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.

 

Does God Exist? - Einstein

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 



We think we understand them. And they think they understand us. We all think we understand everything. But clearly one side is way of track.


That's a thoughtful and polite post. I think you underestimate the thoughts of atheists. Some militant atheists (###cracks) use the idea of a physical male God as a way to ridicule believers. The 'Great Spaghetti Monster' is a similar call to ridicule. Standard atheists don't need to rely on science to draw the conclusion that God doesn't exist. Science provides support for a lack of God, but it's possible to follow a chain of reasoning that leads to a lack of God. Most atheists are independent and don't actively oppose other people's beliefs.

Trying to reason that God does exist using logic or evidence always stumbles and sometimes falls. Many great minds have debated the issue and the arguments are all over the internet. From where I'm sitting, lack of God is the dominant position.

A good and honest position to take is for people to admit that it makes no sense at all but they believe in God. That's true Faith isn't it?




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   
I think at this point i may kindly hand in another video tittled:
Albert Einstein on God



All quotes can be easily referenced from Einstein by Walter Isaacson. © 2007 by Walter Isaacson. To be published by Simon & Schuster, Inc.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:54 AM
link   
God does exist. God does not exist.

We can argue the toss on both accounts but language being what it is we are arguing at odds with the shared definition of what 'existence' is and what 'God' is. For example, I will happily argue that the God defined and referenced by the Bible does not exist, but that doesn't mean that 'God' per se does not exist.

If I watch a film about a car that has human-like intelligence and performs feats of heroism in it's interaction with people (Herbie) that is one thing. I can admit that such a car does not exist (excluding KITT, haha), but I have seen plenty of Volkswagen Beetles driving around in my time.

If we take away the established view of God, promoted and sustained by religion, then we are left with some interesting points of debate. If we use any evidence tainted by religion - whatever religion it may be - then we will get nowhere but spend out time contending circular logic.

We have reached the point where we should be able to move beyond religion and begin to debate the concept of God in the context of the known universe - that is all the evidence we have for a supreme being. The world about us is our evidence, not religious texts.

That evidence points in different directions of course, but our knowledge does not expand through the denouement of our debate, but through the process of contending different points of view using the same undeniable evidence as a basis for our arguments.

There is no undeniable evidence that God exists, but equally, there is no undeniable evidence that God does not exist. The only question we can ask is what the process of thoughtful debates means to each of us.

I have as little time for those that will make bold statements of non-existence as those that contend we're all set for Hell. We should always be willing to question the status quo and search for new answers, even if those answers are at odds with what we currently believe.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Well, absense of evidence IS evidence of absence, however it is not proof of absence. Proof of absence would require a positive condition that mutually excludes whatever is absent, ie. they cannot both coexist. But the actual transcendental being we're talking about can in fact by virtue of its own nature as a creator, cooexist with all, since it mutually cooexists with itself, being the same thing as all.

Right-o?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 




Men created god(s) to try and explain things they did not understand
sun rise ,sun set, stars, moon , life and death etc.

If they had not used that method we would not have this thread most likely.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by SugarCube
 





I have as little time for those that will make bold statements of non-existence as those that contend we're all set for Hell. We should always be willing to question the status quo and search for new answers, even if those answers are at odds with what we currently believe


good post.

I think Op deserves a few flags.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
reply to post by wmd_2008
 


Exactly so wmd_2008, human beings created a definition of God, or Gods, to explain the natural world about us, to offer a route of appeasement to defend against the rigours of the natural world.

That definition does not change the fact that the sun shines, the night and day wax and wane and the weather will upset plans for crops and summer BBQs.

That is exactly my point though. trying to understand how the universe works, from the way that weather is formed to the workings of star does not reduce the wonder of these natural occurrences.

We can see how the whole universe, from the smallest atoms to the largest constructs, everything is intertwined within a common framework of existence. Why are we not able to recognise that this in itself should be considered 'divine'.

It is the ego of man that attempts to make human kind centric to the working of the universe, to define God(s) that interact specifically with man, that all happenings are in the context of a relationship with man.

This is where we diverged from a true understanding of our place in the universe - substantially lower than the slot 'we' allocate for ourselves! We can revel in the achievements of mankind, but in truth, we are nothing but a passing phase in the history of just the Earth. In terms of the Universe, we are insignificant.

Once we can recapture the humility that other life forms display and simply live in harmony with the nature of the world about us, then we may be some way to understanding the true nature of the 'divine' - not defined by religion but experienced through the Great Work.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I see some people threading like :

Demon identification help required etc etc etc

What is the suggestion here folks?


There is a demon but there is no God?

There is a demon alone?

lmao

I will stick with God and stay way away from any demons



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by GEORGETHEGREEK
 





I will stick with God and stay way away from any demons

You can't really go wrong with that kind of thinking.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 
Your post is a fair example of the 'jiggery-pokery' I mentioned earlier. Nobody can prove a negative and that God and its nature can exist? Is that about it? Is that your point? If so, try and use language for communication and not to confuse.

My position remains that arguing God exists requires more 'jiggery-pokery' than arguing God doesn't. Someone's belief in a God is up to them. Decrying another person's understanding that God does not exist is to see the processes underlying religion and dominant ideologies. Historically, belief in God has been dictated by a wish to remain alive and not be ostracised. Medieval Europe was an unpleasant place if you challenged the Church. Much like gunboat diplomacy, many Christian converts did so on pain of death...

I suppose atheism is an emergent ideology when it takes the form of active opposition to religion and by proxy, believers? Thinking aloud...



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 





My position remains that arguing God exists requires more 'jiggery-pokery' than arguing God

You have a right to that position. Even if from where I am seeing things
the position is one that looks "vulnerable".



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by spy66
 





We think we understand them. And they think they understand us. We all think we understand everything. But clearly one side is way of track.

Why is it so hard for Scientists to grasp the possibility, of a spirit world
that can't be held over a bunson burrner? A world that could be
mankinds hope that this life is not a space between two nothings.
That there really might be no one out there in the cosmos.
Because they were meant for us.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by randyvs]




Nothingness or Zero is a term one can only use within math. You cant use nothing to explain existence. Because Nothing or Zero cant create anything or evolve into anything on its own. In other words you cant explain existence mathematically from Zero. There is no connection between Zero and One.

What is the spirit world?

The spirit world is the distance between our state of being to the energies closest to the original source "Space/Pure energy/God".

Space/Pure energy/God:
Existence is made from pure energy by a compression. The compression emits energy form the very beginning. The emitting of energy is very important to keep in mind, because it creates a distance between the different elements of existence and to the main source "God".

Scientists can't verbally communicate with the different types of emitted energies and static. They can only measure and observe them and put them to use as tools if possible.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Even if from where I am seeing things the position is one that looks "vulnerable".


My job'll be vulnerable, if I carry on discussing God's existence instead of nailing the paperwork for tomorrow
If I get into trouble, you could say God was punishing me for dissing its existence on ATS...bdum, dum tsh!



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:47 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Ok So when does 0+1+0 = 0. It never has it never will?



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Hardly a good reason to get in trouble my Good man. I enjoyed your company.
Give some others the floor myself.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 

Your post is a fair example of the 'jiggery-pokery' I mentioned earlier.


Certain of that?


Nobody can prove a negative and that God and its nature can exist?


No, because I'd have to prove that nobody can do that.


Is that about it? Is that your point? If so, try and use language for communication and not to confuse.


Why not think about it? It contains alot of information. I'm working on, as you unsay, unjiggery-unpokery-ing the whole thing.


My position remains that arguing God exists requires more 'jiggery-pokery' than arguing God doesn't. Someone's belief in a God is up to them. Decrying another person's understanding that God does not exist is to see the processes underlying religion and dominant ideologies.


Who's decrying your understanding? Not I. From within your own epistomological framework, denial is the only possibility available. Or, is it your own misunderstandings that lead to this framework and thus the conclusions? Your understandable distaste for religious institutions?

We can't prove god doesn't exist without proving something that is fundamentally incompatible with the existence of a creator. No thing is incompatible with the existence of one, for by its very true definition is it existence and non-existence and beyond. No positive evidence could ever be found for the non-existence of a creator, whether or not one exists.

What sort of creator are you asking be proven? Whatever it is, it is not the creator. If you think its some silly man in the sky or whatever, that is a limited understanding of the truth. However, whatever created you is the creator of you. It matters not its nature.


Historically, belief in God has been dictated by a wish to remain alive and not be ostracised. Medieval Europe was an unpleasant place if you challenged the Church. Much like gunboat diplomacy, many Christian converts did so on pain of death...


That is a product of the institutions. Not a fact of the teachings, that is, if one takes any time to understand them. Simple association fallacy is not valid for the purpose of argument.


I suppose atheism is an emergent ideology when it takes the form of active opposition to religion and by proxy, believers? Thinking aloud...


So, you're saying if religion didn't exist, atheism wouldn't either. In other words, you still have God to thank for the fact that you exist.



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by spy66
 


Ok So when does 0+1+0 = 0. It never has it never will?


Well first of. If you start out with Zero "0" You cant just add in a 1. Like you did. "0+1+0 =0"

Where did you get the one from?

If you want to explain existence from Zero mathematically. You have to use Zero. To explain how it creates 1.

Like this: 0 = 1.... How?
No matter what you do. Zero will never create something different.

When would 1 appear?

PS: Where did you get the + from in your equation. A symbol of power can only exist if you have that power existing.




[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by randyvs
 


My job'll be vulnerable, if I carry on discussing God's existence instead of nailing the paperwork for tomorrow
If I get into trouble, you could say God was punishing me for dissing its existence on ATS...bdum, dum tsh!


Yeah, He works in mysterious ways, through threat of termination by working his will through your employer, made in His image. Now serve God! Giddyup.




posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 08:50 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


The question of 'zero' is as much about 'nothing' as 'everything'. You cannot have one thing without the other since they are contextually bound - i.e. zero is the absence of something else.

If we consider 'nothingness' in an extreme sense, then we are actually talking about 'everything' since that 'nothing' defines the boundary of all that is, even though it appears as 'nothing'.

If we talk about absolute nothingness, then we have to talk about the infinity of what it represents. When we're counting beans, sure, 'zero' is relatively easy to define (although interestingly it took a while for humans to bother defining it for the purposes of every day life), but when we're talking about the essence of the Universe the it gets interesting.

It leads us to the question, could the Universe come from nothing? If not then we try to explain it with a 'creator', but is this being fair to 'nothing'. In the extremes of nothing and the infinity of all co-existing within the same state, does one thing preclude the other?

When we use simple terms of measurement, we could say that you cannot make a bean soup without beans (discounting man-made alternatives such as Styrofoam&trade
, but we cannot say that you cannot create a universe from absolute nothing... can we?

Surely we restrict ourselves by considering 'nothing' in 4 dimensional terms? If we expand our vision we could conceive that a conversion of 'something' beyond 'nothing' is capable of creating the dimensional attributes that we can then perceive?

Just a thought...



posted on Jan, 17 2010 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 
Jeez, ease up on the 'fisking,' huh? Sometimes less is more, but I guess a guy coined that saying?


I guess I haven't made my position clear. I'm not making the claim that God does or does not exist. I'm making the claim that stating God doesn't exist is an argument that has logical integrity.


Your apparent position is that being unable to prove God doesn't exist allows for God's existence. Now, that might be a secure position to take from your standpoint. It satisfies your internal logic etc. 'Flying spaghetti monster' also conforms to that logic (I hate to use that one...sorry!) and most would claim that such a being doesn't exist. The inability to prove it doesn't exist doesn't encourage anyone to suspect it might do.

You've got a slippery posting style that's often used by empty vessels. I'd be interested to see you make a clear point in a few short sentences



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join