It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by moocowman
Originally posted by pdpayne0418
reply to post by spellbound
And you're comfortable with this post as the holder of a degree in Logic? Please let us know from which university you graduated, so we can steer our friends and acquaintances clear should they be interested in obtaining a degree in "Logic."
Degree in logic ?? What the hell is that when it's at home ?
Did he/she really claim that ? You sure ?
If a person can believe extraordinary claims of the supernatural, only requiring faith IE requiring no evidence, how the hell can the same person get some sort of degree in logic?
Christ that's like getting a degree in fairies surely ?
Yes. I agree. I hope this will be the standard that we maintain from now on.
Originally posted by moocowman
We appear to be communicating a little better and less antagonistically here, I don't have time right now (although I would like to) address all the points you raise.
It is important fom the point that, if your are argueing the inplausability of one belief, perhaps offering a plausible alternative would help improve the discussion. I find that offering an alternative takes away the impression that one is merely here to attack a particular belief.
So the most important question perhaps "What is it that I believe ?" may help you understand where I'm coming from.
It is always wise to keep ones options open. That includes the potential that beliefs that you have been previously dismissed, are infact correct.
Unfortunately I don't actually believe anything but I am in favor of likelihoods in a "creator" paradigm ie I have opinions that are changeable when newer evidence ( presented to me) arise.
I think the nature of some of your posts are not an indication of your intellect, but seems to be an attitude towards certain beliefs. This is abscent now, you have not included in these recent posts.
Unfortunately, my lack of education does somewhat hinder the language I use to express my ideas, which seems to have hindered this discourse.
I'll just stop you here for a second. Time is not an illusion, all quantum events are reliant on time. There for on the macro level, these things to are reliant on time. Time is essential for all potential to be realised. So it is in fact a mechanism essential to us being.
Yes I do indeed find the particle/slit experiment totally mind blowing my thoughts on this are --
What if - (as I'm not completely closed minded to creation in a loose sense) we assume that there is a creative force.
That creative force is all that there is, "everything" is life and life is everything,all that there is.
Time is an illusion created for this universe in order to differentiate (a frame of reference), or create an illusion of separateness as nothing can be separate if there is only one thing.
But now you need an observer to act as the necessary mechanism to fullfil potential. Is it necessary? As we are the only known life(well as stated by some circles, but not ATS) were we here to observe the potential for the universe to actually come into existences? This suggest some other consciousness that would be needed to observe the big bang as a potential outcome would it not?
The particle appears to be existing everywhere, or rather potentially existing everywhere, in that it is where we anticipate/expect it to be. Surely this is borne out by the observer effecting experiments ?
In a way, but there is not a infinite number of choices. It is finite. Unless you characterise the Universe as being infinite in nature.
So there would seem to be that only the "now" actually exists and the after (tomorrow or the next millisecond) only exists as a possibility in an infinite choice of possibilities.
But this is circular then, the universe would need us first to actually experience the potential of the universe by being present, a universe that created us. Who obsereved the potential for us to exist. If that is the rule, that our consciousness actualises potential.
These possibilities only coming into existence (solidifying,taking form, becoming real in our imaginary world ?) according to our expectations/beliefs/fears/.
IF. IF. IF. If you wish to interpret the"father" in this way, sure. But it is obvious that we are a part of the universe yet a finite aspect of it. A small part of the whole. So in a way we are a separate definable finite part of whole. Another paradox? Some dogma and doctrine of a few religions state this emphatically, which is why alot of people would see the logic in it, although the way it presents this is perhaps very outdated and simplistic.
If all is life and and the creator (the father) is life then, the father/creator is all that there is, there is was nor ever will be any separation.
I understand what you mean, but in a way you are saying, that just a part(water drop) can determine how the whole tube operates. We don't see that in reality do we? If, like you ponder, we can effect our beliefs, thoughts and desires onto the universe to allocate aspects of it, why are we not all recieving exactly what we want? We simply don't see that with anyone so why would it apply to christians.
For any separateness to exist from the creator it would have to be illusion/artificial. Which would surely explain time being an imaginary construct a frame of reference to experience the illusion separateness ?
To use my own analogy - (the only thing my my simple swede could think of as I have a headache so bare with me) Could we be like, thoughts in droplets of water, which are in a tub of water?
We do not know anything other than water ie outside the tub, all is water but if each droplet is allocated a number/identity, then we have the illusion of separateness/difference but were in fact all made up of the same stuff.
If we then have the ability to project our thoughts/desires/beliefs onto the droplets which are all water(the same thing) and allocate them/it numbers/identities/realities/time.
If that makes any sense at all, could I then not ask - Whether Jesus was a real person or not, could the ideas that he is alleged to have be discussing this and he actually meant what he said.
"Whatsoever ever ye ask believing -----"
I can see what you mean, but then I believe you should fully test that belief. Ponder what it means for you to exist as an illusion of separateness. Practice what it would mean to relgate your own free will to that of an act of the overall will of the creator using you(and everything you were, are and will be) as an article of separateness. That is all you are. If you have no free will, everything you have done, all that you love, all your dreams and your hopes are merely illusion to fullfill the creators desire to form a sense of separateness with aspects if itself. And in turn all those that have acted in a manner that you think is in relation to you, in that I mean people who love you, your friends and relations, even those who dislike you. No of that is real. No one chose anything. No action was a direct consequence of anything other than the overall will of he creator, fullfilling a need to separate parts within it by illusion of that very seperateness.
The only reason the add on "In my name" would be required is to convey some belief into someone who doesn't believe, or just doesn't get it.
"If you can't at this time believe in your own ability, then believe in mine, it makes no difference belief is belief"
So, fundamentally (in this proposition at least) there is no free will, there is only "will", the will of creation/life/the father god what ever label we choose, in action creating the illusion of separateness.
Nothing wrong with changing your mind. You believe that you can change your ideas easily.
There you go there's my thoughts on that for now, I could change my mind in ten minutes lol. But that's the big difference between ideas and beliefs though isn't it, I can change my ideas quite easily, but beliefs ? Well we all know how deeply they are embedded.
Originally posted by infinite
How come the moon, planets and the principle of a hydro centric universe is not mentioned? Qur'an mentions all the above, including "Allah" creating "other Earth's and Heavens"