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.

 

Omnipotent God: Agree or Disagree?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Do you admit IAMIAM, that you COULD be wrong - I.e. reality could be infinity, and consist of no omnipotent or intelligent being?


I am not wrong. Your limitation on the meaning of the word God is wrong. What I consider to be God IS this infinite existence. To claim it does not exist would be to claim I do not exist, for I AM the perceiver.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Or are you so closed minded that your faith has blinded your reason?


My friend thread after thread has revealed that it is your mind that is sealed shut. You only believe that which you can see. You can only define that which has already been defined by others for you. You react rather than contemplate.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Why would a majority of astronomers not believe the omnipotent God, and the majority of that sample are also Atheists?


Why do you let numbers dictate whose view to follow? Find your own.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Do you think perhaps it's because they'd rather have evidence before conjuring a set of beliefs?


I think that like you, they merely reject the limited understanding of God found in religious traditions today. Rather than come to a deeper understanding of what God is, they reject the notion wholesale and invent their own vocabulary to describe this awesome existence. Rather than use the word God, they choose Universe or Infinity to label the great unknown of our existence.

I will choose my word, my word IS God, but the meaning behind that word is deeper than any man can tell me. Choose your own.

With Love,

Your Brother


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




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





That puts those of us who do not believe the Bible is the whole word of God at an extreme disadvantage in these debates. God is much bigger than a book. The word of God is within you.


Very good point. I guess it's time for both debunkers and believers (and those with a foot in both camps) to go back to the drawing board and actually try to define what "God" (for lack of a better word) means to each of us individually, rather then taking stock in an obsolete image of a creator.

You sir, are a good person for deciding where your beliefs start and finish. No matter if I disagree, it seems your points are morally sound. And that is the best thing they can be


Sen


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



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by SerenityGained
reply to post by IAMIAM
 





That puts those of us who do not believe the Bible is the whole word of God at an extreme disadvantage in these debates. God is much bigger than a book. The word of God is within you.


Very good point. I guess it's time for both debunkers and believers (and those with a foot in both camps) to go back to the drawing board and actually try to define what "God" (for lack of a better word) means to each of us individually, rather then taking stock in an obsolete image of a creator.

You sir, are a good person for deciding where your beliefs start and finish. No matter if I disagree, it seems your points are morally sound. And that is the best thing they can be


Sen


I don't know if redefining deity is necessary. Those faiths which believe in a deity all attribute the same characteristics to it based on descriptions handed down by Prophets. The problem is that only the Prophets have had a direct experience. The Priests of those religions which grew from the Prophets are close minded and thus do not believe in the deity which the Prophets describe. Priests are out for control, Prophets are for liberation of the spirit of Man. Let me demonstrate here.

These are the attributes associated with deity in Judaism, Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and various other faiths around the world.

Omnipresence. This is to say that deity is found in everything that exists. It is within the rocks, the trees, you and I.

If this is indeed true, then how can any one religion claim monopoly of the truth? If Deity is found within all things, then it is within all things without exception. Thus, no man can claim exclusive access to the divine, nor claim to be the sole representative of his word. Anything lesser can never be the greater. As soon as a monotheist claims that something is not of God, he has violated his own beliefs.

Omnibenevolence. This is to say that the Deity is all good. There can be no evil within Deity. Every single motion of our existence is good. This is hard for many to accept for they like to think they are the judge of this existence. Let them judge, for even that judgement is good. It shows who is actually talking about the divine, and who is talking about something lesser.

Omnipotence. All powerful. Absolutely nothing is more powerful than the combined motion of the Universe functioning as a whole. Stars live and die by this motion, nebulae come and go on a time scale we cannot even begin to fathom. As great and powerful as these things seem, they still do not compare to the unfathomable functioning of the whole. Man can do great in wondrous things, but the scrapings of power we have accumulated by study this existence are nothing when compared with the whole.

Omniscience. All Knowing. Indeed the Universe is a vessel of knowledge and we are but conscious minds mining the fields of that knowledge. The more we seek to uncover, the more we realise how little we truly know. Yet, that knowledge is out there. Even the number of the hairs on your head is none by the Universe, and it could be uncovered by you through careful observation. Until then, it is known, but unknown to you. Such is the doom of religion. Religion is a stopping point along man's journey through the stars. It is where these simple truths are ignored, and a falsehood is established. That falsehood is that Man knows all there is to know about Deity. No other voices count. They ignore the simple truth that we all carry just a part of the puzzle. We all know part of the truth. It is only in respecting all views that we will ever obtain a greater picture of the knowledge that is out there.

The problem with religions is not that they lack a proper definition of Deity. It is that they do not believe their own definition.

We are all parts of the Deity and all have equal right to express it's word through us. Every opinion on the matter counts. Where we limit Deity, we limit only ourselves. No opinion can be stamped out. Every opinion continues to surface no matter what method is used to drive it out.

God can exist or not exist. In believing it exists one must agree that all views on the matter are possible, even the Atheists, while trusting in only their own personal understanding.

Atheism does not allow such freedom. It insists that there is no God and that is the end of the story. Life is defined only by what a majority can observe. Thoughts, feelings, intuition, cannot be observed and are therefore discounted. At least they should be if one is a true atheist, for these things defy logic.

We will do far better in this world when more do believe in God, but stop trying to limit it to their own image, but treat each other as images of it.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 



Our limitation on the meaning of the word God is wrong. What I consider to be God IS this infinite existence. To claim it does not exist would be to claim I do not exist, for I AM the perceiver.


Well, our existence isn't infinite, that's pretty much fact - At least in the biological sense earth won't be able to facilitate our species in some time. Reality/the univese COULD be infinite, but scientists havn't concluded that yet.

Simply labelling the universe as "GOD" is exactly what it is, a labelling game. It's pantheism.


My friend thread after thread has revealed that it is your mind that is sealed shut.


Incorrect, I'm open-minded. I believe there could be many possibilities to this existence, but i don't have evidence for any of those possibilities, including the "GOD" hypothesis (omnipotent) so i don't believe anyone who proposes a theory WITHOUT evidence.

That's what it means to be skeptical but open-minded. It's what it means to care about knowledge, not myth. But heck that's me - the olde existentialist - Don't call it ignorance, and don't state my mind's shut.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Why would a majority of astronomers not believe the omnipotent God, and the majority of that sample are also Atheists?

Why do you let numbers dictate whose view to follow? Find your own.


I admit my own appeal to majority argument - My point is that a majority of scientists, people who care about truth, reject the omnipotent (GOD) theory simply due to the burden of proof. These are people who are honest. They don't point to the universe and ASSSUME it's a creator (even if it is)

Instead of using the word "GOD" i'll just say "what we don't understand yet".

You define God though IAMIAM, you talk about this spirit objectively, as if you know it's "character", it's "wishes" of you. As if by looking at reality that you can deduce what God's moral position on any given moral quandering.

You are an atheist IAMIAM, you're an atheist to every religion, you just think you have your own custom definition of God, why not just go 1 God fewer, and realise that we're all as naive as eachother when it comes to the cause and mechanics of the universe.
edit on 25/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

God is much bigger than a book. The word of God is within you.


Oooh how deep and meaningful.

Literally nothing of substance to take away from those 2 statements.

The word God was created as we formed language.

If God does exist, of course he's bigger than a book, especially an ancient book written by early man. Afterall, he created man (well let's pretend DNA evidence of evolution is incorrect)

The word of God is within who? Charles Manson? Was the word in him? How do you reason the word NOT being within him? Possessed by a demon? Probably something spooky like that.
edit on 25/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by IAMIAM
 



Our limitation on the meaning of the word God is wrong. What I consider to be God IS this infinite existence. To claim it does not exist would be to claim I do not exist, for I AM the perceiver.


Well, our existence isn't infinite, that's pretty much fact - At least in the biological sense earth won't be able to facilitate our species in some time. Reality/the univese COULD be infinite, but scientists havn't concluded that yet.


How do you KNOW your existence is not infinite? Have you died and come back to tell us that once you die that is it, the end? That would be impossible wouldn't it? You are focusing on the flesh, I am talking about that which is greater than the flesh.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Simply labelling the universe as "GOD" is exactly what it is, a labelling game. It's pantheism.


Everything is a labeling game. That is what we debate over in the end, nothing but words, and words with many meanings at that. It is as if we babel too much, and don't just be.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware

My friend thread after thread has revealed that it is your mind that is sealed shut.


Incorrect, I'm open-minded. I believe there could be many possibilities to this existence, but i don't have evidence for any of those possibilities, including the "GOD" hypothesis (omnipotent) so i don't believe anyone who proposes a theory WITHOUT evidence.

That's what it means to be skeptical but open-minded. It's what it means to care about knowledge, not myth. But heck that's me - the olde existentialist - Don't call it ignorance, and don't state my mind's shut.


Then that which you do not want done to yourself, do not do unto others. Judge not, and you will not be judged. Call others close minded, and you only prove how close minded you yourself are. Call others ignorant and you will receive the same judgement from others. Let each other BE.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Why would a majority of astronomers not believe the omnipotent God, and the majority of that sample are also Atheists?

Why do you let numbers dictate whose view to follow? Find your own.


I admit my own appeal to majority argument - My point is that a majority of scientists, people who care about truth, reject the omnipotent (GOD) theory simply due to the burden of proof. These are people who are honest. They don't point to the universe and ASSSUME it's a creator (even if it is)

Instead of using the word "GOD" i'll just say "what we don't understand yet".


Works for me.


Originally posted by awake_and_aware
You define God though IAMIAM, you talk about this spirit objectively, as if you know it's "character", it's "wishes" of you. As if by looking at reality that you can deduce what God's moral position on any given moral quandering.

You are an atheist IAMIAM, you're an atheist to every religion, you just think you have your own custom definition of God, why not just go 1 God fewer, and realise that we're all as naive as eachother when it comes to the cause and mechanics of the universe.
edit on 25/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


Of course I do my friend. What I do not do is demand that others are right and I am wrong. I am only sharing my understanding. My understanding challenges both theist and atheist alike. The theist thinks, "Oh his idea of God doesn't match my own so he must be a false teacher!" the Atheist thinks "Oh he believes in God therefore he must be a fool!". I did not judge anyone elses perspective, so why do all sides have to judge mine?

It is my OWN. No one can take it, no one can usurp it, it is based on love for everyone, it is benevolent and pure, and it respect your own right to form your opinion without my interference. So, why judge me when I only share my view?

Those who judge me, I return like judgement on there view.

With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 



the Atheist thinks "Oh he believes in God therefore he must be a fool!"


That's a gross generalisation, and wouldn't intend to demean any believer's intelligence just for having one belief that isn't based on empirical rationalisation. I woudn't call Newton a fool.

There's no denying that belief in either religion or a omnipotent deity requires a belief before having evidence. When Gallileo showed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, the Christians were irrate because it interfered with their worldview and current understanding of God (God making the universe with humans at the centre) They only apologised for their scrutiny in the last 30 years.

It seems to be a game of definitions. You seem to like the word "God", it's as if you've attributed human characterists onto "it".

Funny, that other animals probably don't even care. It's only because we are consciouss/aware that we care. That we think something special is out there waiting for us.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


Unlike us, animals live in perfect harmony with God and nature... They have no need for such realizations.




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


How convenient for your theory. Funny how DNA evidence shows that we were once in their position.

Neo-cortex development didn't start for some time in our development.

We ARE animals by definition.
edit on 25/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


you said>>It's much safer and more logical to go with the Atheist's wager.

It could only be considered safer in the logical sense, but not in the sense of your overall well being if the Atheist are wrong ,In fact it would be detrimental to you

Suppose the Atheist are right so you have nothing to lose in the after life, but if they are wrong you lose your very soul, is that safer to you?
edit on 25-4-2011 by infojunkie2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Akragon
 


How convenient for your theory. Funny how DNA evidence shows that we were once in their position.

Neo-cortex development didn't start for some time in our development.

We ARE animals by definition.
edit on 25/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


I didn't say anything to refute that actually. Evolution is a part of nature....

Theres no doubt we once were "animals" but we've evolved past that... Animals have no concept of right and wrong because they work as they are intended to, with nature! And thus are perfect in their own environment.

We to can work as we're intended to, but this world is full of distractions.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


Atheiests lose nothing... They're souls are not condemed because they don't believe. When an atheiest dies he also returns home. Perhaps at that time someone might give them a sharp kick in the ass... Hell they'll probably want to kick themselves for not realizing what at that time will be obvious.

Either way, nothing condems a persons soul....




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Theres no doubt we once were "animals"


What are you talking about. We ARE animals. Just because we have become consciouss/pattern seekings mammals doesn't make us any less of a mammal.

I've already explained that somepoint throughout human evolution our neo-cortex was stimulated and developed. "Homo-erectus" is often known as the pivotal point at which humans began to form rudimentary tools, language, memory - And thus developed a network thinking and communication.

It's clear we have a separate worldview to our very existence on this planet.
edit on 25/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Pascal's Wager vs Atheist's Wager.

Atheist 1 - Theists 0

Euthyphro Dilemma - en.wikipedia.org...

Atheist 1 - Theist 0

Epicuean Paradox - en.wikipedia.org...

Atheist 1 - Theist/Deist 0

If you'd like to refute those arguments, or state why they are unreasonable, and thus why Atheism is illogical/irrational then that would just be dandy.



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Akragon
 



Theres no doubt we once were "animals"


What are you talking about. We ARE animals. Just because we have become consciouss/pattern seekings mammals doesn't make us any less of a mammal.

I've already explained that somepoint throughout human evolution our neo-cortex was stimulated and developed. "Homo-erectus" is often known as the pivotal point at which humans began to form rudimentary tools, language, memory - And thus developed a network thinking and communication.

It's clear we have a separate worldview to our very existence on this planet.
edit on 25/4/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



haha, alright i won't disagree with that either...




posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
It seems to be a game of definitions. You seem to like the word "God", it's as if you've attributed human characterists onto "it".


God is just a word my friend.

In the beginning was the word...

If the word God offends your senses so much, then I will replace it in this discussion.

I will leave the matter of God to simply...

I AM.



With Love,

Your Brother



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Akragon
 


Pascal's Wager vs Atheist's Wager.

Atheist 1 - Theists 0

Euthyphro Dilemma - en.wikipedia.org...

Atheist 1 - Theist 0

Epicuean Paradox - en.wikipedia.org...

Atheist 1 - Theist/Deist 0

If you'd like to refute those arguments, or state why they are unreasonable, and thus why Atheism is illogical/irrational then that would just be dandy.



*sigh*

You're really gonna make me read those links....

Fine...



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Yeah, y'know, "you can lead a horse to water..." nd all that.


Pascal's Wager vs Atheist's Wager



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by IAMIAM
 


Nah it's cool, I'm happy with the word God
Afterall it is included in the title. It's the pragmatics behind it, the objectivity which is insisted upon. If God = The Universe then God isn't perfect. That is evident. That's all i'm saying.

I've got no problem with the word. Afterall, we need a word to describe what i'm talking about, and what believers talk about.

I basically want to know what you know about "GOD" that i can't know. Or that you THINK i would be unwilling to know.


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



posted on Apr, 25 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by infojunkie2
 


Atheiests lose nothing... They're souls are not condemed because they don't believe. When an atheiest dies he also returns home. Perhaps at that time someone might give them a sharp kick in the ass... Hell they'll probably want to kick themselves for not realizing what at that time will be obvious.

Either way, nothing condems a persons soul....





Ok,whatever you say, it must be the truth, thanks for setting me straight, don't know what I was thinking,
If one spits in the face of God by denying him, hey it's Ok
edit on 25-4-2011 by infojunkie2 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join