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.

 

Point Blank: Is there a God, why and why not?

page: 11
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


I'm going to pick common sense and reality for $500 Alex.

Where does it say that we have a beginning before birth and a continuation after death? Certainly not from all the conflicting contradictory man made mythologies I would hope!


Oh, and who said anything about me proving this with "Man made mythologies"?

On the contrary to your statement, Where does it say that we don't have a begining before birth and continuation after death?

Although it does not matter there is only ONE answer only one of us can be wrong.




posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


Oh please, the only reason we have this concept is because of primitive man made mythologies that attempted to primitively explain the universe around them. Even your own personal experiences if you've had any would be in disagreement with the whole of humanity in this regard. Does that make your personal experience more valid than say, all of ancient Greeks personal experiences or a tribal shamans personal experience of the rain gods? The universe is only mysterious because we don't know how everything works, but not knowing is not proof of anything else and personal experience can only be taken as valid if and only if the whole of humanity had the same exact experience of what is true. Since there is no widely agreed upon concept of deity, soul, afterlife, reincarnation/past life crap, then none of it is true.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You have an eternity to understand.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


That would only be the case if consciousness was not a direct effect of the human brain, in which it appears it is integral to the proper functioning of the brain, being a part of it. I doubt after my death I would experience any amount of time in which to think by using something that doesn't work anymore.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 02:14 PM
link   
The one mistake when people ask this question is to assume everyone has the same definition for god. Yes, mankind defined god.

If you believe god is that character from the old testament, my conclusion is no. Of course, I am only stating opinion.

If you believe god is one of the other deities professed to be the "one ruler and creator" I have to say the same thing: no.

Why? Because as they define them they cannot exist. Our simple minds create a framework which defines god, then must accept that this definition is self-contradictory... because sometimes god violates his own framework and steps outside his definition. Or can be asked questions you cannot answer. A simple and common example would be: "can got create a rock so large that he cannot move it?"

Since we're opening our minds now to the idea that we can define the parameters that describe "god" then why not pick whatever you please? Or if you want to go deeper, choose a god that actually seems to exist and doesn't violate his mandates within his own definition. For example, you can't have a god who says he is nothing but love then goes around hating and killing. Showing that our invented god kills when he should be full of love just proves that our definition of him was incorrect.

Is there a god? I would say probably, in spite of my logical rhetoric. Why? Because there might as well be. I believe the universe in its entirety is populated with amazing things that many of us speculate might exist, and things that none of us could imagine. Somewhere among this multitude you could find something that more or less behaves like a god or gods. Just as likely as we are things with greater power and understanding compared to animals, there are things with greater power and understanding compared to us. I cannot think of a very good reason that there should be an upper limit to this... so if you go up far enough, you start finding gods.

Now that I've said that, I'm sure that many readers would start saying something to the effect of "but who is the one true god?" I think the answer must either be simple enough that all can understand it, or so complex we wouldn't have a hope of wrapping our minds around it. If we can't see the one true god when we close our eyes and open our hearts, then we won't find him anywhere. He's just to subtle, complex, and elusive.

The "one true god" might be everything. The complex sum of all matter, energies, realities, thought, and interactions between them. If that is god, then he is part of us and we are part of it. No need to search far.

I think the greatest disappointment I see whenever people discuss ideas of god is that god falls short of their expectations. We tend to think of parent-like figures or heroes who step in when bad things are about to happen and protect us from it. But then, how would the human race grow if we don't learn from some hard mistakes? If we don't learn to become predictive, understanding, and responsible, it wouldn't matter if we were alive because we would not have learned know how to weild the gift of life. So this is why a monotheistic god, if one exists, has such a hands-off policy when it comes to this world.

Many people are afraid of this because it means they will actually have to take responsibility for their lives. This doesn't mean to stop believing in god, but rather to use him as your inspiration for action.

... In a good way, of course.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
How much information is in the Human body if you broke it down into bits, as the way they do with computers, if that kind of thing can be answered at all? Taking into account the memory, processing speed, power supply, power distribution center, cognitive procedures, healing mechanisms, ect..... It seems it would be reasonable to think it would be in the thousands of trillions of bits of information, if not more. Possibly a lot more.

With the evolutionary process, seemingly slow, and giving a place for random mutation, putting the information into place. How long would it take to put together hundreds of trillions of bits of information. If evolution through survival of the fittest, could produce 1000 bits of information within 1 year that would be quiet a bit of information for a slow change. Would you agree with that? If so, and that is the case it would take longer than the Earth has been around, Trillions of years or way more, to end up where we are today.


IMO that proves evolution wrong.

But proving evolution wrong does not prove that there is a God.
So what if evolution was right? Constantly evolving to ensure survival as our environment changes. Considering that our solar system, galaxy, and universe to be an environment also, we must include that into the equation. When our Sun explodes in about 1 to 10 billion years from now, assuming no other event has wiped out life before that, then evolving to an energy state to exist in the environment of deep space might occur. As matter is the potential for energy, manipulation of matter would come into effect. So evolution to a god like state is one of the many probabilities which rests in evolution.


Now why I believe there is a God is because of personal experiences.
Most of the people who live the world believe in a higher being, so statistically speaking there is a greater probability that their is a higher being do to the fact of experiences. Experiences is what we use to understand the world, hence the word Experiments.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



How much information is in the Human body if you broke it down into bits, as the way they do with computers, if that kind of thing can be answered at all? Taking into account the memory, processing speed, power supply, power distribution center, cognitive procedures, healing mechanisms, ect..... It seems it would be reasonable to think it would be in the thousands of trillions of bits of information, if not more. Possibly a lot more.

With the evolutionary process, seemingly slow, and giving a place for random mutation, putting the information into place. How long would it take to put together hundreds of trillions of bits of information together. If evolution through survival of the fittest, could produce 1000 bits of information within 1 year that would be quiet a bit of information for a slow change. Would you agree with that? If so, and that is the case it would take longer than the Earth has been around, Trillions of years or way more, to end up where we are today.


IMO that proves evolution wrong.


In my opinion, lack of knowledge does not disprove the observation of a process of change occurring in nature. We are only beginning to really understand the biological world and the physics that governs the universe, until the time come's where we understand enough of it we can't just say that the changes we see occurring aren't the direct cause of what we see effecting those changes.

No, we don't know how the process works fully, but the predicted effects that lead to change have been observed. We don't doubt that a species is capable of adapting to it's environment and yet this is a fundamental of Evolutionary Theory it's a requirement for the theory to work. Without adaptation, we can't have evolution. So any attempt to disprove evolution while at the same time accepting adaptation is just plain ridiculous.

As for how much information is locked in just the human genome *in which many of the genes we are made from are shared by all species on this planet*, the amount of information would take up as little as 20MB's. www.genetic-future.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink">LINK That's really not an entirely huge amount of information. Even in RAW format, it would take anywhere from two to thirty terabytes, still not a huge amount.


But proving evolution wrong does not prove that there is a God.
So what if evolution was right? Constantly evolving to ensure survival as our environment changes. Considering that our solar system, galaxy, and universe to be an environment also, we must include that into the equation. When our Sun explodes in about 1 to 10 billion years from now, assuming no other event has wiped out life before that, then evolving to an energy state to exist in environment of deep space might occur. As matter is the potential for energy, manipulation of matter would come into effect. So evolution to a god like state is one of the many probabilities which rests in evolution.


You have it backwards. Energy is an inherent property of matter. We couldn't evolve into pure energy as we would still be composed of matter and matter must follow the laws of physics. We simply can't evolve into something that can't exist.


Now why I believe there is a God is because of personal experiences.
Most of the people who live the world believe in a higher being, so statistically speaking there is a greater probability that their is a higher being do to the fact of experiences. Experiences is what we use to understand the world, hence the word Experiments.


Personal experiences are moot honestly. We now know that a rain God isn't making it rain despite thousands of years of people having the personal experience that a rain God answered they're prayers and request for rain. If we look at statistics for personal experiences of deity, we find that all concepts of deity are in direct contradiction to one another. There is no agreed upon concept of something greater than physical life.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


And there is no one agreed upon theory to as how evolution works either. Its all a difference of opinion. Scientist disagree with how things work all the time. So I don't consider the differences of opinions of religious people to be proof that God does not exist.


Oh and how do you separate the paragraphs and respond to each one the way you do. I would love to know how to do that.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Conclusion]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Oh and how do you separate the paragraphs and respond to each one the way you do. I would love to know how to do that.


Copy and paste, putting the copied text inside the quote tags.


And there is no one agreed upon theory to as how evolution works either. Its all a difference of opinion. Scientist disagree with how things work all the time. So I don't consider the differences of opinions of religious people to be proof that God does not exist.


Then why say God as if implying a singular deity? If we want to talk about statistics and numbers of personal experience, it has always been more common to have a personal experience of more than one deity implying that there is more than one God. I suppose statistically, polytheism would win out over all of monotheism both in numbers of personal experience and length of belief. So, again, why just believe in one almighty God?



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 30_seconds
 


That is because people believe that the One Infinite Creator is a seperate being when everything IS the One Infinite Creator, there is no seperate-ness....

All is Infinity there is not many, for many-ness is a finite concept.

Point blank is there a "Creator", why yes everything including you are the all needed proof of this.

Imagine if you will an infinite omnipotent being living as sea of perfection decides to play make believe and begins by breaking itself up in a perfect fashion so as to break up the monotony of infinite perfection. The perfection of the breakup is perfectly realized from the omnipotent beings perspective, but from the perspective of a fragment, not pefectly realized. As these fragments 'coalesce' and become 'more one', they realize more of this truth, but in so doing, also begin to realize that the fragmentation was done on purpose ... quite the conundrum ... as how is this realization to be handled? Should all the other smaller fragments be informed of this realization? Maybe the omnipotent being wanted this experience, as it was done purposefully, and the experience of each fragment as experienced by the whole, and other larger coalesced fragments, was unique and novel and desirable for its novelty. To alter this would be to go against the greater will of the original omnipotent beings perspective.

A single fragment with this knowledge (or what it can hold from it's perspective, ever-incomplete until unity), might choose to use its knowledge (that it cannot be separated, and may as well 'enjoy the ride' as 'master') for its own 'benefit' ... which is also a unique experience ... treasured equally (unconditionally) by the omnipotent being (upon unity ... which is always as time is an illusion) ...

Other fragments with this knowledge (or what it can hold from it's perspective, ever-incomplete until unity), might choose to rejoice in the knowledge of future unity, and work together within the illusion until unity ... also a unique experience ...

The primal force being free will (for all fragments from smallest to largest until unity is realized by all) ... the true knowledge being that we cannot be separated ...

Then why would The One want to play "Make believe?"

My comment has often tended to be that the Creator is attempting to gain in knowledge and appreciation of Itself. The Creator wishes to know Itself. Thusly, it sends forth parts of Itself within illusion to see what will happen
and to learn from the colors created in the palette of emotions that you
have created through many experiences and incarnations. This palette
contains your beauty and is unique to you, so that you can teach the
Creator that which no one else in all of Creation is able to teach. For
you are the only one of you in all of the infinite universe. Thusly, it is
your gift to the Creator that comes from you, that is greatly desired.
You cannot please the Creator by being someone else but only by being
most truly and deeply yourself.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ineverknew
 


Yes! Omnipotent and Omnipresent and Absolute!

Beyond multiversal and in absolute control of all dimensions and with the ability for controlling EVERYTHING, literally from comprehension to physical objects to realms of reality.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ineverknew
 


prime creator is not the god of the bible. Prime creator is non judgemental and does not have wrath. It matters not what you believe or disbelieve, as our prime creator is either Known or not known. I believe in ufos but do not Know them. I however Know prime creator. He IS.
Belief leaves something open to debate. When something is.......it just IS.
The God of the bible is an opinion of man. Prime creator IS.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
reply to post by 30_seconds
 


That is because people believe that the One Infinite Creator is a seperate being when everything IS the One Infinite Creator, there is no seperate-ness....

My comment has often tended to be that the Creator is attempting to gain in knowledge and appreciation of Itself. The Creator wishes to know Itself. Thusly, it sends forth parts of Itself within illusion to see what will happen
and to learn from the colors created in the palette of emotions that you
have created through many experiences and incarnations.



Dearest Psychonaughty
This was explained to me exactly as you discribe above some years ago by "The Council". The parts that the creator sent forth into the universe are known as souls. we need to BE AS ONE because we are a part of the ONE. so.......we Are because he IS.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 



Copy and paste, putting the copied text inside the quote tags.


Ah I see. Thanks



Then why say God as if implying a singular deity? If we want to talk about statistics and numbers of personal experience, it has always been more common to have a personal experience of more than one deity implying that there is more than one God. I suppose statistically, polytheism would win out over all of monotheism both in numbers of personal experience and length of belief. So, again, why just believe in one almighty God?



Because we can't begin to understand the mind of God. I mean some people can't even conceive that he even exists, let alone know how or why he does what he does. We only know what he tells us. Yeah I realize that it is blind faith, but if there is noway one can explain it with what is available to us now, in terms of knowledge, then faith alone stands to reason.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Because we can't begin to understand the mind of God. I mean some people can't even conceive that he even exists, let alone know how or why he does what he does. We only know what he tells us. Yeah I realize that it is blind faith, but if there is noway one can explain it with what is available to us now, in terms of knowledge, then faith alone stands to reason.


That still doesn't make sense. Statistically there is more personal experience for more than one God. Polytheistic practice has been the most pronounced belief structure for the whole of humanity and is still practiced and personally experienced today. The sheer numbers of personal experience calling for more than one deity controlling reality should indicate that there should not be just one God who stands alone. Even statistically, these multitude of Gods tell their followers that they exist, that they control and create. We only have in existence one monotheistic faith that stands alone in all of history, by itself never to be repeated by personal experience of other religious faiths.

I understand we can't understand the mind of *a* God, but the sheer numbers alone dictating that there is more than one God should be ample proof alone that the concept of one God is less likely to be real. It could very well be that this monotheistic God was one of the trickster Gods that many religions speak of and that he has played yet another trick upon us for his enjoyment. It would make sense if we bring numbers and personal experience into the equation.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Can you link something to show that more people are polytheistic.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Conclusion
 



Because we can't begin to understand the mind of God. I mean some people can't even conceive that he even exists, let alone know how or why he does what he does. We only know what he tells us. Yeah I realize that it is blind faith, but if there is noway one can explain it with what is available to us now, in terms of knowledge, then faith alone stands to reason.


That still doesn't make sense. Statistically there is more personal experience for more than one God. Polytheistic practice has been the most pronounced belief structure for the whole of humanity and is still practiced and personally experienced today. The sheer numbers of personal experience calling for more than one deity controlling reality should indicate that there should not be just one God who stands alone. Even statistically, these multitude of Gods tell their followers that they exist, that they control and create. We only have in existence one monotheistic faith that stands alone in all of history, by itself never to be repeated by personal experience of other religious faiths.

I understand we can't understand the mind of *a* God, but the sheer numbers alone dictating that there is more than one God should be ample proof alone that the concept of one God is less likely to be real. It could very well be that this monotheistic God was one of the trickster Gods that many religions speak of and that he has played yet another trick upon us for his enjoyment. It would make sense if we bring numbers and personal experience into the equation.



In infinity there is no begining and no end there is not many for many-ness is a finite concept. There is only singularity, unity, infinity.

There is no right or wrong, there is no revenge there is only karmatic inertia created by the action at which the beholder expresses.

There is no heaven or hell, there is no begining or end.

It's simply that there IS....All is how it should be.

[edit on 27-10-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


Any History book would suffice and the common knowledge that all monotheistic denominations all worship the same Abrahamic God. I can't find an exact number or chart listing how many polytheistic deities were worshiped in the past and today. All I can point you to is google for now which will provide a stepping stone into the various polytheistic beliefs that have been followed well before the advent of monotheistic beliefs.

But, let's suppose the number of people for monotheism does outnumber the amount of people claiming personal experience *today* alone for polytheism. Given that in the last at least 7,000 years of recorded human history only 2000 to 3000 of that has practiced monotheism. That leaves four thousand extra years of personal experiences for more than one God. So, even if the amount of monotheists today outnumber the polytheists, they still don't outnumber the amount of polytheistic personal experience for the whole of recorded human history.

Now let's play with the idea that most if not all of these polytheistic religions all speak of a trickster who messes with humanity. Would it not be reasonable to conclude that this trickster will pull any trick he can to mess with us? To make us not see the reality of the universe? To blanket our ability to see the reality that there are many God's exerting influence over our lives? A three thousand year trick that has caused more grief for the human race than any other religious concept. The only reason monotheism has taken such a strong hold on the world's population is through it's violent and political beginning. It was *law* that you had to believe in only one God and if you didn't the monotheists would wipe you out as blasphemous heretics and transgressors. What a perfect trick to play against us! Get man to so strongly believe in something to the point where he will kill without question, without thought and without regret. If polytheism is more true, then this trickster God has just put on one hell of a show for himself to enjoy, the exact kind of thing's' he has done only on a much larger stage now. Rather than mess with people individually, let's mess with all of them and pit them against each other in a constant state of war.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You seem to still interpret the One Infinite Creator as some other being that indulges on revenge and has human-like emotions and characteristics.

You are the creator your pet is the creator even the minerals of the earth are the creator it is all concious it is all singular.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


In an infinite universe with infinite probabilities, there will always be one probability that collapses an infinite probabilities into nothing.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join