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.

 

Who wants to argue creation?

page: 21
19
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 03:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Agartha

Both infinite nothingness and eternal everything.

The Alpha and the Omega, The Beginning and The End, The Light of Eternal Mind.


Sorry, but that's just faith again......

And the problem with faith is that each religion comes with a different set of beliefs for those with faith..
A bit of statistics:

if Christians are right it means that 5 billion people in the world are wrong.
If Muslims are right it means that 5.5 billion people in the world are wrong.
If Hindus are right it means that 6 billion people in the world are wrong.

Who is correct? Why should we believe the Bible and not The Vedas?




posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: spy66

I cant back up my claim



We know.


Science dont cover this at all.......


Because it's a load of unsubstantiated claptrap.


I know because science havent reached this far yet.



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 05:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha

originally posted by: spy66


Before there is anything finite....... there is nothing finite....only a single infinite void of energy..........God.



So basically God is infinite nothingness???
A void of energy is something completely empty.....




The absolute infinte can only be a single void of absolute energy. That is very logical. You cant have two different dimensions of void that take up all Space there is. There is only room for one Source.

A void of absolute emptyness is a void absolute empty of particles and matter. You can Call it a absolut vaccume. Or absolute neutral. It is the same thing. Its timeline is a absolute constant...no changes take Place in this void. Its the only Dimension of void that can have always been and always is (infinite). Finite change always....its timeline is always changing until it becomes infinite like it used to be. All finite must have come from the infinite void. There is nowhere else possible it can have come from.

Science cant prove this. So People say that this is false. But that does not mean it dosent exist. Because it must exist.

Finite can not exist unless ther is a infinite Dimension for it to exist in. It would be like trying to put a dot on a piece of paper you dont have. Or having a singularity without a void of space to have it in. How complicated is this really to grasp?

This is not really complicated stuff. It is very logical.


Imagine that this hvite dot is Earth. Then imagine how it got there....what energy formed it?
Pay attention to the absolute black void surrounding the hvite dot. It matters when it comes to how Earth/Our universe was formed.

Here is a Clue. The hvite dot is a compressed finite ball of particles and matter/energy. How did the hvite dot show up within the absolute black void? Before the hvite dot there was only absolute darkness/nothingness.


Before the hvite dot was formed.



After: The hvite dot is formed.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Agartha




We are talking about the creation of humans:


No Agartha, we are talking about Gods creation period.
In fact the entire OP is focused on it.


Ok ok, everyone's getting their panties in a bunch. This is what happened.

Chapter 1 - The beginning

God, aka consciousness, is an intricate web which encompasses all things. It resides in strings and connects all of us together like a hub on a bicycle wheel, with the spokes representing past, present, future simultaneously connected to the outer rim, being upper dimensions. Consciousness, having no beginning nor end, created the classical physics we live in. It's this Classical physical world that created evolution as it pertains to the laws of physics because Quantum physics and Classical physics rely on one another. Even though they both are different systems, they reside in the same symbiotic relationship. Where, ALL things eventually are discovered as being part of the same symbiotic relationship. Hence, the bicycle wheel.

Evolution -cells, complying strictly to the laws of physics, received its cognizance and blueprint instructions from consciousness via microtubules. Much like plants during photosynthesis, they compute their functionalities on a Quantum capacity unbeknownst to the symbiotic relationship it creates, IE: heart cells (heart), liver cells (liver), et al.
This set of instructions or CLASS as per modern computer programming languages, is applied to ALL aspects of the universe such as class of stars, class of galaxies, class of species etc. This is how a species evolves over millions of years. A layer of a specific class is on a grid which holds the blue prints. Then evolution is layered on top of that. The many layers are compartmentalized to the point where the species, laws of physics, creation for example, need not know the complexities or mechanics of the class in order for it to just "create"

For illustration:


The black dots on the tail evolved that way to fool predators. The fish didn't "consciously" create it but the DNA did. While the entire body works consciousness on a macro level, the mechanics of evolution is not. We are not privy to the mechanics and inner workings of the "class" we belong to.

At about 100,000 years ago, consciousness then began to take form as art on cave walls around the entire planet at the same time. It is here when man created "god" Or rather, felt "god". But god was only the interpretation of this new feeling of consciousness, or "hundredth monkey", regardless, it resides within all of us only to be twisted, turned, distorted and bent to fit the need of man and it's organized religion.

There you have it. The brass tax short and sweet.

Chapter 2 - the Alien intervention

Chapter 3 - Fractals and the Universe

Chapter 4 - Dark Matter

Chapter 5 Hologram Theory

Chapter 6 We are living in a computer simulation


edit on 24-6-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: Agartha

Both infinite nothingness and eternal everything.

The Alpha and the Omega, The Beginning and The End, The Light of Eternal Mind.


This may (or may not) surprise you Randy, from a complete heathen/atheist, but I have some sympathy for that sentiment. There might be some truth to it in a way that is beyond our ability to really comprehend (scientifically) as yet, but can still be experienced personally. There is obviously far more to existence than we can understand scientifically at this stage.

Though this only stems from personal experience which could be open to all sorts of human foibles and mistakes, there could well be other (scientific) explanation. I know there are neuroscientists who have had similar experience. No explanations so far (religious or scientific) seem satisfactory.

I don't (and have no way of knowing) what, in any personal sense, has led you to such beliefs but I do understand how extremely profound personal experience can be. Yet there are some claims that seem disconnected or non sequitur (that don't logically follow) from all of this though.

How do we get from "the light of eternal mind" as some perfect, utterly beautiful, infinite, eternal, fundamental/underlying aspect, possibly the reason for existence itself... to a very flawed human like being who displays none of these qualities nor any sense of beauty, who rewards and punishes, imposes rules, is bigoted, plays favourites, goes into a jealous rage, is vindictive etc? Surely this is completely at odds with such a thing?

How can a being who is capable of mood swings and changing it's mind, be perfect or omniscient? Have you really thought about this? Whether such a thing existing in such a state of imbalance could even have the properties of being "eternal" would be an interesting (though lengthy) debate.

How does an omniscient, omnipotent being tally with the possibility of humans having free will? Is that really possible? Is that really possible (in the ultimate sense), even without such a being?

How do we get from "light of eternal mind" to a being that consciously chooses what it creates and destroys? There are all sorts of inherent problems with this concept of god.

Even if we overlook science (as there seems no scientific way to really quantify such a thing yet) there are huge problems with this notion both philosophically and especially logically. Logic isn't a friend to religious gods. At least I have never heard an argument in support this way that didn't rely on special pleading and logical fallacy.

The Buddhist approach seems at least more thoughtful and refined, but I struggle with the notion of an "afterlife" at all (especially in a sense of retaining individuality), let alone the concept of reincarnation.

It seems these are all anthropomorphic projections onto something that is beyond comprehension and the moment such things are claimed, they are no longer talking about "the light of eternal mind" and instead, simply start reflecting human psychology.

It also seems claims of "god" (whatever you see it as) can only be made philosophically at this stage. It isn't as proponents often claim, that people don't understand them. Disagreement doesn't always amount to a lack of comprehension. It's because they usually have nothing to back them up (in a scientific sense) and amount to pseudo science, not to mention there are often accompanying claims that are not only clearly and obviously wrong (especially with creationism) but utterly ridiculous and can be shown as such.

How did you get from ideas such as "the light of eternal mind", to the religious notion of god? If you can't or don't wish to explain (as I can see personal experience playing a large part) that's fair enough, but I always wonder about this with similar religious believers and their claims.



edit on 25-6-2015 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

I dont think everyone is exspected to understand the logic of God. Therefor it becomes illogical for them to understand how God fits in to all this.

Logic does not always add up equaly for everyone.

If God is absolute and perfect. God is also a absolut constant. God is also absolut neutral. God is neither good or bad.

What differs us from God is that we are not a absolute constant and we sure aint absolute neutral. We judge every action as either good or bad...... based on Our experiance and knowledge of good and bad. So Our knowledge of good and bad are always measured to Our own standard. We even compare Our standard to Gods standard. And we Wonder how God can be Perfect.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
The absolute infinte can only be a single void of absolute energy. That is very logical. You cant have two different dimensions of void that take up all Space there is. There is only room for one Source.

A void of absolute emptyness is a void absolute empty of particles and matter. You can Call it a absolut vaccume. Or absolute neutral. It is the same thing. Its timeline is a absolute constant...no changes take Place in this void. Its the only Dimension of void that can have always been and always is (infinite). Finite change always....its timeline is always changing until it becomes infinite like it used to be. All finite must have come from the infinite void. There is nowhere else possible it can have come from.

Science cant prove this. So People say that this is false. But that does not mean it dosent exist. Because it must exist.


It must exist in your eyes, but that doesn't make it so for everyone else. Also, you confuse my position. I never said any of your beliefs were false or that you were wrong. I said that your claims are guesses or faith based, rather than facts, and your paragraph here proves my point. You tried to say it was fact, but it's not even close to fact.


Finite can not exist unless ther is a infinite Dimension for it to exist in. It would be like trying to put a dot on a piece of paper you dont have. Or having a singularity without a void of space to have it in. How complicated is this really to grasp?

This is not really complicated stuff. It is very logical.


It is interesting to think about the possibilities, but your guess is as good as mine at this point. There isn't any logic involved when talking about the concept of infinity. Our universe could be all that exists. There might not be any void at all. Conversely our universe could be one of billions. There is too much guesswork and conjecture involved to claim there is a logical explanation for it, at least not until our technology improves enough to be able to study such things.


Imagine that this hvite dot is Earth. Then imagine how it got there....what energy formed it?
Pay attention to the absolute black void surrounding the hvite dot. It matters when it comes to how Earth/Our universe was formed.


No need to imagine how earth got here. Scientists have a very good idea of how that happened. Can you please explain what an "hvite" dot is? You've mentioned that word several times in the post and I can find a meaning for it.


Here is a Clue. The hvite dot is a compressed finite ball of particles and matter/energy. How did the hvite dot show up within the absolute black void? Before the hvite dot there was only absolute darkness/nothingness.


But do you know for a fact that there was ever "absolute darkness" or "nothingness"? Are you going to post that objective evidence you referred to before, or are you just going to keep posting your theories and guesses?



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Your post, I swear, to me, is one of the most outstanding remissions
I have read on this site.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: randyvs

By the same principle, spiderman, sauron, Harry Potter and bobba fett should all be considered real people by virtue of their massive fanbases.


Then you worship them.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: FlySolo

And yet another outstanding post! What the hell is going on here!



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Concerning this Barcs




Completely false. I was a believer for more than half of my life. I've been there and done that. I've read the bible cover to cover. You've taken the time to know what the bible says about god, not to actually know god himself. I've taken the time to understand what the bible says about god as well. The difference is that I no longer buy into it, but don't discount the possibility of god existing overall. You have not considered any other myths and legends about a creator to even be possible. There is a big difference between believing you know god and actually having a face to face conversation. People just like to throw that Truth word around like it's going out of style. The truth is nobody actually knows the truth as it relates to creation vs materialism, including folks that believe they do. I don't claim to know all the answers, that is YOU GUYS. I've said it before. Strong faith does not equal fact no matter how vigorously you may argue for it.


I just threw that at you to see what you would say. I
was hoping I wouldn't have to apologize for it but I
do. It's just really hard to remember everyones
idiosyncracies concerning the concept of God.
I apologize.

Further more a thank you personally for your great
posts. No matter what side of the coin there from,
your contributions are appreciated immensely.

Cog, Spy,Agartha and Fly might as well get you guys as well.
In fact, thank you everyone for participating here.
It really really means a lot to me.
Why am I feeling all emotional right now?

edit on Ram62515v48201500000051 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I see where you are going. I know that science dont directly support what i am saying. But it dones not mean that i am wrong. Sure i am guessing, but i am guessing based on Logic. I am trying to bring up some arguments to the topic. If we are to sit and wait for science to reach a conclusion.....what is the point of having this topic?

If Our universe (the singularity) had a beginning some 17 billion years ago. That means Our universe did not exist prior to its beginning. Only the energy that formed the singularity existed. That means a void of Space must have existed prior to the fomring of the singularity.

How do i know that there was a void of Space prior to the forming of the singularity? Well there are more than one reason.

1. The singularity is a finite. This means it dosent take up all Space possible. The singularity takes up a finite volum of Space. Since the singularity had a beginning, there must have been a void present capable of forming the singularity. Because the singularity is not infinite. It didnt always exist.

2. The singularity had a finite size/volum of comressed energies in the beginning. Science claim to know the exact weight/mass of Our universe. Our universe does not have a infinite mass.

3. The finite singularity is expanding and cooling Down. This means that the distance between particles and matter are increasing. This means if the singularity didnt have a surrounding void of Space to expand in. The singularity would not expand or lose pressure (cool Down). If Our universe is the only void of space that exists It would be like having the singularity inside a Sealed chaimber. The total volum of the expanding singularity is what science state is Space time. Science can only study whats within the expanding singularity. So to them Our universe is all there is.

4. If the singularity is expanding equally in all directions at the same time. That means the singularity is not effected by a surrounding force. That means the void of space surrounding the singularity is absolut neutral. It must be a absolute vacuum. I know this is not supported by science because science can not create a absolute vacuum inside a chaimber.

5. What force would be strong enough to form the singularity? This means that.... prior to the forming of the singularity there must have been a force present strong enough to compress energy into a singularity. And the same force must have stopped the compression at some point, because the singularity began to expand into Our universe....equally in all directions at the same time.









edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs

I just threw that at you to see what you would say. I
was hoping I wouldn't have to apologize for it but I
do. It's just really hard to remember everyones
idiosyncracies concerning the concept of God.
I apologize.

Further more a thank you personally for your great
posts. No matter what side of the coin there from,
your contributions are appreciated immensely.

Cog, Spy,Agartha and Fly might as well get you guys as well.
In fact, thank you everyone for participating here.
It really really means a lot to me.
Why am I feeling all emotional right now?


I like discussing with you too, even if we think completely different... but I am an ex-believer (just like Barcs explained) and once you see the contradictions and errors of the Bible you simply cannot look at it as the inspiration from a God ever again.

And I'll be back again to point out things that show God didn't create us!! lol (just too tired today...)




posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

I bet I know of more what you call, contradictions then
you Agartha. Just be sure to know, you could never change
what I know on a personal level. I've been sold since finding
my own way at ten yrs old. And never have I found enough
to convince of anything else. It's what I have felt in my core
that has convinced me. Nothing read nothing said but physically
felt. And nothing has ever brought me to that feeling other than
My Sweet Lord.

Of course I replace a few words with this one.



But it does descibe very well.

edit on Rpm62515v52201500000011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Let me described a naturally occurring phenomenon known as "vacuum fluctuation," in which matter is created out of what appears to be perfectly empty space—i.e., out of a perfect vacuum. Scientists have discovered that even in a perfect vacuum, in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are present. These oscillations actually represent a form of energy now called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with the mass-energy conservation laws. In other words, the "nothingness" of a perfect vacuum in empty space can and does spontaneously produce matter in full agreement with Einstein's long-established laws.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: spy66

Let me described a naturally occurring phenomenon known as "vacuum fluctuation," in which matter is created out of what appears to be perfectly empty space—i.e., out of a perfect vacuum. Scientists have discovered that even in a perfect vacuum, in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are present. These oscillations actually represent a form of energy now called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with the mass-energy conservation laws. In other words, the "nothingness" of a perfect vacuum in empty space can and does spontaneously produce matter in full agreement with Einstein's long-established laws.


You've managed a full circle that is in agreement with
the Alpha and the Omega.

edit on Rpm62515v16201500000037 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: spy66

Let me described a naturally occurring phenomenon known as "vacuum fluctuation," in which matter is created out of what appears to be perfectly empty space—i.e., out of a perfect vacuum. Scientists have discovered that even in a perfect vacuum, in which all traditionally understood forms of matter and energy are absent, random electromagnetic oscillations are present. These oscillations actually represent a form of energy now called vacuum fluctuation energy, which can be converted into matter in complete harmony with the mass-energy conservation laws. In other words, the "nothingness" of a perfect vacuum in empty space can and does spontaneously produce matter in full agreement with Einstein's long-established laws.



The vaccum you describe is not Natural. It is created. Either within a chaimber or a Crystal chaimber.

The vaccum you describe is isloated and not open. The vaccum that surrounds the Singularity is open and not isolated by a chaimber or any other material.

The singularity is isolated by the absolute vacuum. It is more Perfect than the one created in a lab where you have a compressed mass that isolate the vaccum. The two cant even be compared. Because one is open and the one you describe is isolated.

A Perfect vaccum is not a absolute vaccum either. It is a state of purity agreed upon within the Scientific community. It is not absolute Perfect. It is only as pure as they can make it. Therefor it is not a absolute vacuum. I think that is mentioned on wiki as well.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66





The vaccum you describe is not Natural. It is created. Either within a chaimber or a Crystal chaimber.

The vaccum you describe is isloated and not open. The vaccum that surrounds the Singularity is open and not isolated by a chaimber or any other material.

The singularity is isolated by the absolute vacuum. It is more Perfect than the one created in a lab where you have a compressed mass that isolate the vaccum. The two cant even be compared. Because one is open and the one you describe is isolated.

A Perfect vaccum is not a absolute vaccum either. It is a state of purity agreed upon within the Scientific community. It is not absolute Perfect. It is only as pure as they can make it. Therefor it is not a absolute vacuum. I think that is mentioned on wiki as well.



I just have to ask you Spy where do you come up with this stuff?
I know it all sounds very spot on is why I ask.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Agartha



And I'll be back again to point out things that show God didn't create us!! lol (just too tired today...)


I agree. God never did physically create us. Earth did. Just like Earth created all life.

But God did create the firmament. The Properties needed to forme life.



posted on Jun, 25 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: spy66





The vaccum you describe is not Natural. It is created. Either within a chaimber or a Crystal chaimber.

The vaccum you describe is isloated and not open. The vaccum that surrounds the Singularity is open and not isolated by a chaimber or any other material.

The singularity is isolated by the absolute vacuum. It is more Perfect than the one created in a lab where you have a compressed mass that isolate the vaccum. The two cant even be compared. Because one is open and the one you describe is isolated.

A Perfect vaccum is not a absolute vaccum either. It is a state of purity agreed upon within the Scientific community. It is not absolute Perfect. It is only as pure as they can make it. Therefor it is not a absolute vacuum. I think that is mentioned on wiki as well.



I just have to ask you Spy where do you come up with this stuff?
I know it all sounds very spot on is why I ask.


I read a lot of science both here on ATS and on wiki, and i do a lot of Math. It is my hoby


And i love to partisapate in topics like this, because i am looking for Clues that can be challenging to solve. This topic is among the hardest to solve.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)







 
19
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join