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.

 

Dear Atheists: I will prove to you that there is a Creator to the universe. Come debate me.

page: 21
36
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So, with respect, Allah, The Most Glorified, The Most High?



Among other names, yes.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


You're trying to rationalise this as if we can comprehend the "creator of all's" thought process...
Which is admirable, but slightly arrogant.


i think its slightly arrogant to assume that such a being would be inclined to create, care for, or return to such a "creation" as this one.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


You're trying to rationalise this as if we can comprehend the "creator of all's" thought process...
Which is admirable, but slightly arrogant.


i think its slightly arrogant to assume that such a being would be inclined to create, care for, or return to such a "creation" as this one.


Great.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So, with respect, Allah, The Most Glorified, The Most High?



Among other names, yes.


(I'm not laying a trap, LOL.)

So, you have personal experience of Allah (swt), and so for you, you believe that Allah is the only god and the others are false?

Or is Allah "just the name" of God, and He/She really incorporates all the other aspects of all the other gods I mentioned?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So, with respect, Allah, The Most Glorified, The Most High?



Among other names, yes.


(I'm not laying a trap, LOL.)

So, you have personal experience of Allah (swt), and so for you, you believe that Allah is the only god and the others are false?

Or is Allah "just the name" of God, and He/She really incorporates all the other aspects of all the other gods I mentioned?


False is harsh, I prefer "not what I believe to be true"...

But you've narrowed down my beliefs correctly.
Not like the trinity as such, in that I don't believe in all of those...

I just believe the seperation of the Godhead into a pantheon was a by-product of the times to explain all that the Universe encompasses.

Much like physics, chemistry & biology, although separate, can still be seen as a collective.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The One Infinite Creator creates and experiences itself in perpetuity.


All is the One experiencing itself in an eternal present.


In a universal application, or in the perspective of the "big bang" - The One Creator has a rhythm or flow as of a giant heart beginning with the central sun as you would think or conceive of this, the presence of the flow inevitable as a tide of beingness without polarity, without finity; the vast and silent all beating outward, outward, focusing outward and inward until the focuses are complete. The intelligence or consciousness of foci have reached a state where their, shall we say, spiritual nature or mass calls them inward, inward, inward until all is coalesced. This is the rhythm of reality. The big bang going outward and then inward into a point of singularity - this rhythm is indefinite and each heart beat is another "creation".



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I am starting to believe that the Universe created God...

>.>



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Back on topic, I don't think the logic of the op question is proof...

I think they've confused personal evidence due to experience with proof.

All too common an argument.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

So, in a way, your beliefs are collateral with those of many Hindus (and Wiccans/New Agers), who see all their gods as "aspects" of One Greater.

I respect your answer, and your belief, while I have little for any religion myself.

Here's why I was asking the general question: The following saying makes a lot of sense to me ... to explain atheism to a believer -



“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” (Stephen Roberts)


But you don't seem to be dismissing the other gods, so I'm not sure how I can make the "absence of belief" thing clear.

The experience is not an anti-belief ... "I believe in no god." but more at "I have no belief in god."

It is belief, not god, per se, that is absent.

I reached a point my mental journey after seeking answers to question for many years in every religion, philosophy, etc., that I simply realized that the "belief in Something" was just ... gone.

Thanks for your answers, Charlie.

edit on 11Mon, 03 Aug 2015 11:57:02 -050015p112015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

No problem, Gryphon.


If I was to be real specific, I'd say my beliefs are more that the pantheon gods were like Elohim or "ancient aliens"...


I have my core beliefs, and then I have my own perspectives of other such things...
Life would be boring without philosophy.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Back on topic, I don't think the logic of the op question is proof...

I think they've confused personal evidence due to experience with proof.

All too common an argument.


I agree! And there is no way to prove it, unless of course God manifests himself.... without that occurring there is only faith.




posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: arimass101

...Now (sic) this this knowledge is best found by contemplating (sic) to root question which is the following and nothing else. All other subjects such as morality, religion, and so forth can only be discussed after this root question is answered: Either the universe had a creator or the universe (sic) had always existed. Which is more logical? This question will lead the truly unbiased person to the inevitable truth of the existence of a creator with the following conclusions:


There exists a being, who is the master of everything that exists and who brought all things into being at the time he desired. He sustains them as long as he so desires, and rules over them with complete authority. This Being is perfect in every way, having absolutely no imperfection whatsoever. He does not depend on anything else, and is not affected by anything whatsoever...

Shall we begin?



You've left no room with which to begin. Your premise is intrinsically insulting to anyone who doesn't agree with it as they would therefore not be "truly unbiased", but I digress. I'll bite. The point you are trying to make, unless I am mistaken, is that either you believe in god and creationism or you don't believe in god and abandon the current scientific model of The Big Bang Theory, regressing to the Steady State Theory. Not looking for a discussion here since one is not possible within the scope of the posted question and I am biased in more ways than the scientific and monotheist ones, just wanted to clarify your terms for others who wish to participate while I sit back and read.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph


I'M THE PUPPET MASTER

Well, well.

I am tempted to say 'if the cap fits...'

The argument against your candidacy is that your extraordinary amour-propre is of the kind that would not condescend to a disguise.

Then again, we're all pseudonymous here, aren't we? Just a bunch of pseuds, really -- as my generation used to say.


edit on 3/8/15 by Astyanax because: of a pseudonymous atrament.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I don't and never claimed too.


Well I asked because you were actively suggesting disbelief in all those sub-gods to promote the idea of a monotheistic god, so I thought maybe you had some insight that others didn't.


Lol really?
Give me a decent comparison please.


The best I can do right now is give you the Earth Simulator which was on the fastest system in the world from 1999 to 2004. It's not really the whole universe, but if we need such a complicated system just to create climate change models on our planet, you can imagine how much work would have to go into accurately simulating the universe.


I don't.
But I believe it is possible.
You're trying to rationalise this as if we can comprehend the "creator of all's" thought process...
Which is admirable, but slightly arrogant.


Well I'm trying to analyze it through reason and logic off of what we know and how we know they work. Admittedly, what we know is severely lacking, but that's all I have to work with.


Science is young, testable science even younger, technologically testable younger still...
Give it a few centuries and one of us will be vindicated with an answer, I'm sure.


You seem to have more faith than I do, I think it'll take a bit longer than a few centuries to get these answers. Though, I'm sure after those centuries we will have a MUCH clearly picture than we do now.
edit on 3-8-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Astyanax


Then again, we're all pseudonymous here, aren't we?


No, we aren't.

Can't say I haven't regretted the decision though.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Back on topic, I don't think the logic of the op question is proof...

I think they've confused personal evidence due to experience with proof.

All too common an argument.


Personal evidence due to experience is usually tainted by confirmation bias when it comes to this discussion though. It's not good enough.



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
Back on topic, I don't think the logic of the op question is proof...

I think they've confused personal evidence due to experience with proof.

All too common an argument.


Personal evidence due to experience is usually tainted by confirmation bias when it comes to this discussion though. It's not good enough.


Self "proof" is not proof to others?



posted on Aug, 3 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I might be a little optimistic with my prediction.

I look at the leaps and bounds made by the LHC and it gets me excited.


I didn't mean to sound condescending when I asked for a better comparison though buddy...

I just think anything created by Humans is fallible, when what they're trying to understand is known to be infallible, if we go with the argument God does exist that is...
So right off the bat it's an unfair assessment.


I think what we can agree on is when they do have an answer, we'll likely both be deceased.
That's disheartening.
edit on 3-8-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-8-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join