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: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by psilo simon
 


Unfortunatley I couldn't U2U you back as I haven't made enough posts yet, cheers for the extra info.




posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Based on personalities, I'd just have to say He does



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
No, you guys do not understand me. I said personified god, meaning something that is individual, like some kind of entity. We cannot measure or see this entity, so by definition of existence, that entity does not exist. Now how can something exist if it is out of our space/time? I would even classify that with the word exist. Would you? I am not saying there is no god, But I am saying that the personified god people talk about cannot exist. By humans terms of course. I hope you guys are understanding were I am coming from.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 

No, you haven't proved as much as that.

You've shown that a personified God is unimaginable, nothing more. Reality isn't controlled by what we can imagine.

No deepsea fish can see or measure or even imagine the sun, but the sun's there anyway.

Let me put it this way.
A personalised God cannot "exist", but a personalised God can ********
******** is the word for what things do when they're not part of the physical universe.




[edit on 30-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


That is what I am saying. I am not ruling out the existence. If you read my post I meant was by definition, a personified god does not exist. To deep-sea fish the sun does not exist to them because they can’t see it. Same said for us to god. God can/does exist, but since we cannot see him by definition god does not exist in the physical sense. God is beyond existence, so to speak.



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


Fine. I accept that God is "beyond existence".

I think I mean that the God who is "beyond existence" might still be "personified"- not in the strict sense, of course, but in an analogical way. "Beyond personality", if you like.

And thus- and this is the point- capable of communication. Thus nothing in your argument actually rules out the traditional deity, as long as we avoid the word "exists".



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Maddog, I enjoy reading your posts, as they are always interesting. I have a question, however, even after reading your last two posts, which seem mere rhetoric to me. Maybe I'm misreading you, but you seem to be saying that what you say is fact, not opinion. That's the only problem I have with what you say, even though I don't agree with you. I agree with the poster who mentions personality. I see God as more than an idealistic construct. I'm not a so-called religious fanatic either. I'm not sure any of us should try to write anything in stone, other than birth and death, and you seem to be trying to speak with unequivacal authority. I love your effort to try to make people think, and like I said, I may have misread what I considered to be your tone. It's all discussion anyway, you know?



posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by deadred
 


See people are misinterpreting what I am trying to say. They bring their own beliefs into the equation. Maybe I should have rephrased what I was trying to say. I am saying that by definition, to exist we would have to classify it with something into our dimension, if not they are just concepts. I believe God does exist, but not in the sense people of religions would say he exists. For me god is outside of existence, outside of space of time. So in a physical sense he does not exist. God ways are too mysterious for us to comprehend (including me and everyone else). I believe god has to be personified in a sense, because if we exist we will have to be fractals of god. I do not believe we could be separate from god. We would have to be a part of the hole. There is a lot of interesting theory’s involving universal consciousness, planetary consciousness as well. It seems to me that through fractals of the universe to be a part of god, personification would be right. So he is personified in that sense. But as a whole, I would not classify god as a deity or entity, God would be something much more. Outside time space and existence. More mysterious. If you know where I am getting at.


And of course, I am not saying this as fact, if some of you are thinking, I am just putting some suggestions out there I am thinking about.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by Maddogkull]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maddogkull
[I believe God does exist, but not in the sense people of religions would say he exists. For me god is outside of existence, outside of space of time. So in a physical sense he does not exist. God ways are too mysterious for us to comprehend (including me and everyone else).


So what makes you think "people of religion" believe any different?

What you are saying is exactly what trained theologians have been saying for the last two thousand years.

There is nothing wrong with your ideas except the assumption that you are disagreeing with people of religion.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Hi all, maybe I'm just reading this thread incorrectly, in which case, you'll have to excuse my misinterpretation, however, when I read the phrase "personified God" I see the suggestion that "a deity possesses the attributes of man".

That is to say, in possession of attributes that may be termed emotive responses, anger, love, humour, all combining to provide a human temperament and disposition, even a motivation

In this respect I would agree with the statement that such a God does not exist - which is one of the primary issues with the Old Testament God who is nothing if not small minded in "his" disposition, clearly demonstrating anger and a need for vengeance - typical human traits.

However, the lack of human characteristics is not necessarily evidence of a lack of God or indeed, a corporeal existence. This subject has been touched upon in the thread How Did God Come Into Existence here on ATS.

Indeed, the Emanationist Philosophy provides some insight into the characteristics of a God made physical either wholly or in part. I personally subscribe to the former theory and have provided posts in this subject in a number of threads.

Note that there is significance in the statement that a Godhead was made physical in that the true nature of such an entity cannot be know by man and that by becoming 'physical' it may be experienced only by the mind through the senses and conjecture.

Also, the purpose of God is also unknown and is in no way intrinsically linked with human kind - that is to say, man is no more than the rocks and the trees and the birds and the bees. We hold no special place except in our own ability to imagine what God may be.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SugarCube
when I read the phrase "personified God" I see the suggestion that "a deity possesses the attributes of man".

That is to say, in possession of attributes that may be termed emotive responses, anger, love, humour, all combining to provide a human temperament and disposition, even a motivation


I half-agree with you. Even from the early days of the Church, Christian theologians have been saying much the same thing. That it is misleading to assign to God human emotions such as anger, or even, strictly speaking, love. These ideas can be attributed to God only "analogically". Only a few days ago I was taking flak from a Jehovah's Witness on one of the other forums for trying to put this point across.

However, I stand by my earlier suggestion that even a "Beyond Existence" God might be willing and able to communicate, and the content of that communication would make it legitimate to make, in a cautious way, other statements about that God. For example, communication itself implies a certain kind of "self-consciousness" or "will".



[edit on 1-5-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Hi Disraeli (love the moniker!), I agree with your referenced post entirely. In terms of analogical emotive interaction, I think that it is clear that humans assign reciprocal emotions to inanimate objects (e.g. a child's relationship with a doll or 'teddy bear') and so it is no wonder that we apply the same relationships to the natural world and certainly to the concept of God.

This is not to say that such a reciprocal relationship does not exist within the context of a deity entity, however, the relationship is not for the benefit of mankind per se, but to the sole purpose of that deity:

That which is Below corresponds to that which is Above and that which is Above, corresponds to that which is Below, to accomplish the miracles of the One Thing

That an action or event may be contrived to be evidence of 'love' or 'anger' (i.e. a positive or negative effect) is besides the point, as human beings our everyday actions may have an effect on the natural world quite apart from our cognitive attempts to affect it. The fact that we have cognition of events within the context of our own lives is not to say that events were deigned for that very purpose. I truly believe that in the context of the deity I refer to, human kind is simply 'collateral' to further a higher objective.

Certainly, I believe that sentience is a significant aspect of the deity, however, that self-awareness is no doubt beyond the capacity of mankind to understand - we can hardly decide whether animals are capable of sentient thought so I don't have any faith in being able to predict the capacities of a supreme being!

Can we comprehend the sentient context of a tree, even in a reaction to the natural elements? The tree functions, it reacts to seasons and weather, all part of the mechanics of a system that has evolved over a long period of time, however - can we simply state that a tree is a 'machine'?

A common interpretation for the definition of sentience is skewed to human cognition rather than as a universal truth and does not necessarily work well when applied to systems. Remember that sentience is an ability to subjectively perceive, yet at this very basic level we could apply the label of 'sentience' to a number of natural structures (i.e. plant and animal life).

You also mention the point of communication and this is very important since its interpretation is fundamental to the underlying philosophy of many religions. The key aspect to this whether God is distinct from creation or whether creation itself is a manifestation of God.

This is important because it changes the dynamic of communication. As you read this as a distinct individual you are quite separate from me, the author of the post and may interpret and react to my statements although disassociated from my experience in producing it. However, there was also communication between my brain and my hands and fingers in order to type this although within the same system (i.e. my body with reference to sensory input and muscular control).

Where God is essentially the fundamental material from which the universe is constructed, communication may occur within the 'single system' and not necessarily between distinct bodies. This represents a more holistic approach to the definition of and interaction with a 'God'.

Thanks Disraeli for raising some interesting points.



posted on May, 1 2010 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by SugarCube

You also mention the point of communication and this is very important since its interpretation is fundamental to the underlying philosophy of many religions. The key aspect to this whether God is distinct from creation or whether creation itself is a manifestation of God.
...
Where God is essentially the fundamental material from which the universe is constructed, communication may occur within the 'single system' and not necessarily between distinct bodies. This represents a more holistic approach to the definition of and interaction with a 'God'.


Thank you for your constructive comments. We seem to be thinking alike, except of course, that my religion commits me to the first choice in the highlighted question.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by DISRAELI
You've shown that a personified God is unimaginable, nothing more. Reality isn't controlled by what we can imagine.


This is key.

I brought this up earlier. You, maddog, keep bringing into this discussion that you mean the combination of a god who is a person in the strictest terms can not exist because its very existence is beyond perception. The idea being, then, that persons are not transcendent and are changable.

You have only proven, as DISRAELI said, that these things can not fit together in the human mind. You readily accept time and space, but these things do not exist physically. You place them on objects that are physical, yes, but you can do the same with concepts of design and mathematics. These concepts exist in the mind and not in reality, and arguably god is the same. Think about an infinite amount of time. Just because your mind can't comprehend it doesn't mean it isn't the case.

However, just because these things do not exist in reality does not mean they do not exist anywhere. Is there a true singular thing? Do other minds exist? Does time and space exist? Does a personal god exist? These question are unanswerable based on pure physical existence, at least they can not be completely answered, but it does not mean they are proven one way or the other.

God could very well be a person, but perception on the human level is not keen enough to show the answer. I suppose a person requires the ability of communication or thought, and in this way a higher form of thought and communication would seem so unlike us that we would deem it as beyond our marking as personhood. However, it would still be thought and communication nonetheless.



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
just an interesting kind of understanding from a thought something today, because i never get to evil directly to say i dont know and dont want, so i go from what i know and want then i babble about absolute rights then i say how it is wrong and disgusting inferiority then i wait nothing happen doors are locked so i start again same over and over again, i only get more sure of myself about how i am absolutely right but i get more sure also how i am absolutely hated by absolute powerful livings that are enjoying forcing me to understand more of all their ways that mean hells to me and not interesting at all while they enjoy killing me and my rights

so from what truth give the free right to any true real point to realize its own free life by moving above truth bases as the ways of free expressions right lives, existing positions charges of that truth mean mostly always to pretend their free life by diregarding totally truth prior bases of free moves

god is the source of that way from what he never mean truth as the base of his free positive life and from what he is powerful conscious without meaning a will

so god knew how to be always right from prooving others wrong and flying away as free of his superior justification of freedom right life
prooving the others like natural life wrong life

here god became creator through those ways of negations taht made some realities that never meant to be existing, and then god thought that i guess and find the sure way to profit while be over it in making a whole creations system of existence source, which gives the forms to universal law and geometrical sphere of paradoxal life reality that he creates

in this god surely experience resistance to his rules and ways, since it is done almost randomly from god without meaning in details any justification of truth or to it from his will, god reacted by force, which killed everyone in truth and puting all his creations in negative existence of evil life source against absolute truth base

so from god a lot of existing positive wills lives free by force systems way, that evolve in claiming directly superiority upon others groups as free wealth but also claiming the suffer in negative conditions of slavery to any group inferior that the superior can check and control

the way i see the truth base and free life right above its base life goes like a shemas of two axes, where the horizontal axe living freedom mean truth reality as life that evolve infinitely in freedom levels from life truth dimensions

and in vertical, the axe freedom life mean the free right individually from the living reality of absolute positive of course, so that free point evolve vertically in free living realisations absolutely of its free right always more infinitely

so the system of god is based in opposition to this right one, in abyss nature replace the sense of living by killing meaning negative reality condit5ions denying any reality of positive living absolutely existing, so it becomes the abyss where everything down want to be free while she is the only one that can pretend that fact to its immortal life conditions

and on the vertical axe we have god that kills all freedom existence forcing all to force systems closeness where they are all looking up to any positive living sense and while god appear making the souls as he wish of pleasures in pains of slavery and where he obviously is the only living positive from him free wills

here we can understand better what i always mean in saying that god and nature are the same, it is the level of free living because that is the truth too as a right of truth freedom life, so it doesnt matter if you mean to be from freedom or life what matter is what you do realize alone as a living free positive point

so for religions justifications in that time i see this too of what i thought

god know how everyone is living through the illusions he make them think being positive freely existing so they love themselves very much as if it is true them, as him they live of forcing others to their superiorities recognitions ways while meaning also others inferiorities realities under them as free from,

so god appear at the end of the times which is close to now, but mentionned clearly in the three religions as the time of now, where god proove in his personnal way with everyone to anyone that he exist, so people are meaning to love god for what they are accepting having themselves also from him, that is why everyone now is talking about god while they mean totally opposite things and we have like two groups saying being supported by god at that time while god is clearly recomforting both sides, but we have too people like me who shout for rights out of god that is wrong and of course famous satin that shout with people like him that it doesnt mean anything anymore what they have if they must share it with god

and it is really happening, waoo all the world everyone is really evil living, who could have guessed that/ not me

just ignore that post it is like a story i like to innovate on some living screen to make it out for what it doesnt belong to me



posted on May, 2 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maddogkull
 


By that view, as far as I am concerned, you don't exist. You would tend to disagree of course.



posted on May, 3 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
God is not a white man in a beard, if anything it is a metaphysical entity, but being an entity, if it was complex, it would require parts, which goes against its essential nature of Oneness, thus God must be simplistic and not a sentient being. God is the essence of all things, and so is more accurate to say Soul or Supreme Soul of everything and not creator. The universe is not designed like the creationists think, nor is it completely random like the evolutionists think, rather it is a middle ground between these two, a pouring out from the unlimited Godhead and organized in a strict hierarchy of lower states. This "emanation" brings forth all things and then through contemplation returns to its source. God is said to be both imminent and transcendent, imminent in that it is within all things, and transcendent in that it is beyond all material things. The point is that the Soul is immaterial, it can be found by perceiving the pure light within the mind.




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join