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.

 

Can you know God without understanding or recognizing his perfect works?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


It has nothing to do with fitness to survive.
This creation, this existance has no 'thing' the same. Every 'thing' you ever see is constantly changing. The same experience never happens twice. That's why deja vu jumps out at us.
There are not even two snowflakes the same, or fingerprints.
This is the beauty, the miracle.

Humans see extintion as a problem, but it is just an unfolding, a flowering.
It is the 'one' appearing as 'the many thousands of things'.
Life is not about struggle and survival.
It is a work of art for your veiwing pleasure

edit on 18-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
It is only man who sees imperfection, the 'beast' in us.
We are the divine being experiencing the all.
What is seen is only ever a reflection of your self.
If ugliness and imperfection is seen, it is in the eye of the beholder.

This amazing 3d techni-visual, super surrond sound experience is not enough for the man.
He searches to find relief from all the imperfections that he has judged and believed into being.
He sees dirt and ugliness and goes out to convince the world that it is the truth.

We are the divine being.
Everything that is seen is yourself.
Look again and see, really see.
Don't believe the ugly thoughts you have about yourself, then the world will transform into beauty.
You will always be here to veiw the changing colors and patterns.
How ever they come to you...... see the beauty in gods work.
edit on 18-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 03:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Identical snowflakes.

Seems like the same things do happen twice. Of course, you'd rather just spew pseudo-philosophy rather than actually bother with anything resembling an actually discussion.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
reply to post by madness mysoul
 


A discussion?

‘It’s one of the last remaining challenges known to science and we’ve cracked it at last,’ said lead researcher, Professor Kenneth Libbrecht. ‘The team will soon disband to pursue other major scientific challenges, such as the unresolved toast-butter conundrum, and whether or not my baldness makes me a better lover.’

Are you serious?
This article was posted by someone called Red, and you believe it. Who is Red?
Where is the peer reveiw report????

edit on 18-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

I have just found this online, it wasn't hard:


''Was he right? Pretty much, yes. Snow crystal growth depends on the temperature and pressure conditions in the cloud. As the history of every crystal is different, and they can take several hours to fall to earth, their forms are infinitely varied. There have been simple snow crystals that appear the same under a microscope. However at a molecular level, even these will be different. According to Libbrecht: "Each snowfall is a photographic adventure because each brings different crystals. And it's true - no two are exactly alike."

• Snowflakes, by Kenneth Libbrecht, is published by Voyageur Press at £9.99. Charlie English is the author of The Snow Tourist,

edit on 18-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Again, it seems that you are here to fight. Bringing 'facts' as weapons of destruction. If you carry weapons they will taken from you and used against you. It is only ever yourself that you fight. The world of 'things' is a reflection back to the self, it only gives you what you give it.
Why fight with the world?
It is the belief that it is a 'battle' for survival. Winners or losers.
Even singing and dancing have become a competitive sport.

Life is not a competition, unless you make it a competition and then life will be hard.
Life is amazing and beautiful and easy.


edit on 18-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



Life is not about struggle and survival.
It is a work of art for your veiwing pleasure


Tell that to humans more than 100,000 years ago who barely lived to the age of 25, many dying from their teeth, or women and children dying in labour. Where people were being hunted and eaten by other animals.

It's easy enough to say what life is and isn't about when your sitting infront of a computer screen. Take away the technology, the infrastructure and you'll find nature can be very cruel, relentless and indifferent to the suffering it casues. I'm not saying it's not beautiful or awe-striking.

We live on a climatic knifedge, some places being too hot and or cold to support life, and not just on Earth it seems.



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 



That would be quite a feat. It is impossible to tell people who are dead anything, unless you think i can travel back in time. That, is also impossible but i won't go into that now.
Nature is not cruel, it is your belief in cruelty that gives it existence.

Have you heard of the Goldilocks universe?

I have suffered and found a way out of that suffering.
I know that suffering happens even when the 'external' enviroment is fine.
Suffering is caused by the mind not the enviroment or conditions.


edit on 18-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 



Have you heard of the Goldilocks universe?


I've heard of goldilocks theory in regards to planets and life. I guess i could imagine a "goldilocks" multiverse theorem where some universes give birth to "just the right" measures (or physical laws) to harbour gallaxies, and thus, solar systems and planets where life could potentially form. Some universes may not be able to support anything.

Of course, this is just purely hypothetical and i couldn't demonstrate such a theory with empirical evidence. Dawkins has postulated a similar theory to that of evolution by natural selection but on a cosmological scale.

I get a essense of that theory when we compare the development of the universe to that of the brain.




Suffering is caused by the mind not the enviroment or conditions.


You are aware of animals dying in the wild? By predators or disease? You are aware that humans were under similar conditions until much further down their evolution paths, some historians and academics claim that it must be at least 100,000 years since we started to use fire and rudimentary tools etc.

Again, you can't account for all the dying and aids-ridden people in Africa. All in the mind, right?
edit on 18/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 04:24 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_and_aware
 


The Goldilocks enigma is not a theory, it is more of a question. It asks why is earth perfect for life.
Paul Davies, who wrote the book The goldilocks Enigma, can't work it out and neither can anyone else.
Everything is perfectly balanced for life.
Maybe life came first?



posted on May, 19 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Yes, i understand - it MUST be a question like ("is there a God" or "what is God") because we have no definitive "theory" (yet)

We don't know "just the right" conditions to be able to "spark" life. It could be distance from a star, it could be that life forms in darkness or partial darkness, where the main heatsource is the gravitational flucuations that cause friction etc. We just don't know.

I'm interested to read this book by Paul Davies. Thanks for the reference.

I havn't heard any scientific theories of how life begins; i could form my own, although, my guesses would be vague, unlettered and without evidence.

Peace.
edit on 19/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


99.8% of all species that ever existed wern't "fit" enough to survive the enviroment on earth - They were perfect too, right?


Absolutely.

What do you prefer to see on the earth? Dinosaurs or humans?
In their perfection, they disappeared or we would not be here.

Regards
DL



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
It is only man who sees imperfection, the 'beast' in us.
We are the divine being experiencing the all.
What is seen is only ever a reflection of your self.
If ugliness and imperfection is seen, it is in the eye of the beholder.

This amazing 3d techni-visual, super surrond sound experience is not enough for the man.
He searches to find relief from all the imperfections that he has judged and believed into being.
He sees dirt and ugliness and goes out to convince the world that it is the truth.

We are the divine being.
Everything that is seen is yourself.
Look again and see, really see.
Don't believe the ugly thoughts you have about yourself, then the world will transform into beauty.
You will always be here to veiw the changing colors and patterns.
How ever they come to you...... see the beauty in gods work.
edit on 18-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


Rather Gnostic. As a Gnostic Christian, I like it.

Regards
DL



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I concurr


What do you prefer to see on the earth? Dinosaurs or humans?


Perhaps my answer would be a little bias


Please define "perfect" or else it seems to be a rather indecipherable semantic game.
edit on 25/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I concurr


What do you prefer to see on the earth? Dinosaurs or humans?


Perhaps my answer would be a little bias


Please define "perfect" or else it seems to be a rather indecipherable semantic game.
edit on 25/5/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)


By whose definition?

By natures---perfect is what you see and it is in continuous flow to a more perfect state.
It is always the best it can be.

Perfect to us would likely be whatever wish list we each hold.

Regards
DL
edit on 31-5-2011 by Greatest I am because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 



By natures---perfect is what you see and it is in continuous flow to a more perfect state.


So basically, we exist so therefore reality = perfect.?

Now please define your "perfect" in accordance with the universe/nature. And cite examples of how it is so.


It is always the best it can be.


How do you know? Why arn't all of the planets populated with life? How do you know there arn't other universes with more refined laws of physics? How do you know another universe is less chaotic and clustered as this one?

I'm not talking about "perfect" in terms of subjectivity, the "perfection" to a piece of music by Ludwig van Beethoven or the perfection to someones face. Of course, the beauty or "perfection" is but in the eye of the beholder.

Now again, i'm willing to go along with your assumption that the universe is perfect, but define perfect and explain why.



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by Greatest I am
 



By natures---perfect is what you see and it is in continuous flow to a more perfect state.


So basically, we exist so therefore reality = perfect.?

Now please define your "perfect" in accordance with the universe/nature. And cite examples of how it is so.


It is always the best it can be.


How do you know? Why arn't all of the planets populated with life? How do you know there arn't other universes with more refined laws of physics? How do you know another universe is less chaotic and clustered as this one?

I'm not talking about "perfect" in terms of subjectivity, the "perfection" to a piece of music by Ludwig van Beethoven or the perfection to someones face. Of course, the beauty or "perfection" is but in the eye of the beholder.

Now again, i'm willing to go along with your assumption that the universe is perfect, but define perfect and explain why.


It is not my idea of perfection that are at issue. It is natures..

Nature defines perfect, if you will, by always creating to the best standards it can with the DNA and conditions at hand.

It is likely easier to show you an example than to try to define perfection.

Look in a mirror. Now answer the question, is nature doing the best it can with the conditions at hand?

Regards
DL



posted on Jun, 1 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Greatest I am
 


I'm sorry but it's your semantics of "perfect".

You might as well just say perfect = nature.

But of course; that is your argument.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:19 AM
link   
God will let you know himself as you meet him. God is love and spirit and perfect in his ways.

Even when you don't have recognition in God He is around. He will let you understand himself.
edit on 2011/6/2 by etherical waterwave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Certainly 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', but then practically everything is 'in the eyes of the beholder' from the simplest to the most complex.

With the risk of taking the poetry out it, 'perspective' is the word I would suggest, and mankind has, and have had, its share of self-proclaimed gurus, pundits, sages, prohets, interpretators, pseudo-philosophers or just plain obvious megalomaniacs, who've had THE perspective and THE answers. Ofcourse mostly disagreeing with each other except on the uselessness or demonic origin of objectivity.

When clashing with each others 'answers' these superior beings in possession of self-proclaimed 'absolute truths' usually fall back to stage two:

"But I am in possession of personal qualities, making MY answers the correct ones. You, my competitors, are blind, bumbling, ignorant fools with character shortcomings, and your criticism of me is actually only envy."

And so on, eventually leading each debate into competitive character defamations, and carefully avoiding ANY factual content. In other words...'beholdering' at its worst.

Even the life/death struggle can be 'beholdered' into something acceptable, if the reference frame is cosmic dynamics for the sake of dynamics. The buddhists had something to say about that more than two thousand years ago, something which grows in relevance, as contemporary science/logic find more answers. (I'm not pushing buddhism, I'm not a buddhist).

While the various abrahamic religions and the monotheistic god-concepts loose credibility, as does many of the nature romantics, who are inner-city dwellers conducting their speculations from a comfortable city life, and often relying on new-age interpretations on cottage industry science/logic level.

But darned, if suffering can be 'beholdered' into anything meaningful or ideologically acceptable (even including sky-daddies etc as a last resort). Suffering is either the result of an uncaring universe or (if you're in the 'god' crowd) the expression of an incompetent or sadistic creator (possibly an interfering manipulator).

In the hope of smoking some opposition out, and also to avoid a too long post, I'll let this post stop here as a cliff-hanger, for you gurus to respond to.
edit on 2-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join