it so. In fact the more of those "convincing arguments" I've looked into the less convincing they become.


Science doesn't have an explanation for the creation of the universe (or multiverse) which is almost unanimously accepted among scientists, let alone the rest of the world.


Well, some might have an explanation and some might not. But it's the same for them as anyone else who claims to have the answers to these questions. Having an explanation for something still doesn't matter unless it can be shown why and how that explanation is also correct. So far nobody has been able to show that. Science however does provide observable and testable evidence for their claims that can be independently verified. This adds a lot to the credibility of Science. After all, we are both speaking over a great distance on machines that a thousand years ago would seem like a miracle.


I'm sorry, but we are not going to "know," test tube certain, as long as we're alive. The best we can do is study the question openly and honestly and come to a conclusion for ourselves. I can't think of a more important question in the history of existence, now or in the future, than "Is there a God?" I feel pretty safe in trusting that you will chew at this question until you come up with an answer. You might not be 100% certain, but making choices is what humans do.


I'm totally fine with that too. Allowing for some doubt about the things we think we "know" I think is always a good idea. If you leave no alternative or possibility that something you "know" may actually be incorrect, you leave no way of correcting it either. This is why we debate these things. Even though I might give the impression of certainty when dealing with this topic, it's really just that I sometimes have a counter argument that I think is just as valid. We both argue our side from a "Knowing" like position yet we both admit in the end we are talking about something which is unknowable. This causes a lot of trouble too and should always be remembered by all sides.


"Keeping all options open?" For a while, maybe. You do have time to study, get answers to the questions you have, etc. But, how much time? Fifty years? It's a little hard on people I suppose, but absolutely no one who says "I never chose one side or the other," is ever correct. They did.


Perhaps it's not that they "Never" choose a side but that there position changes now and then. I'm not sure if One side or the Other is the way to go anyway. I know for myself, I wouldn't be included on either side yet I do have a position. It isn't fully in step with either side but in a middle area somewhere perhaps and with some decisions still not chosen. It wouldn't be fair to say that since I didn't choose your side that by default I chose the other because I haven't. I have a position which won't fit either side, but it is a position.


I've re-read part of your response over and over. For about the third time on ATS, I'm frightened.


Well that doesn't sound very good. Can't say I intended that kind of reaction. What do you mean exactly??


Nope, explorers have no idea whether there is anything to find. Doctors look for cures for diseases based on the hope that a cure is there. But in this case there is evidence for God. Is the only evidence for God that which you have been shown? You're relying on other people to get information on what is an extremely personal matter?


Which is exactly why the information recorded by others in the Bible I don't think is a very good choice.

A personal experience of some kind would be fine with me. I wouldn't expect anyone else to put any credibility into it though since it was my personal experience. However, if such a thing happened and it convinced me, so be it. But as of yet, that hasn't happened so I just keep that option open.



Please explain what level of evidence you need to accept as evidence. Not proof, just evidence.


Again, it depends on what it's evidence of exactly. Evidence of a "Christian God" to me would be much different than what some other concept of God would be. The Christian God of Judgement, Love, Creation, Alpha and Omega, etc. Also first described formally as the God of the Jews would take some serious convincing and substantial amounts of evidence for me to overcome the conflicts in believing in His existence.

continued...
edit on 24-8-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
continued...

Please explain what level of evidence you need to accept as evidence. Not proof, just evidence.


So I suppose the more specific the God the more specific the evidence I would need to it's validity.


Did this "something" create the Universe, or did it come into being as the Universe did? How does calling it "god" make it more limited?


That question is still on the table for the most part. As far as the limiting aspect. What I mean by that is the term "God" usually comes in or with some context or implies a specific God and definition of God. I find that to be illogical since most often God is said to also be Infinite, Beyond Space and Time, Unknowable, etc. Therefor applying some defining limits to an Infinite idea makes no sense. When used as simply a very general term unspecific to any Religion I find much easier to comprehend.

For example, what is called Tao comes very close to what I mean. It's unknowable and undefined but called Tao simply because we use language to communicate so we give it a name. But that isn't the True Tao, it's just called that because we have to. Otherwise we couldn't discuss it except to just sit and stare at one another.


So you believe in a large, vast, impressive, force within the Universe. It is something beyond man's understanding. What else can you tell us about this, and what was your evidence for reaching this belief?


What I know is that I'm just a little creature roaming around on earth and there is a huge vast spacial, temporal, dimensional space and reality with many mysterious happenings going on all around me. That my perception is limited and there is much I don't know. I also know that when closely examined all I can ever truly know is that "I am". The rest is just perception and interpretation of some kind. Therefor I must assume and certainly hope that there is more going on that just what I currently see and understand.


How are you searching? There will have to be an answer, but it won't be given to you, you have to provide it. Your life, your being, will give an answer to the question "Do you believe in God?"


In every way I can usually. I don't discount any possible path to take. I just keep searching and keep an open mind.

Again, it must first be understood by what you mean by "God".
edit on 24-8-2014 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle




I can testify that there is an energy shift that you can experience where you body can feel much more than usual and sometimes use that energy flowing thru your body to help other relax for instance with tools like Reiki. Sometime the synchronicity become so high between the two bodies that you feel what the other person feels (empath). Even limited telepathy and knowing can occur.


I can testify to a lot of experiences and feelings though I have never seen telepathy at work until I do I remain doubtful. As far as those feelings go if I were religious I could have assigned religious values to them but I am not so those feelings that peeked my interest I found scientific answers t that had been tested and verified which satisfied my curiosity and adequately lined up to the experiences I had. Now if if I hadn't found those answers I may have been more inclined to investigate further in less scientific reasons however there was no need.

I have also clinically died before to which I do not often talk about in public because those who generally ask are upset by my answers.



posted on Aug, 24 2014 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"A belief is a choice that a person has decided to resonate with. I choose to resonate with Christ and YHWH. I choose to resonate with the idea that Christ is the Lamb the Shepherd chose to sacrifice for the whole of the flock. Can any of these beliefs ever be called wrong or untrue on any reliable terms?"

Truth is personal and subjective, and I would simply ask "Are you a good person?"

Based upon the many posts of yours that I have read, I would say that you are.

As an atheist, I know that there is no God that is not infinitely wise and loving.

You may not agree, but you and I are brothers.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot


As an atheist, I know that there is no God that is not infinitely wise and loving.


how do you know?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot




Truth is personal and subjective....


Now this is an interesting conversation
I agree Truth is personal, but there has to be some objective measure of True or Truth is only a clever illusion played by the mind. Let me toss a bit of a hard question your way, is the quoted statement True, and if it is True then does it not prove an objective realm of Truth on its own? In other words if the statement is True doesn't it contradict itself?



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Diderot

Also I would like to add that I am honored that you believe I am a good person, but I would have to respectfully disagree. Not that I do anything society would recognize as infinitely terrible, but I have seen myself in a way most people don't even know they are capable of seeing themselves. I know what I've done and what I do and what I will do are true parts of my nature, but that part of my nature only resides within my literal flesh and basic instinctive thoughts. It is only when a person steps outside of these thoughts that they will see they are not happy with their-self nor are they happy with the way they allow there relationships to play out in their daily lives.




As an atheist, I know that there is no God that is not infinitely wise and loving.


Can you clarify what you mean here? The wording is a bit confusing.



posted on Aug, 25 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm




I suppose to me I'm saying it with the same amount of authority as those who say the opposite. I don't claim to be more "Right" about what I say than those who say different. But I also don't any of them are more "Right" about what they say than myself. We both admit that it's not Provable so we have to admit nobody holds any more authority over this topic than anyone else. Each of us has our own opinion on the subject and they all possess the same merit. I may speak about it as if I have authority to do so, but that comes from the fact that I believe in what I'm saying just like everyone else. I am offering a counter argument that's all. One that I think is just as legit as the one it opposes.


You comparing your own thoughts to ancient writings that have been held as divine for thousands of years. I get that this along does not give it authority, but the Bible tells you what to test, and it also tells you how God has put his fingerprints on it. Genesis was at lest being written by mid 2nd century B.C, so we can both agree that it was written far before Christ, and far before anyone claimed that Christ was God himself, right?




You can see here how you are also speaking with some authority yourself. You speak about there being only One God as if having the authority to say all others are invalid except the one you believe in. I am doing the same exact thing only taking it that one last step further and questioning the existence of that last one you hold on to as well.


Once again your authority is yourself, and I didn't make that statement with authority. I said that for me you would only have to disprove one, but that does not mean that you only have to disprove one God for everyone that exist. There was no authority in that claim. Do you think I have never questioned the existence of the Biblical God? I have tried to honestly disprove the truth claims made by the Bible, and its not possible. I have seen things in the text that are not humanly possible.




This makes a great example as to just how similar Believers and Non-Believers actually are in their thinking, at least in this case. We've both taken the same steps in dismissing what we perceive as invalid choices of Divinity for whatever reasons. Only I've simply taken that last step where you have not, that's all


The difference is not that you have take the last step its that I chose a God, and you do not believe He is there. I dismiss the others religions for logical and spiritual reasons. The spiritual reason being that the God I chose and the Scriptures I believe he orchestrated say that there is only one True God.

The Bible is completely unique in its composition in that it was written over a span of centuries by people who didn't know each other, and often existed in different geographic areas of the world and there weren't great means of long range communication back then. People often forget that little tid bit as its all been put under one cover. Its message is clear from beginning to end.




That's true. All interactions are not physical in the way we think of normally. I understand that. However, just because what is normally defined as "Real" is shown to be "Illusion" doesn't mean that which is normally defined as "Illusion" suddenly becomes "Real".


You are attacking a strawman here. Lets review:

MOjOm: but they(your relationships) all kind of hinge on at least the fact that they independently exist in a form that is objectively present. In other words they have some kind of independent form and presence which exists outside my own mind.

SOL: Well that is quite the opposite. When you see and touch and taste what we consider physical reality those are all sensations experienced in the mind, and the physical is nothing more than a very good illusion. Many things exist that you don't experience with your senses. Do you deny that the laws of logic exist? What about math?

Math exist right? Regardless if all humans were incapable of comprehending numbers a 45 degree angle is still a 45 degree angle regardless of our comprehension of it or not. My point was that you live your life everyday relying on things that exist only within your mind. You presented the idea that because God is not material you could never see yourself having a relationship with Him, but even the relationships you experience in your own life depend on the immaterial concept of love so even those relationships hinge on something that exist only within the mind.

That statement was never intended to be taken as just because immaterial concepts exist God exist. No that statement was meant to be taken as Just because God is an immaterial entity that does not keep us from having a relationship with Him.



posted on Aug, 26 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb


No that statement was meant to be taken as Just because God is an immaterial entity that does not keep us from having a relationship with Him.


"god of the gaps" means your god doesnt answer the questions we have. it reflects any application of god in place of actual science. that has nothing to do with your relationship.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join