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 God of the gaps

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   


This is directed at the Abrahamic god. This is not directed at any other possibility of creation.

With that said, I will remain agnostic - which is admitting that I just don't know.

"I just don't know" - what's so hard about that? And that's where I disagree with atheists.

Atheists seem ignorant to the fact that there is an order in the universe (or at least that some kind of entity created it all). But I can't stand how the Abrahamic Religion Complex (all 3 - I'm not picking on just 1) ruins it for others. My theory is that most atheists are angry at "god" because they can't stand Yahweh and his ridiculous actions.

This ruins it for those atheists because since Yahweh and Allah hog up the word "god" (which I think is a gross misnomer), they think the only possibility of a god (perhaps - I could be wrong - I admit, unlike others) is a scumbag entity.

So I will stay right here in the middle - admitting that we can't know if there is a god and if there is we just don't have enough information yet to actually describe it (I personally believe in a NEUTRAL creation entity of some sort which we would all be a part of if we came from the same singularity).

But I, of course, will state that's just a BELIEF - NOT FACT. Why do others have to promulgate their god or TOTAL lack of god/creator to be the truth?????????


Both sides appear ignorant in their own ways, but I will side with an atheist over a typical creationist any day.
edit on 1/10/2011 by impaired because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
You dispute my belief in God without even knowing what that word means to me. You have applied your own definition without asking for further clarification. God is such a subjective word, wouldn't you think further inquiry is in order before you make such statements as my belief is "Blind"?

I assure you my sight is fully functional. I see and therefore know God. God as I define it is EVERYTHING as a whole. As I have NOT seen everything, I cannot define or put limitations on my concept of God. All I can do is learn more about it everyday.


So basically you are calling reality "god" and are not defining it as a mythical conscious being that created everything?


Originally posted by IAMIAM
Secondly, I never said there were no gaps in our knowledge,


Ok, so no gaps in our knowledge...


Originally posted by IAMIAM
we just haven't the sight to see what fills the gaps, ie knowledge.


Wait what? I thought there were no gaps...but now you're saying there are gaps in knowledge.

I'd go with the second part of your sentence as it's the correct option...saying there's no gaps in our knowledge is wrong for obvious reasons. Don't agree? Well then, tell me how life started on earth...if you can't, you obviously have a gap in knowledge



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Theologists don't know, which is what science continues to illuminate by purging god from those gaps. Knowledge has nothing to do with comfort. Theologians are comfortable with untruths, scientists aren't.


You are making a pretty unfounded assumption here my friend. You are stating that there are no Theist Scientists. Perhaps you have some statistical evidence you would like to present which supports this theory?


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
There are some sweeping, unfounded blanket statements. First, it assumes there is a god though there is no objective evidence of deities. Then it assumes we must fulfill these gods' commandments. Let's take christianity's god's commandments for example: should we kill those working on the sabbath? How about killing homosexuals and "witches"? Should we take our unruly children to the city gates and stone them to death? How do we find peace by fulfilling these commandments from god?


First, do you know how I define God? If not, then it is you who are making the assumption.

Second, do you know the commandments of God I am refering to? If not, then you are making another assumption.

Let me fill in your gaps my friend.

God is everything as a whole.

God's commandment, love each other. How do I know?

Because I know God loves me by all the wonders I see in this existence. AND,

Loving each other is the only way 6 billion people on this rock, all with their own unique point of view and ability to formulate their own opinions and free will, can ever live in peace.

If you think there is another way, let me know what it is.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Gravity
If god did not want us to question everything he would not have given us the inteligence to do so. In my humble opinion Science and God will meet one day, and what a magical day it will be. People also seem to be confused between Religion and God. Religion is not God, it is man made! Some crazy people trying to say that they exclusively know what or who God is and then giving you a set of instructions to guide your life i.e. The Catholic Church, Muslims etc. Everyman should find his own connection with God, it should be 100% personal with no paedophile priests promising to release him from his sins (Iol what a joke).


You are wise my friend! Thank you for the insightful comments.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
You are making a pretty unfounded assumption here my friend. You are stating that there are no Theist Scientists. Perhaps you have some statistical evidence you would like to present which supports this theory?


I am stating no such thing. Theism deals with belief. Science deals with knowledge. If gods had been proven to exist it would no longer be a matter of belief, but acceptance of fact.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
With that said, I will remain agnostic - which is admitting that I just don't know.

"I just don't know" - what's so hard about that? And that's where I disagree with atheists.


"Agnostic" is not at odds with atheism, and atheism does not presume to have any answers. It is simply disbelief.

Agnosticism deals with what you know.
Atheism deals with what you believe.

I am both atheist and agnostic.


Atheists seem ignorant to the fact that there is an order in the universe (or at least that some kind of entity created it all).


Atheist cannot be ignorant of something unproven to be a fact (an entity created it all). I think most atheists are quick to recognize order in the universe. Though they tend to recognize it as a result of adherence to physical laws than a result of Magicman.


This ruins it for those atheists because since Yahweh and Allah hog up the word "god" (which I think is a gross misnomer), they think the only possibility of a god (perhaps - I could be wrong - I admit, unlike others) is a scumbag entity.


No. Atheists reject all gods, not just Yahweh.


So I will stay right here in the middle - admitting that we can't know if there is a god and if there is we just don't have enough information yet to actually describe it (I personally believe in a NEUTRAL creation entity of some sort which we would all be a part of if we came from the same singularity).


Why can't we know if there is a god?



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So basically you are calling reality "god" and are not defining it as a mythical conscious being that created everything?


No, I am not saying reality is God. Then we would have to debate what reality is into infinity. Everything as a whole is God, just as I worded it. Of course this allows for your belief in no God to fit well within its realm. Your belief is but a part of the whole.


Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Secondly, I never said there were no gaps in our knowledge,


Ok, so no gaps in our knowledge...


Originally posted by IAMIAM
we just haven't the sight to see what fills the gaps, ie knowledge.


Wait what? I thought there were no gaps...but now you're saying there are gaps in knowledge.

I'd go with the second part of your sentence as it's the correct option...saying there's no gaps in our knowledge is wrong for obvious reasons. Don't agree? Well then, tell me how life started on earth...if you can't, you obviously have a gap in knowledge


I seem to be confusing you with my verbage my friend. Lets try this differently.

Between you and your monitor, there is nothing that you can see. There appears to be a gap.
Then you learn about air molecules and how they completely fill our atmosphere. Now you know there are no gaps between you and your monitor, it is filled with air.

Then you study the air molecules and realise they are composed of atoms which form molecules. The atoms are made of the protons and neutrons forming a nucleus and electrons orbiting around it. But what is this? A gap between the electrons? For a while we thought so. Now we are discovered there are no gaps there either.

Nature abhors a vacuum. There are no gaps. We only perceive gaps because we haven't the knowledge of what fills what appears to be gaps.

I hope this is clearer for you.

With Love,

Your Brother
edit on 10-1-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I am stating no such thing. Theism deals with belief. Science deals with knowledge. If gods had been proven to exist it would no longer be a matter of belief, but acceptance of fact.


Are you disputing that God as I have defined it exists?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
I am stating no such thing. Theism deals with belief. Science deals with knowledge. If gods had been proven to exist it would no longer be a matter of belief, but acceptance of fact.


Are you disputing that God as I have defined it exists?

With Love,

Your Brother


Well, you defined it as "everything as a whole"...which could also be called reality. If that's how you define it, fine...as long as you don't claim reality is a consciousness with a purpose


Because that would obviously be pure speculation based upon nothing but blind belief...



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Are you disputing that God as I have defined it exists?


Not necessarily. But we already have a term to describe what you define as "god". You're defining so much as you are redefining. Also, you've attributed qualities to it beyond your definition, namely, that this god has given commandments which must be fulfilled.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by impaired
With that said, I will remain agnostic - which is admitting that I just don't know.

"I just don't know" - what's so hard about that? And that's where I disagree with atheists.


"Agnostic" is not at odds with atheism, and atheism does not presume to have any answers. It is simply disbelief.

Agnosticism deals with what you know.
Atheism deals with what you believe.

I am both atheist and agnostic.


??? I thought it was basically the other way around - agnostics being the "fencers" and atheists being more steadfast in their, ahem, LACK of belief.



Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Atheists seem ignorant to the fact that there is an order in the universe (or at least that some kind of entity created it all).


Atheist cannot be ignorant of something unproven to be a fact (an entity created it all). I think most atheists are quick to recognize order in the universe. Though they tend to recognize it as a result of adherence to physical laws than a result of Magicman.

I hear you on this, but what the hell could have CREATED these physical laws? SomeTHING had to have created the laws for physicality. The way elementary particles are composed and how they interact with other matter - I mean come on - something. Maybe we don't have to call it "god". Perhaps a programmer?

A video came just doesn't become created by itself because of a chaotic universe. There needs to be an idea behind it. Some force has to put in the footwork and the mental work to create it.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

This ruins it for those atheists because since Yahweh and Allah hog up the word "god" (which I think is a gross misnomer), they think the only possibility of a god (perhaps - I could be wrong - I admit, unlike others) is a scumbag entity.


No. Atheists reject all gods, not just Yahweh.


I knew that.
I forgot to specify.


Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

So I will stay right here in the middle - admitting that we can't know if there is a god and if there is we just don't have enough information yet to actually describe it (I personally believe in a NEUTRAL creation entity of some sort which we would all be a part of if we came from the same singularity).


Why can't we know if there is a god?


I know, right? I know you're about to say, "because there is none".

I admit that is my second-in line belief - if I ever chose another belief (or lack of belief), it would definitely be atheism, but like I said - I see a "programmer" in this universe. I don't know how you can't - with all due respect.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
Not necessarily. But we already have a term to describe what you define as "god". You're defining so much as you are redefining. Also, you've attributed qualities to it beyond your definition, namely, that this god has given commandments which must be fulfilled.


My friend,

The commandments God has given as I have defined them, you do not need to hear from me to know.

Love one another. Simple.

If it had not been for love, you would not be here to debate me. Someone loved enough to conceive you. Someone loved you enough to care for you until you could do it yourself. Someone loves you enough to keep you going in this world.

It is God's commandment by our design. We cannot survive any other way. Take a good look around you. What have we done with this world with the lack of love in it? How much more could we do if we loved each other instead of the material distractions we attempt to fill that gap within us with?

I am not here to change your beliefs my friend. Your beliefs are part of the whole.

If they bring you joy, peace, and love for all, keep them. If they do not, you may want to consider looking for a way to bring those things into your life.

It's always your choice, how you view this world.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, you defined it as "everything as a whole"...which could also be called reality. If that's how you define it, fine...as long as you don't claim reality is a consciousness with a purpose


Because that would obviously be pure speculation based upon nothing but blind belief...


Are you a real consciousness with a purpose?

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I really like your demeanor. You seem like a really good dude.

But you are still proclaiming your bible to be a fact and that your god is the right one and the only one.

Some of the words and lessons in the book are nice, I agree. I agree with peace and all that good stuff...

However, like I said, you seem to communicate in the same predictable way as most Christians (as far as saying things like, "HE gave us our commandments. HE loves us, HE CREATED US, etc.").

Do you not see something wrong with proclaiming a belief as a fact? That's the only thing that I am having a problem with here.

Other than that you're ok in my book.
Not trying to be condescending.

edit on 1/10/2011 by impaired because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Well, you defined it as "everything as a whole"...which could also be called reality. If that's how you define it, fine...as long as you don't claim reality is a consciousness with a purpose


Because that would obviously be pure speculation based upon nothing but blind belief...


Are you a real consciousness with a purpose?

With Love,

Your Brother



Given that I can reply to your question I'm pretty sure I'm conscious


As for the purpose...I don't really need one. I got a few I could think off, but I don't need a purpose to exist or be happy.

As for the others who keep on saying "something had to create everything"...that's once again filling a gap in knowledge with a mythical creature. We have ZERO indication that something created everything. It might be uncomfortable or scary for you to feeling like you don't have a purpose or that there is no guiding "intelligence"...but to our current scientific knowledge there's no indication a mythical super being created everything.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
??? I thought it was basically the other way around - agnostics being the "fencers" and atheists being more steadfast in their, ahem, LACK of belief.


That's a common misconception. There's also the misconception that atheists know and claim that there is no god. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god, not the assertion that there are none. There is a subtle but significant difference.

I don't believe that there are gods (atheist). But I don't know for sure (agnostic).



I hear you on this, but what the hell could have CREATED these physical laws? SomeTHING had to have created the laws for physicality. The way elementary particles are composed and how they interact with other matter - I mean come on - something. Maybe we don't have to call it "god". Perhaps a programmer?


The question as you've posed it is presumptive. It presumes that there once were no physical laws, then something came along to create them. There's no indication of that being the case.



I know, right? I know you're about to say, "because there is none".


I won't say that though that's where the evidence leads at this point. We can know whether or not there are gods based upon how the gods are defined.


I admit that is my second-in line belief - if I ever chose another belief (or lack of belief), it would definitely be atheism, but like I said - I see a "programmer" in this universe. I don't know how you can't - with all due respect.


Maybe there is a "programmer". Since this kind of programmer-god has a method of manifesting and affecting the physical world there obviously has to be ways in which we can test and/or detect it. I don't see it as you do because of the aforementioned presumptions.

Thanks for the conversation... very interesting.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


I always enjoy reading your posts.
Agree to disagree for the moment because you're words are making sense to me and now I have to rethink things a bit and check up on my research.




posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by impaired
I really like your demeanor. You seem like a really good dude.

But you are still proclaiming your bible to be a fact and that your god is the right one and the only one.


Really my friend? I challenge you to prove this statement. Show me one sentence that I have used in this thread which states "the bible is fact".


Originally posted by impaired
Some of the words and lessons in the book are nice, I agree. I agree with peace and all that good stuff...

However, like I said, you seem to communicate in the same predictable way as most Christians (as far as saying things like, "HE gave us our commandments. HE loves us, HE CREATED US, etc.").


You do not know me very well my friend. I never once claimed to be a Christian. I do claim to be a student of Christ. His parables ARE true, and I can prove them to be true. Choose one if you like, and I will back this claim up.


Originally posted by impaired
Do you not see something wrong with proclaiming a belief as a fact? That's the only thing that I am having a problem with here.


I never claimed my belief to be fact. Facts and belief are two seperate things. I can show you any number of facts which we can draw different beliefs from. The facts are the same, the belief drawn from the facts are different.


Originally posted by impaired
Other than that you're ok in my book.
Not trying to be condescending.


No condescension detected my friend, you are ok in my book as well. We are on equal footing, all of us. We are just babies learning from each other. What we know of this existence is far too little for anyone to claim to know the absolute truth on anything. All we can do is share and love one another as we explore it.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


I apologize for that.


I admit that I don't read posts thoroughly sometimes.



posted on Jan, 10 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by IAMIAM
I do claim to be a student of Christ. His parables ARE true, and I can prove them to be true. Choose one if you like, and I will back this claim up.



Matthew 5:30 KJV
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast [it] from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not [that] thy whole body should be cast into hell.


Explain to me how this is "true". and not, say, Jesus being a complete idiot.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join