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.

 

We can be "created" without a god, why not?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
This is sort of a response to another thread I read earlier, but thought I had enough to say that it deserved it's own thread.

Be aware.
Some of you may notice where I've come up with my thoughts or beliefs if you want to call them that, but they truly are my own rendition. Just the bits I've learned and kept what sounded right to me.


Here is the thing for me. Why do we have to have a god to believe we were "created"? For me, a council made of spiritual beings like us, nay ARE us could have created everything in our known and unknown existence, ever eternal just as many believe god to be, completely evolved. We are on the edge of proving other dimensions through sciences like quantum physics/mechanics, Hadron Collider, The Theory of Everything, it could be as simple as we are inter-dimensional beings creating scenarios for ourselves to "experience" and spiritually "evolve".

Earth is quite possibly one of the more sluggish energy wave frequencies in the possibly infinite dimensions. Which may cause our own brain waves to react so slowly that we forget where we came from or that we even are inter-dimensional beings. The so-called "aliens" and ghosts we witness could be people just like us on another frequency level, melding in or even surveying us as we live. Why does there even have to be "grays" or little green men, demons, angels, or gods. Why can't there just be US?

We are our own experiment so to speak. I've spent the last 10 years searching and discovering MY meaning of life. And after piecing all the information I have gathered this is what makes most sense to me. For ME this answers most, not all, but most of my questions about science, religion, spirituality, and the like.

My curiosity has not been satiated yet, but I am 100 times more comfortable with what life means to me than I was 10 even 5 years ago. I will always love to debate, discover, and even teach what I have learned and am learning until my death I am sure.

There really is no need for anything else in my view anyway. Anyone have anything they'd like to share? I'd love to hear it, negative or positive.




posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:49 AM
link   
awesome theory btw.

the problem i have with it and how it relates to my beliefs is the physical.

its easy to look at quantum mechanics and say anything is literally possible, but even quantum phenomenon is guided by rules, which means not everything is possible in a physical sense.

teleportation of atoms for example. if an atom disappears and reappears elsewhere, we say gee why cant i do that. but there has to be some law that keeps us were we are. we´ll never go to bed and then wake up on the moon for example.

i was given '___' when i was young. it was amazing, i felt like limitations broke down. but in reality they didnt, i just felt they did.

basically, i dont believe any amount belief or concentration will actually make you evolve spiritually.

the other problem i have with theories like this, is the political correctness of it. i am skeptical of any theory that doesnt aknowledge the monsters that exist. but thats just my personal feelings.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:12 PM
link   
What do you mean by "monsters"? Murderers, rapists etc.? Yes I know I've thought long and hard on this as well, and truthfully I don't know. The concept of hell doesn't sit well with me, but I would like to think SOME things don't go unpunished.

Thanks for the reply.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:13 PM
link   
To me God and creation are one and the same. I guess it depends on what your definition of God is.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gnosis111
 


I can't understand how anyone can believe matter requires a creator because once that step is taken, there must logically be a creator of the creator and so on. It's a preposterous belief, really.

[edit on 18-8-2008 by AntiCensorship]



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by gnosis111
The concept of hell doesn't sit well with me, but I would like to think SOME things don't go unpunished.


i dont believe in hell either...

i just think that there are some questions your theory raises, like why we all have forgotten that we are spirits. i think suffering because of bad decisions also raises the question of why we naturally wouldnt know better.

i dont know, for me personally, its doesnt fit.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by AntiCensorship
reply to post by gnosis111
 


I can't understand how anyone can believe matter requires a creator because once that step is taken, there must logically be a creator of the creator and so on. It's a preposterous belief, really.


would it be better if someone said that god has always been around and never had a beginning? or is it more believable to say that matter came from nothing?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:19 PM
link   
The key to the entire argument is whether or not you buy into the notion that time is linear and moves progressively from the past, through the present, and into the future. Once you get past that misconception, you understand that "God" is not necessary, because there was no "creation." Everything moves back and forth and in and out of time and who knows how many other dimensions, so there's no need for this old fashioned cause and effect notion. We are, we were, we will always be, until all life everywhere is gone. When all points of view vanish, so does the universe.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nohup
The key to the entire argument is whether or not you buy into the notion that time is linear and moves progressively from the past, through the present, and into the future. Once you get past that misconception, you understand that "God" is not necessary, because there was no "creation."


but then why do we perceive time as linear?



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by miriam0566
 


Maybe it is that our "conscious" minds don't remember, but our"un-conscious" minds do. Have you ever felt that you are wiser in some areas in your life but not others, without ever experiencing similar situations, therefore having learned how to "be' in the new situation? If that makes any sense.....



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Choronzon
 


I think most people, religions percieve god as an all knowing omnipotent, omnipresent "being". If I had a perception of what god would be I guess it is a the force that drives us with no individuality or sense of being. Sort of like we are god as an entire unit.

But who knows, I am just uncomfortable with the faith perception, just because of all the unknowable yet not unattainable answers to the many spiritual questions there are in our own little existence.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by AntiCensorship
 


I don't understand how it is preposterous , just because it is fantastical. For me there are too many questions of our origin that are unanswered and only based on theory, whether it's the theory of the big bang, relativity, or even gravity. i don't close my mind to most theories or even question all of them, but there are a great many things we don't understand that imposed theories can't answer with enough relativity and justification.

I am just not content with the answers that have been given yet.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Why must the universe be "Created"? Creation implys creator.

Could not there be all possible universes? If time /space / matter are infinite. Wouldn't they go through all possible permutations, and would not those most viable permutations, perpetuate and evolve themselves into higher synergies be more prevelant and more persistant. Since they sustain when others have long since collapsed into a new configuration why would there by necessity be a creator.

Doe it make the pattern of the universe any less significant? Is life any less magical? The primary purpose of a creator in religion is the transformation of the creator to the escaton, the savior. Do not emanuelatize the escaton. You must accept your place in the universe and your personal responsibility for what direction humanity takes through your individual instantiation. Blaming the creator for failure to interceed is a tainted belief system. Do not poison your children with such venomous spew.



posted on Aug, 18 2008 @ 08:51 PM
link   
If there is a God, then it is not an old man smoking a pipe. (S)he/they (the many gods that is iff you believe in that) are outside our three dimensional comprehension. It depends on your defition of God as Chorozon put it. I believe Gaia, Mother Earth to be a Goddess, she feeds us and harbours us, but there may be others, there maybe is an all containing God of the multi-verse, but who knows. I think we think we need a God to give us an afterlife, but maybe we get there and there is no God. Who knows.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


Ummm yes I know creation implies creator, what I was saying is there doesn't have to be a "god" to have been created.

Are you just making a statement or are you accusing me of blaming a god for not interceding to make things better? Because no where did I insinuate that.
.....odd.


I see you like that phrase of yours, you used it in other threads. But it actually is "immanentize the eschaton". And that does not even pertain to what this subject is about. Nice try.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by gnosis111
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


Ummm yes I know creation implies creator, what I was saying is there doesn't have to be a "god" to have been created.

Are you just making a statement or are you accusing me of blaming a god for not interceding to make things better? Because no where did I insinuate that.
.....odd.


I see you like that phrase of yours, you used it in other threads. But it actually is "immanentize the eschaton". And that does not even pertain to what this subject is about. Nice try.




Sorry, the blaming god thing had no relation to your statement, I was just going off on a tangent. I offer apologies.

If you are not suggesting a creator, then we fairly well agree. If you are saying the creator is not "God" It is interesting, we agree up to there, but then what is the role of the "god".
There is no need for a creator or savior. Not to say one might not be nice, depending. Just not necessary to a physical model of the universe, or a mystical relationship with the universe.

Many people like to confuse creator with savior. Until you can seperate them with the crowbar of guerilla ontology there is no hope of a rational discussion of either. So I try to inject it here and there in the hopes that someone will bother to decipher the sentence. It took me three days of thinking to get it! Anton Wilson is the source. The original Guerilla Ontologist.

If you have a creator and a god in your current model, I would truly like to hear what you really have to say. I have not worked that model myself.
If your model has both, then you are the first person I know who has independantly made the leap to seperate the creator and god aspects. Is your God a savior?
It was the suspicion that this was actually what you were saying which led me to respond. I was curious but I do not like to lead people to answers. You get points in my book, for your reasoning. I was not suggesting that you did not know the implication existed. I was suggesting that you left some major pieces out of your picture which must implicitly be there.

Those are the interesting pieces to me!

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Cyberbian]



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyberbian
 


from what i can see from you posts is that you dont believe in a creator, but science fiction. Cause and effect has been proven and is accepted by most scientists, both atheist and creationist. Everything you are saying is just fantasy with no proof what so ever.

Science fiction can explain anything and everything. Science fact can not because on a scale of what there is to know about everything, we know nothing, and a little knowledge can be very dangerous.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:34 AM
link   
I am undecided about a creator, I do not wait for a savior.
I recognize the difference.

I know there is order superior to myself in the universe.

I know that heaven and hell are the same place, and we are in it. Which is to say they are aspects of our selves, and go where we go.

I know that life does not cease with death.

I know that the universe is a most mystical place which we are only beginning to understand.

I know I am part of the universe and that the universe is a whole without seperation of it's parts, all the parts flow into one another, a continuity.

I know that plants dream of perfecting themselves, growing into more optimal forms. This I think is inherant to every life form, a dream of a higher self.

I am curious about anyone else's thoughts on the existence of a creator, or the nature of the universe, so long as they are their thoughts and not simply regurgetated programming.

I believe very few of us are gifted with orignal thought. Those of us who are, eventually find that most everything has been said before, has been thought before, no matter how original compared to what you have already been exposed to. I treasure those rare little gems beyond most else. What you can even consider original thought becomes more rare over time, with ever greater exposure. When we reach the rare moment when someone shares an original thought, it has the potential like a flame to kindle one within ourselves, and relight the fire which renews interest in the universe for a mind reduced to sleepwalking through a hazy world of droning repitition.

I am frequently misenterpreted. Please do not feel bad about it. I am not what anyone expected.



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cyberbian
I am curious about anyone else's thoughts on the existence of a creator, or the nature of the universe, so long as they are their thoughts and not simply regurgetated programming.

I believe very few of us are gifted with orignal thought. Those of us who are, eventually find that most everything has been said before, has been thought before, no matter how original compared to what you have already been exposed to. I treasure those rare little gems beyond most else. What you can even consider original thought becomes more rare over time, with ever greater exposure.


so what your saying is your curious about what people think, unless it something other people have thought of before. and if you believe in the bible, your not capable of independent thought.

not sure i understand that. i get the impression that how original a thought is is more important than how practical and true that thought is...

[edit on 20-8-2008 by miriam0566]



posted on Aug, 20 2008 @ 07:02 PM
link   
No, Sorry, you said that not me!

I was well versed in the bible having been educated under the guidance of Jesuits. I saw enough of organized religion to realize they had nothing more to offer me. I assure you I am not a predatory athiest or an evangelical sociopath. I expressed a genuine interest in the actual thoughts of others. It dosen't have to be a "big" thought, just your own. The probability of originality is minimal, but I would none the less listen with hope and interest. If by chance you shared a gem, I would prize the moment. Like a panner for gold in a stream with very little hope of any.

Why are you eager to squewr me upon allusions of my being things which I have not indicated I am? I am no lurker. I am something perhaps you have not dealt with before, I am an honest person. That cuts both ways if you can dare the edge. As for practicality and truth, I am a minimalist. Those things are self evident when handled with objectivity. You think I somehow dispise them. Had the subject been different I might have written about truth or utility or both. However the discussion required fending off allegations of disenterested bias out of anti-religious zealotry.

I am a sacred man walking in a sacred way. I do not need your religion, I have the universe, it is my cathedral. I have experiences which you have never even read the like of. I know where others believe. I do not believe myself special or superior. So don't bother going there. But these things are mere fractions of who I am. All the same I know I am small and imperfect, damaged and weary.

Now on to truth you can deal with. Can you not even deal with others without lashing out preemptorily when working in annonimity?
You posed the challenge. Can you step into your own device.


[edit on 20-8-2008 by Cyberbian]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join