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.

 

Free Will and Asking God for Help

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["Chaos does not mean disorder. Chaos is a word used to describe something where the 'order' can not be understood by the human mind."]

That's the definition I've used dozens of times, something you may be unaware of. So no disagreement there.

Quote: ["Chaos could then in fact mean divine order."]

And it 'could' not. That's just speculations.

Quote: ["When we put our noses on a tv screen we will see chaos, yet if we take a few steps back we will see the whole picture."]

From former contact with you, I'm familiar with your suggestions on 'superior' perspectives. 'Superior' perspectives are as debatable as conclusions.

Quote: ["I don't see 'chaos' as freedom either, because like the picture on the tv screen it has to be whole."]

So regress your reasoning chain to 'whole' as a basis.

Quote: ["We can not see the entire universe and until we do we can call it chaotic, but that does not make it true."]

So on your homeground your subjective 'absolutes' are acceptable as a common basis, while objective procedures can be used on other situations, where it supports your position. Make up your mind or explain this skipping around.

Quote: [" It is complete and it knows what it is doing."]

Evidence?

Quote: ["It is doing the whole show.
Where is freewill (individual freewill) in that?"]

I'm not operating with the same degree of (philosophical) positivism as you are, so my answer is not 'absolute':

The uncertainty principle.

Quote: [" Say, the universe was a watch (for instance), a cog may believe he has freewill, the individual hands (second, minute, hour) may believe they have freewill, but if it were true the watch would not work.
The wise cog/hands see and know for sure that it is all taken care of, that everything is being done, that all it needs to do is relax and enjoy the movement. It knows it is moved by the rhythm of the watch and marvels at the complexity.
The cog/hand that has not understood the working of the watch will insist that it is in control and will resist the working of the watch and fight with it. The cog/hand will still be moving in the same direction as it is ordered to be but it is the watch doing it, not the cog/hand.
Let go little cog, be one with the watch.
We do not have to turn the cog.
The watch is."]

That was a nice allegory. But allegories are only illustrations of positions, they do not have any intrinsic value as evidence. So what is your EVIDENCE?




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Divine order is the order that is beyond our minds comprehension.
Chaos.
The mind can not know.
The mind wants to know but it will never know.
The clever mind will never beable to free you from the fear.
The mind produces fear so it has a job.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:07 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


The only proof needed that that universe is doing fine is that i am here.

You have written this:
So on your homeground your subjective 'absolutes' are acceptable as a common basis, while objective procedures can be used on other situations, where it supports your position. Make up your mind or explain this skipping around. End quote.

I am sorry but this means nothing to me, please could you translate it so i can understand it.

The evidence is this, life.
What is life? I don't know.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:24 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


The only issue we ever have bogomil, is a communication issue.
You like to work with big words that have definitions. I feel as though each definition divides us even more.
Each concept is misdirected from the start.
The truth can not be defined in words.
To me this is the truth.
So each addition to a basic word leads further from the truth.

Language is the key to solving the mystery.
Not more language, not more words and beliefs and boxes, but less.
Language has to be deconstructed, to be simplified.
What is language for if it is not to communicate.

It is used to divide us if we allow it, if we do not see that the pen (word) is mightier than the sword.
Most are happy to be divided, yet it is those that feel alone.
Humans do not want peace, they want to do it right and they want everyone else to do it right. Who's playing god now?

What if there is just God?
God seeing God?
What you see is the face of God!

edit on 30-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


Divine order is the order that is beyond our minds comprehension.
Chaos.
The mind can not know.
The mind wants to know but it will never know.
The clever mind will never beable to free you from the fear.
The mind produces fear so it has a job.


Step by step:

Quote: ["Divine order is the order that is beyond our minds comprehension."]

Defining the unknown as 'divine' is just a postulate.

Quote: [" Chaos.
The mind can not know."]

There's a considerable amount of 'direct experience' available. I do not draw any specific conclusions from such direct experiences, just on the phenomenon itself. Conclusions will be a possible result of some examination of the area.

Quote: ["The mind wants to know but it will never know."]

Sorry, another of your 'absolute' platitudes.

Quote: ["The clever mind will never beable to free you from the fear.
The mind produces fear so it has a job."]

How do you arrive at such a generalization? Believing that YOU are the norm for everything?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["You have written this:
So on your homeground your subjective 'absolutes' are acceptable as a common basis, while objective procedures can be used on other situations, where it supports your position. Make up your mind or explain this skipping around. End quote.

I am sorry but this means nothing to me, please could you translate it so i can understand it."]

It means, that you are sending out an unending stream of postulates, which you practically never bother to validate. Whereas you expect me to follow the standard procedure of logic and objective reasoning, when I present my comments.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["The only issue we ever have bogomil, is a communication issue.
You like to work with big words that have definitions. I feel as though each definition divides us even more."]

If you consider communication performed on grounds of: "That big thingumajic next to the small thingumajic doing wussisname" better, feel free. I don't share any enthusiasm for vagueness, especially not, when my opposition is dishing out clichées, slogans or rhetoric.

Quote: ["Each concept is misdirected from the start.
The truth can not be defined in words.
To me this is the truth.
So each addition to a basic word leads further from the truth."]

You can switch to mytho-poetical for all I care. In our communication process YOUR giving yourself authority is meaningless.

Quote: ["Language is the key to solving the mystery.
Not more language, not more words and beliefs and boxes, but less.
Language has to be deconstructed, to be simplified.
What is language for if it is not to communicate."]

So I suggest you try to follow your own good advice and start by avoiding spreading your own absolutes left and right.

Quote: ["It is used to divide us if we allow it, if we do not see that the pen (word) is mightier than the sword.
Most are happy to be divided, yet it is those that feel alone.
Humans do not want peace, they want to do it right and they want everyone else to do it right."]

Sorry again. But are you some kind of preacher or politician? You want to cut language down to shortness and simplification, and then you immediately after serve these 'reflections'.

Quote: ["Who's playing god now?"]

Spare me from rhetoric.

Quote: ["What if there is just God?
God seeing God?
What you see is the face of God!"]

And what if there's not just 'god'? Speculations.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I never expect you to follow me.
However, your posts are predictable as ever.

No one is preaching to you, no one has forced anything upon you.
It is all your own making, coming here for whatever you think you have reasons for. They are yours and i have no idea what you think they are and i will not invent reasons for you.
But you are here.
edit on 30-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Turn the cheek away from what offends you. Do not layeth the boot in.
Why the need to destroy? It is a habit that is enforced by the system.
Competition is the game. And winners and losers is the prize.

Life is a beautiful work of art, not a competition or a puzzle.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

edit on 30-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain
reply to post by bogomil
 


Turn the cheek away from what offends you. Do not layeth the boot in.
Why the need to destroy? It is a habit that is enforced by the system.
Competition is the game. And winners and losers is the prize.

Life is a beautiful work of art, not a competition or a puzzle.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

edit on 30-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)


An excellent and reasonable subjective attitude. It has however nothing to do with spreading general 'absolutes' around.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


General 'absolutes' only exist in your perpective, in relation to you.
You are the one boxing 'things' up.

Again, i ask; why agree with what is stated but pick a fight anyway?
What is the intention behind this behavior?



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["General 'absolutes' only exist in your perpective, in relation to you."]

"God" is such an absolute (however vaguely defined),

'divine' is such an absolute,

'original sin' is such an absolute,

"The mind can not know" is a methodology absolute,

"The mind produces fear so it has a job" is a definition absolute,

as is "Everything that happens, happens by and of Gods will,"

all quotes from your recent posts.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Someone was telling me about a video game where everyone got stuck on this particular level where they couldn't kill the dinosaur. It took days before they realized that it was not needed (not part of the mission) and passed on by. Just because it is there does not mean you have to kill it or destroy it, it serves no purpose.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


Double posting
edit on 30-5-2011 by bogomil because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["Just because it is there does not mean you have to kill it or destroy it, it serves no purpose."]

Theism/deism etc has certainly interfered in human and planetary affairs in many uncalled for and destructive ways, under the disguise of universal 'truth'.

Keeping its place as an acknowledged subjective phenomenon is no problem for me however.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


You are the one creating the box marked general 'absolute'. You are the creator and the perceiver, you are the one who knows what goes in the box labelled "general 'absolutes'", under the sub heading "bogomil conclusions."

I have no need for a interrogator. Live and let live.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


This is really interesting:
youtu.be...
edit on 30-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


You wrote:

["You are the one creating the box marked general 'absolute'."]

Your and my definition of general absolutes apparantly differs. Please state yours.

On my part general absolutes can be defined from the philosophical school of 'positivism' (though not in a supportive sense, only as a precision of the concept).

Quote: ["I have no need for a interrogator"]

Preaching or making unsubstantiated claims will lead to questioning.

PS Later addition to this post. I'm unable to look at internet-videos; and quite honestly, I'm not much motivated for it either. A forum communication based on references to authorities is mostly quite pointless, unless it's a question of just presenting various forms of 'definitions'/outlining positions.




edit on 30-5-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


The point is though that it would be people like you who put Jesus on the cross.
Prove it, prove it, prove it.
See it does not matter what you say or any body else says you only care about what you believe to be true and you would fight to the death or have someone killed for it. I don't even know what your beliefs are, i don't think you declare these, i don't suppose belief is needed when the button 'kill and destroy' is being pushed. What a shame.
You would pull peoples fingernails out.
Have you seen 'Slumdog Millionaire'?


edit on 30-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


I know without a shadow of doubt that what i write comes through me, from my own knowing.
But you oppose, judge, critize, pick a fight, for no other reason than to fight.
It is your game. I hope it serves you well.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join