Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Does God exist?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
If God is simply Being, and we are all Being and share a love of Being, then why is so much on this planet clearly derived from a love of Non-Being?


I'm not sure what you mean by 'derived from a love of Non-Being'?


If either God or Being is conceived of as an entity, even as an abstract concept, and it is not a she or he, is it an It?


I guess so. It sounds funny, but it would be correct.




By most definitions this analysis would have you labelled an atheist. Are you?


I suppose so. In ways. I certainly don't believe in the common God. I just believe in the universe and existence. you know? But I don't feel empty, I feel full. I still like to use the word God. Saying I worship the universe sounds weird. Not that 'worship' is even the right word.

I can't say for sure of course that there isn't a malignant super-being(named God) that for some reason came to earth and decided to be really mean to people. Who knows?




posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 02:09 AM
link   
'a love of Non-Being'

* killing sentient Beings for food, sport or pleasure
* philosophies other than live and let live or Be
* desire to oppress, control or snuff out contrary ideas
* Weapons Of Mass Destruction poised to make Non-Being out of millions of Beings

By definition we can't all have a 'connection' or 'love of Being' and see as much of the above as we see, or can we?



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 02:22 AM
link   
MA- that's what i assumed you meant but wanted to let you clarify.

I don't think that the fact that we are all connected implies that all of those things wouldn't be present.

It's lack of awareness for our interconnectivity that leads to those things. We are individuals which make up a whole, but as individuals we think as individuals.(ie. we're not a hive)

We can choose to realize that our(humanity) happiness truly depends on others, or we can seek to attain selfish goals and selfish happiness.

Free Will perhaps?

We are connected whether we help/love each other or not. Ok. The connection is always there but we decide whether it's love or hatred.

Considering almost all of the world's population follows religions which teach love and compassion (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, Judasim, etcc..) I would imagine that there simply must be people who claim a religion and then ignore its most basic tenets.



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 08:00 PM
link   
What if we're all just a project, us humans. We may have been created by aliens, we may be just a test. Maybe this answer is never going to be found, but if you compare many things in the bible to greek mythology, you will find many things that are the same.



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 08:09 PM
link   
Im not to sure on the subject of god.
Maybe he does, maybe he does not, but ones things for certain, from personal and just from watching everyday life, Were on our own.
If god did create us, i think thats all he did just create.
just seeded earth, like millions of other planets. Maybe he'll come back to see how our earth and its inhabitants have evolved, how our social structure works.
Maybe he has come back already, who knows.
I think maybe believing in god is what is bringing our civilization down.
I think to be one with God, is to be One with ourselves, our innerselves. We should have faith in ourselves and rely on that faith of "Self", to strive for a better society.
Well thats just what i think anyways.
Deep



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 09:14 PM
link   
From the standpoint of God creating reality often comes the question of who created God. Primarily the issue is temporal one and perhaps the problem we have with responding to it is because of the common conclusions with respect to time.

But if God created time then any conclusions made about Gods coming into existence are best made taking into conclusion that that inception occurred beyond any understanding we currently have of time.

From the context of the common conclusions time presents itself as a wave. Considering that the rest of creation is represented in respect to a duality; that of waves and particles as the stucture of one form.

Something to take into consideration is that there is a particle aspect to time. And as a result a solid state exist, one which is pervasive throughout what we understand as reality and as well from a perspective that can be visualized and understood.

With respect to a solid aspect to time the terms beginning and end cease to be a valid argument.

What is then real is the present, the hear and now which is but one moment where time as we understand it has a shape of its own.



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I think a major idea that everyone has overlooked is the fact that no one knows what it is like to be dead. If you are alive, then you do not truly understand what it is like to be dead and therefore cannot comment on the difference between death and life, to any real degree of accuracy. With this being said, you cannot make the assumption that everything in life must be created. If anything, science has proven that nothing is created.

The only thing that occurs is manipulation of what's already available. To say that matter was created is really to say that energy was manipulated. To bake a cake is to mix ingredients. To burn a log means to make fertile ash for growing plants. Nothing is really created or destroyed that we have proof of, so maybe your premise is wrong.

Who created God? ... Well, who created anything? Why does everyone have the assumption that nothing existed "in the beginning" and then something else came along to create life. Who says that is necessarily true? Existence and creation are not the same thing. We have proof of existence, but we do not have proof of creation. There is a religion that believes existence is all that "is." There is no such thing as non-existence... if there was, you wouldn't know about it because it wouldn't exist. Therefore, using simple rules of logic, the only thing that exists for sure is existence itself, which you have proof of or you would not exist.

The only real problem that humans have is trying to determine what makes something exist. If you think about a pencil that is yellow, has a #2 on it, an eraser, and is sharpened... then you think of a second pencil with all the same qualities except that fact that the second one "exists"......... your mind has a problem. What is the characteristic of existence. Well, I'll leave that up to you to think on.

A few other things to re-evaluate:
Is "nothing" really nothing?
Is existence a physical quality?
Is a thought a physical quality?
Does a thought determine existence?
If time and space (or "spacetime" for you smart physicists) are dimensions, what makes up dimensions?
If there is no purpose to life then what is the purpose of having purpose?
Which came first, the "cause" or the "effect?"
Are "cause" and "effect" the same thing?
If you accept yourself as being as powerful as God, how powerful do you now become,... and more importantly, how poweful does your new idea of God become?

Remember to remove those barriers in your thinking and to find proof for the smallest issues in life or you have no basis to even be speaking.



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 11:00 PM
link   
From the context of a faith/religion the response precludes any conclusion that existence was not created.

But the fact is the argument you are presenting is a matter of faith as well. As such while you may feel your basis of speaking is more valid, a more even response is to accept that you have not experienced death either.


What we know of existence is it is something that is defined as having happened a very long time ago, as well as is it something that is moving away from us at a specific speed in the here and now (present).

With respect to your request/questions to reevaluate, your questions pertain to duality's.

In a physical reality where duality's are in fact pertinent, relevant, concrete and observable it makes sense to form conclusions taking duality's into account (in respect to responses).

As I have mentioned what I believe to be real is the present. But that conclusion in and of itself does not discount the past as totally irrelevant in my mind. It simply asserts that perceptively our existence is more attuned to the infinite while assessing that route.

While science has stated nothing can be created or destroyed the conclusion that because of this. God did not bring about the Universe in much the same way fertile ash can grow plants could be mistaken.

One should consider alternative explanations to how creation was brought about. As well as alternatives to how words could be defined by cultures which lived
thousands of years ago compared to now.

What are your thoughts?



posted on Jun, 16 2003 @ 11:19 PM
link   
Falicies are running a muck.

"a more even response is to accept that you have not experienced death either."

Experiencing death and being dead are not one in the same. One is a visitation, while the other is a state of being. A NDE (near death experience) is not even being dead, only experiencing death. The only true evidence for death is to be dead.

Faith is another argument that you have been attempting to use, but you should know that "hope" is the proper reference that you should use. Faith is blind, but hope is rational, by proper definition.

"What we know of existence is it is something that is defined as having happened a very long time ago, as well as is it something that is moving away from us at a specific speed in the here and now (present)."

Existence is something that happens now. I do exist. Even if I die, some part of me exists. The carbon, the energy, the heat I give off. Even my existence changes form.

"In a physical reality where duality's are in fact pertinent, relevant, concrete and observable it makes sense to form conclusions taking duality's into account (in respect to responses)."

Duality is a method for comparison. How many people could create a non-dualistic method for explanation? The attempt would be daunting. Therefore, my attempts are valid.

"God did not bring about the Universe in much the same way fertile ash can grow plants could be mistaken."

You have no proof that the assumption is wrong, either. Creation, as far as physical evidence is concerned, does not exist. Manipulation does.

Too many people assuming that, "In the beginning there was NOTHING." Maybe the story really goes, "In the beginning there was EVERYTHING."



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 12:16 AM
link   
When did I mention NDE's as definitive of death?

By definition death is clinically defined as being about 8 minutes after brain activity has ceased. If a person then after that time period stands up and walks around, the resultant conclusion is that they came back from the dead.


Exactly, so since you have not experienced death your statements are the result of your belief or faith or hope.



Main Entry: [1]faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fAthz/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust more at BIDE
Date: 13th century
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
synonym see BELIEF
- in faith : without doubt or question : VERILY

Pronunciation Key

2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy


Duality's presents that beginning and end are one in the same. One way of looking at it is they pertain to the existence of the hear and now and that specifically, the oneness we seek is definable within the context of a moment.

That moment the duality of beginning and end seek to define is an experience specific to an observer. In respect to what capacity that observer has to perceive in respect to space and time.

If there was everything then there was also an observer, if there was nothing then that term would have to be applied from a context in which physical laws did not apply.

From that context nothing can be something (or everything) we define as nothing.



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:38 AM
link   
One day...we will ALL find out....regardless of our beliefs..



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 11:42 AM
link   
"there is no heaven without a hell" Tom Araya Slayer bassist vocalist



posted on Jun, 17 2003 @ 06:31 PM
link   
Here is some more to add to evaluating:

If believing in G-d is irrational; is NOT believing in G-d rational?

Hence, "A tree that falls in the forest makes no noise unless someone or something was there to hear it.

Whether you are a theist of atheist, etc., there are only 2 possible theories of 'Ultimate Origin'.....

1) something existed externally without being created...call it G-d or call it 'matter'

This theory implies or says G-d exists because there was never a time when 'He' did not exist. External existence is the first cause without a cause, not G-d.

2) something came into being out of nothingness without cause...call it G-d or call it matter.

This theory merely states that if external existence is NOT the first cause without cause of G-d's existence, then G-d must have just appeared out of nothingness without cause.

Current theory is that space, time, and existence went from nonbeing into being in a split second when 'a' singularity (ie: universe condensed into a pinpoint) exploded. No one spends much time discussing WHERE the 'singularity' came from or WHY and HOW it exploded. But, as I mentioned, there are only two possibilities...a) it always existed; or b) it appeared out of nothing without cause.

regards
seekerof



posted on Jun, 19 2003 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Considering that "beginning" and "end" are opposites, the Yin and Yang are opposites of what is know as the Tao. This is the concept which is defined as the true sense of the "Present." The past and future are all relative to this.

Also, take into consideration that God is beyond the Tao and I accept that conclusion.



posted on Jun, 20 2003 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I got tired of reading repeating replies - so I only read about a quarter of the first page.

My take on this, is yet another Jedi saying: "The Force created life; and life created the Force" - in this case, "the Force" is "God". And as with many things (good and bad, left and right, etc.) one cannot exist without the other. I don't know the point to my post, but I just felt like giving my opinion. Life cannot exist without God, and God cannot exist without life. A true symbiotic circle.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by CiderGood_HeadacheBadHow can there be a question without an answer?

Well, let's see...Can you give me the answer to the question, "What is the square root of 1?" Or maybe even tell me the "last digit of pi"? It seems to me that the world is pretty *full* of questions without answers...And even a few answers without questions! For example, the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe & Everything is 42, but what is the *question* that fits that answer?

In effect, I believe that the answer is what you believe it to be...It has been my observence that the question of God has always been a very *personal* answer. Perhaps God has never been any further from us than own own hearts.

The main thing that I dosagree with when it concerns organized religion is that such a group forms around a few people who seek to put themselves as intermediaries between God & each individual person who seeks to know Him...Yet, the only thing a person needs to know Him is to first know themselves.



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 01:43 AM
link   
Answering the main question.

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by "God" one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying . . . It does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

Carl Sagan



posted on Jun, 22 2003 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Current theory is that space, time, and existence went from nonbeing into being in a split second when 'a' singularity (ie: universe condensed into a pinpoint) exploded. No one spends much time discussing WHERE the 'singularity' came from or WHY and HOW it exploded.

This is the main focus behind the theory of a "cyclical universe"...That the existance of the universe has always been, but it periodically expands from a Big Bang & then retracts back into a singularity, only to become a cycle that never truly ends or begins.

Yet, unless you ascribe God to being the sum of all of the universe (merely the whole of exsistance), then this line of philosophy would have little or nothing to do with the question of God's exsistance.

This sort of ties in with Salem's quote from Carl Sagen...



posted on Jun, 26 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
What most people believe God to be( a white-bearded man in the sky), i believe God to just everything that exists



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   


Text then who or what created God?
reply to post by magestica
 


Hi Majestical -
Don't really know any more about God than you do but have my own theories. You asked " then who or what created God? " -- Well maybe its a substance change. We both know that this earthly body will cease to function and return to the elements of this world. I guess that's a fact. What we don't know is if there is a another spiritual existence after this body dies. I guess that could be called an afterlife.

If there is a spiritual after life then maybe there are a whole different set of rules to be followed by science. In other words, will the spiritual body have need for a stomach or lungs or any of the organs of this earthly body? Will the trees of fruit and pure water of life be totally absorbed by the spiritual body? Will there be any need for bodily waste? The reason I say this is that in the Jewish Anthology while the twelve tribes were in the desert for forty years, the manna that they ate was consumed by the entire body leaving no need for waste elimination.

If I am right then it would stand to reason that the elements of the spiritual creation would be different. We are what we perceive us to be. We perceive time because we know nothing else but time. But what if time does not exist in the spiritual world? We perceive limits of space and matter because that is what we are created in and we know nothing else. If we exist forever in this new spiritual existence then surely the entire physics has changed.

Atheists acknowledge that they are superior in knowledge because they have facts but what they do not realize is that those facts will one day be changed and a whole new set of facts will be presented. That is if I am right. Now as far as God is concerned, what if I told you that there is no such thing as a beginning or an end? I know that it is hard to wrap your mind around that but just what if that is the case? If all of this universe and its contents are indeed a creation and will one day evaporate into whatever then all this science goes with it. What if there is a spiritual world and in that spiritual world there is no such thing as a beginning or end for anything? What if it is an existence of NOW.

You see the reason that we understand this existence as a beginning and an end is simply that we are born into this and know nothing else. As hard as it is to perceive, I believe that God has no start or end and that all spiritual existence has no start or end. Most religious philosophies will believe, in one form or another, that there is a eternal separation of good and bad souls but no extermination of the consciousness of that soul. Regardless of good or bad the spiritual existence of that afterlife will exist forever. Just as God exists forever.

But then the question comes up that where did this universe come from at its start? The universe isn't spiritual. Did it always exist? Then is this world the same to us as the mothers womb? Just as we graduated from the womb we now graduate from the earth. It could be that the supreme spirit, which is God, does create and that we are indeed a creation of the spirit. The reason that we exist forever as spirit is that we are taken from God who is total spirit. We who exist today upon this world are created in two parts. One part which is the flesh and the other which is our consciousness or spirit. As the flesh dies the consciousness moves into the spirit world where it then exists forever. That is called afterlife.

But that afterlife had always existed because it originated in the belly of God who is total spirit. Therefore we have no beginning or end. Explain to yourself just how a baby is created. Through the atheist, science can understand some of the process but not all. The part that the atheist cannot understand is the portion of the spirit or consciousness. No one truly can answer that question because it is spirit and not of this understanding. But my theology dictates that when that child was conceived it was conceived in two parts which are of earth and spirit. The spirit being from the spirit God which has always existed as spirit.

But spirit goes deeper than this because with each portion of spirit that is taken from God there is a consciousness given to each portion of that spirit. That is called creation. God creates your portion of consciousness without revealing His own consciousness. Just as mom and pop give their portion of flesh they still retain their own and this also is actually an act of creation or commonly called procreation. So in effect God nor man has a start or end. .






top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join