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.

 

God theory: I attempt to prove the existence of God (mind you I said 'attempt')

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by NorEaster
 


the foundation between God and his creation is the soul, which is part body, part divine. The body experiences pain, which is then transmitted to the soul, via the mind. The mind in turn is the foundation between body and soul.

The point is that everything is God, but appears to us as being different because of our lower modes of knowledge (senses, imagination, reason). If we were like God, we would see ourselves everywhere, since God is the truth. There would be no false impressions (or error/evil in our thinking). But because we are not perfectly enlightened beings, we see a universe, and wonder how on earth it could have come from nothing, not realizing that it did not come from earth, but rather from a higher, transcendent principle.


You shouldn't have put the word "prove" in the thread title. The bottom line is that if you can't prove how God came into existence or prove how it is that God has no need to come into existence at all, then you can't prove that God exists. Assertions aren't proof.

I misunderstood what you were going to attempt here. My mistake. Carry on.




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
Personally i believe God created us / existence by choice.

If God is Infinite. That makes God thee infinite dimension which all must exist within. "Their cant be a larger or smaller dimension than the infinite".

Point nr.2. If God is thee infinite dimension that makes God a constant.

If God is a constant dimension, that means the dimension wont change unless the spirit/mind/energy of that dimension wants to.

Why?

Because the infinite is a constant. "It is a large as it can get and as small as it can get". There is no reason for the dimension to cause a change without a will to do so.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   
I've been up far too late, lol.
I think I will also go to bed. I hope we can continue this sometime tomorrow, I really love these kinds of theories.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Following your rules, I could argue, and do, that God, in fact, did not create this physical universe, but rather his son seemed to. This universe does not actually exist.
Could perfection abide in, or feel moved to create what is nothing but a fiction of opposites, with, as modern quantum physics is increasingly making clear, no objective "reality?" A creation that was also a creator may have upon creation, the sort of split, or identity crisis that could create this world like a dream world out of nothing.
But perfection being in his Creation as well, your basic structure of mind, soul, divine remains.
This additional explanation interjects "waking" into the divine in a meaningful way, and let's God off the hook for this most imperfect of creations.


[edit on 20-7-2010 by joechip]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   
1b) God is not only the absolute creator, but also has the supreme Perfection out of any other thing. God is absolutely Perfect in every way, and thus can not be guilty of error (evil).

If someone else has used this rule and responded to it, sorry.

You make an assumption that Evil is an error. However looking at creation as we see it daily we see balance out of what seems to be chaos which has to include Evil. left and right, up and down, black and white etc.. Good and Evil.

With God being our Creator, everything has a purpose.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:51 PM
link   
If god does not need a creator to have come into existence, then why does our universe need a creator for it to have come into existence? If god is something that was created out of nothing, why couldn't our universe be that one absolute god? Could we have labeled god such in our likeness, as an intelligent external source/creator being, because we are not capable of perceiving the universe as a being, that is alive and growing, itself?

Is it our ego's that falsify our sense of great human intelligence? Could not the atoms that make up our being, perceive themselves as intelligent? Could our being actually also be considered a universe for them? Therefore, is it our ego's that disallow us to realize that we are also nothing but cells or atoms inside of a larger being? Could our universe also be nothing but an atom inside of a being? Could this be an infinite progression going both ways? If not, where does it stop, and how did the 'largest' being come into existence? Now I have come in a full circle and my brain cannot proceed so I must stop.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


According to Genesis chapter 1. God did create the physical dimension " Heaven and earth". Not his son.

In Chapter 2. Lord God creates his own physical things. Lord God creates Adam out of the dust on the ground. Than creates the Garden of Eden and puts Adam in it. Than Lord God creates Eve. And at end he creates the serpent to fool them both.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Oh yeah, but that's the official story is all. The story "in the dream." Of course God created "the heavens and the earth" in our little fictions...I reality He did no such thing.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by joechip
reply to post by spy66
 


Oh yeah, but that's the official story is all. The story "in the dream." Of course God created "the heavens and the earth" in our little fictions...I reality He did no such thing.


Than i am confused. What did really happen?



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia


if we were to have a rule 5, it would be evil or error

5. Evil can not have power, because then it would have emanated from the supreme Good (God). So evil is rather an error or miscalculation of the divine.


Id have to disagree here, based on god being infinite. I often get attacked for saying these types of observations considering the horror unfolding on the planet at present, the reaction is like "how could you?" While in the midst experiencing great evil people seem unable to take a step back and see the big picture.

Evil wasnt a mistake or an error. There is no such thing as error. In terms of infinity, all is perfect. It is only from the finite perspective of a finite being that a bias for certain things exists. If we dont see something as perfect it is from our own lack of wisdom.

When all exists, all is perfect, all is as important as anything else. No one person is more important than another.


I think the creator has explored duality, polar deviation from neutrality in terms of spiritual nature and paths, both good(positive) and evil(negative) beings exist. They are just opposites.
You, a positive, may claim that your right and worthy to exist and therefore by default your opposite (evil) is wrong and must not exist, it is a mistake and must be eliminated or avoided, rather than embraced you might claim.
But you would probably find that eliminating negativity would decrease your own positvity as the charges remain in balance you may find yourself returning to neutrality.
Evil has divine purpose, it is what makes good good. The light has darkness to shine into. Evil people show you how not to live, evil acts teach you how not to behave, the presence of evil on this planet creates a very intense drive to have a peacefull utopia, much more so than if you'd never learnt the lesson of what happens when evil is allowed to grow.
The evil teaches you, and hence benefits you, both charges aid each other down their respective paths back to god despite them knowing it. The pain and suffering is only temporary, and death just a transition, but the learning...the learning stays forever.

From your own perpective as a positive its ok to claim the negatives are doing it all wrong, but from gods infinite perspective, their actions are perfect, as are yours.


The apparent imperfection is in the eye of the beholder.

All is as it was meant to be, including your will to change it.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by polarwarrior]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


Well, not speaking with certainty, but with belief based on logic and intuitive reasoning, as well as ACIM; The separation happened.
Basically, the Created thought it could usurp the power of God, indeed, thought it had. And created a dream world of no reality to hide its many parts in. As it was created of God as well as by God, God remains within these many parts. However, as one asleep and one awake abide in different consciousnesses, God the transcendent has no part of our little dream, there is however the Holy spirit inhabiting the dream, which could been seen as connecting the two, with the goal of awakening the sleeper. Read A Course in Miracles for more on all of that if you have an interest.

edit for spelling

[edit on 20-7-2010 by joechip]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
...To identify with this goodness is hard to achieve, but it is the basis of intense meditational practices. While it is hard to be completely submersed in this state, a quick experience of it allows one to understand with certainty the existence of a higher state of being, this is the real proof of God.


Well said. It's strange because I was contemplating this a lot lately as of the past night. I kept waking up in and out of sleep with speculations and ideas, until I decided to do some more researching online, then back to ATS.

I was debating on making a thread connecting the soul-mind-body after reading different arguments on dualism, but it seemed you stated some things similar anyway.

my question is this.

If reality is non-dualistic monism, then wouldn't all intelligence be dualistic is some sense? Or is intelligence/understanding the very division of falses?

Because if our understanding is dualistic, it makes you wonder who's really right. Or is there no wrong answer?



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Totally brilliantly put filosophia.
My reasoning would be along those lines.
Only...I'm in work atm so I can't elaborate.

But good call and excellent thread!


Much love...



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   
All you're missing is the system to "spin" energy into measurable mass:


The Americanist

You'll find information inside those blogs (view all).

As additional reference (youtube or google search terms):

Dale Pond - Keely, SVP
Marko Rodin - (look for a 44pt Lecture Series) Vortex Math Model
Nassim Haramein - Vector Based Geometry



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by habfan1968
1b) God is not only the absolute creator, but also has the supreme Perfection out of any other thing. God is absolutely Perfect in every way, and thus can not be guilty of error (evil).

If someone else has used this rule and responded to it, sorry.

You make an assumption that Evil is an error. However looking at creation as we see it daily we see balance out of what seems to be chaos which has to include Evil. left and right, up and down, black and white etc.. Good and Evil.

With God being our Creator, everything has a purpose.


Have you considered Evil a lesser degree of Good? Take a scale of 1 to 10... At opposite ends you have good and evil.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaulGoodman



God is beyond being, he is Eternal being (neither past, present, nor future but an eternal present containing all three). If I were to say that a quantum particle created God, you would be able to say that God is not the ultimate origin, you would also ask where the quantum particle came from, and since it does not make logical sense to conclude it came from nothing, God must have been uncreated. How can the creator be created? It is eternal, always existing.


The brain thinks, but it is not self-aware. It can only be aware of the things the nervous system tells it. It can not know that it is knowing. An example is that the arm moves, but the arm does not move itself. The brain is the organ of thought, but it does not think on its own. If it did, you would not exist, but rather your body would be a robot, acting on its own impulses. For many people, they do live like this, but for an enlightened person who does not even care about using the brain to think, they look towards the more supreme principle of reality, which is beyond brain. They live their life based on that truth, and not based on the impulses of their brain or nervous system. Plus, if the brain was self-aware, it would feel the pain, rather than yourself. So that whenever you feel sick, you would say "my brain hurts," rather than saying "I hurt." You couldn't even say "my" if it was simply your brain acting as the pilot. I wouldn't be talking to a person, I would be talking to a brain. The part of the brain that does have awareness is the part that the soul is connected to, but the soul is also connected to the divine, and so for that reason, the brain/ego can direct itself towards a higher reality, and contemplate the absolute reality. If it was just a brain, attached to an evolved nervous system, why would the brain care about absolute reality? An abstract concept? Immediately, the idea of God would become futile. While most atheists feel this way, it is because they believe they are their brain, that their brain is self aware, and they negate their self as a non-existent entity. But they contradict themselves whenever they try to cling to life. If the brain alone was the acting agent, death would be nothing more than one organism dying off to be replaced by another, and so there would be no reason to desire to be alive, also no reason to desire intelligence. Most atheists pride themselves on being rational, but if it is just a brain thinking, why would there be a need for intelligence? The ego is proof that the self uses the brain in order to congratulate itself. Otherwise, it would be like the hand clapping because it is a hand, and not because the hand benefits the person.


An immortal, perfect child could not be molested. Molestation implies that its soul or being is tainted, but if it were perfect (like God), it could not be tainted, so no evil could touch it. You are assuming that an immortal would have feelings of regret or guilt, but this is not so.

God creates through a natural emanation that also involves contemplation. It is up to man whether or not to believe in a higher principle or not, God gives man that free choice, and either way man is always contemplating his own survival, but too much adherence to physical things makes him devoid of all spirituality, which results in his evil/error.


The world is near perfect, but it is still perpetual, society however, is a step lower (God-universe-sun-world-man-society). If man has defects, society, being a creation of man, has even more defects, which is why there is a lack of resources in society. God does not come from nothing, but is unborn. Just because the creator does X, Y, and Z, doesn't mean God is X, Y, and Z


Evil exists in this field because it is separate from God, however, through contemplation, it can return to God, meaning nothing is so evil that it is absolutely evil and thus nothing.


Absolute Evil is a total lack of reality, meaning it is nothing, it doesn't exist (what you think God is, a non-existent). But since nothing is absolute evil, all things are only separate from God because they have not contemplated and returned to the source. If they did, they would identify themselves not as body but as the divine, meaning they would no longer think of themselves as imperfect.

Boethius, Consolation of Philosophy, and Buddhism, Upanishads, Baghavad Gita, are some sources.

[edit on 21-7-2010 by filosophia]



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   
How about seeking evidence, instead of proof, of the existence of God? If your mathematical skills are up to it and you can afford the time, you will find the best mathematical evidence for transcendental intelligence ever published on the internet at:
smphillips.8m.com...
The extraordinary evidence presented there I am willing to bet would convert the most hardened atheist. I am half way through the researcher's new book "The mathematical connection between religion and science," and it has totally knocked me over. There is no such thing as scientific proof of God, but the hard, mathematical evidence for God accumulated in this 500-page book is so overwhelming it amounts to proof in my books.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

3. Since the first rule is God and his characteristics, and the second rule is Soul, the third rule would be the connection between these two, the mind. The mind, just like the soul, has two phases. The soul has a higher and a lower embodied, and the mind is both psychic and physical, so that the mind can contemplate mental ideas, but also is connected to the body. The proof of this is physical pain. If the mind was not connected to body, an individual would not be able to feel this pain in their mind or explain the pain (hot/cold, intensity of pain, location).

4. Since the mind can experience pain, a natural desire is created to avoid pain. This is why the mind recoils at harmful things. On an intellectual level, a wise man can say that the self experiences pain when the mind is attached to body, and so if the mind was detached to body, there would be no pain. Thus, a mind free of body, would have no pain.


It seems to me that this "body/soul" dichotomy doesn't always help clarify the reality we experience, but in many ways throws us off the trail. For the materialist, there is no problem, because there is no "soul", our experience is explained as the physical alone, the brain, it's electric impulses, etc. Not terribly satisfying of course, since no survival of death factors in to that philosophy.

Both Eastern and Western traditions of course posit a "soul", or non-corporeal "substance", with it's most important characteristic being that it can somehow survive physical death.

In the different traditions, there is effort made to better define this "soul", this substance that survives death, even if it turns out in the end that some of our thinking was illusory, as in the case of the Eastern vision of "god", that is also the "creation" itself.

I do think there was something useful in the Western / Greek musings on this, that gets lost within the Eastern paradigm. That is, what of the "will"? For the Westerner, the "soul" was composed of Mind, and Will. The Will seems not to have made it into you presentation. This could prove problematic down the road of course, which is why the Greek philosophers recognized it's importance.

This could lead to a logical contradiction. In your OP, item #4, you state that the mind can "experience pain"...exactly how would this be? Again, the missing "will" issue could come into play. Further, you seem to suggest that the "mind experiences pain when the mind is attached to the body". Using the mind as a substitute for "soul" would not bear close philosophical scrutiny of course, but perhaps you meant something else.

Regarding the notion of the "mind" experiencing anything at all without the "will" (or you could say, the "personal" aspect of a reasoning intellect), again, perhaps you meant "soul". The mind, as "intellect", isn't a holistic concept. But it seems that you have recognized a "need" here if you will, which is why you have expanded the function of the "body" as somehow necessary to "complete" the "soul".

I realize, these are difficult concepts to even speak of, but logic does play it's role, in fact, without it, there would be no speaking (or thinking) about it at all. And so on to a possible contradiction:

Can the "mind" (soul?) experience "pain" without the "body"? Clearly, if the death-surviving "essence" bears any resemblance to what we define as the individual person, then the answer is YES. The body is hardly "required" to experience "pain", because the worst pains imaginable, are not of the body at all. Have you ever "lost" a loved one? "Where" did it hurt?

The Eastern "solution" evades a straightforward answer by diminishing the individual nature of the "soul", saying that the soul was in fact only part of "god" all along. Could be, but it does not square with our core experience of individuality, illusory or not, and for that reason alone, should be kept on the suspect list.

A further complication to the Eastern approach is the very widespread notion of reincarnation. Back to the soul/body dichotomy I mentioned first. It seems that it's too convenient to leave that issue so ill-defined. I tend to agree with the great Greek thinkers that we owe it to ourselves to define what we're talking about when we imagine concepts like "soul". This doesn't necessarily lead to materialism at all. Yes, we can entertain the idea of survival after death, however, what kind of survival are we talking about, and would it make any difference at all, if we really took a hard look at it?

For example, saying that when we die we are as "drops of water" that are poured in to the ocean that is God, really sounds poetic, but we would have a hard time thinking about the meaning of what we experience as "individuality" in that circumstance.

To introduce reincarnation also seems to miss the point, and in a rather sloppy way too, from what I can see. Why? Again, what we actually experience (individuality), whether real, or illusion, is once again utterly defeated by disembodied "souls" that can somehow go from body to body.

For anyone who has ever pondered "who" they are, they must come to the honest conclusion that they are uniquely a one-time product of the many factors that make "us". Here the "body" (whatever that really is) makes a very strong "statement" if you will, genetically. Our parents, our experiences, why we enjoy this, and not that...well, it would all mean precisely NOTHING, if our "essence" had no real reference to it all. And that's one of the absurd implications of reincarnation.

I'm no religionist, so perhaps I failed to put things in the way those who enjoy these things would prefer, but I'm not a materialist either. There is certainly "more" to our present experience, it's just that these various philosophies fail to "add" anything to it. Rather, the thrust seems always to be in the very opposite direction. Intuitively, I continue to walk the other way.

Eastern religion/philosophy has an initial attraction, but for me, it dissolves upon close inspection. Perhaps it's my Western bias. Sometimes I think the Greek philosophers were doing just fine, until religion came along.

Well, good luck to you. I applaud you efforts to get to the bottom of the great reality, whatever it may be.

JR



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
So that I am not continuously bombing my own thread, I'll answer multiple ones on this post

@Americanist



Have you considered Evil a lesser degree of Good? Take a scale of 1 to 10... At opposite ends you have good and evil.


God is 10, absolute evil is 0 (Nothing). The universe is 1-9. If we wanted to be extremely technical, we would say that God is not even 10, since God is infinite and so is beyond the scale, which is fundamentally different from being Zero. The universe as a perfect plan in the mind of God would be 10, almost without any error whatsoever, and from there, the universe would then create a lower realm, just as God created the universe, and so 9 would mean the stars, 8 would be the planets, 7 would be earth, 6 would be man, 5 would be society, 4 would be animals, 3 would be insects, 2 would be plants, 1 would be the elements, or something to that effect.


@ Americanist

All you're missing is the system to "spin" energy into measurable mass:


the "spin" would be the emanation, in that God creates a Soul, that Soul creates life, that life creates a body, and body creates sense perception. This means that God directly creates soul, but indirectly creates life and body, which is why there is room for error, because God is indirectly creating these things.

@juveous


If reality is non-dualistic monism, then wouldn't all intelligence be dualistic is some sense? Or is intelligence/understanding the very division of falses?

Because if our understanding is dualistic, it makes you wonder who's really right. Or is there no wrong answer?


Mortal intelligence is dualistic, since it involves discrimination between right and wrong, truth and falsity. God's intelligence would be on another level, in that he would be everything in a transcendent sense, so that he does not have the subject/object duality that we possess, but rather instantaneously and eternally comprehends all things from the standpoint of a unity. The only reason to hesitate in saying God is everything is because it may confuse people to think that God is a tree, rocks, etc, which isn't the case, but God is the true nature of those things, so God is the true nature of everything. As the Upanishads states: The Self knows without knowing, because nothing is separate from it. Since the Self is everything, it knows without the hindrance of the actual act of knowing, but rather instantaneously/Eternally knows.

@polarwarrior


Evil wasnt a mistake or an error. There is no such thing as error. In terms of infinity, all is perfect. It is only from the finite perspective of a finite being that a bias for certain things exists. If we dont see something as perfect it is from our own lack of wisdom.


I completely agree. From the perspective of God, there is no evil, because we would see the universe in its perfect form, the plan of the universe before it unfolds. Even after it unfolds, it is still perfect, but because of our acquired consciousness, we mistake certain phenomenon as evil and so assume there is flaw to the world. It also happens on a linguistic aspect, a lot of people will say "there is evil in the world," but what they really mean is there is evil in society, because the world has its own natural order, and it is the invention of society that brings about the majority of problems that people claim to be evil.

@LifeIsEnergy


If god does not need a creator to have come into existence, then why does our universe need a creator for it to have come into existence? If god is something that was created out of nothing, why couldn't our universe be that one absolute god? Could we have labeled god such in our likeness, as an intelligent external source/creator being, because we are not capable of perceiving the universe as a being, that is alive and growing, itself?

Is it our ego's that falsify our sense of great human intelligence? Could not the atoms that make up our being, perceive themselves as intelligent? Could our being actually also be considered a universe for them? Therefore, is it our ego's that disallow us to realize that we are also nothing but cells or atoms inside of a larger being? Could our universe also be nothing but an atom inside of a being? Could this be an infinite progression going both ways? If not, where does it stop, and how did the 'largest' being come into existence? Now I have come in a full circle and my brain cannot proceed so I must stop.


The universe, meaning everything that exists, exists in a perpetual motion, meaning it had a beginning, is now a present, and has a future, and when it achieves the future, it will have lost the past. So clearly, the plan or order of the universe is not set in the same perpetual motion, but it is eternal. So, God does not need a creator because he is Eternal, but the universe needs an Eternal order, otherwise it would be chaotic at all moments, and the solar-system would not be possible, the earth would not even be able to be held together, and life would be extinguished.

God is not created out of nothing, but has always existed. The universe, in its pure sense, is a being, and if you can see the true nature of the universe, you would conclude that it was God, but because of our lower senses, we see a change in the universe, which would contradict God's eternity.

Our ego prevents us from identifying with the supreme principle, and instead the ego identifies with the body. If the atoms in our body perceived themselves as intelligent, it would still be lacking a unified consciousness. There are many atoms in the body, meaning if all your atoms became conscious, they would rebel against each other. There necessarily must exist a unifying principle (a self) that unites these atoms, and that is what is self-aware. If the universe was an atom inside another being, then this perpetual cycle would go on infinitely, and we would still be unsure of what it all came from. So whatever first created everything, that would be the origin, and if we look towards the absolute origin, it must be that it was not created, but rather had always existed.

joechip


Following your rules, I could argue, and do, that God, in fact, did not create this physical universe, but rather his son seemed to.


I would agree, in that God creates the Son, and the Son creates the universe. Even doing away with the Christian reference of Jesus as the Son, if we say that God creates the Sun (in the sky), the Sun creates life. So the Sun still takes its order from its internal power, and then the rays of light that come about this is what creates life.

The sun in the sky is the most obvious and symbolic reference of God. Science says that the sun will burn out, but to primitive man, the Sun is eternal, it never burns out, however it does descend and in its place there is darkness. The sun is constantly burning, the energy created from its own fusion of energy, and the rays of light directly create life on earth. So the sun in the sky is a symbolic reference to the system of emanation of God, in that God is the self-producing energy, which creates the Son/Sun, and that Sun then creates life on earth, meaning God directly creates the Son, but indirectly creates life, through the Sun.



posted on Jul, 21 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by LifeIsEnergy
If god does not need a creator to have come into existence, then why does our universe need a creator for it to have come into existence?


I couldn't agree with you more on this.

I know it makes it easier to anthropomorphize a "creator", but if you are willing to accept that SOMETHING is capable of existing without a creator why can't that something be the building blocks and rules that allowed our existence?

I know it's difficult to pick a place to stop and say "it's always been that way", or "we just don't know for sure" and, though I know it's not as magical to do so, why not just stop before a creator.




To quote Stephen F. Roberts;

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join