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.

 

Proving God to be fake... In under ten seconds...

page: 33
13
<< 30  31  32    34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
No, I expect no one to prove it. You're not listening,


Your right, I don't listen to your words themselves. You can tell me you aren't looking for others to prove it, but that isn't what I look at. What I look at is what you are saying behind your words. I do not listen, I hear.

When you ask for proof, then you are asking for someone to prove something to you. Even if you ask god for proof, you are still asking god to prove it to you. You can say whatever you want, but I know the truth because I don't look at your claims.



No there is choice, just no free will. You choose, but your choice is predetermined. Again, you weren't listening.


Again you are right - I don't listen. I hear. If it is predetermined, then it's not a choice period.

You listen, but you do not hear. You can know if you listen, but you can not understand until you can hear.

Ever seen white men can't jump? You can listen to Jimi, you can repeat the words of Jimi. You can do so perfectly. But if you can not hear jimi, then you do not understand Jimi.

Anyone could listen to Jesus speak his words. Anyone can repeat them. But only those with ears to hear actually understand.



[edit on 24-2-2009 by badmedia]




posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


I don't listen to your words themselves.


You don't listen to much at all.


You can tell me you aren't looking for others to prove it, but that isn't what I look at. What I look at is what you are saying behind your words. I do not listen, I hear.

When you ask for proof, then you are asking for someone to prove something to you. Even if you ask god for proof, you are still asking god to prove it to you. You can say whatever you want, but I know the truth because I don't look at your claims.


You don't know truth about me, best you can have is informed opinions, and chatting in forums isn't going to tell you much.


If it is predetermined, then it's not a choice period.


Yes it is. Choice is a logical process of selection, exactly the same principle that applies to Artificial Intelligence. It's predetermined and it is not free will.

For someone who hears, not much gets through.

The reason you stupidly think that if it's predetermined then it's not a choice you made is because you don't understand what a choice actually is. Choice is a process that occurs in a deterministic system called the mind.


You listen, but you do not hear.


Yes sensai, I'm so foolish.



me'sa tired. Off for the night.

[edit on 24/2/2009 by Good Wolf]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Yes it is. Choice is a logical process of selection, exactly the same principle that applies to Artificial Intelligence. It's predetermined and it is not free will.

For someone who hears, not much gets through.


I'm a programmer. I've worked on trying to design AI. AI does not make a choice. It is unable to create the logic it follows, unlike you. You are able to create the logical process of selection. That is the difference. I can make AI that does all kinds of things, I just don't normally call it AI.

For example, I created a program which sorts things, looks for the highest bidder and sells the thing I have to the highest builder. It does all of this based on a logical process. It works wells, handles millions of dollars every year. It is interconnected with multiple networks of buyers and sellers. So it also looks for other people who are selling what I sell, and if it can make a profit, I will buy what some people are selling, and then resell it to someone else for a profit. And does all these things almost instantly, and reports back all kinds of neat stats. It would take a huge work force for all of this to be done manually, and it could never even come close to being as fast or efficient. But my program does all of this and can handle a lot more inventory without any effort at all. This is the beauty of AI and programs.

And yet, I am smart enough to realize that it was my consciousness that designed and created that logic. The AI is unable to create logic on it's own, because it has NO understanding of anything. It has no idea what is going on. It is completely unaware. It works in the same manner as your car. Sure, it adjusts. This is the difference between creator - that which creates logic, and creation - that which follows the logic.

But please, continue to tell the programmer who has actually worked on designing AI all about it. And please, continue to tell the programmer what is going on in his programs.

Tell me though. What do you know about AI? Truth is, you don't have a clue about it. You are just making claims about it in general based on myths you have read or heard.

Consciousness creates logic. Logic can not create consciousness. Deal with it. Ignore this, hide from it or do whatever you want.

Does AI create itself? No, so if you truly believed you were like AI, then you are admitting you have a creator. If you acted like AI, then you have a creator. You seem to be so lost in your arguments, that you actually argue in favor of a god. The difference is you argue for an external god because you do not realize your true self - a god, a creator, an observer, a perspective.

And if you believe the myth that given enough time, randomness will create something like us, then maybe you should check in on science again, as that myth has been busted by scientists. They tried it, didn't work. They got nothing.



The reason you stupidly think that if it's predetermined then it's not a choice you made is because you don't understand what a choice actually is. Choice is a process that occurs in a deterministic system called the mind.


Understanding is a function of consciousness. Programs and things that follow logic have no understanding. They have no understanding because they are just follow action and reaction without any real choice. They have about as much understanding as your car, because it has no consciousness.

I build systems based on logic for a living. Something I am very good at is understanding systems and how they work, and what problems they will have. It is my job to look at every possible input and output of the systems I make. If I fail to do this, then I get bugs and other things.

Rather than making a bunch of claims about things you have no idea about on some forums, how about you go do some research on this stuff? Because you just stepped into the wrong person about this stuff. I actually know and understand this stuff.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Good Wolf,

Tell me if you believe this is possible or not;

One day, a huge hurricane plows right through a junk yard. After the dust settled, a huge working jet aircraft is sitting right there. Some how, the hurricane had created this aircraft out of all the junk, with all systems intact. The flight controls, navigation controls, all the software needed to run all those electronic systems... everything working perfectly!

You think that is possible?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
Good Wolf,

Tell me if you believe this is possible or not;

One day, a huge hurricane plows right through a junk yard. After the dust settled, a huge working jet aircraft is sitting right there. Some how, the hurricane had created this aircraft out of all the junk, with all systems intact. The flight controls, navigation controls, all the software needed to run all those electronic systems... everything working perfectly!

You think that is possible?

Evolution joke incoming!!!

This tired argument has been played to death.

You can disagree with evolution if you like, it's cool. but please don't insult our intelligence by assuming our understanding of it is rudimentary enough that this analogy would have any effect other than making you look foolish.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:20 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


But please, continue to tell the programmer who has actually worked on designing AI all about it. And please, continue to tell the programmer what is going on in his programs.

Tell me though. What do you know about AI? Truth is, you don't have a clue about it. You are just making claims about it in general based on myths you have read or heard.


"The truth is" Your hazarding a guess as to my knowledge about AI.

You're a programmer, so it should make this conversation easier. Human "Consciousness", AI and predestination.


Consciousness creates logic.


Nhh. That will be a difficult claim to substantiate being as how consciousness a convoluted meaning changing from context to context. Usually it means a human-esque degree of self awareness and sense of individuality.

AI is similar in principle to the human mind in that they are logical systems. The function of the systems vary hugely but they all use logic to achieve a goal or pursue an end.

Your AI, which buys and sells, has the goal of making profit. To do this, on top of giving it logical instructions on how to do it, then you give it an amount of awareness; markets and networks etc.

Human beings work in the same manner, instead of simple goals we have Categorical imperative determining all that we do. The drive to eat, sleep, preserve self, reproduce etc.

We have choice as part of our ability to function, once again, a logical process which is deterministic.

For a will to be considered "free", we must understand it as capable of affecting causal power without being caused to do so. But the idea of lawless free will, that is, a will acting without any causal structure, is incomprehensible. Therefore, a free will must be acting under laws that it gives to itself.

Are you trying to drag this in to heated argument, just because you don't like me?

[edit on 25/2/2009 by Good Wolf]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
You can disagree with evolution if you like, it's cool. but please don't insult our intelligence by assuming our understanding of it is rudimentary enough that this analogy would have any effect other than making you look foolish.


The only one that looks foolish is you, because you judged me thinking that I don't believe in Evolution.

You also think I was trying to make a joke out of this, when I was seriously asking you a question.

You didn't even answer the question! SO VERY FOOLISH OF YOU.

F.Y.I. Evolution = Re-creation

I already mentioned that in this thread.... Are you blind?



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

Originally posted by Gigatronix
You can disagree with evolution if you like, it's cool. but please don't insult our intelligence by assuming our understanding of it is rudimentary enough that this analogy would have any effect other than making you look foolish.


The only one that looks foolish is you, because you judged me thinking that I don't believe in Evolution.

You also think I was trying to make a joke out of this, when I was seriously asking you a question.

You didn't even answer the question! SO VERY FOOLISH OF YOU.

F.Y.I. Evolution = Re-creation

I already mentioned that in this thread.... Are you blind?
Ok to answer the question: is it possible? Not likely.

But there's no reason to answer a baited question, nobody in their right mind believes that scenario could happen, not without some extraordinary preconditions. If I do believe it, I'm a fool, if I dont believe it then the next question usually asked is how can I believe in evolution when its essentially the same thing( in the person asking the questions mind)

But lets see what your response is now that I've answered.

FYI Evolution does not equal re-creation. You-re not re-creating the same thing, each subsequent life form is slighty different than the one that came before.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ALLis0NE
 

Afer having gone back and reread some of your earlier posts. I have to say what you believe is closer to creationism or intelligent design than evolution. You might believe evolution exists, but you believe it was designed. So from that perspective, it would appear that your junkyard analogy is still a joke, because even if evolution WERE as random as your assembled jet, you could fall back and say well that's because "God" designed it to work that way.

Personally it looks like your beliefs are all over the place.One post your talking about Jesus, your sig has scripture in it, your telling me i cant debate God, but apparently you dont believe in the god youre defending. Which is fine, I got nothing against that. But you don't know anymore than I do, so please stop talking like your a couple rungs up on the ladder.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
One day, a huge hurricane plows right through a junk yard. After the dust settled, a huge working jet aircraft is sitting right there. Some how, the hurricane had created this aircraft out of all the junk, with all systems intact. The flight controls, navigation controls, all the software needed to run all those electronic systems... everything working perfectly!


Classic, lol.

Tell you what: If I was passing by that junkyard and seen that very scene you just described, my reaction would be: Hmmmm, fascinating


On the other hand, believers would make a HUGE deal over it, probably new revision of the Bible would occur, church would be build around the place and someone would collect the money at the entrance while the whole thing is televised and broadcasted through entire USA 24/7



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
If I do believe it, I'm a fool, if I dont believe it then the next question usually asked is how can I believe in evolution when its essentially the same thing.


So you don't believe it is possible, AND, you understand the logic behind the analogy argument..... I think you contradict yourself.

You know you would be a fool to believe it to be possible, and you also know that you will look like a fool if you didn't believe it was possible...

So no matter what you look like a fool.



Originally posted by Gigatronix
FYI Evolution does not equal re-creation. You-re not re-creating the same thing, each subsequent life form is slighty different than the one that came before.


Did I say "evolution = re-creating the same thing"? NO!

Some how, a little devil in your head gave you the wrong impression when you read my words, and you lied to yourself. Which is a problem that should be looked at...

--

When ever you "re-create" something, it is never ever the same thing, it is always different.

If I re-created a painting I saw, even if I tried to make it perfectly identical, there would always be a slight difference, a slight change, and no matter what, it will never be exactly the same as the original. In a manner of speaking the image "evolved". If someone tried to re-create the painting that I created, they would be painted a picture that has evolved from another picture.

Do you not understand where the word "evolution" came from??



e⋅volve

1. to develop gradually: to evolve a scheme.


DEVELOP??



de⋅vel⋅op

1. to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state: to develop natural resources; to develop one's musical talent.
2. to cause to grow or expand: to develop one's muscles.
3. to elaborate or expand in detail: to develop a theory.
4. to bring into being or activity; generate; evolve.


TO BRING INTO BEING????



cre⋅ate

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.



All of this time there has been arguments between "creationist and evolutionist", and the evolutionist never ever once figured out that evolution is a process of creation.... or for a better word, re-creation.




-- edit --

Dictionary Source = dictionary.reference.com...


[edit on 25-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Good Wolf
"The truth is" Your hazarding a guess as to my knowledge about AI.

You're a programmer, so it should make this conversation easier. Human "Consciousness", AI and predestination.


Nope, your almost 20 years old, and obviously you don't know much about AI and programming, because if you did then you wouldn't make the assumptions and claims that you do.

No guessing involved.




Consciousness creates logic.


Nhh. That will be a difficult claim to substantiate being as how consciousness a convoluted meaning changing from context to context. Usually it means a human-esque degree of self awareness and sense of individuality.


Look, I'll tell you the same thing I tell anyone else. If you can prove otherwise, I can make you a rich man. Because this is something ALL programmers who have ever dabbled in AI has run across. You can not create a program that does anything it is not specifically programmed to do. It can not create logic because it has no understanding, no reasoning.



AI is similar in principle to the human mind in that they are logical systems. The function of the systems vary hugely but they all use logic to achieve a goal or pursue an end.


No it's not. Quit acting like you know anything about AI. It's clear you don't. It's clear you are just some young kid speaking about things completely over your head.



Your AI, which buys and sells, has the goal of making profit. To do this, on top of giving it logical instructions on how to do it, then you give it an amount of awareness; markets and networks etc.


Again, it does EXACTLY what I tell it to do. If there are bugs or errors, then it is a result of it doing exactly what I tell it too. That is why I have to think of every possible entry of data that may come across it. Because if it is given data it doesn't understand or isn't built to deal with, then it errors out or starts to corrupt things. I have to actually sit there and tell it what to do. It is unable to create it's own logic, I have to enter in every single piece of logic.

I even write programs that create and outputs a program/script in another language. But again, I have to create it and have it work in both languages.



Human beings work in the same manner, instead of simple goals we have Categorical imperative determining all that we do. The drive to eat, sleep, preserve self, reproduce etc.


Yep, just like a card game where we generally play by the rules of the game. But as I pointed out before, I am not my cards, I am the player.



We have choice as part of our ability to function, once again, a logical process which is deterministic.


Only if reality is linear.



For a will to be considered "free", we must understand it as capable of affecting causal power without being caused to do so. But the idea of lawless free will, that is, a will acting without any causal structure, is incomprehensible. Therefore, a free will must be acting under laws that it gives to itself.


Part of free will is the ability to give it away. If you were unable to give away your free will, then you do not have free will. When you start to live by laws, then you are giving away your free will. And that is the very thing that creates this reality. Because laws and rules are needed for a specific experience. Just like you obey the laws and structure of a game.



Are you trying to drag this in to heated argument, just because you don't like me?


It's not "you" I don't like. It's your foolishness I hate. Mostly because it's a reminder of my own foolishness when I was younger. If I didn't like "you", then I wouldn't even bother having a debate with you. I would ignore you instead.

1 day you will understand, and then you will look back at the things you said now and say - how could I be such a fool.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Personally it looks like your beliefs are all over the place.One post your talking about Jesus, your sig has scripture in it, your telling me i cant debate God, but apparently you dont believe in the god youre defending. Which is fine, I got nothing against that. But you don't know anymore than I do, so please stop talking like your a couple rungs up on the ladder.


I don't believe in the God I am defending? What God do you think I am defending? There is only 1.

I don't know any more than you do??? AT LEAST I KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "EVOLVE".



[edit on 25-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE


So you don't believe it is possible, AND, you understand the logic behind the analogy argument..... I think you contradict yourself.
Way to misquote me there, leaving out the (in the mind of the person asking the question)


You know you would be a fool to believe it to be possible, and you also know that you will look like a fool if you didn't believe it was possible...
I didn't say I didn't believe it was possible, I said it wasn't likely. big difference. You're really grasping at straws here.



Did I say "evolution = re-creating the same thing"? NO!
No, you said evolution=recreation. Recreating is the process of attempting to make the same thing. Most people fail, but if they could they would, because that's what theyre trying to do. Maybe you need to use a more appropriate word in your theory.


Some how, a little devil in your head gave you the wrong impression when you read my words, and you lied to yourself. Which is a problem that should be looked at...
Are you implying that I'm possessed? I always thought it was reading comprehension...




If I re-created a painting I saw, even if I tried to make it perfectly identical, there would always be a slight difference, a slight change, and no matter what, it will never be exactly the same as the original. In a manner of speaking the image "evolved". If someone tried to re-create the painting that I created, they would be painted a picture that has evolved from another picture.
Aha see you're admitting that you're trying to make a copy of the painting, which is recreating. You're not trying to evolve anything, you're trying to duplicate it, and by failing to do so you are also failing at recreating it.



Do you not understand where the word "evolution"came from?



e⋅volve

1. to develop gradually: to evolve a scheme.


DEVELOP??



de⋅vel⋅op

1. to bring out the capabilities or possibilities of; bring to a more advanced or effective state: to develop natural resources; to develop one's musical talent.
2. to cause to grow or expand: to develop one's muscles.
3. to elaborate or expand in detail: to develop a theory.
4. to bring into being or activity; generate; evolve.


TO BRING INTO BEING????



cre⋅ate

1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
All this implies a sentient creator or designer, leading back to my original point that your belief is closer to creationism or intelligent design, but you say your"god" is not a being but the whole universe, which has no consciousness.

Which is it?





[edit on 25-2-2009 by Gigatronix]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE

I don't believe in the God I am defending? What God do you think I am defending? There is only 1.
yet you are talking about 2. you talk about God, Jesus, and the Bible then you talk about this:


No strings attached, no rules or commandments to follow, no guidelines, no decades old hand-me-down scriptures, no "religion"... just a definition for the word "God", which was meant to be "THE TOTAL OF ALL BEING, AND ALL THAT IS AND EVER WILL BE".
If you wnat to say God is the laws of nature, then yes god is all life and we are all one, because we all are bound by the laws of nature. But you were defending the Jesus/ Bible God.


I don't know any more than you do??? AT LEAST I KNOW THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "EVOLVE".
You might know the definition of evolve but you are using it wrong in conjunction with recreate.And even if you are using it right, you still dont know the truth anymore than I do. It's all speculation and conjecture on both of our parts. You dont KNOW. Because if it were indisputable fact, someone alot smarter than you would have figured it out a long time ago and there would be no debate, everyone would know and accept it.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
Way to misquote me there, leaving out the (in the mind of the person asking the question)


I didn't miss quote you, I just removed what was irrelevant to my point. The point being, that you know and understand the purpose of the question I asked... and you dodged answering the question because you know no matter what you will look like a fool..

You think I purposely misquoted you? Why on Earth would I do that when anyone can just scroll up and read the original quote? I think you are paranoid.


Originally posted by Gigatronix
I didn't say I didn't believe it was possible, I said it wasn't likely. big difference. You're really grasping at straws here.


Grasping at straws??? I ask you a yes or no question, and you answer with a "maybe". You are dodging the question because you know that no matter what, you will look foolish.

I think you are the one grasping at straws...


Originally posted by Gigatronix
No, you said evolution=recreation. Recreating is the process of attempting to make the same thing.


"Attempting to make the same thing"??? WHAT? I just posted the definition of create, it said nothing about trying to make the same thing. Should I post a definition for re-create now???



re-cre⋅ate
–verb (used with object), -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.
1: to create anew.




a⋅new

–adverb
1. over again; again; once more: to play the tune anew.
2. in a new form or manner: to write the story anew.



Originally posted by Gigatronix
Are you implying that I'm possessed? I always thought it was reading comprehension...


No I used an analogy, like many scriptures do. You are exaggerating my analogy, thinking I am actually literally talking about "the devil".

Have you not ever seen the analogy of an Angel and Demon sitting on the shoulders of a man? It's represents the man's thoughts of good and evil.

When you lie to yourself, I consider that a Demon thought.


Originally posted by Gigatronix
Aha see you're admitting that you're trying to make a copy of the painting, which is recreating. You're not trying to evolve anything, you're trying to duplicate it, and by failing to do so you are also failing at recreating it.


No actually, I didn't say anything about "copying".

Once again you are lying to yourself....

I just gave the definition of recreate, and it's to create something new. Any time you create something, even if it is an exact copy, they are never the same, EVER. The copy "naturally" changed...evolved...

When they recreated the movie "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", it evolved into "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory".... Get it?


Originally posted by Gigatronix
All this implies a sentient creator or designer,


I'm glad you agree.


Originally posted by Gigatronix
but you say your"god" is not a being but the whole universe, which has no consciousness.

Which is it?


How do you know the universe doesn't have a consciousness?? YOU, again, are making assumptions... lying to yourself.

I am ONE with the universe, without me, a small part of the universe would be missing. I have consciousness, so that means the universe has consciousness.

My brain, is made of millions of electrons and protons and neutrons that combine together and make consciousness. I would be a fool to think that all these Stars, Planets, and Galaxies, and humans, don't some how combine together to create a greater consciousness.

-- edit --

Dictionary Source = dictionary.reference.com...

[edit on 25-2-2009 by ALLis0NE]



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gigatronix
If you wnat to say God is the laws of nature, then yes god is all life and we are all one, because we all are bound by the laws of nature. But you were defending the Jesus/ Bible God.


Yes, we are ALL ONE. I'm glad you can agree now..

I think you need to read the Bible again. It states many times that God, Jesus, and everything is ONE....



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   
No, the word for all-seeing is "omniscient".

Omnipresent, on the other hand, is defined by something being everywhere all at the same time.

Therefore there is nowhere one can be without God being present. Hell must then be nowhere, so non-existent.

Self contradicting religions can be so frustraiting sometimes.




Good Lord this thread gives me a headache. You people truly need some simplicity and stop trying to figure out God with your limited minds.



Now if I see something across the room but am not in the room, doesn't it mean I'm still there?

Omniscient or present to me don't contradict each other.

another thing is that even if God were present in hell, doesn't mean he is present in those souls in hell because he doesnt dwell with evil.

again. this subject is for you souls to find out after death.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE



I didn't miss quote you, I just removed what was irrelevant to my point. The point being, that you know and understand the purpose of the question I asked... and you dodged answering the question because you know no matter what you will look like a fool..
So you admit asking a baited question, glad youre honest.





Grasping at straws??? I ask you a yes or no question, and you answer with a "maybe". You are dodging the question because you know that no matter what, you will look foolish.
Yep you asked a yes or no question because thats how its baited. Thats how you get some smarmy response in, by having a retort prepared for both answers. Now your trying to get a zinger off on me because I said not likely. Only a fool would try to answer a question with a yes or no when its impossible to say for sure either way. You obviosly deal in absolutes which is your fatal flaw.



Originally posted by Gigatronix
No, you said evolution=recreation. Recreating is the process of attempting to make the same thing.



"Attempting to make the same thing"??? WHAT? I just posted the definition of create, it said nothing about trying to make the same thing. Should I post a definition for re-create now???



re-cre⋅ate
–verb (used with object), -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing.
1: to create anew.




a⋅new

–adverb
1. over again; again; once more: to play the tune anew.
Good job leaving the definition in that supports my definition! Thanks!You do know that the first definition appearing in a dictionary si the more commonly used usage than the following right?



No I used an analogy, like many scriptures do. You are exaggerating my analogy, thinking I am actually literally talking about "the devil".

Have you not ever seen the analogy of an Angel and Demon sitting on the shoulders of a man? It's represents the man's thoughts of good and evil.

When you lie to yourself, I consider that a Demon thought.
yes I'm aware that it was analogy, obviously you are not aware that I was being facetious. And according to how you explained your analogy, I'm possessed. So you were apparently being figurative and literal at the same time. Like I said, you're all over the place.



I'm glad you agree.
I agree what you say implies this, I'm not agreeing with you.



How do you know the universe doesn't have a consciousness??
how do you know it?


I have consciousness, so that means the universe has a consciousness.
Bunk logic if I ever heard it.


My brain, is made of millions of electrons and protons and neutrons that combine together and make consciousness. I would be a fool to think that all these Stars, Planets, and Galaxies, and humans, don't some how combine together to create a greater consciousness.
And you'd be a fool to go around saying this as if it were fact. think it, believe it all you want. Doesn't make it true. Sorry. It might be true but you dont know, you just THINK it really hard.



posted on Feb, 25 2009 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ALLis0NE


Yes, we are ALL ONE. I'm glad you can agree now..
We dont agree. I dont call the laws of nature god, I call them the laws of nature. We are "one" by virtue of saying we are all bound by the same laws. And we can't even say that for certain because we dont know what kind of life forms exist elsewhere in the universe that exist in such a way that opposes our KNOWN laws. We dont know all the laws.


I think you need to read the Bible again. It states many times that God, Jesus, and everything is ONE....
Back to this again! In my previous post I quoted you saying the definition of god has

Originally posted by ALLis0NE
No strings attached, no rules or commandments to follow, no guidelines, no decades old hand-me-down scriptures, no "religion"... just a definition for the word "God", which was meant to be "THE TOTAL OF ALL BEING, AND ALL THAT IS AND EVER WILL BE".
So if we attempt to combine your two definitions, there is no cosmic mandate(remember that??) but there is a heaven or hell, but theres no strings attached or rules, so you cant be punished or rewarded. It doesn't make any sense!





[edit on 25-2-2009 by Gigatronix]



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 30  31  32    34  35 >>

log in

join