It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Harder To Believe In - God or Aliens?

page: 23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 12:18 PM
It's logical to assume an all powerful creator as the only answer? Surely, random chance, and omnipotent creator aren't the ONLY choices of explaination of our origin...

How about this one instead...

Thought begets reality...

For all those things you mentioned (cars, planes, etc.) they all started as a thought, an idea, and were then MADE into reality. Who's to say that the basic elements of the universe itself didn't begin with a thought...??? Perhaps even your God began with the first thought of there being such a creature? Hmm???

[edit on 19-6-2004 by Gazrok]

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:11 PM
Where did God Come from?

According to Edgar Cayce:
There is no begining, but sense people can't imagine this we will call this the biginning; There was a void that was filled with a singular consciousness. This consciousness Pulled itself together and awakened other consciousnesses (souls) Together they created the laws of the universe and then God Literaly spoke it into creation.

Edgar Cayce clames to know much of the "secrets" you can read about his many NDE's here:

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 01:41 PM
In the end we will all know the true nature of God when we die, but for now as we seem to keep asking the same question and not finding any new answers, maybe try looking at different questions.

Does energy exist? some would say yes and according to the responses some would say no. I believe in energy because I have experienced it, but some who have never seen a lite bulb would have to be convinced. Now knowing a little about science, I know that all things in this universe are made of energy. I know that energy cannot be destroyed. What I don't know was who it was that made energy, but because of what I do know, I am willing to believe that it exists. Now some things are so far beyond my understanding that I dont even try to figure them out, but some things are easier.

God is. Without God there is nothing. Energy is God, God is energy.
Without God there is nothing.
How can god be everywhere at the same time? God is energy.
which came first the chicken or the egg? The chicken silly, created the
the same way man was.
God is life, life is energy, energy can not be destroyed and can not be
I dont need to know where energy came from, but Im sure the greys
didn't make it.
Bottom line is that............ God is.

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 06:17 PM
The results of creation indicate random chance could not posssibly have produced what we see today. The unbelievably complex nature of the human body is a prime example. Random chance only produces chaos. Life in our world clearly indicates that intelligent design was and is responsible for what we see. If there is intelligent design, then there is an intelligent designer who is capable of producing things that we cannot even begin to understand. Random chance cannot yield those results.

It's also interesting to note that many who believe in random chance also believe in evolution. By it's definition, evolution is just the opposite of random chance. Evolution uses the process of natural selection to ensure a strong gene pool and survival of the species. that is certainly not a random process, but rather, one that points to intelligent design.

posted on Jun, 19 2004 @ 06:38 PM
ER....thats not how I was taught the subject of natural selection.
I thought that mutation, created what would be percieved as a defect, the defect however is useful for survival,( a white moth becomes black due to pigment gene, at exactly the same time the pollution in its area has turned the trees black) hence the odd ball survives and passes on his or her or it's faulty gene, ensuring the survival of it's offspring. This is infact random as just as many defects don't produce any benefit and the unlucky oddball there, dies.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 08:46 AM
Hmmm, that's not what I recall.

posted on Jun, 20 2004 @ 09:53 PM
Natural Selection is the process by which a species attains strength and status by being the strongest. When I hear Natural Selection, I think of the phrase, "Only the strong survive."

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 06:38 AM
And that's why it's not a random process. It's part of intelligent design.

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 01:42 PM
I think it kind of depends on how you're brought up- if you're brought up religious, then it's going to be really easy believing in God. However, if both God and aliens are given the same chance, like a person grows up without either of them and, when they're on their own, has to choose what to believe in, aliens probably have a better chance because God is so amazing and incomprehensible, especially to an adult. Like how it's harder for adults to learn a language fluently, you know?

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 03:59 PM
I think its easier for a neutral person, ya know someone who has never been influenced by T.V. or Church or something, to believe in Aliens because aliens are a lot easier to comprhend than God. I believe in God and I believe there are aliens also, no one ever said they were mutually exclusive.

[edit on 21-6-2004 by Brown]

[edit on 21-6-2004 by Brown]

posted on Jun, 21 2004 @ 06:57 PM
Thanks for the reply. I guess my view is that because God is so immense to comprehend, and the nature of creation so remarkable, I find it easier to first believe in Him. You're right they are not mutually exclusive.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 02:18 AM
Which brings me back to the question posed so long ago; why compare the two as if they were equal? Because they both have no evidentiary proof of existence?

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 02:28 AM

Originally posted by colec156
Just Like to say..
Most things on this site, you either belive in them or not..
Like religion nothing is set in stone.
AS you point out if god is an alien who created him, but then if god is not an alien, where did god come from..
one of those questions that will never have an answer in this life.. just like the question what come first the chicken or the Egg

God already answered that question... he just is. The one thing you can never understand, nor can any species ever understand, is the concept of a timeless world. HEAVEN is timeless. With no time, there is no beginning and there is no end. Meaning, something that orginated there was actually always there. God has always been there, and will always be there. He is the Great I am, the Alpha and the Omega, GOD JUST IS! It isn't hard to understand if you really think about it! Time is not a factor, forget about it, and it is much easier to see! And to answer the question above... God has proof in Jesus Christ! There is sooo much proof out there for God, just open your eyes and you will see it. Look at the sky and you can see it, you take it all for granted.

[edit on 23-6-2004 by Ryanp5555]

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 11:55 AM
I believe just as you do, but I'm trying to be objective here. There is no PROOF that God or aliens exist.

Now, I believe God exists, and to me, I KNOW he does, but that doesn't mean that I have proof of his existence. Like you, I look around and I see God's handiwork everywhere I look.

But to the untrained, or in this case, unbelieving eye, it appears as nothing more than just a hodge-podge of randomized particles assorted in a unique fashion as to have allowed life to flourish here on this green planet of our's.

Hope this was enlightening.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:00 PM

Before anyone says that there is no proof for the existence of God again, please read the following books that I have posted 5 trillion times, of which 4 trillion times in this thread only.

Here is a theory for the existence of God, which the scientific establishment have been ignoring, and supressing for years.

Here's a news article, that was removed later that showed how they suppressed it.

And due to physical matter not being able to exist without a conscious observer being around (I've posted about this also 5 trillion times), it shows that there is indirect proof for the existence of an entity which can be said to be the creator of the physical, material universe.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 01:40 PM

Thanks, Bandit, I was needing a laugh.

Mr. Ronald Pearson BSc (Hons) - though I'm sure he's a very nice man - is clearly a nut. Invoking a mysterious, magical "ether" - for which there is no proof whatsoever - and polysyllable buzzwords is a neat marketing trick for a number of dodgy books, but it's nothing more. His work hasn't been "suppressed", it's been rightfully dismissed as bunk.

And just as a footnote, I don't know where in the world you are, but are you familiar with the impressive-sounding Bsc (Hons) Mr Pearson adds to his name? It means he took a four-year honours degree course at any university in Britain - not exactly Hawking material.

And finally, how exactly do you know that physical matter can't exist without a conscious observer? Are you, perhaps, talking about the idea that quantum probability waves collapse only when observed - the ultimate conclusion of the Schroedinger's Cat experiment? If you are, then you should probably realise that this theory doesn't mean that matter doesn't exist, it just means that it's state is undecided until it is observed.

And fyi: that theory, like all the others, hasn't been proved.

#5,000,000,000,001 - There is no proof for the existence of God.

In the spirit of friendliness and sharing, I'm off to Amazon to buy you a dictionary with the word "evidence" underlined. Enjoy!

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 04:38 PM

Originally posted by StrangeLands
He is clearly a nut. Invoking a mysterious, magical "ether" - for which there is no proof whatsoever - and polysyllable buzzwords is a neat marketing trick for a number of dodgy books, but it's nothing more.

Ah, so just because Mr Strangelands from Scotland has a hard time understanding abstract, unidentified concepts, this man is a nut?
You're once again, pretty quick with your "wisdom". Perhaps too quick?

And fyi: that theory, like all the others, hasn't been proved.

Of course it has not been proven. If it was proven you wouldn't be rambling like this. I'm glad not everyone is like you, most people stimulate the creation of new ideas and concepts that go further than what we allready know and see, you would probably have called Einstein a nut as well.

In the spirit of friendliness and sharing, I'm off to Amazon to buy you a dictionary with the word "evidence" underlined. Enjoy!

In the spirit of being revolted by your arrogant "jokes" I am off to the bathroom to puke. Enjoy!

[edit on 23-6-2004 by Jakko]

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 04:48 PM
Nice try, jakko, but I'm not going to be caught up in this bickering again.

I attacked - quite legitimately - the content of the post, not the person who posted it. If you have something to add to the conversation, I'll be happy to listen, but if you're going to carry on with these same tired personal attacks, then I've got better things to do.

Maybe Bandit would like to defend his own post and explain why he finds Mr. Pearson's theories to be so compelling? I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind it.

And I'm sorry if you don't like my humble attempts at humour, jakko. Maybe you should just click that "ignore" button under avatar and we can both have some peace, hm?

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 04:57 PM
I didn't mean to attack you, I was aiming for your opinion, calling this man a nut, and his lifework "dodgy".
You act as if it's common sense that this man is a nut that should simply be ignored, when I think his 20 years of investigation may have lead to something more then just "dodgy books".

Oh and your posts are way too amusing for me to ignore you.
You're not stupid, just way too "aware" of your own wisdom, leading to invalid conclusions in some cases.

posted on Jun, 23 2004 @ 07:00 PM
Jakko: You should seriously check out the thread about how someone would know that they have been abducted. It's great fun. I think you'd like it, plus we'd like your opinion too. Here's the link:

Now, as for the topic at hand: I'm still interested in why it is that people are claiming that theories are proof of the existence of God. I mean, I believe in God and all, but I think that if someone's going to make claims that they have found proof of his existence, then they had better come out and show PROOF, not theories.

top topics

<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in