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.

 

Creator or Chance Accident - I will prove this to you!

page: 18
22
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
Finally!!!!! Someone happens along that knows how to answer with a perspective. Your paradox is very thought provoking. Your point is dealing with the root of the issue--the source. This was one of the first ideas that I struggled with when sifting through my own doubt. A life of study suggests a different perspective. The Bible is an enigma. There is no description of it that can fit any other book. More copies sold. More languages printed. Predicts the future. Makes claims that no other book would dare make. Is not ashamed of its morality. Is theologically consistent. From the perspective of over 40 authors, many of differing languages. It tells the story of humanity before the story is lived.

We are now able to realize the difference between average information and genius. Genius of the Einstein caliber is rare. What would it take to write a history book that covers the entire fourth dimension of time from beginning to end, with no revision? This is the book that fueled the printing press; that motivated man to be literate; that caused 70 million people to leave Europe for the freedom to read the and live the Book; that set a nation on a firm foundation; that has stood the test of archeology and held up to academic scrutiny. Present day Israel was predicted clearly in scripture. The only thing that can keep a person from seeing the enigma for more than a human creation is bias.

If you go back and read this thread, you can see the preponderance of evidence. In light of the responses from a platform of bias, it should be clear that bias blinds. This is not good enough, however. A person can only know one way. Bias of any type will blind the mind to Gnosis. Bias is the flaming sword spoken of in Genesis that guards the tree of life. Once it is eliminated, simply ask God to show you and the mind opens. Faith, hope and love is the key to the lock. Bias is the bolt across the door. Gnosis only happens apart from bias. Start by serving others without duplicity. Link God only opens to those who open to Him in humility. Then you know and see face to face.


Originally posted by atlasastro
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Your posts is extremely interesting, but I would like to point out a paradox or conundrum.
The concept of God or Creator relative to humans cannot be determined as being sourced from outside of our reality.
The bible, written by humans, religious texts and dogma all originate from humans.
This puts these concepts, written texts and ideas relating to god or creator way down in terms of the scale or the dichotomy you have handed us, by this I mean these ideas are way down stream from the reality of the source that it originates from and cannot be trusted as any indication of how to behave or act within reality.

This may mean that we have no real understanding of the source and we have simply constructed a poor image or interpretation of it, as we are down stream and unable to rise above it in terms of the concepts we use to describe the source, that being a creator or god, Jesus etc.


edit on 25/4/11 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
How so? Do you want to provide context? Any demonstrations from a post? Science, links, videos?

I'll stand on what I have already written unless you have something to add.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You can't just ignore the math and real science, and then make up your own stuff...sadly that's exactly what your'e doing





posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Finally!!!!! Someone happens along that knows how to answer with a perspective. Your paradox is very thought provoking. Your point is dealing with the root of the issue--the source. This was one of the first ideas that I struggled with when sifting through my own doubt.

Firstly, Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post in such a polite an interesting fashion.

Unlke you, this issue became apparent to me not by doubt, but by your having set up a proposition and a description or a system that places the source in an undefinable and unknowable position relative to us, us who you have placed "down the stream".
Your Opening Post(OP) invites doubt, if not places it there by proxy, as you have placed humans in a position where they can never know the source because to do so would mean we have risen up stream. An impossibility given your OP.

Secondly, you have also placed a reliance on humans being able to produce a conciousness or intelligence that resides within its own reality as a proof that a superior source exists. You use computers to demonstrate your point, and unlike others I think it is a very interesting concept to consider. But, we haven't done that yet. All we have done is create a system that moves information, makes decisions and achieves assigned(programmed) tasks at very high speeds.
You have used energy and information as the inputs needed and relate this to how the source would indeed have created reality upstream. This seems logical to me and I agree.

Yet you miss some interesting points worth considering.

Religion, religious texts, dogma and doctrine are no different to computers, just more achaic.
The Bible and religious texts are information and energy.
They are down stream from, us too, just like a computer would be from its progenators.
The bible as a source of information put forth by humans will never rise upstream to knw us, therefor it is considerably inferior relative to the source.


A life of study suggests a different perspective.
Yes it does, it suggests many things. Considering your OP is about proving the existence of a source, I feel that you may want to do more than suggest.
But as I am in the same boat as you, having studied this topic most of my life, I know what you mean.


The Bible is an enigma.
Yes it is.

There is no description of it that can fit any other book.
I would argue that there is. The Qu'ran is also one of the most printed books in the world.

More copies sold.
Does that make Micheal Jacksons Thriller a religious Albumn?

More languages printed. Predicts the future. Makes claims that no other book would dare make. Is not ashamed of its morality. Is theologically consistent. From the perspective of over 40 authors, many of differing languages. It tells the story of humanity before the story is lived.

I agree that the Book is indeed great and interesting and as a piece of historical literature, it is incredibly significant. Even Dawkins agrees that the Bible is historically, an important book to humanity that should be studied.
Having said that, all of this does not make it correct in terms of the "up stream".
It has all come from us.
Your OP relegates it to information and energy from our consciousness. It is down stream from us, and we are down stream from the source.
By your own logic you have relegated the bible, religious texts, religious dogma and doctrine to being twice removed from the source.


We are now able to realize the difference between average information and genius. Genius of the Einstein caliber is rare. What would it take to write a history book that covers the entire fourth dimension of time from beginning to end, with no revision? This is the book that fueled the printing press; that motivated man to be literate; that caused 70 million people to leave Europe for the freedom to read the and live the Book; that set a nation on a firm foundation; that has stood the test of archeology and held up to academic scrutiny. Present day Israel was predicted clearly in scripture.

All this is relative to our reality. You are using this as a proof of the source, yet you have created a conundrum with the dichotomy you have handed us in your Open Post(OP).
My point is that this has no bearing on the true nature of the source or the reality of what this source actually is, its nature or being.


The only thing that can keep a person from seeing the enigma for more than a human creation is bias.

That is a two way street slur that can be slung both ways. I am dissapointed that you have merely replied to my posts with an appeal to bias being the issue.

My post has nothing to do with bias. Your paragraph on Bias is irrelevant to my posts and injects nothing into our discussion but distraction.
I am replyig to your OP.
My reply is not questioning the existence of anything, nor the value or significance of the bible. My reply merely questions the methods, logic and systems you have used in order to discuss what you present as a proof. I am not relegating the bible as being questionable, inaccurate or deficiant, you are!
I am not making the source unknowable or undefinable, you are!
I am not creating a paradox where I distance humanity from its source and then also making it impossible to know that source by placing anything created as being inferior because it cannot rise up to meet or understand its source, you are!

We are both down stream my friend, lets paddle together hey!

Once again, thank you for replying to my post.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Once again, that was a great post. You rise to the data presented. This is rare indeed. We should really keep these posts shorter so people will take time to read.

I, being the same as you, am only giving my perspective. Me. You. We. God is the subject and our symbols and descriptions are inadequate. My goal is to merely show that a platform against God is an improbable foothold. Nothing in our experience as humans has ever presented itself as this type of enigma.

Augustine, from City of God

"And yet the validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them that they may be able to learn and teach it; for it exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God. For as the man who narrates the order of events does not himself create that order; and as he who describes the situations of places, or the natures of animals, or roots, or minerals, does not describe arrangements of man; and as he who points out the stars and their movements does not point out anything that he himself or any other man has ordained;—in the same way, he who says, “When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false,” says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so."

I / me / you / we are not the subject. We are the objects as I think you state. The subject is what is relevant, not me or you, or even we. The subject is proving a creator, not God. Have you read the entire post? The OP is not the story any more than the first verse of the Bible is the complete dimension to what is spoken. It's the setup. The journey is the path to collapsing the most probable wave from the ocean of indeterminate probability. If we just look at the surface and waves, the ocean is missed.

Pick one aspect of the ocean and provide context to just this. We can keep it short this way.

My proof stands on what I have already said. I stand my ground. Bring one piece at a time and we'll have a discussion. We can leave I, me, you, we, us out of the discussion and just focus on the merits of evolution or design by creation.


Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Finally!!!!! Someone happens along that knows how to answer with a perspective. Your paradox is very thought provoking. Your point is dealing with the root of the issue--the source. This was one of the first ideas that I struggled with when sifting through my own doubt.

Firstly, Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post in such a polite an interesting fashion.

Unlke you, this issue became apparent to me not by doubt, but by your having set up a proposition and a description or a system that places the source in an undefinable and unknowable position relative to us, us who you have placed "down the stream".
Your Opening Post(OP) invites doubt, if not places it there by proxy, as you have placed humans in a position where they can never know the source because to do so would mean we have risen up stream. An impossibility given your OP.

Secondly, you have also placed a reliance on humans being able to produce a conciousness or intelligence that resides within its own reality as a proof that a superior source exists. You use computers to demonstrate your point, and unlike others I think it is a very interesting concept to consider. But, we haven't done that yet. All we have done is create a system that moves information, makes decisions and achieves assigned(programmed) tasks at very high speeds.
You have used energy and information as the inputs needed and relate this to how the source would indeed have created reality upstream. This seems logical to me and I agree.

Yet you miss some interesting points worth considering.

Religion, religious texts, dogma and doctrine are no different to computers, just more achaic.
The Bible and religious texts are information and energy.
They are down stream from, us too, just like a computer would be from its progenators.
The bible as a source of information put forth by humans will never rise upstream to knw us, therefor it is considerably inferior relative to the source.


A life of study suggests a different perspective.
Yes it does, it suggests many things. Considering your OP is about proving the existence of a source, I feel that you may want to do more than suggest.
But as I am in the same boat as you, having studied this topic most of my life, I know what you mean.


The Bible is an enigma.
Yes it is.

There is no description of it that can fit any other book.
I would argue that there is. The Qu'ran is also one of the most printed books in the world.

More copies sold.
Does that make Micheal Jacksons Thriller a religious Albumn?

More languages printed. Predicts the future. Makes claims that no other book would dare make. Is not ashamed of its morality. Is theologically consistent. From the perspective of over 40 authors, many of differing languages. It tells the story of humanity before the story is lived.

I agree that the Book is indeed great and interesting and as a piece of historical literature, it is incredibly significant. Even Dawkins agrees that the Bible is historically, an important book to humanity that should be studied.
Having said that, all of this does not make it correct in terms of the "up stream".
It has all come from us.
Your OP relegates it to information and energy from our consciousness. It is down stream from us, and we are down stream from the source.
By your own logic you have relegated the bible, religious texts, religious dogma and doctrine to being twice removed from the source.


We are now able to realize the difference between average information and genius. Genius of the Einstein caliber is rare. What would it take to write a history book that covers the entire fourth dimension of time from beginning to end, with no revision? This is the book that fueled the printing press; that motivated man to be literate; that caused 70 million people to leave Europe for the freedom to read the and live the Book; that set a nation on a firm foundation; that has stood the test of archeology and held up to academic scrutiny. Present day Israel was predicted clearly in scripture.

All this is relative to our reality. You are using this as a proof of the source, yet you have created a conundrum with the dichotomy you have handed us in your Open Post(OP).
My point is that this has no bearing on the true nature of the source or the reality of what this source actually is, its nature or being.


The only thing that can keep a person from seeing the enigma for more than a human creation is bias.

That is a two way street slur that can be slung both ways. I am dissapointed that you have merely replied to my posts with an appeal to bias being the issue.

My post has nothing to do with bias. Your paragraph on Bias is irrelevant to my posts and injects nothing into our discussion but distraction.
I am replyig to your OP.
My reply is not questioning the existence of anything, nor the value or significance of the bible. My reply merely questions the methods, logic and systems you have used in order to discuss what you present as a proof. I am not relegating the bible as being questionable, inaccurate or deficiant, you are!
I am not making the source unknowable or undefinable, you are!
I am not creating a paradox where I distance humanity from its source and then also making it impossible to know that source by placing anything created as being inferior because it cannot rise up to meet or understand its source, you are!

We are both down stream my friend, lets paddle together hey!

Once again, thank you for replying to my post.





posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

How so? Do you want to provide context? Any demonstrations from a post? Science, links, videos?

I'll stand on what I have already written unless you have something to add.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You can't just ignore the math and real science, and then make up your own stuff...sadly that's exactly what your'e doing




Well, for starters, you can't just post info about multiple dimensions and then claim "god did it" without providing ANY evidence supporting that claim


(And your argument from ignorance most certainly isn't evidence...)



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 



Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Quantum mechanics is not hard to understand, it's hard to discover and prove.


...no, it's really really really hard to understand.



The guys with degrees solve the math. The rest is just a description.


Yeah...you're really not up to speed on quantum mechanics if you say that sort of thing.



I've read Dawkins, Hawking, and many others. They are fairly easily read. I don't agree with their implications. Their science is good. The implications can be derived by anyone.


*facepalm* You don't get it. Science is essentially deriving the most probable implications based on the evidence.




I don't think you really even need to go that far.

Just look at the evidence for the Exodus. This should be your first basis that Moses lived.


None. There is none. No amount of YouTube videos will prove that it happened because they are all lacking in citations. Please, provide me with some scholarly evidence of the Exodus account. Show me an academic paper that has found early Hebrew artifacts between Egypt and Palestine. Please show me evidence that anything in the account of the conquest of Canaan is backed up by archeology. Show me the evidence of mass Hebrew enslavement in Egypt. Hell, give me evidence that Hebrew existed as a language back then.

I'm just going to cut you off...you can't. I know you can't because I was a really big archeology nerd for a while and had this huge passion for western Mediterranean pre-Iron Age archeology....and there isn't a single shred of physical evidence that backs up the Exodus account.

reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Bias? I'm sorry, but the bias is clearly coming from your side. You have started with a conclusion and you are trying to fit anything into an attempt to come to it. When you are making 'implications' from uninformed positions you are exercising anything but intellect, you are exercising ignorance.



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Do I need to pull up War and Peace and run the Bible code software on it? And seriously, the "peanut butter disproves evolution" guy?



posted on Apr, 26 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





Please, provide me with some scholarly evidence of the Exodus account.


I've posted objective (sourced) evidence showing that Exodus didn't happen as told in the bible...it was ignored, as usual


So I wouldn't hold my breath expecting a rational answer...



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Once again, that was a great post. You rise to the data presented. This is rare indeed. We should really keep these posts shorter so people will take time to read.

Thank you!


I, being the same as you, am only giving my perspective. Me. You. We.
That is all we can really give after all.

God is the subject and our symbols and descriptions are inadequate.
The subject is your OP as a proof of God. That is all I am arguing. Your central theme is that there is a dichotomy of sorts from source on "downwards" so to speak. This makes it impossibe to use anything down stream as evidence as it is partial at best given the logic you use.

My goal is to merely show that a platform against God is an improbable foothold.
I understand that, but I disagree. It is probable to have a foothold against God, simply because these platforms exist. They exist, so fullfilling probability.
There are a number of platforms against God, just as there are a multitude of platforms offering the probability of the genesis of the universe and life, and these have no need for God.

The real problem is, is that not one of the modes of inquiry that we use in explaining the universe, be they science, philosophy or religion, can truly get outside of the universe in order to observe that they are indeed the correct mode of inquiry that explains our existence. Although many that I have encountered are reliant on as many assumptions as theological explanations. In many cases they also insert nature with special circumstances or events, that they resemble religion in some key ways. Just as it is easy for Religion to insert God, so is it as easy to insert Chance or Probability.

A belief in God, especially of the bible, must ultimately fall to faith. That is fine with me.
I don't know why people would want to eliminate faith by trying materialize it or "prove god" as ultimately it is faith that makes religion special. It is what defines it, and the character of those that believe. It is a special trait, and amazing power regardless of its scientific validity. At its best, faith is what makes religion the perservering and constructive common denominator that unifies billions of people around the world.
I won't delve into the negatives, I am sure there are others here that will relish that opportunity.

Even if you use science, math or physics, quantum probability, logic etc to state that God exists, none of these systems can get outside of themselves in order to state that they are indeed correct.
It is the ultimate paradox my friend, especially given your OP, as all these systems are indeed "downstream" in terms of being sourced from our consciousness relative to the source.



Nothing in our experience as humans has ever presented itself as this type of enigma.
Look at the night sky my friend. Nature and existence itself is the greatest enigma. Look inside you. Life a stone. It resides within you. Sound familiar?



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I agree with what you say here except for two points.

First, the thread was proof of being created and not proof for God.

Second, there is a way to get a direct connection to God face to face. Genesis says there is a flaming sword protecting this union of minds between man and God. This is the tree of life. Jesus says the key is to love God and your neighbor. This is the only way faith turns to fact. The Holy spirit reveals reality through gnosis. The mortal wakes to the illusion. Buddha found this, as did Rumi and others. Love is the key. It can be proven if you use the key. This is the only true choice anyone has that is not governed by natural law. If you refuse to listen to the evidence, you perish in hatred to you neighbor and God. The clues are obvious unless you are blinded by the flaming sword of bias. Drop all bias and doubt, serve others and God is seen. Faith follows straight to fact.


Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by SuperiorEd

Once again, that was a great post. You rise to the data presented. This is rare indeed. We should really keep these posts shorter so people will take time to read.

Thank you!


I, being the same as you, am only giving my perspective. Me. You. We.
That is all we can really give after all.

God is the subject and our symbols and descriptions are inadequate.
The subject is your OP as a proof of God. That is all I am arguing. Your central theme is that there is a dichotomy of sorts from source on "downwards" so to speak. This makes it impossibe to use anything down stream as evidence as it is partial at best given the logic you use.

My goal is to merely show that a platform against God is an improbable foothold.
I understand that, but I disagree. It is probable to have a foothold against God, simply because these platforms exist. They exist, so fullfilling probability.
There are a number of platforms against God, just as there are a multitude of platforms offering the probability of the genesis of the universe and life, and these have no need for God.

The real problem is, is that not one of the modes of inquiry that we use in explaining the universe, be they science, philosophy or religion, can truly get outside of the universe in order to observe that they are indeed the correct mode of inquiry that explains our existence. Although many that I have encountered are reliant on as many assumptions as theological explanations. In many cases they also insert nature with special circumstances or events, that they resemble religion in some key ways. Just as it is easy for Religion to insert God, so is it as easy to insert Chance or Probability.

A belief in God, especially of the bible, must ultimately fall to faith. That is fine with me.
I don't know why people would want to eliminate faith by trying materialize it or "prove god" as ultimately it is faith that makes religion special. It is what defines it, and the character of those that believe. It is a special trait, and amazing power regardless of its scientific validity. At its best, faith is what makes religion the perservering and constructive common denominator that unifies billions of people around the world.
I won't delve into the negatives, I am sure there are others here that will relish that opportunity.

Even if you use science, math or physics, quantum probability, logic etc to state that God exists, none of these systems can get outside of themselves in order to state that they are indeed correct.
It is the ultimate paradox my friend, especially given your OP, as all these systems are indeed "downstream" in terms of being sourced from our consciousness relative to the source.



Nothing in our experience as humans has ever presented itself as this type of enigma.
Look at the night sky my friend. Nature and existence itself is the greatest enigma. Look inside you. Life a stone. It resides within you. Sound familiar?



edit on 27-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 





First, the thread was proof of being created and not proof for God.


This thread isn't proof of being created...for that you'd have to actually present objective evidence, which you clearly didn't



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
I agree with what you say here except for two points.
No problem.


First, the thread was proof of being created and not proof for God.

Come now my friend, lets not beat around the bush. We both know what trying to prove creation leads too. You still haven't addressed the issues your logic or dichotomy does to strand humanity in a position where ultimatesly faith must be the result, the very fact that people rely on faith in our existence now, is exactly the conundrum your logic dwells in also. In the end, you cannot know by simply observing what we as humans do or know as it is simply to far down the stream in terms of having any real context or image of the overall source.


Second, there is a way to get a direct connection to God face to face. Genesis says there is a flaming sword protecting this union of minds between man and God. This is the tree of life. Jesus says the key is to love God and your neighbor. This is the only way faith turns to fact. The Holy spirit reveals reality through gnosis. The mortal wakes to the illusion. Buddha found this, as did Rumi and others. Love is the key. It can be proven if you use the key. This is the only true choice anyone has that is not governed by natural law. If you refuse to listen to the evidence, you perish in hatred to you neighbor and God. The clues are obvious unless you are blinded by the flaming sword of bias. Drop all bias and doubt, serve others and God is seen. Faith follows straight to fact.

My friend, I feel you are not really here to discuss what you propose, but are more intent on giving sermons.

My friend, I have had years of people lecturing on how I must be this, and do that, read this book and follow this path.
I'm doing fine my friend.

Only the source can tell me what is right.
What path of any river is right?
Does anyone ever ask a river that? No, they don't!
Only time really tells.
I go with the my own flow.

Thanks again for the reply.


edit on 28/4/11 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Yes. As Victor Frankl said,

“Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out; a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone’s task is as unique as his specific opportunity to implement it.”

My statement was clear in the OP. Let me show you the possibility of a creator. I obviously believe Him to be God. Everyone will have their own unique views. Mine have been presented. Here are more of my thoughts on the subject of truth if you are interested. LINK

OP "Let me give you a few reasons to believe in the possibility that God is all He claims. I don't ask you to believe me, just consider the possibility."


Originally posted by atlasastro

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
I agree with what you say here except for two points.
No problem.


First, the thread was proof of being created and not proof for God.

Come now my friend, lets not beat around the bush. We both know what trying to prove creation leads too. You still haven't addressed the issues your logic or dichotomy does to strand humanity in a position where ultimatesly faith must be the result, the very fact that people rely on faith in our existence now, is exactly the conundrum your logic dwells in also. In the end, you cannot know by simply observing what we as humans do or know as it is simply to far down the stream in terms of having any real context or image of the overall source.


Second, there is a way to get a direct connection to God face to face. Genesis says there is a flaming sword protecting this union of minds between man and God. This is the tree of life. Jesus says the key is to love God and your neighbor. This is the only way faith turns to fact. The Holy spirit reveals reality through gnosis. The mortal wakes to the illusion. Buddha found this, as did Rumi and others. Love is the key. It can be proven if you use the key. This is the only true choice anyone has that is not governed by natural law. If you refuse to listen to the evidence, you perish in hatred to you neighbor and God. The clues are obvious unless you are blinded by the flaming sword of bias. Drop all bias and doubt, serve others and God is seen. Faith follows straight to fact.

My friend, I feel you are not really here to discuss what you propose, but are more intent on giving sermons.

My friend, I have had years of people lecturing on how I must be this, and do that, read this book and follow this path.
I'm doing fine my friend.

Only the source can tell me what is right.
What path of any river is right?
Does anyone ever ask a river that? No, they don't!
Only time really tells.
I go with the my own flow.

Thanks again for the reply.


edit on 28/4/11 by atlasastro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 





Here are more of my thoughts on the subject of truth


You didn't present truth...you stated an OPINION. And not only that, one that isn't based on objective evidence


Which is your right of o...but it's clearly not "truth" unless you back it up with facts.



posted on Apr, 28 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
Romans 1 speaks to the obviousness of creation in the minds of men. At this point in the thread, this is the best I can say: It is obvious that we are created. The proof speaks in volumes from nature.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Reality is an illusion of image. Don't trade the illusion for what comes next.

Dhammapada - Buddha

Do not live in the world,
In distraction and false dreams.
Outside the dharma.
Arise and watch.
Follow the way joyfully
Through this world and beyond.
Follow the way of virtue.
Follow the way joyfully
Through this world and on beyond!
For consider the world -
A bubble, a mirage.
See the world as it is,
And death shall overlook you.



Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 





Here are more of my thoughts on the subject of truth


You didn't present truth...you stated an OPINION. And not only that, one that isn't based on objective evidence


Which is your right of o...but it's clearly not "truth" unless you back it up with facts.

edit on 28-4-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


Yes, and the people who wrote that lived hundreds of years ago and didn't have a fraction of the knowledge we have today. Clearly not everything they claim is correct. The global flood never happened, people can't survive in whales, snakes don't talk...and comets aren't sings of gods, but the people back that couldn't know that.

What is sad though, is to continue to pretend comets are a sign of god, a global flood happened, and snakes can talk even though there's ZERO objective evidence backing it up. On the contrary, in many cases we KNOW for a FACT that those stories are incorrect.

You continue to claim you presented proof...but that's simply not the case



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


I have read Mans Search for Meaning, I enjoyed your Fankl reference.




“Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out; a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone’s task is as unique as his specific opportunity to implement it.”



My statement was clear in the OP. Let me show you the possibility of a creator. I obviously believe Him to be God. Everyone will have their own unique views. Mine have been presented. Here are more of my thoughts on the subject of truth if you are interested. LINK

Thank you for the link, I will endeavor to look at what you have written in the near future.
I understand what your OP intends to do, yet I have continually stated what the flaws within your reasoning are, and you have merely replied by refering to bias or sermonizing.
Which is fine of course. I simply enjoy exploring the issues you raise regardless of your intention, especially as you intended to offer it as a proof. You clearly give us the dichotomy and the "materials" used.


OP "Let me give you a few reasons to believe in the possibility that God is all He claims. I don't ask you to believe me, just consider the possibility."

That is all I have done, relative to your OP.
Science itself, does not dismiss the possibility that God exists. Your OP has problems with reasoning, regardless of the possibilities. In fact, the way you have structured the logic and reasoning actually restricts the possibility as you limit the ability of man to know the source.

Once again, thank you for replying.



posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
Romans 1 speaks to the obviousness of creation in the minds of men. At this point in the thread, this is the best I can say: It is obvious that we are created. The proof speaks in volumes from nature.


...no, it isn't obvious. It's not even demonstrable. We have reasonable natural explanations that are supported by evidence. Some portions (like evolution) are supported by vast troves of evidence, others are heavily supported by evidence even if we're still working on it (like abiogenesis).

You not only need to make the claim that it is obvious, you need to give some evidence and then you need to show why your claim is better than the current natural explanations that are supported by mountains of evidence.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
Genesis 1 (Light) John 1 (Word/Wave) Light is a duality of particle and wave. All particles have an associated wave. In the beginning (TIME) God created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (Matter).

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.




new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in

join