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.

 

Intelligently Designed but Is it Divine?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
I will respect that. You made some valid points. All the best.




posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The question whether there is an intelligent designer or not, is not the topic of this thread. There are numerous threads concerning that issue.

I address those that believe there is an intelligent designer of this world.
The topic of this thread concerns the (spiritual) nature of the said intelligent designer.
I focus primarily on the physical world because it is immediately observable to most. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the nature of the creation, can be an indicator to the nature of the creator/designer.
With this idea in mind, simply using the physical senses one may make certain deductions based on what one perceives.

Many people believe a perfect god of total goodness designed this world and all within it, including humans.
Can this world truely be regarded as one of perfection and total goodness?
Why would a perfect god of total goodness design a world that doesn't even come close to that description?

Maybe the actual intelligent designer of this (far from perfect and good) world is far from perfect or good.
That would make far more sense to me.



posted on Apr, 9 2006 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I understand that the thread is not about whether there is an intelligent designer or not, Point.


But, what I don't understand is why you want to exclude all that exists outside of our physical world. I mean, if you're a creationist then obviously you believe in 'heaven' or the 'other side'. So, if you're going to discuss the 'spiritual' aspects of our creator then why leave out that part of the picture. Don't you feel in order to have a valid and logical argument the entire picture needs to be included in the argument?

BTW, this is just my opinion....not arguing.

I'm not a creationist btw, but I am open minded. I'm not a die hard evolutionist either. Even though I do believe in evolution. I don't exclude the possibility of a creator nor do I exclude the possibility that there isn't a creator. So, is it allright with you if I include my opinions on the argument regarding the designer's level of intelligence and divinity?



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
But, what I don't understand is why you want to exclude all that exists outside of our physical world.


I don't wish to exclude anything. Part of my reason for focussing on the physical world is given in my last post.


I mean, if you're a creationist then obviously you believe in 'heaven' or the 'other side'. So, if you're going to discuss the 'spiritual' aspects of our creator then why leave out that part of the picture. Don't you feel in order to have a valid and logical argument the entire picture needs to be included in the argument?


I'm not a creationist in the Biblical sense as I don't believe the Bible is a truthful document.
Substitute 'spiritual' with 'ontological' perhaps.
At any rate I was trying to incapsulate 'good or evil', 'divine or lack there of' into a single word.
Regarding the 'entire picture':
To discuss things of a metaphysical nature with some is like talking to a proverbial brick wall, pointless. Some people are not as open minded as others.
Sometimes the 'entire picture' can needlessly complicate matters and detract from the point of intended discussion. The main point can get lost in a myriad of other points that many may feel inclined to discuss/debate instead of the original topic. This is in evidence on this thread despite my initial effort to focus the discussion on the physical.
In short, I'm trying to keep it simple.



I'm not a creationist btw, but I am open minded. So, is it allright with you if I include my opinions on the argument regarding the designer's level of intelligence and divinity?


Of course, It is the topic of discussion
I regard myself as open minded also.



posted on Apr, 10 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
Okay, but I still don't see how you can logically discuss this without including the entire picture, especially if you are discussing the divinity of the supposed creator.

Anyhow, i'm going to try to give my thoughts on it without going outside the boundaries of the physical realm. But, I may venture out of it as it is really the only intelligent way to discuss it.

So, IF there was a creator, then my opinion is that 'it' was not and is not divine in nature. Intelligent, yes, but not divine. In my opinion, I lean towards the possibility of the creator being ambivolent in regards to feelings, thoughts and basically all that is human. I don't think this possible creator was intelligent in the sense that it had a human brain, but I can buy the 'theory' that perhaps it could have been an 'intelligent energy' of sorts, but as I stated earlier, this energy would be completely ambivolent to all that is human as I do not believe the universe was created with humans in mind nor do I believe (from a spiritual aspect) that it was created for us all to learn lessons and evolve spiritually. I don't believe there was a purpose to the creation at all.

As I stated earlier, I am an evolutionist, however I do not disregard the possibility that an 'intelligent energy' existed and created the universe, however there is no scientific evidence to back that up, yet. I can't rule out that an intelligent energy created the universe in its entirety through a natural process and life has evolved over time. I do not believe that this creator went by a specific blueprint to design each and every life existence in this Universe. Basically there is one thing that ties the universe together in every aspect and that is energy...whether positive or negative, that is only a human perception based on our experiences and molding in life.

And the primary reason that I do even flirt with the thought of an intelligent creator is because of what exists outside of the physical world. Things that science cannot yet explain. It doesn't mean they won't be able to at some point, but as of yet they are unable to explain in its entirety the paranormal and what exists in other realms of our universe. I've flirted with the notion that perhaps the paranormal can be explained through 'time' and that actually these experiences that people have witnessed are events from the past and they are seeing it in the 'present'. However, if you have ever been subjected to a haunting you probably would not agree to that. SO, the point in this was to say NO I cannot believe that this creator if it exists was of a divine nature. I believe if it did exist that 'it' was completely neutral in nature as far as feelings, thoughts, etc.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
So, IF there was a creator, then my opinion is that 'it' was not and is not divine in nature. Intelligent, yes, but not divine.


Agreed.



In my opinion, I lean towards the possibility of the creator being ambivolent in regards to feelings, thoughts and basically all that is human. I don't think this possible creator was intelligent in the sense that it had a human brain, but I can buy the 'theory' that perhaps it could have been an 'intelligent energy' of sorts, but as I stated earlier, this energy would be completely ambivolent to all that is human as I do not believe the universe was created with humans in mind nor do I believe (from a spiritual aspect) that it was created for us all to learn lessons and evolve spiritually. I don't believe there was a purpose to the creation at all.


So you suggest a neutral (neither divine nor evil) intelligence created the universe on a whim, with no purpose in mind.
Your hypothetical intelligent creator doesn't sound very intelligent. It also appears to be very irresponsible as well. It was surely intelligent enough to know a great deal of suffering would result from this careless supposedly pointless exercise. After all it created the potential for it to exist.
But, supposing it didn't know at the time and only later realised. Did it rectify the situation? Obviously not. Why not?
If it doesn't care, because it doesn't experience suffering itself, it's evil.
If it doesn't understand the concept of suffering even though it created it, then it's not very intelligent after all.
If it 'likes/takes pleasure' (in it's own non human way) in the status quo, it's evil.

What about the idea that this universe may have been set up for the express purpose of causing suffering. Spiritual 'devolution'.
Sounds horrific, I know.


SO, the point in this was to say NO I cannot believe that this creator if it exists was of a divine nature. I believe if it did exist that 'it' was completely neutral in nature as far as feelings, thoughts, etc.


What, a non intelligent creator (no thoughts)
Sounds very close to "no creator"/evolution angle to me.
In that case, Your on the wrong thread.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Point,

Say we advance enough to develope Artificial worlds on a massive supercomputer, complete with artificial life and designed one species with artificial intelligence.

Our species wouldn't really give a hoot about the artificial problems experienced by the artificial being's. They're nothing more then 1's and 0's to us. If there was a NON DIVINE creator, meaning a being similar to humans, why would it be required to care about us?

We could be nothing more then an interesting simulation to such a being. One of many. A science experiment. There would be no requirement to care about the daily going's of artificial constructs.

Seems like you feel a need or requirement to limit the actions of a possible higher being then yourself and impose your own limitations on that being. If it exist's, it must exist for humans. If it exists it must exist for our own well being. If it exist's it must exist as a fatherly figure in human form.

You seem to be saying it can't be intelligent unless it meet's your requirements. Do you usually feel the need to limit things?



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Ummm Point just because something is neutral in thought and feelings doesn't mean that it can not have intelligence. And just because this universe exists doesn't mean that there had to be a purpose to it all. You really need to rethink your post.

And btw...I never said that I thought the universe was created on a 'whim'. I think it happened naturally through an energy process.

[edit on 11-4-2006 by zenlover28]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by zenlover28
Ummm Point just because something is neutral in thought and feelings doesn't mean that it can not have intelligence. And just because this universe exists doesn't mean that there had to be a purpose to it all. You really need to rethink your post.


You really need to rethink why your bothering to peddle a thinly veiled evolutionistic point of view on a thread such as this. Are you looking for a convert?
'Ummm', Is this an attempt at literary condescension (not argueing, just asking)
Neutral in feeling=without feeling
Neutral in thought= without thought
(unless you mean neutral regarding good and/or evil intention.)


And btw...I never said that I thought the universe was created on a 'whim'. I think it happened naturally through an energy process.


It appeared that way to me.
Well, in that case, your off topic.
btw energy without intelligence is just power without direction. Pure chaos.
No order to facilitate any creative process what so ever. (as opposed to what we see around us)

[edit on 11-4-2006 by point]

[edit on 11-4-2006 by point]



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   


btw energy without intelligence is just power without direction. Pure chaos.
No order to facilitate any creative process what so ever. (as opposed to what we see around us)


Right ok.. Where are you getting pure chaos from? And exactly how do you figure that there MUST be a creative process behind the universe?



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Proton,
Re- read my first post for my very brief reason why.
Btw, off topic!



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
Oh dear goodness, you really are uptight about this aren't you. Okey dokey, i'm out of your string.



posted on Apr, 11 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
Ok re-read your first post (again). Still don't get where your figuring there MUST be a creator. Also doesn't discuss anything about your idea of pure chaos. Could you please elaborate on both?



posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Proton,
My comments you refered to were also off topic. Therefore to expand on those too much, I will be straying further from the main topic of discussion.
If you don't understand, then you don't understand. If you don't agree, then you don't agree.
I can't very well ask others to stay on topic and not do so myself, therefore my hands are tied.
I noticed a new thread called "Getting off topic, Impossible!" recently.
May be that's the place for off topic discussion with whoever is interested in a particular off topic subject that may be raised.

To clarify further, the thread raises the question of whether the 'God' that created 'this physical world' among other things is divine as many are led to believe or alternatively, evil which is a far less popular view.

I, personally am not interested in debating whether a god or gods exist or not, the theory of evolution vs creationism, quantum physics, semantics or anything else that ignores the actual point of this particular thread.



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 07:35 AM
link   
Perhaps the evidence pointing to the intelligent designer being evil, is just circumstancial, and only appears that way from the perspective available to us? There may be some greater purpose to all this destruction, violence and poverty that surrounds is which is unfathomable from the limitations of our perspective, which could paint a more divine picture of the intelligent designer?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Or there could be no purpose at all?! Why do humans needs a purpose to it all so much?



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   
Mytym,
Another way of saying, "God works in mysterious ways."

IMO,
To have the view that there is only one creator and that creator is evil would be a very depressing and hopeless outlook, would it not?
Even the Cult of Darwinism, would be be more appealing than that bleak outlook.

Fortunately for me, I do not have that view.
I have the view that there is more than one creator.
I view the creator of this material/ physical dimension as distinct from, and opposed to, the creator of the spiritual realms (the benevelent creator that many pray to and find comfort in) that lay beyond.
To put it in a Biblical context: The god of vengence, wrath that so loves to smite those who don't obey his laws, is not the god of forgiveness and love that Jesus refers to as his Father. Two opposing 'gods' that have been confused as one.
I don't claim to be the originator of this viewpoint, but I do support it.
It is a gnostic view.



posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 03:53 PM
link   
I have stated previously that I believe the Bible to be a non-factual document. The comments below are directed at those that believe otherwise.

It is stated in the New Testament of the Bible that Jesus makes the comment, "My kingdom is not of this world"
If he is connected/represents the same 'god' that is supposed to have created this world in Genesis of the Old Testament, then there appears to be a contradiction.
He is in effect, distanceing himself from this world. This world doesn't come within the boundaries of his kingdom. It lies 'outside' his kingdom.
He is 'in' this world physically, but not 'of' it spiritually.
Who's kingdom lies outside his Kingdom?
Could he be in enemy territory?



posted on Apr, 21 2006 @ 04:05 PM
link   
True, that's exactly what I'm saying, the Lord works in mysterious ways.
I have never really grasped the concept of God being considered vengeful simply because bad things are perceived to happen in the world. There is no reason why the designer of this physical world should be assumed to be all knowing, or all powerful for that matter, thus if this is the case, why should the designer be able to stop bad things from happening?



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I don't believe the designer of 'this' world is all knowing or all powerful.
Far from it.
Although, I don't doubt the particular designer in question may wish to be thought of as all powerful and all knowing just as many historical rulers of worldly empires have wished to be thought of by their subjects.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join