Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 14
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


You speak of spiritual energy, well this energy must have an origin and cause. God IS spiritual energy. Inexhaustable. He from which everything
emanates.




posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Valeri
 


Oh for crying out loud. The Mayan calendar? None of that 2012 crap is based on anything slightly real. They Mayans never predicted the end of the world, or some cosmic accession, nothing of the sort. People like you folks make me want to bang my head bloody raw into a jagged brick wall. Learn more about the Mayan's before you buy into all that new age crap spouting.

It's like people sit there and read thing's and only pick what sounds cool to them. Suddenly, blind stupidity became the next new trend!

I blame public schools myself.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 


Ugh; Which God? Why does it always have to be only one God these days? Is it because of the invention and bloody violent forceful beginning of the one God concept? Why can't we have fifty-nine Gods?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
you want 59 gods? well there are many more than that as far as i'm concerned. I believe in the supreme deity, and under him are the subordinate demigods.
I know in my heart god exists,though i cannot prove it.
similarly, you cannot prove he does not.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


The word "God" is a corrupt term created by fabricated religions. The word "God" would mean you have control over that invocated being. Religions express The Infinite One as some seperate revengeful being that damns you to a fiery pit for eternity if you do not obey and worship.

It is in fact the opposite. Whenever you get mad, have a thought, make a choice, express emotion, it is a gift to the Infinite One in better knowing itself.

All IS the Infinite Creator, and the Infinite Creator IS all.

You, me, your keyboard, that tree outside, the pavement, your house, absoloutley everything is a singular concious being interacting with itself in utter infinity and unconditional love/light light/love.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I agree, everything is part and parcel of god or the supreme universal conciousness. Everything.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by bargoose
 


Well, I am pretty sure that with enough given information on your part, I could very well disprove your personal interpretation of your personal God.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 



The word "God" is a corrupt term created by fabricated religions. The word "God" would mean you have control over that invocated being. Religions express The Infinite One as some seperate revengeful being that damns you to a fiery pit for eternity if you do not obey and worship.


Ah, so all concepts of a vengeful God are nothing more than created and inventive tactics to maintain control over the less intelligent of the population?

So what is *your* definition of God and how is it more accurate and are you able to prove it?


It is in fact the opposite. Whenever you get mad, have a thought, make a choice, express emotion, it is a gift to the Infinite One in better knowing itself.


What evidence do you have to support this claim?


All IS the Infinite Creator, and the Infinite Creator IS all.


Then evil does not exist, so what stops us from conducting ourselves in moral ways?


You, me, your keyboard, that tree outside, the pavement, your house, absoloutley everything is a singular concious being interacting with itself in utter infinity and unconditional love/light light/love.


Now your just getting all "new agey".



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Your logic and 'intelligent' responses merely shows your undecided attitude of the Infinite One, when it is only that you have to look in the mirror to see the Infinite One in the flesh.

Yes, exactly your first response is nicely put that IS the reason why they have done so with fabricating the Infinite One into a revengeful entity of seperate proportions.

My view of the Infinite One is everyones view for the Infinite One is everything all that is.

All things are possible, all vortices, everything indefinitley unfolding in pure infinity forever and ever.

Evil and good are merely small distortions of our view at this certain density of progress. In the bigger picture all is One.

If you choose to serve yourself you would be considered evil in the perspective of this density, but in the bigger picture you serve the creator for that is what you are.

If you serve other selves you would be considered good in the perspective of this density, but in the bigger picture you serve yourself for that is the creator.

The One Infinite Creator thinks all acts are beautiful no matter what it is, for it is a gift to the Creator in better knowing itself.

New agey stuff? What is this new age you speak of? I believe everything always has been and just is that, always being. There only is, only does past, present, and future exist in this density/light of distortions.


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.

EVIL in this density 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) ...

GOOD in this density perspective: 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 ...

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


Your response is riddled with contradictions that it defies all sense of logic and all sense of acquiring a serious response.

If we are all of the infinite one then we can not act as individuals as all acts are acts of the infinite one and if all acts are equally held as beautiful by the infinite one, in which we are all the infinite one then no acts of evil are ever truly committed.

I could probably explain it better tomorrow, but in that one response you invalidated your entire argument.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


"If we are all of the infinite one then we can not act as individuals as all acts are acts of the infinite one and if all acts are equally held as beautiful by the infinite one, in which we are all the infinite one then no acts of evil are ever truly committed. "

You just proved my point thank you.

The illusion of being seperate is so that the One Creator can experience itself.

My paradoxes are only paradoxes to the uncomprehensive entity.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I'll play.

No, I don't believe there is an omnipotent, omnipresent, nor omniscient (though that wasn't mentioned) God. Does that mean there isn't one? No. But until there is even a tinkle of evidence (not proof!), be it via reason, science, math, etc., it is irrational to believe such a thing. There are plenty of unexplained phenomena, yes. But giving an unexplained phenomenon an unfalsifiable answer is not only ignorant, it's morally harmful.

In case I didn't explain myself fully, I'll give an example. Before we understood plate tectonics, when the Earth shook, it was x (insert various God(s)) who caused said tremor. Now this doesn't prove God doesn't exist, true. But I've seen many posts say "You can't disprove God." You can't disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You can't disprove the magical fairy that live in between my couch. It is incredibly difficult to disprove something. However, as rational human beings, simply because scenario x is unexplainable does not ever mean that it should be explained by any immaterial force, be it God or otherwise.

There is no evidence, literally none, that anything immaterial exists (to my knowledge, feel free to inform me otherwise!). Everything that has ever happened has occurred as a result of a natural cause. If one day there is reason to believe that something occurred via immaterial forces, the notion of God would at least have SOME ground to hold its feet, as opposed to now with NO ground.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Alexander_Supertramp
 


If such thing is immaterial than what materialistic proof shall be of it?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


You make a good point. I don't see how a materialistic proof could be made of an immaterialistic 'thing' (for lack of a better word). But this is exactly why it's irrational to believe in immaterial 'things'



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Alexander_Supertramp
 


Why is it that scientists have become our new priests like they were in the olden days, everyone taking their word as 100% evident. Quite the oxymoron and flipping of the coin I say.

Your being should be enough of evidence as anyone needs for the existence of something greater, you are the something greater, the greater authority to your being.

Could you imagine never being? I think not. You may not have memory, but you have always been. In our culture—and I speak of the culture of the Planet Earth —all who are here are limited by the five physical senses. It is difficult to see the big picture. By the big picture, I mean the picture of the soul from incarnation to incarnation to incarnation. Many people go through an entire incarnation and never know anything about what has happened before and have no inkling as to what is to come later. It is as though they step on a stage, play their part in the play, and then step off. And while they are playing their part in the play, that is all of which they are aware.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


Scientists are not priests. People believed priests' word as infallible. Science is an ever-changing constantly adapting method of acquiring knowledge. Scientists actively debate and research, trying to find the truth (although they are all personally biased, obviously). The main difference is science only accepts that which is falsifiable and testable, repeatedly, and can be observed by anyone given the same conditions. If we find one day that the Theory of Relativity is wrong, we try and find the better answer, etc.

I can certainly imagine not being. I exist now, but when I die, I no longer will be. The world will go on. As far as reincarnation goes, that makes even less sense than the concept of God. In fact, it requires some sort of God to control which soul (also a presumptuous unfounded belief) goes where, the creation of souls, etc.

What leads you to believe we are reincarnated ad infinitum? My being is evidence only of my being. Nothing more, nothing less. That would be like saying because there exists toads, there exists crocodiles.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by Alexander_Supertramp]



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:51 PM
link   
God is of Alien decent. I know this from my 2000 abduction. So yes he exists. I asked for him to give me a cure tp prove he was real, he gave me one for AIDS. The 4 things he listed I never heard of, if I get hypnosis done, I can prove I am telling the truth, I welcome any lie detector test as well.

God is dark greyish black. He looks like a frog man(just different color than frog) when he talks to you, its weird, you hear the voice inside your head, almost as if you have 2 microphones inside of you. I saw 3 things on a tv, the TV looked like a lamp, the picture wasnt a tv set, kinda like a porojector, very 3d-ish. He has scales on his body and face, and wears a gold hat(something like santa, but its gold) a gold robe, and a staff, with gold at the tip. He appeared to be very old. When I say old, I assume centuries. He moved very slowly. I will sound like a nut saying this, but whether YOU all want to believe me or not,...it is the truth. You now know it, you can criticize me or believe me, but dont rule this out, because it is true. I could have made money on this, but I chose not to. The story isnt about me either, for I am not worthy to tell it.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 12:06 AM
link   


Hmmmm, but there must have been nothing before God, right? The same way there was nothing before the universe.

It is still less likely that a more complex thing could exist without a creator. (god was not created, he just 'was'.)


Among the alternatives to a "just was" god are the possibility of an evolving god i.e., the final product of the changing universe is the emergence of a god who outgrows time and space and then starts the whole thing over again. Or god could just be an eleven dimensional student working on a little toy three dimension (plus time) universe for a school project (junior high I’m guessing probably remedial biology or summer school).



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Psychonaughty
reply to post by Alexander_Supertramp
 


If such thing is immaterial than what materialistic proof shall be of it?


Herein lies the crux. If we can have a genuine experience of a non-materialistic realm, and that eventually leads to flapping our jaws about it, then it is clear that the body is in fact capable of producing proof of its exitence and reflecting that in the material world since it is connected to the other realms. So, a thorough understanding of the systems in our bodies are in fact a gateway to building technology that can provide proof of it.

If on the other hand, the non-material really is intimately linked with the material, then proof may be harder to muster as we would already be measuring its presence as part of the physical processes. This quantity of "other" would go unrecognized by our instruments. In other words, it hides in plain sight. But then how does the body perform or play a role in the fractional distillation? Understanding it is again crucial.


  1. Proof should be attainable at some point if it exists.
  2. Don't balk at scientific investigation. If anything would eventually produce objective rather than shared subjective proof, it will be rational investigation. Inward seeking will never convince those that have not found except for fools but at least the fools give it a chance.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


How do you figure I proved your point? Your demanding that evil is acting to serve oneself individually and good is serving other selves, which makes no lick of a sense when you then state that we are all the infinite one and that all acts are equally beautiful.

It's incomprehensible not because it is paradoxical, but because it is hypocritical by nature.






top topics



 
8
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join