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: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:18 PM
link   


AI technology is rapidly advances, even to the point where right now people are having difficulty in telling an AI apart from a human. What happens when it come's to the point where not even yourself will be able to tell the difference?

AI will never have dreams, have you seen AI the movie, with the robot saing, will I dream, it's the best it will do.It will never dream.




I don't think I'm the best person to help you out with that problem, nor do I think you should openly discuss this with anyone than your doctor or therapist if you have one.

Your being sarcastic, ok no problem, I'm sure when you calculate in your mind things , you may speak from time to time in to your mind ok this and that equals that, but without you saying anything with your vocal cords, I'm sure you do it from time to time, and I'm sure you can hear actual words, either that or your a robot. I'm sure you can find alot of movies where this event is shown, did you know you can even laugh in your mind.




So, the brains ability to store memories is in question with you then?

Information stored is in the form of data, just like data on the silicone chip.
It's 01010101010101010010101 , just like binary code, it's just data, it does not look like an image ok.It's just logical to asume that, beyond that
it's out of our understanding science field but real, can't be explained ok,
but it's real, it's just how things are and you are going to have to face it.




It sounds more like you have a lack of understanding in how the brain operates, processes information, stores memory and recalls memory.

You ment to say "data"

Can you close your eyes and see the red color, does it look red?
Don't tell me that "data" makes it look red, I guess it's your mind.



[edit on 23-9-2009 by pepsi78]




posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Man, could you be any more broad. Why not title your post. RELIGION : WHAT IS THE ONE TRUE FAITH. Posts like these are getting real old.You either believe or you don't. I don't What do you want? An argument. You must have waaaay too much time on your hands.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Man I love it when you can't get an explenation.

Point blank like this thread says ...point blank you have failed to show me how the brain turns information "as in data" in to image and voice.

For the phisical aspect it's understandable , you got years and eyes.
For the other part that is generated without eyes and ears you do not have an explenation. All you can find is how data is proccesed. Well open a hard disk up if you wish to put it under the microscope and see how data looks. Ask anyone if they expiriance this things, any human being can have them, visual and sound, without any eyes without any ears.

So there must be another realm and a mind, a god.
'



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 



AI will never have dreams, have you seen AI the movie, with the robot saing, will I dream, it's the best it will do.It will never dream.


You do understand the difference between movies and the real world right? What do you mean exactly by dream? Do you mean dream as in to aspire, or dream as in what happens when you sleep? Either form of dreaming I would imagine could be a conceivable function of AI. What would happen if you live long enough to encounter an AI that has dreams, would this change your mind?


Your being sarcastic, ok no problem, I'm sure when you calculate in your mind things , you may speak from time to time in to your mind ok this and that equals that, but without you saying anything with your vocal cords, I'm sure you do it from time to time, and I'm sure you can hear actual words, either that or your a robot. I'm sure you can find alot of movies where this event is shown, did you know you can even laugh in your mind.


Yes, I was being sarcastic and for a simple reason at that. All your doing is discrediting the brains ability to process and recall data. Your not showing that these things come from any other source outside the brain.


Information stored is in the form of data, just like data on the silicone chip.
It's 01010101010101010010101 , just like binary code, it's just data, it does not look like an image ok.It's just logical to asume that, beyond that
it's out of our understanding science field but real, can't be explained ok,
but it's real, it's just how things are and you are going to have to face it.


Explain how an image is stored, recalled and sent to the monitor. It's all data, just as it is with the brain. I would hopefully assume correctly that you don't subscribe to the belief that data transference from the hard drive to the monitor takes place in some esoteric magical realm. If you don't, then how are you drawing a conclusion of logic?


Can you close your eyes and see the red color, does it look red?
Don't tell me that "data" makes it look red, I guess it's your mind.


Wow, OK, so your discrediting that man place a label on that color and that red is not inherently red. We could equally call red orangutan or hairy. There is a language center that comes into play when we imagine or look at something, and depending upon the development of that language we devise words to describe things. A tree isn't a tree because it's a tree. It's a tree because we collectively agree on using that specific grouping of sounds as a way of describing what we are seeing or visualizing.


Point blank like this thread says ...point blank you have failed to show me how the brain turns information "as in data" in to image and voice.


I'm sorry to inform you that these are not my ideas, I subscribe to the belief in them because there is evidence for these beliefs. If you want proofs or evidences then you need to search or discuss the inner workings with a neurologist. If you want to discredit these beliefs based upon proofs and evidences, then your not arguing that point with me, your arguing that point with hundreds of neurologists whom discovered these points.

On the other hand, to counter your argument of not seeing proof, the same applies to yourself as well. You haven't shown anything, and most if not least, you haven't given any information of substance to further research your ideas myself. You could easily look up information on how the brain processes information, but how am I supposed to find information on some esoteric magical realm of god and projections or whatever you called them? Give me something I can pick at, you don't make it easy to look into your claims. Like I said, there is plenty of information on how the brain works.

Denial of how the brain works is denial with every neurologist in the world, or at least one's I've read about, so possibly not in the whole world, but at least a few dozen I've read about.



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:20 PM
link   


Yes, I was being sarcastic and for a simple reason at that. All your doing is discrediting the brains ability to process and recall data. Your not showing that these things come from any other source outside the brain.

Data, it's just data, it's what you fail to see is if it was just data we would be all robots.About the source, sure it comes from the mind since brain cells can not produce pictures as in an image. If you can't prove otherwise then go ahead and give up




Explain how an image is stored, recalled and sent to the monitor. It's all data.


The eyes planted in your head help do that, your brain in not a monitor, evrn if it were so it would be irelevant , your brain is just information, if you can provide otherwise then give it up.
If you provide an article on how the brain will proccess images then it's usless, because it's just information , data that is. I want you to explain to me where in the brain is this magical place where the eyes of the brain look upon information and turn it in to a color image.They may proccess images in the form of data but that does not mean you can see pictures in your head by flexing parts of your brain cells. that is absurde, because information is just information.

Even further the monitor is not the input, it's the output. For example if your head was a monitor you would not see what others see on the monitor because you need an input not an output, you need a camera connected to your brain. If you're eyes were monitors you would see nothing. Once your eyes are closed if you can understand that there needs to be another source for you to capture a visual. Your mind that is.





I would hopefully assume correctly that you don't subscribe to the belief that data transference from the hard drive to the monitor takes place in some esoteric magical realm. If you don't, then how are you drawing a conclusion of logic?


Even so don't you need a camera to see the monitor, an eye, does your brain have eyes inside? Who is looking at the monitor, your brain cells?
HAhahaha man you're funny. Brain cells just hold bits of information.

It's aburde to insinuate that by having a monitor you can see it all, who is viewing the show if your eyes are closed? It's like asking your computer to view it's self without a web camera. Then what is the source of your thoughts? Hey man brain cells are blind and not only that but they can't speak.






[edit on 23-9-2009 by pepsi78]



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 



Data, it's just data, it's what you fail to see is if it was just data we would be all robots.About the source, sure it comes from the mind since brain cells can not produce pictures as in an image. If you can't prove otherwise then go ahead and give up


Robots are machines, the human body is a biological machine. A computer processes data and information, the human brain processes data and information.

I suppose we are biological robots with an advance AI construct allowing for higher intelligence.

When we see something through our eyes, it's not the eyes doing the actual seeing of the object. The eye processes the photons bouncing off of an object which is then sent chemically and electrically to the visual processing center of the brain. The brain doesn't know whether you are seeing something or recalling something from memory, the same processing center lights up.


I want you to explain to me where in the brain is this magical place where the eyes of the brain look upon information and turn it in to a color image.


I can't provide a magical place of where the brain has eyes. It does not have eyes in which to see, this isn't how the brain works.


Even further the monitor is not the input, it's the output. For example if your head was a monitor you would not see what others see on the monitor because you need an input not an output, you need a camera connected to your brain. If you're eyes were monitors you would see nothing. Once your eyes are closed if you can understand that there needs to be another source for you to capture a visual.


Our sensory organs are the input with the brain being the output. All information is received through our sensory organs and processed by the brain. When we "see" a large boulder in the way we don't assume it doesn't exist because our brain interprets the information received through the eyes. The same holds true when we store a memory of that boulder and later recall what that boulder looked like. We don't say it doesn't exist because we can remember it and describe it in great detail, well depending on how good your memory is. Visualizing something from memory doesn't require some esoteric magical realm to store those memories.


It's aburde to insinuate that by having a monitor you can see it all, who is viewing the show if your eyes are closed? It's like asking your computer to view it's self without a web camera. Then what is the source of your thoughts? Hey man brain cells are blind and not only that but they can't speak.


Hey, let's put it this way... turn the table around for a minute or so.

Show that the "mind" is separate from the brain. I'm sure there must be a very sound logical and scientific reason for you to believe this is so and that somehow all these memories and visualizations are being pulled from some other source. I would love to see what data and research you have on this topic.

Like I said earlier, for more information on what I'm telling you, just open a new tab and go to www.google.com, type in neuroscience, hit search. There's all the peered reviewed research you could ever dream for.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


Neuroscience is broken like all sciences, even ask a scientist, nothing is ever 100% proven.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Psychonaughty
 


I've never heard of a neuroscientist propose that mind and body are separate nor seen any mechanism of how this is possible proposed by one.



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
some questions dont have a set answer...



posted on Sep, 25 2009 @ 06:48 AM
link   
prime creator god be nothing


nothing before something

be one with nothing through deep meditation.


nothing be everywhere.

we all started as nothing.

prime creator be in us all.

[edit on 25-9-2009 by lowki]



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by concernedcitizan
 


Faith has nothing to do with religion. I have faith my legs will work so I do not think about it when I get up in the night or in the morning. I have faith the sun will shine.
I have faith in a being or presence greater then myself becuase I have seen it with my own awareness.

I have no faith in humans and their religions because they always fail you in your time of need.

And almost all religions are meant to force us to conform to a set idealogy and control and oppress us.

Jesus Christ is not a religion and came to demonstrate our freedom and our power and the reality that "God" "Spirit" dwells within us at levels beyond our present comprehension.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
I believe that there is a higher power. What brings me to the conclusion is that there are so many wonderful and beautiful things in the world that I have a hard time believing were placed here naturally. Everything out there is so complex for things to just be.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Psi-Vampress
 


What about the not so nice things? Are naturally, genetically deformed human and animal babies proof of a loving god?

There are more horrible thing's on this planet than there are good thing's IMHO. the human species quiet possibly being the worst "creation" yet. We have systematically raped our only home and caused the extinction of countless species forever lost, wonderful and exotic species I might add.



posted on Oct, 1 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Is There a God? - The Question
"Is there a God?" This question is answered by asking another, "how did we get here?" 20th century science has demonstrated, with certainty, that the universe is not eternal; the universe had a beginning. Actually, mankind has contemplated this issue for millennia, long before science proved a beginning. In all that time, man has conceived of only two possible solutions -- either Someone made the world, or the world made itself.

Is There a God? - Creation
"Is there a God?" Unless we can demonstrate the world is capable of creating itself, God is the default. The incredible design that permeates all things implies a Designer. Natural laws (cause and effect, thermodynamics, gravity, etc.) imply a Lawgiver. Personal creatures imply a Personal Creator. Since everything we observe in the universe is an effect, there must have been a First Cause. Unless we are able to explain satisfactorily how each of these things exist, without resorting to a supernatural force, and find empirical evidence to support our conclusion, a Creator is default. Furthermore, any derived conclusion must be within the bounds of natural law, as natural law is a part of the universe and remains unbroken within the universe.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Then what was the first cause that caused god? If god need not require causation himself, then by what logic do we conclude that a universe should require causation? The BBT is very much open to debate IMHO, I see the universe as appearing more eternal than one of born from a physics defying hot dense singularity.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
I have to say. This argument used to consume me. I started out as christian and was what I considered very devout. Mostly through parental influences. But I loved it at times and thought i knew "the way". As I grew up though, I would look at the deaths of innocents and atrocities all around the world and the only answer I could get from my fellow christians was "God's will" or "Mysterious ways", that sort of thing. Nope. Not good enough. So through many unanswered prayers, I became disillusioned and eventually considered myself an atheist. No god could allow such a thing therefore, no god.

My thirst for knowledge led me to many new and wonderful areas. Mainly through quantum physics, holographic theory and fractals among other things. And I loved to learn about all those things and still do constantly. But I've come to my final conclusion. Nobody knows. Not for sure anyway. People may have stumbled onto the truth but they don't really know it. What I do know is that religion is based on giving up your power and relieving you of responsibility to yourself and others. God and the devil are easy scapegoats and christianity is the same as all the rest. Zeus, Mithra, Horus, Ra, Yahweh, etc........It's all lore. Some is just better preserved than others.

So? I no longer care. I'm a good person. I am whole within myself. I "feel" like I'm part of something bigger but I'm not sure and up till my final breath won't have that truth. I certainly want to believe it. But believing is only wishing and hoping when you come down to it. We are here for such a speck of a blink of history (where time is considered) If there is nothing afterwards then I will not have the capacity to care. A nice long big sleep.
If we move on to the next great thing then terrific. Win-win.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Of course there is a God.
WE are the proof.
Ever hear of the drake equation?
The chances of intelligent life evolving on its own are remote at best.
One example.

Dont blame God for mans human nature. Man chooses to be that way.
Mankind brings it on himself!

Without God and his plan for the future, we really are screwed!
My 2.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I think the question people should be asking themselves is "should" there be a god?

I, myself, gone a bit pass the point of caring. I've got more important things to worry about now, so "god" is pretty insignificant to me at this moment.

on a Personal note: I'd prefer it if there wasn't one. It seems to me that, in every description I've read of a deity, there's something terrible or brutal about it. They always seem so selfish or controlling. sometimes even sinister. so I've made up my mind not to worship any one. Especially if it demands worship. the craving for all to submit under it sets up a red flag for me.

If ever I find a deity that is truly benevolent, truly respects free will, truly wants the best for us all, and does not need/crave worship. I will acknowledge it as a deity. I don't think I can ever worship it. but I will acknowledge it.



posted on Oct, 4 2009 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Psi-Vampress
 


What about the not so nice things? Are naturally, genetically deformed human and animal babies proof of a loving god?

There are more horrible thing's on this planet than there are good thing's IMHO. the human species quiet possibly being the worst "creation" yet. We have systematically raped our only home and caused the extinction of countless species forever lost, wonderful and exotic species I might add.


The physical is unimportant, the human body is what binds YOU to the materialistic manifestation.

The reason why extinction of a species is realistic, is because that is the way, the balance, like I said the physical is not important. Only the souls THat envelop the organisms to experience the lower frequencies of the physical are of importance.

Is god real? First off the word "God" is a corrupt term, it would assume that you as a human have control over that invocated being, which is an abomination to say the leas.t

Articulate what you say well, for the words that are typed (Written) and spoken emanate a frequency, action-reaction just as everything else.

You have free will, what you do does not hurt anyone but yourself, everything always is..... Not was, or will be.

Proof of the Superiors Ones existance? Well thats part of the test of returning.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by Psychonaughty]



posted on Oct, 5 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
There is no evidence of God but there are Signs.

I I were to create a fishtank and put fish in it. The fish would live perfectly in their world believing it to be the only thing, not knowing that it was engineered by us.

Some Signs of God:

1) The big bang came into existence approximately 15 billion years ago. The universe is expanding as per Hubble's Law. Now let me ask you people does the rate of expansion of the universe significant? You bet. This has been calculated: If the rate of expansion were a millionth too fast, the density of the gases would not be sufficient for hydrogen to coalesce into Stars, and thus no life. If the rate were a millionth too slow, the universe would collapse back on itself too fast not allowing adequate time for life to evolve. What are the chances that the rate of expansion just happened to be precisely what was need for life...what are the chances?

2) We know that many planets have moons....what are the chances that the moon of a planet takes precisely the same angular measurement as its parent star...ie the sun is the same apparent size as the moon in our sky....hmmmm.....what are the chances.

3) We learned about the four fundamental fources in high school physics: gravity, strong, weak, and the electromagnetic force. The strong nuclear force (the force responsible for binding neutrons and protons together in the nucleus) is critical. If it were just 2% stronger, diprotons would be stable and hydrogen after fusion would create diprotons instead of helium and deuterium. What are the chances....

4) Some properties of water
a - It is a universal solvent
b - Ice is less dense than liquid water enabling it float. If it did not float during cold, bodies of water would freeze...ice would sink and life in oceans would not be protected
c - Water has high surface tension. This is responsible for the capillary action required by plants to take in water. If it were not for its extraordinarily high surface tension, there would not be any plants
d - Water has unusually high specific heat value. This gives the ability for humans and animals or life in general to be able to store large quantities of heat.
e - Water has the HIGHEST KNOWN heat of vaporization of any substance. This makes it easy for use as a cooling mechanism for bodies.

5 - Let there be light....or something to that effect. First the heavens was created, then the earth, then all the animals, and lastly man. Who is to disagree with that statement?
universe created 15 billion years ago
Sun and earth approximately 4.5 billion years ago
Life comes to earth (oh i dont know...look it up)
Human beings appear in the Quaternary period (what bout 2 milion years or so)

See Science just proves what weve been saying all along.

So we see all these miraculous qualities for our benefit. I wonder who could have made it....hmmm......naaaaa couldnt be...? Coould it? Does a mouse know we created its maze?

You at this point must be thinking..The universe is just the way it is. Well so does the fish in the fish tank. It does not know we created its fish tank.



[edit on 5-10-2009 by THE_PROFESSIONAL]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join