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.

 

What I've come to know about God, Life, Reality, the Universe.

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
There are a lot of unknowns in the universe. It never stops amazing me with new things. We couldn't possibly know it all within this particular conscious existence. As a matter of fact I believe that the more we discover and learn the more we create to discover and learn. Quantum science recognizes several facts like thought is creative. We are all connected and ultimately one whole being. Who I would accurately describe as GOD.

So if we are all one whole being experiencing itself then everything else that is defined as separate from us is an illusion. This brings me to consciousness because it can exist beyond 3rd density material. The sound inside your head as best as I can describe it. This is no different than everything else because there are no separations. Everything is one. But I believe it is consciousness that underlays everything. It's consciousness first, then material. Because we all know that consciousness can exist in other places without material. For example dreams, near death experiences, etc.. What says those are not as real as life. Sure you don't spend very much time in those experiences and their is no solid density but I think that's for a good reason for now or maybe it's more sinister. Nonetheless your consciousness can't tell the difference so what makes it less real? Eastern religions even recognize the ability to move your consciousness to other levels of existence, both higher and lower than our own.

Everything is merely a vibrating frequency wave our consciousness tunes into. This frequency can be changed and other densities explored but for reasons temporary hidden from us, we are confined to this one frequency. Maybe until death? Maybe something more must happen before our consciousness is released from this frequency. Then if you can stomach all that and you're still with me. It seems to me that it's pretty conceivable that there are other forms of consciousness no different than ours but that are able to freely roam all frequencies, unlike most of us on Earth and very likely without 3rd density(earthly) bodies.

There has been times when I have experienced an undeniable connection to the Universe and I knew it was taking care of me and guiding me. Showing me exactly what I needed to see to grow and better myself. In a way I knew I was not in control but that I was only experiencing. I had influence on events and choices that determines whether I am progressing or if I need to retake a lesson, re-experience some learning experience, make the same mistake, etc. I don't really believe anything sinister is going on here, I believe we are being guided and shown what we need to see in order to grow our souls, our conscious identity that makes us who we are no matter what frequency we operate on and if you think that's possibly true then there must be other conscious beings making it all come together and work. This learning process was designed, this reality exist, but something or someone made us forget it all. But ultimately it is you. You're pulling all the strings, it was yourself all along because we are not separated.

Would you agree? Thoughts?




posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 



Quantum science recognizes several facts like thought is creative.


QM says nothing about this at all. I've never heard anything of the such in any theory or experiment with QM. I'm going to ask you to cite sources to this claim.


This brings me to consciousness because it can exist beyond 3rd density material.


Can you define third density material, this is a term I've never heard from the scientific community nor have I ever heard of consciousness being described in such a manner.


t's consciousness first, then material. Because we all know that consciousness can exist in other places without material. For example dreams, near death experiences, etc.. What says those are not as real as life.


As far as I know, it's already a proven science that dreams arise from the physical nature of the brain as well as consciousness.


Nonetheless your consciousness can't tell the difference so what makes it less real?


From my understanding and personal experience, this is wrong.


Eastern religions even recognize the ability to move your consciousness to other levels of existence, both higher and lower than our own.


I think you have a poor misunderstanding of the mechanics behind what your describing. A different state of mind is not equal to a different level of existence.


Maybe until death? Maybe something more must happen before our consciousness is released from this frequency.


This would still imply that consciousness is composed of some material substance that operates within the confines of the physical laws of our universe and thus would be measurable and detectable by some means. Since nothing has been detected leaving the brain or body, we know that this statement is false.


It seems to me that it's pretty conceivable that there are other forms of consciousness no different than ours but that are able to freely roam all frequencies, unlike most of us on Earth and very likely without 3rd density(earthly) bodies.


What research or evidences can you cite that would give you such an impression?


This learning process was designed, this reality exist, but something or someone made us forget it all. But ultimately it is you. You're pulling all the strings, it was yourself all along because we are not separated.


None of that entire paragraph made any sense at all.


Would you agree? Thoughts?


I don't agree and your thoughts seem to me to be based on partly religious and partly new age definitions of consciousness and soul. Your mention of QM appears to be a misunderstanding of the science and mechanics behind the physical laws the universe. Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting concept, but with time and a few questions/input on your behalf we can show you where you went wrong and what reality really is so you can develop a clearer picture yourself.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 


Maybe until death? Maybe something more must happen before our consciousness is released from this frequency.


This would still imply that consciousness is composed of some material substance that operates within the confines of the physical laws of our universe and thus would be measurable and detectable by some means. Since nothing has been detected leaving the brain or body, we know that this statement is false.


Lack of proof cannot be used to disprove a theory. The very fact that nothing has been detected means only that - nothing has been detected using today's devices. That may or may not change in the future but still - lack of proof cannot mean this statemnt is false. Basics of logic.

Having said that I have to say, that wasn't even a statement.



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


Why do you have to be so rude all the time?

You could be a little bit nicer while trampling people's hopes and dreams.

JEEZE!



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


I'm not interested in going back and forth with you over this or that, but you are welcome to share your theory.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:40 PM
link   
reply to post by krzyspmac
 



Lack of proof cannot be used to disprove a theory. The very fact that nothing has been detected means only that - nothing has been detected using today's devices. That may or may not change in the future but still - lack of proof cannot mean this statemnt is false. Basics of logic.


It's not so much that *nothing* has been detected, but nothing that we know of that follows the laws of physics period. We know that nothing electrical, electromagnetic, thermal, or any other known state of energy is leaving the body in a form that would suggest continuance of the mind after death.

Now, if someone wants to claim otherwise, that a soul does exist and want's to push this idea forward as a fact, then they are the one's required to produce the evidence and show that such research is reproducible and not just a one time anomaly. You equally can not just claim something exists and then demand others accept that claim at face value.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 



Why do you have to be so rude all the time?


Can you kindly show where you think I was being rude. I made some observations and asked a series of questions concerning certain statements made by the OP.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeeingBlue
reply to post by sirnex
 


I'm not interested in going back and forth with you over this or that, but you are welcome to share your theory.


It sounds to me as if you want to do nothing more than to push this idea as absolute fact then. How can we determine the validity or feasibility of your claims if you refuse to even back up certain statements you make concerning the scientific community? I'm not looking to get into a pissing match over it, what I am looking for is what research led you to make such conclusions.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by DaMod
 



Why do you have to be so rude all the time?


Can you kindly show where you think I was being rude. I made some observations and asked a series of questions concerning certain statements made by the OP.


Well although I agree with you that this is Hogwash, you just seemed a bit harsh in your response. I don't know, it could be my interpretation due to my current mental state of negativity (work/wife/life is stressing me out more than usual).

After re-reading your post, I feel as if I owe you an apology. (which has become more frequent occurrence these days).



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 


I never thought I would say this:

I think Sirenex is right. You're claims balance on the purely metaphysical. Sure I beleive in god and I agree that many aspects of that nature would be outside the realm of physical. However, Sirenex is right when he stated that you just don't understand the mechanics. This is not putting you down, you just need to put a bit more thought into it is all. Maybe do some research of what others have found, find rebuttals to those theories and hypotheses. I think Nassim Haramein is a great place to start! Perhaps if you're looking for something a bit weirder and more in connection to the thought into action idea perhaps you should look into the research on Nina Kulagina. I'm sure your next post on this subject will be a ton more enlightened.

-----------------------------------------
Edit: Also if you want to look into QM (and physics in general) try using these phrases for your searches.

-Strings of Probability
-Information Paradox
-Entanglement
-Double Slit
-Spooky Action
-QUFD
-Corporeality and Incorporeality

This would be a good start.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by DaMod]



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   
You guys still haven't bother to propose anything different. Your just focusing on proving me wrong.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by DaMod
 


I've seen those names before. I'll look into them but can you put what you believe in your own words?



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I just facepalm at people like Sirenex.

How about taking a leap of thought because apparently science has yet to disprove a creator.




QM says nothing about this at all. I've never heard anything of the such in any theory or experiment with QM. I'm going to ask you to cite sources to this claim.


The underlining fact is, thought is creative and it should be recognized by QM science.

I thought eat a cake, and the reality of the cake was in my belly. Point: my thought created the reality of my stomach being full of cake. Thus thought is creative




As far as I know, it's already a proven science that dreams arise from the physical nature of the brain as well as consciousness.


The brain is nothing but a translator for conscious to perceive the physical world. No science has disprove the supposition that reality is illusionary and only conscious deprive of materialism exist. The brain (Materialism) is subjective to being a illusionary.




From my understanding and personal experience, this is wrong.


No one cares for your anecdote.




I think you have a poor misunderstanding of the mechanics behind what your describing. A different state of mind is not equal to a different level of existence.


It seems you have an poor understanding of his concept.




This would still imply that consciousness is composed of some material substance that operates within the confines of the physical laws of our universe and thus would be measurable and detectable by some means. Since nothing has been detected leaving the brain or body, we know that this statement is false.


As I said before, science has not disproven the illusionary materialism concept.



What research or evidences can you cite that would give you such an impression?


Until science can 100% without a doubt prove a Creator is non-existent, you have no argument. As far as I see the OP took a leap of thought and chosen a concept of spirituality that doesn't break fundamental logic.




None of that entire paragraph made any sense at all.


It made sense to me.



posted on Nov, 18 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Seeing Blue - seeing good. Very well written.

There are a lot of people allergic to mentioning any type of "God" "Supreme Being", or anything like that...do not pay attention. You are not on the opposite side of science, they are.

I really like your tone, calmness, balance. Keep it.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:21 AM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 



You guys still haven't bother to propose anything different. Your just focusing on proving me wrong


I haven't explicitly stated anything in attempt to prove you wrong. What I had done was ask some questions concerning your idea and concerning certain statements you made about QM. You make certain claims about QM which I had asked for further clarification because from my understanding and readings of the theory and experiments I have never heard any of the claims you speak of.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandKitaro777
 



I just facepalm at people like Sirenex.


You facepalm because people ask questions? That's juts kind of silly.



How about taking a leap of thought because apparently science has yet to disprove a creator.


It is not science's job to 'disprove' a creator. Yet one the other hand, archeology, history and a few other sciences has been able to show that all forms of deities conceived on this planet have been man made concepts. Of course that alone doesn't inherently disprove a creator, but neither does simply claiming there is one mean that there is one.


The underlining fact is, thought is creative and it should be recognized by QM science.


That makes no sense. Your demanding that QM should have something to do with thought simply because some people posses creativity? That isn't how science works.


I thought eat a cake, and the reality of the cake was in my belly. Point: my thought created the reality of my stomach being full of cake. Thus thought is creative


I think your misunderstanding how the brain works.


The brain is nothing but a translator for conscious to perceive the physical world.


What research or evidences has led you to that conclusion?


No science has disprove the supposition that reality is illusionary and only conscious deprive of materialism exist. The brain (Materialism) is subjective to being a illusionary.


From everything I've read about consciousness and research on the subject, science seems to state that the brain is a very important tool required for one to maintain consciousness. I'm not sure where you get this reality is illusory concept, I don't know of anything from the scientific community that would lead one to accept such a notion.


No one cares for your anecdote.


Maybe you don't, but I feel it's a bit to arrogant for you to simply claim that in general, no one does. Do you claim to speak for all of ATS here? Regardless, the statement was made due to my personal experiences compared between waking and sleeping states of mind. In some cases I have been able to distinguish between the two.


It seems you have an poor understanding of his concept.


If you care to describe that misunderstanding rather than make an empty statement, that would be great.


As I said before, science has not disproven the illusionary materialism concept.


From my understanding of science, your statement is false and science has already proven that material reality is explicitly required for consciousness. If you can post any contrary evidence and research towards this illusory concept of reality, then we can debate about it. As it stands, it's somewhat hard to debate against an empty claim.


Until science can 100% without a doubt prove a Creator is non-existent, you have no argument. As far as I see the OP took a leap of thought and chosen a concept of spirituality that doesn't break fundamental logic.


My previous question still stands and I patiently await an answer.


It made sense to me.


Good, could you perhaps explain it to me then, I didn't understand it.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


You have a small minded view of things. Reality is an illusion and material needs consciousness. Consciousness came first. Not the other way around. I didn't post this thread to prove or disprove anything. I simply posted what I believe so that it might help someone else to understand. Even if my statements are not entirely true, and nothing is, the little bit of truth it might hold will serve it's purpose. Religion isn't entirely right either, but it served it's purpose to our civilization when it needed it, even if it's to act as a catalyst for change.

For the remainder of this thread, my QM references may not be entirely correct but that is minuscule compared to be bigger picture I'm trying to draw. It simply serves as opening the mind a little more. Feel free to discuss my believes, but no I'm not interested in proving anything so you can go argue with someone else, sirnex. Why don't you make a post stating your beliefs?

[edit on 19-11-2009 by SeeingBlue]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I believe that sirnex made some very fundamental points which you need to adress, you shouldn't create a post with statements which you cannot back up, the fact that your avoiding trying shows that you are talking about things of which you have a limited view.

Just my 2 cents

Edit: Spelt Sirnex wrong

[edit on 19-11-2009 by GW8UK]



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SeeingBlue
 



You have a small minded view of things.


That's still to be debated.


Reality is an illusion and material needs consciousness.


Can you cite sources, research or evidence. I have this thing against empty claims.


Consciousness came first. Not the other way around.


I refer to my question above.


I didn't post this thread to prove or disprove anything. I simply posted what I believe so that it might help someone else to understand.


And all I've done was ask for further clarification into your beliefs and any subsequent research and evidence that allowed you to draw those conclusions.


Even if my statements are not entirely true, and nothing is, the little bit of truth it might hold will serve it's purpose.


Claiming that you may have even a small amount of truth in part of your statement without bothering to even allude to what that truth is through proven methods of discovery only obfuscates that truth and makes it that much more difficult for others to discern what that elusive truth might be.


Religion isn't entirely right either, but it served it's purpose to our civilization when it needed it, even if it's to act as a catalyst for change.


What parts of religion do you consider to be partly true, in your opinion?


For the remainder of this thread, my QM references may not be entirely correct but that is minuscule compared to be bigger picture I'm trying to draw.


So are you admitting to outright lying about the nature of QM and your statements concerning it?


It simply serves as opening the mind a little more.


If your admitting that your statements about QM are wrong or outright lies, then how do you propose that such statements opens one's mind to the possibility of QM having a role here?


Feel free to discuss my believes, but no I'm not interested in proving anything so you can go argue with someone else, sirnex.


I am trying to discuss your beliefs by asking some questions concerning them. Some of those inquiry's concern the nature of your belief towards QM, a science that doesn't appear to me to state what you said it states. In that case, I would argue that one would have to cite evidence concerning that aspect of science unless one is simply using people's ignorance of that science for their own agenda of pushing their belief forward as fact.


Why don't you make a post stating your beliefs?


I have made a thread where I discuss the possibility of some God-ish like entity existing at one point as a form of mental exercise in order to develop a theory of where the universe may have come from. This impish thought that people have about me being closed minded concerning deities or creators is unfounded. No, I don't believe in man made primitive two thousand year old mythologies, but that is not to say that I don't consider the possibility of some creator. I do allow for the possibility of one, but unlike others, I hold the utmost humility and reserve for making a judgment over the existence and validity of a creator. I won't sit here and tell anyone that there is no creator or that there is a creator as I don't have any evidence either way. Yet when concerning a man made mythology, I will state that the mythologies creator doesn't exist as a valid truth.

I don't accept empty claims unless those claims can be backed up by something.

As for my thread, if you wish to review my theory and thoughts: LINK

It's mostly me talking to myself in a very scatter brained manner asking for others to help me flesh out the idea, no one has really been to interested in it. Which strikes me as odd as it's a theory that would allow for a naturalistic existence for a creator to come about and have the natural ability to create our observable universe.



posted on Nov, 19 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
I'm not even bothering to read your entire post. You obviously have a stronghold onto your materialistic view since you're stuck on science and that's fine, but it's obviously in conflict with my views(and that's exactly what they are, my views and I don't need to prove them to anyone else) as they appear to be the direct opposite. Which is also fine because that's how our reality was designed to work. Duality, negative & positive. We're suppose to have and experience the polar extremes and that's is all that's happening here.

Thank you for disagreeing and sharing your thoughts. That's all this thread is intended for. If you don't agree with me that's ok, not everyone can, this reality wouldn't allow that, share your disagreement and move on. I'm not arguing with anyone over my own beliefs, especially when I know there has to be people out there that will reject it.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join