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.

 

Do You Believe God Created Everything?

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   
In the desert religions theology invariably tells us that God is omniscient and the creator of all.

Sure its wonderful to stand in a beautiful forest, watch nature on a sunny day, breath and thank god for the world he has created. But where do the boundaries end on his creation, or do you draw the line on just our planet or our solar system - or the reality behind the idea that God is the creator of everything?

When you look at our home being a minute part of the Milky Way which consists of 10 trillion planets with a super blackhole in the middle it it a hard concept to think about - which is probably why you hear very little about Gods real creative ability from the men in frocks.

However when you realise that our galaxy is only one with our universe and that our universe consists of 200 million galaxies which brings us to the final figure, just our universe alone and we know there are numerable universes in the heavens, we are looking at 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets - do you believe that God created everything which is all of them?




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 04:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Yes, everything that has ever existed and everything that ever will exist was created by God.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
This has always been an interesting question for me, as an atheist I don't believe in any gods but at the same time I find the big bang theory hard to swallow. Both theories would suggest that absolutely nothing existed and then either everything burst into life of its own accord or a god appeared out of nowhere to create it all.

Neither make sense to me



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
How did evolution create something as complex as the eye?

Even Darwin had no answer.

All parts of the eye had to have been present. To have evolved separately is an absurdity.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

Everything in its original state.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
In the desert religions theology invariably tells us that God is omniscient and the creator of all.

Sure its wonderful to stand in a beautiful forest, watch nature on a sunny day, breath and thank god for the world he has created. But where do the boundaries end on his creation, or do you draw the line on just our planet or our solar system - or the reality behind the idea that God is the creator of everything?

When you look at our home being a minute part of the Milky Way which consists of 10 trillion planets with a super blackhole in the middle it it a hard concept to think about - which is probably why you hear very little about Gods real creative ability from the men in frocks.

However when you realise that our galaxy is only one with our universe and that our universe consists of 200 million galaxies which brings us to the final figure, just our universe alone and we know there are numerable universes in the heavens, we are looking at 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets - do you believe that God created everything which is all of them?




I suppose from your post that you are a man of science. So am I.

To read the Bible, a two thousands years old book, without putting it back into context, can be a source of a lot of misunderstanding.


Even the very concept of "God" itself is subject to numerous definitions. You have the personal god, the spinozian god, the gnostic god etc, etc,...


It is very possible to reconcile modern sciences with the idea of a creative god. Actually religions and sciences aren't really contradicting (unless you let the extremists speak), they are more like complementary.


I recommend you to read the works of Teilhard de Chardin for example to understand how many scientists have absolutely no problem exploring the concept of god.


Basically, so far, sciences can only describe the mechanisms of the birth of matter, its increase in complexity, the biological evolution, the rise of consciousness or the ever increasing sphere of human communication.

It cannot explores it's meaning or finality. Actually that's not the purpose of science.

That's when philosophy and religion can provide support. By exploring unprovable and subjective concepts, things science will never do, it allows us to rise above materialism for an instant and to contemplate issues like meaning and purpose.


In that regard, "god" is one of the hypothesis to explore, one where purpose has always been contained in the fabric of the universe itself, where the meaning of the universe is its finality, and its finality is the rise of consciousness so that the universe can reflect upon itself and become a witness of its own magnificence.

That purpose contained within the universe since the start, that driving force inexplicably putting matter on a path of ever increasing complexity, despite the inevitability of death on the long run represented by entropy, that is what many people will call "god".


Now some people will have a much simpler view and for them god is only a convenient excuse for what they cannot fathom, or a paternal figure to support you in times of need. But for those who truly explore philosophical subjects and look at the universe not only from a material perspective but also from a signifying one, "god" is the name they will sometime give to that thing which seems to drive us, and that some people will assume drives the rest of the universe by extension.

Yes we are acting on the impulses dictated by our genes, but stopping there is just stopping at another level of this puzzle. Because it doesn't explain why our genes also act like they want to find meaning by becoming more complex and refined.

God is not a person, or at least not in the common sense of the term. This is something that must be understood to discuss this concept. God is closer to the physical concept of "force" or "potential energy".
edit on 23-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Nope ... figments of the imagination are limited in their capabilities ... if there was such a being theydve had their contractors licence revoked .. been fined and jailed for shoddy work ..



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: Expat888
if there was such a being


This is the classical mistake I was speaking about above. Many people, especially atheists or people rejecting religions out of personal issues with obnoxious preachers, will believe god is necessarily a being. It's quite normal since humans tend to succumb to anthropomorphism all the time.

If god was a being, I would share their aversion to this concept.


But you need to have courage to delve into these topics, philosophies and religions, free from preconceptions because it's these preconceptions that will make you commit grave mistake like thinking god is "a being" and that it's the only way to approach it.
edit on 23-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

My belief is that God bought into being every particle, every atom, and all energy. I believe that the Big Bang, or something very much like it,was the method by which He set the creation of the Universe in motion, and that all that has sprung up since is a part of His plan. We are mere teeth in a single cog, of a clockwork of His divine imagining, and of a scale beyond our ability to encompass cognitively.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Thank you for your reply which I agree with. What has always bothered me is the personal hot-line to god that so many people get swept away in, under the guise of devout religious belief.

I suspect that because our genes have the ability to want and our desire to get, that is the process by which we evolve.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAreAllTheSame
How did evolution create something as complex as the eye?

Even Darwin had no answer.

All parts of the eye had to have been present. To have evolved separately is an absurdity.


On a grand timescale maybe not even in a non directed quantum probability field. But if you have a directed quantum probability field that you control with you consciousness then you can control how energy will be distributed thru a system by changing the quantum probability field.

You can think of it like the quantum probability field being holes in a sheet that you pour liquid over and only in the holes the liquid can be since it will flow over where there is no hols. Different size of hole make different particle and only certain sizes of holes can exists.

The question is do every consciousness change the probability field around us? To some degree it seems it is since a consciousness can interact with the field sometimes to create a synchronicity (Energized state) in space time.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: OpinionatedB

You say it is created by God but when you look at the extent of his creation you don't give the means he availed himself of. For me that is blind acceptance - no disrespect intended just a look at the physical side of what he has created.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:38 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Sorry .. I dont buy into primitive superstition thats used to control .. oppress,.. murder .. all in the name of someones figment of the imagination ..

the shogun had it right back in the late 16th century early 17th century when he expelled all the meddling priests .. outlawed christianity and executed christians.
The abrahamic religions are a threat to civilization and keep humanity in the dark ages ..
edit on 23/1/15 by Expat888 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:42 AM
link   
a reply to: longy9999

Blavatsky comes to mind for me in her teachings when she tells us that creation suddenly starts 'when the sleeper awakes' which seems to infer the continual cycle of:seed, blossom death and decay etc - rest then a repeat of this which was the pagan way of looking at our world and partly why they worshipped at certain times of the year commemorating this cycle. Its the concept of the vast time scale which is relative to our planet's 24 hour cycle.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   
The Big Bang theory is ridiculous.

...there was nothing...

...and then nothing exploded...

...now there is something.

Wait....what?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Expat888

I understand and won't blame you. That's exactly why I said those who have personal issues with religions cannot explore the topic without bias.

It's not really a problem since you can also study philosophy which is studying the same concept without naming it "god".

Like a good friend of me who is also priest liked to remind me, there are idiots and tyrants everywhere, and the Church is certainly not free from this universal tendency. We tend to assume it must since it is a place where we set the emphasis on morality, but actually this means it will also attract those who have difficulties to live their life according to moral concepts and thus will join the ranks of the Church seeking help.
edit on 23-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:44 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAreAllTheSame

Its the idea of intelligent design within creation that shows an adaptability quite beyond us at our current time which fascinates me - the how and when.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Expat888

I agree with your view and think religion in the wrong hands is disastrous. I think spirituality left our holy places some consideraqble time ago and hasn't stopped running since.

However this is not exactly about the manipulation by rules and their demands on us poor humans plus of course the guilt complex,, its about what is god, do people ever think seriously about what so many tritely claim is his omniscience. to mean? How far do they take their personal ideas about his power - within the universes - did he create them also?



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: longy9999

Blavatsky comes to mind for me in her teachings when she tells us that creation suddenly starts 'when the sleeper awakes' which seems to infer the continual cycle of:seed, blossom death and decay etc - rest then a repeat of this which was the pagan way of looking at our world and partly why they worshipped at certain times of the year commemorating this cycle. Its the concept of the vast time scale which is relative to our planet's 24 hour cycle.


I like the theory that once everything inevitably ends it cycles back around and everything starts again. It still begs the question however on how it all initially began in the first place. Everything must have a beginning, nothing can just appear out of nowhere, god or not.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 06:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
quantum probability field


Interestingly, Teilhard also explored that quantum probability phenomenon and tried to tie it with his worldview. And I have to say I find is idea quite interesting.


According to him, from an evolutionary point of view, there are no clear limits between between different structures. Frontiers are blurred between different species, or even between the first atoms, the first molecules, the first megamolecules and then the first cells.

All these things are part of a long chain where everything is just at a different stage of the evolutionary process, on a different branch of the evolutionary tree. Evolutions do seem to happen in leaps, but you can always relate what it was before and what it is after. The seeds of the next steps are already contained in the previous one. Just like the plan of our whole body was already contained in our initial cell's DNA.


He assumes then than just like it happens for the material aspect of life (species, cells, molecules, etc), another facet of reality exist for the consciousness aspect.

And thus, that the seeds of consciousness are already dormant or simply working on a different timescale in animals, plants, cells and finally, matter itself.


So what we call "quantum probability" is simply an illustration of that "free will" or "consciousness" within matter. If matter was purely deterministic and inert we should be able to predict it's behavior.

We can only do so when we look at extremely large numbers, just like we can predict how crowds behave, but much less how individual behave. An important concept in statistics.


If you look at a brick you can predict it's behavior because there are billions of atoms in it and at such scale they behave the same.


But at an individual level, atoms behave exactly like conscious individuals, they are almost impossible to precisely predict. Like the seeds of consciousness and free will were already present at the atomic level itself, and thus the evolution of consciousness into greater consciousness, like the evolution of matter into more and more complex life, was present since the start within the fabric of matter and the universe itself.


I'm not saying it's a fact, it will be almost impossible to prove, but I really love his theory since it's very elegant and ties together all aspects of the universe (including consciousness, something science usually does not take into account) into a coherent system.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join