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.

 

The personified God does not exist.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Now before people jump to conclusions, listen. To say "to exist", you will have to quantify that to exist; you will have exist in the physical universe. After reading a lot about a certain guy named Bill Gaede I came to realise that in certain aspects, he is right about god not existing. God is a concept. Everything we see is a concept. Also I will have to say "God" is to personified. When one says God, first thing atheists come to think of is, white man with beard. Creator is also a personified word as we still think of an entity creating something. So with saying this, I think it is safely to say God does not exist. We cannot see or measure god, so saying that god does not exist is true, because to exist it has to be in the physical realm. How do you know something exists, if it doesn’t exist in your dimension? You can’t. Now that being said, there are the mysteries of the universe that we do not understand. Plasma cosmology is very interesting, and I am still a big fan of the holographic universe theory. There are so many mysteries out there we do not even know what the universe is. Now for me "god" is the inner nature of the universe. We see the way the universe works with physics, ect.. But not the inner nature, we can of course say, "yeah it all started from random quantum fluctuations", but what is the inner nature of this universe existing? It seems like all we are, are just fractals of the universe.

Any Replies are great




posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I, of course, concur fully - corporeal existence doesn't apply to god.
As you stated, god is an intellectual construct and god personified is a primitive construct at that.

We'll probably both be flamed over this, but many folks here just don't understand the difference between fact/actuality/reality and what amounts to an opinion.

gj



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
the law of one puts it straight imo.

I agree a personified creator cannot exist, more that it is that we and all that is manifest are plenary expansions of the one infinite intelligent concious energy experiencing itself in many seperate ways yet still being one.
The dualistic nature is an illusion of this subjective experience but even the illusion is part and parcel of the one so it`s all good!!



edit to add,.... check my sig, thats it in a nutshell I reckon

[edit on 29-4-2010 by psilo simon]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


I like the guy who, in rick strassman's "the spirit molecule" video clip, describes that somewhere, there is something called the creator with many, many aspects and in some way he is a part of it.

Trying to explain existence through materialism always leads to chance. I think a creator makes logical sense (the order and fine tuning of everything, despite attempts to show flaws). It also makes sense to personify, as humans do, something we cannot grasp or fully understand, hence the myriad Gods worshiped throughout time.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   
You make an tnteresting point here Kull. You seem to show a big difference between someone saying," There is no God". And someone saying, "God does not exist." I tend to agree with this. As much as I
hate to.


Good Post.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:00 PM
link   
reply to post by psilo simon
 


I find your take on this life and what it all means fascinating, I've been struggling trying to figure out how it all fits. I gotta tell you I've never heard it put so succently " That we and all that is manifest are plenary expansions of the one infinite intelligent concious energy experiencing itself in many seperate ways yet still being one". Way to change my reality S&F.............



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
We cannot see or measure god, so saying that god does not exist is true, because to exist it has to be in the physical realm.


Because something cannot be seen or measured is not proof of its nonexistance.

"Until the 20th century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the charted electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one millionth of reality." -Richard Buckminster Fuller

Inability to prove something exists IS NOT PROOF that it does not exist, only proof that it cannot be proven to exist.

Also, the burden of proof is not on the atheist but on the believer...
You are engaging in nothing but atheist apologetics.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by USAFJetTech]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
But I thought that I WAS the personified God! I'm not?? Geez! This changes everything!



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


You "exist/think exist" right? Do you see yourself in the mirror? Have you looked at the space between yourself? If so then you have stared into the face of "god". Do you think it is possible to actually exist outside of infinite? Is it possible for evil to exist outside of infinite? Do you think it is possible for good to exist outside of infinite? Do you think it is possible for good to exist outside of evil, outside of infinite? Do you think that anything isn't god? Have you not looked god directly in the face of god/infinity everytime you have looked someone directly in the face?


I am sorry if this seems aggressive, i tend to speak very plainly. I mean these questions with the most amount of positivity as possible.

Is it possible for evil to exist outside of infinite? Do you think it is possible for good to exist outside of infinite? Do you think it is possible for good to exist outside of evil, outside of infinite?

Well i really like this question... haha

[edit on 29-4-2010 by onequestion]

[edit on 29-4-2010 by onequestion]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
Now before people jump to conclusions, listen. To say "to exist", you will have to quantify that to exist; you will have exist in the physical universe. After reading a lot about a certain guy named Bill Gaede I came to realise that in certain aspects, he is right about god not existing. God is a concept. Everything we see is a concept. Also I will have to say "God" is to personified. When one says God, first thing atheists come to think of is, white man with beard. Creator is also a personified word as we still think of an entity creating something. So with saying this, I think it is safely to say God does not exist. We cannot see or measure god, so saying that god does not exist is true, because to exist it has to be in the physical realm. How do you know something exists, if it doesn’t exist in your dimension? You can’t.


God exists.
I saw him.
White guy, no beard.
Radiant Presence.
Infinity in His Eyes.

www.beezone.com...

You are confused. God cannot be known. God is intuited.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by RRokkyy]

[edit on 29-4-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by USAFJetTech


Because something cannot be seen or measured is not proof of its nonexistance. Uh, actually it pretty much is, especially if there is no way to measure it or percieve its effect on objects that can be seen and measured. Astronomers have not actually seen many of the planets that they have discovered rotating about distant stars, but they can observe and measure the effect that those planets have on the stars and so deduce the planet's presence.

"Until the 20th century, reality was everything humans could touch, smell, see, and hear. Since the initial publication of the charted electromagnetic spectrum, humans have learned that what they can touch, smell, see, and hear is less than one millionth of reality." -Richard Buckminster Fuller
Nevertheless Bucky was still referring to things that mankind would eventually be able to perceive thru technology, etc. This quote is simply inadequate to justify your premise.

Inability to prove something exists IS NOT PROOF that it does not exist, only proof that it cannot be proven to exist.
It may not be absolute proof but, if I cannot detect it and it has no impact at all on the world around me then it is completely irrelevant to the point that it could honestly be said to have no real existence for any practical purpose.


[edit on 29-4-2010 by godless]

[edit on 29-4-2010 by godless]

[edit on 29-4-2010 by godless]



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
reply to post by godless
 


I agree with you almost wholeheartedly. But just because we cannot detect it now does not mean we never will be able to... you cannot difinitively prove something doesn't exist.

But my main point is that the whole issue is moot. As atheists, we do not have to "prove" god doesnt exist or explain our disbelief.
Its a silly exercise in circular reasoning.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by strangleholder1
reply to post by psilo simon
 


I find your take on this life and what it all means fascinating, I've been struggling trying to figure out how it all fits. I gotta tell you I've never heard it put so succently " That we and all that is manifest are plenary expansions of the one infinite intelligent concious energy experiencing itself in many seperate ways yet still being one". Way to change my reality S&F.............



Thanks for that mate.
Though I wont lay claim to the theory, it`s just an understanding and belief I have based on meditation, shamanic practices, and the Law of One. It all just resonated for me, and certainly changed my life.
In my mind now, it can`t really be any other way, so make the most of what we have. Have the best of intentions every minute of everyday, and be nice.

The law of one will blow your mind if you liked my post, really, earth shatteringly clarifying.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by godless
 



how can you measure something? you cant measure its existance because you dont know what it is existing for. the size of an atom from your persepctive is different from the size of an atom from the atoms persepctive. and that even depends on what the atom looks like to another atom because they might exist differently. im not even factoring in all the other equations, like time affect, place, energy whatever else you can imagine.


measurements are lies. so is math. defining something by its measurement is funny imo. how can you define something by its measurement?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:27 AM
link   
Allow me to point out something: you are completely correct in saying for something to exist it must exist physically. That's the usage of that word. However, the problem with your argument is that you stop with god, as if god is different than everything else.

You say "god is a concept" and therefore doesn't exist, but then leave other concepts alone. Why? The concepts of logic and math do not exist then, correct? The existence of time and space, since they are unobservable and only exist to organize reality, therefore do not exist either. All conceptual things and linguistic things therefore are not physical things, and therefore do not exist by your terminology.

Think about this: You also assume that other minds exist. If other minds did not exist, who are you writing to on the internet? Yourself? Other minds are unobservable, yet you readily accept their existence. Why do you deny the existence of a transcendent mind?

A lot of questions, but you left these things open, and I would like to hear your solution.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Regent Leo]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:30 AM
link   
I was an atheist and never thought GOD meant Jesus. Jesus Christ was always a man, and GOD was always all around us in the form of the universe and consciousness. Christian GOD? NO, Muslim GOD? NO, the universe, YES!



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


I understand your logic; that "existence" is something which belongs to the physical universe, along with "time" and "space", so it would be inapplicable, like "time" and "space", to anything beyond the physical universe.

The trouble is that if "Creator God" is a true situation, we need to have some verb to describe what that God is doing. If not "exist", then what?

Many philosophers, including Dionysus the Areopagite, have pointed out that all human language is strictly speaking inapplicable to God. If you add the word "exist" to that list, nothing really changes.

You cannot get rid of God by linguistics, any more than you can prove God by linguistics. That argument may not stop God from confronting you one day and saying- "All right, so I don't "exist"- but here I am, anyway. What do you propose to do about it?"



[edit on 30-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by drkid
 


You are referring to jesus christ as a man, think of the christ as the state of being you enter with the removal of ego. Living within the infinite demands that we all embody the christ conscious as the "son", or being you can understand in terms of a childlike being, experiencing that type of being/love would hard to explain in human language considering we are incapable of experiencing in the flesh, or ego/materiel/mind state. how else, if you were to philosophize would you describe the infinite from a love father/son perspective, or can i say mother/child? It depends on what your reading really.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


The problem I have grappled with is the existance of a charactured entity.I just can't swallow it. Even if there was would he/she/it want to sit above and be worshipped by a group of sick monkeys.
I err on the side of universal conscousness all is part of it and it is part of all. This would explain cause and effect and the "100 monkey syndrome.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


I understand your logic; that "existence" is something which belongs to the physical universe, along with "time" and "space", so it would be inapplicable, like "time" and "space", to anything beyond the physical universe.

The trouble is that if "Creator God" is a true situation, we need to have some verb to describe what that God is doing. If not "exist", then what?

Many philosophers, including Dionysus the Areopagite, have pointed out that all human language is strictly speaking inapplicable to God. If you add the word "exist" to that list, nothing really changes.

You cannot get rid of God by linguistics, any more than you can prove God by linguistics. That argument may not stop God from confronting you one day and saying- "All right, so I don't "exist"- but here I am, anyway. What do you propose to do about it?"



[edit on 30-4-2010 by DISRAELI]


Quite right. That was the next step to my argument. You can not point to god in the Universe, or evidence of god, simply because of the nature of transcendence. Likewise, conceptual truths are, at most, existing in the mind. Thus, any proof for gods existence using conceptual existence is no proof at all. God can neither be proved nor disproved; a Kierkegaardian leap of faith is required.




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join