God did it !

reply to post by iamaperson


Perhaps "Pantheism"?

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. The word derives from the Ancient Greek: πᾶν (pan) meaning ‘all’ and θεός (theos) meaning ‘God’. As such, Pantheism denotes the idea that “God” is best seen as a way of relating to the Universe.[2] Although there are divergences within Pantheism, the central ideas found in almost all versions are the Cosmos as an all-encompassing unity and the sacredness of Nature.

In essense, it's still theism rather than agnosticism.

Peace

No it's not exactly pantheism.

It is merely playing with the definitions of words.

Why do we call it the "Universe"?

What does Uni mean? What does Verse mean?

What are Christians Pantheists too? Jeremiah 23:24 "Do I not fill heaven and earth?"

Agnosticism is about not knowing if ZEUS is real or not.

Who here denies the Universe exists? We are all believers in the Universe. It exists.

I agree the word "God" is a bad word to use. It only makes people go insane with religious assumptions.

I just call it the Universe.

The Universe is everywhere, and consists of all things.
The Bible even defines "God" as "existing everywhere and can be found in all things".

It's clearly the same meaning. Just different words/spellings.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware


In essense, it's still theism rather than agnosticism.

That's like saying Atheism is a theism too.

Get it?

A theism?

Sigh... lol.

What is Agnosticism?

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable

link to source

I was not even talking about a "Deity". That is the Zeus department.

I made no religious or metaphysical claims.

My claims were easily verified.
Does the Universe exist? Is it everywhere?

Very simple questions/answers.

So YOU TELL ME, what is the DIFFERENCE between a "Omnipresent God", and a "Universe".

There isn't any difference they have the same qualities. They are totally identical.

But since people are CONDITIONED to think of the word "God" as a DEITY = Zeus, Ra, Jesus, whatever; than they automatically equate the word to singular beings.

It's a play on definitions, and common sense....it's not a religion. lol.

reply to post by muzzleflash


**Sn!gger** i get the joke but you know, as do i, Atheism is a lack of belief in THEISM(GOD THEORY) - The alledged revelation wisdom regarding the creator of all existence that science just can't seem to track down.

Atheism asks "how these guys came up with this babbel?" "what's your evidence, what's your case?"

The religious honestly think Atheism is a belief or even a religion itself. The theist may argue "You can't prove me wrong" "your non-belief is a belief".

Argument from ignorance on their part as usual.

en.wikipedia.org...

i.e. "There is a teapot on the moon, you can't prove me wrong, therefore my belief is a justified as your non belief" What nonsense.

Peace bro.

reply to post by awake_and_aware


There is absolutely "no Doubt" that I agree with your post, it has merit of acknowledgment of the whole "Theism" controversy.
I am an Atheist, and for the longest time I was pondering of why , if I declare "Atheism" as a secular preference of disbelief, why does everyone who argue this self proclamation as a "Belief" of a non-belief statement. Then it dawned on me that the word itself was created as a "Secular" division tactic by the religious believer's or cult acceptors. So, enhanced in my way of thinking, I have come to the conclusion that I have been given a "Title" by the very people who argue these point's of views. This made total since to me as the answer that was so elusive before. "I have a title that was produced by the argument's of this topic and yet they argue all the same"
Now, why I argue is because of not being able to get my understanding of the point's of conversation across to allow a better understanding of why I "Feel" the way I feel over the matter's of religion's and belief systems, which in-turn creates no longer the conversation I was hoping for, but a full blown argument of "Who's right" derogatory statements and conversation. It is such a easy trap to fall into, but with the way that these conversation's of topical discussion present themselves, it is made much harder by way of communicating through such instruments of conversation as a computer or chat/forum type of discussion.
The OP of this thread is quite biased as he "Thinks" there is tangible evidence to his "Thermodynamic" claim and wishes to discuss it at length, But the people that are reading this are getting the translation's confused just as we/I have done numerous times before in such conversations. So, "How does one get the 'Real' point across for conversations sake to avoid such a plethora of different self interpretations of the 'True' meaning of such posted threads?".
Maybe the ATS Mod's should have a "Disclaimer" box at the beginning of the thread creation area that allows the individual to "Explain" their intentions of the created thread to better disclose full intent of what they are trying to succeed in finding or discussing.
For the most part, and even in my daily physical communication with acquaintances and friend's/family, religion and politics is usually (What I like to call 'Quicksand' conversation) is avoided because of the diversity and self interpretation of the respect of those topics that become not learned and good experience's but full blown clashing of the mind's, both verbally and mentally. There seems to be no right answer for for the two arguing sides that was once just a point of view based on "Personal Interpretation" when they are in disagreement.
Another thing that gets my mind going is "Being's the Ancient Alien Theory" is quite high on my list of good argument for our existence, does this make me a believer in a cult or a religious sect of something other than Atheism?" Does this "Null & Void" my previous acknowledgments of "Atheism' ?
All I know is that we wouldn't be having these conversations with out the advent of religion's and the like. We have become increasingly and inevitably our "Theorists" by the creation of religion and deities and discussing our points of "Personal" preferences and belief's. We already live in a world of chaos of these matters and will continually discuss these matters with little more than book smarts and self absorbed ideals and theories, so does this topic become moot or inconclusive to discuss? It may very well be that is the demise of this threads intentions and has now imploded upon itself as "Lack of 'True' Communication" by way of his misinterpreted intention's.

reply to post by randyvs

God did it.

Well if Goddess did it then she must have done it a long long time ago. you see light takes some time to travel
across this universe.

A light-year is a unit of distance. It is the distance that light can travel in one year. Light moves at a velocity of about 300,000 kilometers (km) each second. So in one year, it can travel about 10 trillion km. More p recisely, one light-year is equal to 9,500,000,000,000 kilometers.

starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The nearest visible galaxy is Andromeda
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4d8a9992295.jpg[/atsimg]

The Andromeda Galaxy (pronounced /ænˈdrɒmədə/) is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years away[4] in the constellation Andromeda. It is also known as Messier 31, M31, or NGC 224, and is often referred to as the Great Andromeda Nebula in older texts.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok now with the knowledge that a light year is the distance that it takes light to travel in one year and the nearest
visible Galaxy Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away. It should be an easy conclusion that the universe is at least 2.5 million years old. If it was only 6000 or 10,000 years old then astronomers would not be able to see
Andromeda. Also the night sky would be dark because we would not be able to see many of the stars in our home galaxy the milky way because the light from the distant stars would not have arrived yet.
but lets not stop there

Astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, along
with colleagues elsewhere in the United States and in the United
Kingdom, have discovered the most distant object in the universe -- a
spectacular stellar explosion known as a gamma-ray burst located about
13 billion light years away.

www.spaceref.com...
Now if astronomers are able to detect objects 13 billion light years and given what is known about the speed of light this pushes the Age of the universe back 13 BILLION YEARS!

So even if their is a universal creator She must have done it a long long long time ago.

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by iamaperson

 

Perhaps "Pantheism"?

Thanks for replying. To me this sounds like a good enough explanation, although I haven't read the post which disagreed with you yet.

Originally posted by ELahrairah
reply to post by randyvs

 

God did it.

Well if Goddess did it then she must have done it a long long time ago. you see light takes some time to travel
across this universe.

A light-year is a unit of distance. It is the distance that light can travel in one year. Light moves at a velocity of about 300,000 kilometers (km) each second. So in one year, it can travel about 10 trillion km. More p recisely, one light-year is equal to 9,500,000,000,000 kilometers.

starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov...
The nearest visible galaxy is Andromeda
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e4d8a9992295.jpg[/atsimg]

The Andromeda Galaxy (pronounced /ænˈdrɒmədə/) is a spiral galaxy approximately 2.5 million light-years away[4] in the constellation Andromeda. It is also known as Messier 31, M31, or NGC 224, and is often referred to as the Great Andromeda Nebula in older texts.

en.wikipedia.org...

Ok now with the knowledge that a light year is the distance that it takes light to travel in one year and the nearest
visible Galaxy Andromeda is 2.5 million light years away. It should be an easy conclusion that the universe is at least 2.5 million years old. If it was only 6000 or 10,000 years old then astronomers would not be able to see
Andromeda. Also the night sky would be dark because we would not be able to see many of the stars in our home galaxy the milky way because the light from the distant stars would not have arrived yet.
but lets not stop there

Astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, along
with colleagues elsewhere in the United States and in the United
Kingdom, have discovered the most distant object in the universe -- a
spectacular stellar explosion known as a gamma-ray burst located about
13 billion light years away.

www.spaceref.com...
Now if astronomers are able to detect objects 13 billion light years and given what is known about the speed of light this pushes the Age of the universe back 13 BILLION YEARS!

So even if their is a universal creator She must have done it a long long long time ago.

So your point is that the OP is quite late with his news

I thought this was in the "Origins & Creationism Conspiracy" area, so I think we are supposed to be discussing old stuff.

Hitchens "There is no Creationism debate, it's over!"



Creationism is hitch slapped.

reply to post by MrXYZ

I have to ask though: Randy, why are you back? Didn't you wave good-bye to the O&C forum a few weeks back?

The thread you speak of was months back Mr. X. Although I never said good bye to the O&C forum, I did say
I would 'nt be involved anymore discussions that mix God and science. So you are correct for the better part and have an explaination coming for that. I was tempted and caved in like a burning building?

reply to post by randyvs


I was just curious...wasn't mean in bad spirit. Like I said, I rather discuss stuff with you than people like cosmic/bird and that clown ecdm2 who blatantly ignore every single argument people make against their belief

reply to post by MrXYZ

I was just curious...wasn't mean in bad spirit. Like I said, I rather discuss stuff with you than people like cosmic/bird and that clown ecdm2 who blatantly ignore every single argument people make against their belief

All I know is, I can't really hold a candle to the academic skills of anyone on this site. Because I have nunya.
That's why some complain that I ignore there so called curiosity in this forum. I mean if you go back through
this thread, all I was able to do, was deal with someone i just didn't respect. Why ? Let me see. Have you ever
wasted time, space, as well as the knowledge of everything you know, with a question like, Which God?
I'm pretty sure you havn't. So you like many others have my respect because I can't type fast at all. I know that sounds funny but it's really true.
See not everyone on this site is a scholar. Thermaldynamics ? WTF is that? I dunno.

Anyway!

It only makes sense that I'm going to respect the respectable. I can barely keep up with that.most of the time.
As far as that other person spout'in something about blazing saddles or blazing guns WETF I don't see where that's coming from. I digress. Thanks for your words Mr. X

Yes Randy. I believe you are correct. I know what you are talking about. I believe it is called potential energy. The catalyst is what you are looking for. As far as energy being created or destroyed, I disagree with mainstream science in that respect. They say in only changes state. But as we know from history, most of the prominent thinkers of the time has been wrong.

Here is what mainstream says,

This is one of the most important rules that scientists have found which describes natural phenomena. Unfortunately there is no non-circular proof of energy conservation -- in the end, all laws of physics that we know of are the result of observation, formation of hypotheses, making predictions, and testing them. Conservation of energy is one such law. If energy could be created or destroyed, all of our ideas of how the world works would have to be modified in some way (and we’d learn something very perplexing). But so far, energy seems not to be created or destroyed.

Energy can be converted from one form to another, though. Mechanical energy, such as the kinetic energy of motion, can be converted to heat energy, for example in the heating of a car’s brakes when it slows down. Chemical energy in the gasoline of the car can be converted into both heat energy in the exhaust and heating the engine, and into mechanical energy to move the car. Potential energy, such as the gravitational potential energy stored in an object which is on a high shelf, can be converted into kinetic energy as the object falls down. Electrical energy can be converted to heat or mechanical energy or sound energy in a variety of useful ways around the house using common appliances.

It is often the conversion of one form of energy to another which is the most important application of this rule. Often predictions of the behavior of physical systems are very much more easily made when using the idea that the total amount of energy remains constant. And careful measurements of different kinds of energy before and after a transformation always show that the total always adds up to the same amount.

Historically, of course not all the forms of energy were known to begin with. Scientists had to keep inventing more forms to keep the law of energy conservation true. If that process had gotten too messy or complicated to make sense, we would have had to give up the law.

One very interesting feature of energy is that other forms can be converted into rest mass and back again (particle physicists do this every day in their accelerators). Einstein’s E=mc^2 gives the relationship between the rest mass of a particle (measured in standard mass units) and the amount of energy that corresponds to (measured in standard energy units). It even applies to other systems where particles are neither created nor destroyed. If a box contains some air at a temperature, and then is warmed up, it will become ever so slightly more massive because of the extra energy given to it. You can call that rest mass of the whole box or the mass equivalent of the kinetic energy of the particles in it- nature doesn’t care what names you give it.

van.physics.illinois.edu...

reply to post by Conclusion


Thank you Conc.
Well done .
That was worth a hundred of my own flags.

I just wanted to pop in to say hi to my old friend Randy.

I really don't feel like reading this crap atm though.

reply to post by yaphun


These threads are what poisons the integrity of ATS. Half-baked sloppy philosophy.

I'm don't hate free speech, it's just a shame that irrational threads like these arn't removed.

Read the awful logic in the OP. And there's some of us writing thought provoking threads and they get little flags; it seems all people care about is sensationalism

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Mr. Randy has every right to express his thoughts no matter how odd some of them may seem.
Everyone is irrational is some form. To be human makes you irrational we are a emotion driving animal.

Remember some people do actually believe some of the stuff in posts are real and truly believe that they are speaking the truth. Telling them they are irrational and their threads should be deleted is being irrational yourself.

Randy can be somewhat rational if you get him on the right day and are willing to spend the time.
I would not go as far as saying he is truly open-minded to reality .. but he is willing to read your replies if you take the time.

Free nophun
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by yaphun

 

These threads are what poisons the integrity of ATS. Half-baked sloppy philosophy.

I'm don't hate free speech, it's just a shame that irrational threads like these arn't removed.

Read the awful logic in the OP. And there's some of us writing thought provoking threads and they get little flags; it seems all people care about is sensationalism

Well I might think it's fun just to watch people like you, find so many different ways of expressing the same thing
over and over. Why do you seem so intent on gaining my attention through absolute redundancy. It's not gonna happen. You don't have to click or respond . Or maybe you do? Irrational? WTF
I'm not even gonna try to make you look silly cause you 've done a better job than I could ever imagine.


Yaphun
Hey man what's up?

reply to post by randyvs


Didn't want any response from you, your attitude has been made well clear in this thread - I'm simply warning other users about these type of threads and the type of people behind them.

Nothing's up, i'm all good, fella