Are we gods?

Hello,

In our days, there is so much arrogance; it makes one wonder that where does it derive from. Is it because of the freedom of thought and religion? While both of preceeding basic rights are important, it should be reminded, that a grasp of reality is needed, or the individual and sociological ramifications may be devastating.

Shoud we define the 'god' in order to find fair ground on the conception of what god is? According to the defintition given by the Princeton University, 'god' is:

God, Supreme Being (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)

(n) deity, divinity, god, immortal (any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force)

One should question, whether such entity exists at all, according to the defination above? If there is, and if it really requires such attention in form of worship, it makes one wonder the superioirity of such being.

Furthermore, do you really think, that you could be such being? You may be able to create something, for example, to create a snowman out of snow, and be a creator in that sense. Or you can create your psychological reality by filtering the reality in certain ways. But being almighty??

One has to wonder whether they are in fact in control of themselves?

Most of us here on ATS might have seen avatars that tends to claim such; and there are some new agers that seem to think in such manner. Knowing that it is a remote possibility, that a person - or a group - with such mindset could gain real political power, what would the ramifications then be? Quite possibly something apocalyptical in proportions.

It almost seems like the amount of stupidity is proportional to the ever increasing quantity of population.

-v

reply to post by v01i0


How could We possibly be Gods? Oh how would we Even begin to realize it. Maybe if we tried different things We would know. Although I don't think that would WOrk. Perhaps One could Be a Deity while anouther Could be a Sand. Mayhaps, This sand could Be placed somewhere. I don't Feel we could Be 'HIM'. Mostly because 'HE' may not be Feeling. It Might be said that We are just 'Zeros'. Though if that is the Case, Then what WOuld we CAll 'HIM'?

It all depends on how you define "God." In this sense, the question can easily become a meaningless word game. Although as an actual ontological query it deserves consideration and response.

One way to look at it: From the conventional "Western" view, no. From non-conventional/esoteric traditions, different interpretatiopns are perhaps possible.

Another way to look at it: if truly "we are all one" than there is no difference in choosing to worship the divinity inside onself or outside oneself, so at the ultimate level the two fuse and are the same ultimate experience. But you must choose one path purely and follow it stainlessly. Either that or achieve the sufficient mental ability to simultaneously hold both views, which is also very difficult but perhaps highly rewarding.

reply to post by v01i0


Interesting concept considering the vast amount of things that we don't know about our universe and reality itself. For all we know, aliens from Tau Ceti sent a probe here that seeded life and somewhere in our genetic code creates a receiver of sorts in our brain that allows for those aliens to control us. We could be zombies without knowledge of being controlled as some sort of odd alien version of virtual reality.

There are a lot of thing's we don't know and don't understand, certainly the reasons and methods for how the universe came to exist is one of those thing's we can never ultimately understand. I find it very arrogant and idiotic of people who feel they have that answer, be it through scientific theory or religious dogma.

I've been getting into a spat with someone over their concept of God and reality. It just puzzles me that if you even question one aspect of their beliefs, they automatically discredit anything you have to say as if your closed minded to the possibility of any God like entity. I attempted to point out a thread of mine where I am trying to figure out if a God like entity could exist, how could one arise naturally and a possible reasonable motive for creating a universe. Yet he missed the link because of his arrogant beliefs.

I think we all have to uphold the utmost humility and reserve before passing judgment when discussing origins of the universe. Instead of claiming 'X' causation for the universe, let's work with what we observe and see and can experiment with. I believe it's possible for a creator to have existed, but what I don't believe in is the possibility that the dogmatic man made created Gods that demand worship have ever existed as real entities.

reply to post by v01i0


When we can create something from nothing, then maybe we would be god.
A very good question.

Worship is an act manifesting a state of religious devotion typically directed to one or more deities.

Worship is etymologically derived from Old English words meaning "worth-ship". Giving worth to something.[1] In its older sense in English of worthiness or respect (Anglo-Saxon,worthscripe), worship may on occasion refer to an attitude towards someone of immensely elevated social status, such as a lord or a monarch, or, more loosely, towards an individual, such as a hero or one's lover.
en.wikipedia.org...


Now if there is a God. He created everything and allowed us to exist. Would he not deserve respect?

reply to post by Conclusion

When we can create something from nothing, then maybe we would be god.
A very good question.

But doesn't that assume a state of absolute nothing exists and that 'something' can create a universe from that absolute nothing? I think what he's alluding to is the detrimental effects of the dogmatic belief in a creator based upon the arrogant assumptions that follow with it as if they were absolute truths. One only needs to look towards history to see how detrimental such belief systems are and have been.

Now if there is a God. He created everything and allowed us to exist. Would he not deserve respect?

Again, this is an assumed scenario that should this entity be real, he created for our own benefit. Respect and blind dogmatic belief that you are the chosen people are two entirely different concepts. If the universe were created, we have no evidence that this creator even still exists in order to appreciate worship or that he even desires worship. We have literally nothing to go by concerning his true intentions for creating a universe or how it even feels about the life that developed within it.

reply to post by JacobTeDreamerIV.


Very interesting point of view Jacob. Yeah, the original post is in agreement with your opinion. We are no gods.

The concepts of gods and deitys are somewhat intersecting. Sometimes you see people almost worshipping a mortal human, like popstars, actors, gurus and even political figures. It is somewhat alarming.

-v

reply to post by silent thunder


The concept was defined in the original post. It is as you say, people understand it very differently; hence the defination from Princeton University. But no matter how one defines it, it might be just a little arrogant to claim to be a god

"I am god, because I just made a snowball out of snow.".

Or a popstar who has fame gone up to one's head: "I am god, because so many people worship and idolize me.".

Just a few examples, hence the defination.

-v

[edit on 20-11-2009 by v01i0]

reply to post by sirnex


Yeah, I know what you mean. I've been reading few of your post in recent conversations on this board. The questioning also led Socrates to his execution

Those that question are often disliked. But so are those that claim to know the truth. I once started a thread in purpose to provoke ppl, claiming that I know the truth - it didn't receive a warmth welcome But it was as I expected. In that particular thread, I claimed that I know the truth of that I don't know anything.

But yeah, it is as you said - to observe objectively and to question is the best way to learn. Not to accept anything as a fact, but question even yourself.

-v


[edit on 20-11-2009 by v01i0]

Until I was 12 I thought my name was Jesus Christ and my brothers was God dammit....

reply to post by Conclusion


Indeed, if there is a god, it is to be respected, but it doesn't require worship (in the sense how it is understood nowadays, i.e idolizing).

By the way, I thought that 'worship' may originate from 'workship' - it would be logical in some aspects. "I am who I am, thou must workship me", in other words, you must do work within yourself, not to 'worship' some external deity that doesn't necessarily exist.

Just thoughts,

-v

NO WERE NOT GOD'S NOT EVEN CLOSE... to me yes i think there is a GOD someone who is the all mighty, but is he just our GOD and does he really watch every move we make...NO i dont believe that... Why you may ask? i believe you truly have to earn his attention and be as pure as you can be, just to be seen and thought by the ones he created millions and billions of years before we were even thought of, in another words to us what would be E.T's... of course we have no proof that they are out there, simply because were not advance enough to leave our solar system to explore the universe.. I truly believe we were put here to be studied and to see how far we can devlope and that were always being judge by the ones who place us here in order to even make it to the next journey of our lives.. the bible is very correct on many things but not every...for example the ten commandments are all very true and we should definitely obey them at all times, but do i believe your automatically granted access to heaven if you follow these commandments as purely as you possibly can NO i dont and the reason is i believe theres alot more to it then just following these commandments to enter the kingdom of peace and love and happiness for the rest of you after life.... i believe by you following these commandments the best you can, just brings you to another stage of your journey into the after life were you would have to prove yourself again and agian to all the planets we have to visit before we are all close enough to that place we can call heaven! each place we are able to make it to will be more advance as we continue our journey on our path to heaven or the place of purity!!

Lets assume if you will that "God" is an actual entity and that God created physical heavens and the earth. That suggests that it is not possible to exist unless you have been created by the creator. That then brings us to a very confusing question.
Who created God?

What about the grains of sand on all the beaches of all the world, one grain is not identical in shape or size to any other. Does that mean that they were all created to be just so, each an individual.
It seems highly unlikely!

Perhaps a more reasonable explanation is that we are all gods and that we live in a mind before matter universe. A universe with infinite variables and possibilities. Where we are the creators and destroyers and where we can choose any of an infinite number of paths to follow.....

How does this explain where the mind comes from?

I haven't gotta clue...

Just adding my 2 cents

reply to post by v01i0

Yeah, I know what you mean. I've been reading few of your post in recent conversations on this board. The questioning also led Socrates to his execution

Well, thankfully the anonymous nature of the internet is my savior here, I don't have to worry about the crazies knocking down my door trying to kill my satanic beliefs lol.

Those that question are often disliked. But so are those that claim to know the truth. I once started a thread in purpose to provoke ppl, claiming that I know the truth - it didn't receive a warmth welcome But it was as I expected. In that particular thread, I claimed that I know the truth of that I don't know anything.

It's funny, the whole point of my thread was to determine if and how some creative being could exist just to show the religious crowed that I'm not inherently against the idea itself. They don't seem to be able to comprehend that an atheist who doesn't believe in man made deities can still have belief in the possibility of a creator but just chooses to hold judgment and belief in one until evidence of one is found. It's sad, their religions teach so many good things and yet they can't even follow those teaching's and still think they are able to claim to be good god fearing people. I'm afraid the ignorance and arrogance religion breeds far outweighs the capacity to use reasoning and intelligence when discussing origins theories.

But yeah, it is as you said - to observe objectively and to question is the best way to learn. Not to accept anything as a fact, but question even yourself.

I used to believe a lot of things, but now I've come to disbelieve nearly everything. I think that alone has driven me to question everything in an attempt to learn what reality is, but at the same time I'll still accept thing's that are proven with enough evidence behind them to back them up. Hell, the expanding earth theorists are starting to sway me now as well as the plasma cosmologists, that goes against everything I thought used to be true. I'm not completely sold as of yet, but it sounds somewhat plausible.

There are just to many thing's we don't know and so few things that we we have figured out.

reply to post by v01i0


Human beings need to come to a few consensuses. First, I think its best when we all come a consensus about race and gender as barriers to basic rights. The western world has largely done this.

Second, I think its best that we reach some consensus about our place relative to the environment and animals. I think our position relative to animals is fixed and despite what PETA says will never change. We're working out the environment

Third, and most important, No Matter What - We Are Not Gods....

Even if we lose our faith in the Gods worshiped today and in the past. Even if we find those God's were beings that were, while more technologically advanced, mere flesh and blood and mortal. Even if we come to the consensus that we are the most intelligent advanced force in the universe....we are not Gods.

If we lose sight of even the concept of a God above us that is perfect and full of love, despite what we truly believe - we've done an intolerable thing. It won't be enlightenment, it won't be atheism. Nothing good will come of it.

reply to post by snusfanatic

Human beings need to come to a few consensuses. First, I think its best when we all come a consensus about race and gender as barriers to basic rights. The western world has largely done this.

I agree with you on that.

Second, I think its best that we reach some consensus about our place relative to the environment and animals. I think our position relative to animals is fixed and despite what PETA says will never change. We're working out the environment

I disagree with this however. There are many concepts that we used to think separated man from the animals that we are now starting to realize other species on this planet share with us as well. Chimpanzee's are now starting to utilize stone tools, just as our ancestors once did, so obviously our position isn't fixed at all and other species are capable of learning just as we are. We're even discovering how the brain itself isn't a good measure of intelligence in a species and that even lowly insects are very capable of complex thoughts.

Even if we lose our faith in the Gods worshiped today and in the past. Even if we find those God's were beings that were, while more technologically advanced, mere flesh and blood and mortal. Even if we come to the consensus that we are the most intelligent advanced force in the universe....we are not Gods.

If we define God as a being who can create a universe, and someday we learn how to create a universe, would we then be Gods ourselves?

If we lose sight of even the concept of a God above us that is perfect and full of love, despite what we truly believe - we've done an intolerable thing. It won't be enlightenment, it won't be atheism. Nothing good will come of it.

I disagree, I really dislike the we need God in order to be moral concepts. I think people need more faith in man than they do in God as lack of faith in man is what is the true reason God fearing people do bad things to good people.

reply to post by sirnex


i see what you're saying and i'll admit i may have overstated my case. i don't think we need to believe in an actual god to have morals. i just think we need not classify ourselves as god's needlessly at any point in our evolution or development. 2 reasons:

1. even when we have the ability to create a universe, and barring self destruction, I believe we will - we need to have some respect for what we now call 'creation' as something that pre-dated us and was/will always be (on some level) neccessary for our survival.

2. even if we don't believe in a god as lighthouse of the moral universe, declaring ourselves as lighthouse of the moral universe - or implying that we've ever finished our journey to a point of supreme moral enlightenment is dangerous as hell. athiest or religious, history tells us that posessing 'the truth' leads inevitably to slaughter.

i'm sure there's more, but this is more what i was thinking with the original post.

Maybe this isn't the thread to put this on , but..
Genesis 3 opens with the introduction of a new character: the Serpent.
Adam and Eve are living in the garden, naked and unaware.
The Serpent convinces them to eat of the tree in the middle of the Garden
(the only one they were told not to) and they realized they were naked.
Familiar story. I hadn't previously noticed, at least not in this way, what takes place.

The LORD God called to the man and said to him,
"Where are you?" And he said,
"I heard the sound of you in the garden, and I was afraid,
because I was naked, and I hid myself."
He said, "Who told you that you were naked?"


God seems almost unaware of their naked state.
He asks, "who told you that you were naked?" Why?

Is the God of Genesis 3 limited in knowledge?
A God who can't even keep track of the actions of the only two people
on earth seems inconsistent with the God of Genesis 1 & 2.
I'm sure some scholars would say this is further evidence of
multi-author redaction of the text.
Besides the fact that I am not inclined toward those types of theories,
this would seem to be so blatant that even the most daft of editors
would not allow these texts to co-exist.
Not to mention that it seems an unnatural understanding of the text.
So did God know or not?

I don't think we are Gods, but have the light of God, called life!

reply to post by snusfanatic

1. even when we have the ability to create a universe, and barring self destruction, I believe we will - we need to have some respect for what we now call 'creation' as something that pre-dated us and was/will always be (on some level) neccessary for our survival.

Yet, to look at it from another angle, if we become able to create universes ourselves we would then be left with the question if our own universe was created by just another scientist in a lab as well. If we should uphold respect for his experimentation and call him a God, then it would make no sense to not call ourselves Gods in the same light.

2. even if we don't believe in a god as lighthouse of the moral universe, declaring ourselves as lighthouse of the moral universe - or implying that we've ever finished our journey to a point of supreme moral enlightenment is dangerous as hell. athiest or religious, history tells us that posessing 'the truth' leads inevitably to slaughter.

I do declare myself the "lighthouse of morality", but only for myself. I don't expect others to heed to my moral standings, but nor do I allow myself to be utterly forced to abide by someone else moral convictions. Morality is one of those gray areas, meaning true morality doesn't really exist and is relative from person to person, society to society, culture to culture. What is moral for the few isn't inherently or explicitly moral for the many.

HERE
Edgar Cayce On this Issue