The Birth of God and the Beginning of the New Dawn

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView
we are all insignificant, inconsequential, and meaningless together.

People turn to religion to run from this reality. What better way to make a person feel special then by accepting an invisible make-believe friend that works for you by answering your prayers and hating the same people you hate?

Our insignificance in the great span of time and the universe is far too overpowering to some minds.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: AlienView
we are all insignificant, inconsequential, and meaningless together.

People turn to religion to run from this reality. What better way to make a person feel special then by accepting an invisible make-believe friend that works for you by answering your prayers and hating the same people you hate?

Our insignificance in the great span of time and the universe is far too overpowering to some minds.

and by association, such philosophies are equally ephemeral. no point in getting bothered about it. you have so little time to begin with, and contemporary figures of myth and lore wont last much longer than mithra, horus, asklepios, dionysos, or apollonius did. my major concern has always been a theocracy, but thats more of a personal contention that will die when i do. having an opinion is part of the fun, right?

a reply to: TzarChasm

The reason their existences bother me, personally, is because I adore education and the seeking of knowledge. Most popular religions either spread misinformation, or teach not to question anything at all. This can have a detrimental impact on the human race.

Not to mention the push for individuals particular religions to be put into governments (as you said, theocracy), and basing their judgments on the events around them (such as voting for a particular person to rule the country), and the world around them, on nothing more than claims that have been proven false time and time again, and with a clear intention of rejecting the reality of those proven falsehoods.

TzarChasm wrote:

your acceptance is irrelevant. ponder, if you will, the trillions of people whom no one remembers or even cares about not remembering..........

Yes, I could consider that - But I would rather consider Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche , Einstein, the profundity and
absurdity of religious thought and the effects and affects Man's mind might have on existence itself - and how existence
could not even exist without a mind to perceive and define it and how some can imagine logic happening out of chaos.

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”
- Albert Einstein

But I fault no one for being an Existentialist and taking the easy way out - And oftien quote the great Existentialst
philosopher Alfred E. Neuman [Mad Magazine] when he utered the profound words:
"What Me Worry?"

originally posted by: AlienView
Existence could not even exist without a mind to perceive and define it

Things exist regardless if there is consciousness that it exists.

Does water exist on planets in other galaxies? We've never directly witnessed it, but we know it exist through objective reasoning.

Does sound exist if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it? Yes, of course it does.

The first part of your tangent was reasonable, but then you kind of staggered off at the end there.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: AlienView
Existence could not even exist without a mind to perceive and define it

Things exist regardless if there is consciousness that it exists.

Does water exist on planets in other galaxies? We've never directly witnessed it, but we know it exist through objective reasoning.

Does sound exist if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it? Yes, of course it does.

The first part of your tangent was reasonable, but then you kind of staggered off at the end there.

"Things exist regardless if there is consciousness that it exists." Really? Prove it! - I have no idea what exists
without mind or consciousness - And I strongly suspect that nothing exists without mind - And if it does it
has to be outside of an existent state, outside of comprehension, a state of non-existence - And non-existence
can not exist - And again could never see any form of existence ever occurring if there ever was a state of
non-existence - Existence is a logical a priori fact.

And if a tree falls in the woods without some mind in some way perceiving it and defining it there is not only
no sound, but unless you define and and can perceive the woods, there is no woods. Please tell me what
exists without a perceiving defining mind comprehending it - If you are going to believe anything exists
without mind you might as well believe in God - that would be perceiving something you can't prove
exists - the same would hold true with a physical state of existence existing independently of a perceiving
mind defining it.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter."
-Max Planck

Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck, FRS[2] (/plɑːŋk/;[3] German: [plaŋk]; 23 April 1858 – 4 October 1947) was a German theoretical physicist whose work on quantum theory won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918.[4]

Planck made many contributions to theoretical physics, but his fame as a physicist rests primarily on his role as an originator of quantum theory, which revolutionized human understanding of atomic and subatomic processes. However, his name is also known on a broader academic basis, through the renaming in 1948 of the German scientific institution, the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (of which he was twice president), as the Max Planck Society (MPS). The MPS now includes 83 institutions representing a wide range of scientific directions.

Quote source on Max Planck
en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: AlienView
Really? Prove it! - I have no idea what exists

I'm not claiming to know what exists specifically, but rather, that things exist without the need for a human's subjective confirmation that it does really exist. To believe so is the utmost of arrogance.

How can we prove that something exists even though we aren't able to subjectively view it? A simple way would be to look at astronomy. We can look up into the sky and see stars. With the human eye, we can't see anything other than the spectrum in which we can see. However, if we look at the sky with a camera that can see light through a different spectrum, all of a sudden there is a wealth of previously un-see-able material that we can never see without objective tools.

Done.

If that isn't enough evidence for you, why not take it a step further? We can only see a small amount of other galaxies with the naked eye. That means that the light given off by other galaxies isn't ever able to be perceived by us subjectively unless we were to go out on a space craft and travel close enough to see it that light, and also in an area where the light isn't diffused enough to see it. However, we can see these other galaxies through a telescope, and the galaxy didn't just pop into existence once we realized it was there because we know the approximate speed of light, and we can look at it's movement and the direction in which it's going, and we can determine what path other galaxies would have had through the mathematical conclusions we can reach if we were to hypothetically consider a particular galaxy not to exist.

If that galaxy didn't exist until we visually saw it (through objective means, nonetheless), then everything else we observe would completely change. Therefore, it must have existed all this time, and prior to us viewing it.

Done....

a reply to: Ghost147

I see your point Ghost147 and know science has to 'assume' an existent reality to function - But you must realize
that the examples you give of perceiving the universe [cameras, telescopes, etc.] and the calculations that
follow are based upon Human observation and calculations of the Human mind using Human instruments of
measurement with Human calculations - the reality that follows and
its logic are based on the Human mind. Even in the science of physics of today physicists now admit that we
are in some ways influencing what we observe as soon as we observe it. What the 'real world' looks like without
a mind to perceive and define it I can not imagine - Can you? - And again without mind you can not prove
anything exists - since even the words/concepts 'existence' and 'proof' are concepts of mind.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147
I see your point Ghost147 and know science has to 'assume' an existent reality to function

It's far more than a baseless assumption, we can test it, and our observations lead us to our conclusions, those conclusions are based on evidence.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147
that the examples you give of perceiving the universe [cameras, telescopes, etc.] and the calculations that
follow are based upon Human observation and calculations of the Human mind using Human instruments of
measurement with Human calculations - the reality that follows and
its logic are based on the Human mind.

Sounds like a response that only leads to the detraction of the argument. You've given no context to your claims, nor have you proven me wrong.

You seem to forget that we can actually show that our calculations are accurate by continuously testing them.

I had explained throughout the entirety of that post how we can objectively view and test and reason, you have completely dismissed that by saying "they are only human observations", which implies subjective reasoning, when in fact what I wrote was objective reasoning.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147
What the 'real world' looks like without a mind to perceive and define it I can not imagine - Can you?

You originally suggested that a mind was necessary in order for things to be real. I proved that wrong.

Now you claim that without a mind we don't know what the 'real world' looks like. Which implies that it exists without the necessity of a mind to percieve it.

My conclusion is that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and your knowledge of any subject you've brought up in this topic thus far is beyond far from what those subjects actually represent.

Ironically, this goes back to one of my earlier points about subjective reality. To you, your reality is entirely different from what we can view objectively, and what we have proven through objective reasoning.

Sorry, but I think you need to look at this subject without such a closed mind. You're deluded.

originally posted by: AlienView
TzarChasm wrote:

your acceptance is irrelevant. ponder, if you will, the trillions of people whom no one remembers or even cares about not remembering..........

Yes, I could consider that - But I would rather consider Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Nietzsche , Einstein, the profundity and
absurdity of religious thought and the effects and affects Man's mind might have on existence itself - and how existence
could not even exist without a mind to perceive and define it and how some can imagine logic happening out of chaos.

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”
- Albert Einstein

But I fault no one for being an Existentialist and taking the easy way out - And oftien quote the great Existentialst
philosopher Alfred E. Neuman [Mad Magazine] when he utered the profound words:
"What Me Worry?"

observation is not a prerequisite for existence. the universe is a lot older than any sentient lfe on record. why do you call ....existentialism...the easy way out? there i nothing harder than accepting that this might well be it for us. a one-off blip of life. why do you think so many crave spirituality? even a god fears oblivion, true death, the one thing no one can come back from.and really, that expiraton date is what makes life precious. its ironic that the reward for a saintly life (or one immortal soul) is eternal life, when only the guilty fear death.

a reply to: Ghost147

Sorry, but I don't think you really know what reality is and if anyone is living in state of delusion it is you.

For example consider this:

Two things must be considered:

1. No two conscious entities [or Humans] can exist in exactly the same place at the same time - therefor every perception of so-called reality is different and only a symbolic language open to various interpretations gives any unity to what you call reality.

2. In real time reality does not exist - since perception of reality has passed as soon as you perceive it - In an absolute sense reality does not exist - Reality is always a relative perception of existence. You can only define reality in an absolute sense if you could freeze time and the universe - You can not and therefor realty is in a constant state of change - What you perceive is a momentary illusion of an unfolding existence you can not fully understand.

You see your reality and its perception are not the same as mine - Your perception of reality is based upon your bias
- Mine might be too, but I at least recognize bias and 'observer effect' for what it is - You do not.

“The very nature of the quantum theory ... forces us to regard the space-time coordination and the claim of causality, the union of which characterizes the classical theories, as complementary but exclusive features of the description, symbolizing the idealization of observation and description, respectively.”
― Niels Bohr

“...quantum mechanics—the physics of our world—requires that you hold such pedestrian complaints in abeyance.”
― Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe : Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory

“You are deluded if you think that the world around you is a physical construct separate from your own mind.”
― Kevin Michel, Moving Through Parallel Worlds To Achieve Your Dreams

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147
1. No two conscious entities [or Humans] can exist in exactly the same place at the same time - therefor every perception of so-called reality is different and only a symbolic language open to various interpretations gives any unity to what you call reality.

I've already acknowledged this, and in fact brought it up as one of my points.

Reality is both subjective and objective. What is reality to me is not reality to you, because we perceive things differently though our senses. What is reality to an ant is not reality to a human.

And then you have reality which exists outside of subjectivity and individuality. There are two different forms of reality. You're only arguing one, and even then your argument makes no sense.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147
2. In real time reality does not exist - since perception of reality has passed as soon as you perceive it - In an absolute sense reality does not exist - Reality is always a relative perception of existence. You can only define reality in an absolute sense if you could freeze time and the universe - You can not and therefor realty is in a constant state of change - What you perceive is a momentary illusion of an unfolding existence you can not fully understand.

You continue to make claim after claim. where is your evidence?

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147
You see your reality and its perception are not the same as mine - Your perception of reality is based upon your bias
- Mine might be too, but I at least recognize bias and 'observer effect' for what it is - You do not.

When did I ever deny this?

a reply to: Ghost147

So apparently we are not in complete disagreement. Claims I make that are of a philosophical nature of course are difficult if not impossible to prove - they are of course in some ways hypothetical - The way I see it.

But for the purpose of science we must accept 'a' reality - But like I said even men of science have come to accept what is called 'the observer effect' - We are in some ways creating and influencing reality as we perceive it.

What do you think of this statement by the famous science writer Carl Sagan:

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147

So apparently we are not in complete disagreement. Claims I make that are of a philosophical nature of course are difficult if not impossible to prove - they are of course in some ways hypothetical - The way I see it.

Good. I'm glad you don't view that as absolute.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147
But for the purpose of science we must accept 'a' reality - But like I said even men of science have come to accept what is called 'the observer effect' - We are in some ways creating and influencing reality as we perceive it.

I don't deny this.

What I do reject is the concept that nothing exists unless it's perceived.

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: Ghost147
What do you think of this statement by the famous science writer Carl Sagan:

“We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos

The full quote is: "The cosmos is also within us, we're made of 'star stuff'. We are a way for the cosmos to know itself"

The quote has nothing to do with the concept of reality. It's just an observation that because we are made up of the same materials within the cosmos, we are able to learn about 'our self'.

originally posted by: AlienView
Are the Atheists right Humans? - Do you create a mythical non-existent being as excuses to dominate and kill each other? What is this being that empowers you to destroy? - This God of destruction, this anti-Human entity? You can hardly blame the Atheists can you? - And see why many so-called Humanists are Atheists.
But I have a problem - I am Agnostic [defined to mean I can neither prove nor disprove an ultimate reason for existence and/or I can neither prove or disprove the existence of an ultimate entity or intelligence ruling the universe]. Maybe I should leave it go at that - for anything I might then conclude will be unconcludable - or will it?

Why does this species, Man, an apparently evolved animal keep affirming the existence of an advanced intelligence even though most Humans refuse to accept their own intelligence? - they use religion as an excuse for their own ineptitude - And blame the other persons God for their stupidity - Stupid and inept - And no god I can imagine will cater to stupid and inept - No he will no longer forgive you - He will tell you you are stupid and inept and blaspheme his very concept every time you use him for Deviltry - And you who kill in God's name are Devils - you know what the Devil is don't you Human? - The Devil, the real God Man worships. Call a spade a spade as they would say.

Still reading this? OK, time for a couple of quick quotes from another Agnostic [in my opinion]:

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
- Albert Einstein

“The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.”
- Albert Einstein

So should we all go home, become Atheists and forget the ugly history of Man abusing himself in the name of God? - Its not that simple - for once the concept of omnipotence, of devine intelligence is awakened in the Human psyche - it is hard to dismiss - some dreams do not just go away no matter how hard you try to stop them - The dream of an almighty and beneficent deity has become so fixated in the Haman mind that all Atheists, communists, or whoever will never make the dream of God end. God is mans dream of omnipotence and immortality - And what weak meaningless species we would be if we were to accept that we were nothing more than a meaningless animal, part of a meaningless evolution without direction of purpose - For a few of you this might be easy - for me it is unacceptable - I will forever dream the impossible dream - that is the destiny of Man - to become as the God of his dreams - Evolution without limits an intelligence that always evolves and knows no end.

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God - And how well does Man understand words? The machine you are staring at and the internet you are communicating on is a new testament to Man reaching for the heavens - Let us take heed and not let it fall in ruin like the Tower of Babel of the past.

Let us take stock of History, reappraise it and say:
WELCOME TO THE NEW DAWN !!!

-AlienView [aka: UniversalAlien]
universalspacealienpeoplesassociation.blogspot.com...

In an evolved status an egotistical human male believed that he could own the powers of creation....yet his own form never existed when the powers of creation were created.

Burning light and sound bodies O were the beginning....they cooled and then evolved.

There was never a moment to begin....for the moment was simply a loss of light and sound from light and sound.

Origins still exist and our own manifested spiritual life self attests to this condition.

We manifested after the destruction of our own spirit...and the spirit that preceded us advised us of our own condition.

When reviewing personal spiritual memory the memory states origin creation...Nature....trees and human life.

New memory states origin creation converted...Nature....trees...animals and human life.

We knew that we had denatured our own spirit by the presence of animals....we called the animals beasts.

We therefore knew that our only claim to a spiritual life was present in the state of our ownership....our selves.

Therefore God was never born...for God never existed.

When the occult practice for reviewing single statements to pose a theory for the gain of occult powers....the information was an occultist review about a status he wanted to own.

He posed a theory where he implied that he could remove the power he named God from out of the atmosphere and have it for his own occult practices....and he was proven wrong.

When he did a review of his theory after being attacked by the atmospheric changes...where he caused UFO manifestations by altering naturally evolved radiation cooling, he advised his person of his incorrect spiritual evaluations.

His review that he called the Revelations of God, demonstrated that God, the God that formed Satan attacked his life. His review stated that he had considered his organic presence and that of animals before they existed.

He did this review in an occult method of taking a somatic chemical drug of plants to change his own natural brain chemistry.

Plants exist before the Nature of Animals and Human life.

Life de-evolved and he witnessed his own de-evolution.

He gave his own human self horns...the horns of the beast.

He witnessed the attacks of the cows......for in India nuked 8000 years ago, they knew their own dishonor by the attacks upon the cow. When the sacredness of life was replaced by atmospheric cooling, they then revered the life of the cow and vowed to never again harm the spirit. This is why they honor the cow.

www.colinandrews.net...
www.youtube.com...

Human beings have always spoken about the ability to levitate....by changed gravitational forces...only humans with machines can alter the gravitational forces on Earth.

When I was being irradiated my eyes went black as I was burning....how else does a human think that blindness was given to humanity? By DNA mutating irradiations.

It is about time that humanity realizes that occultism is science and is an ancient practice of evil...that attacks the natural life of Nature.