It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
The Godhead and the creator (first/last cause) seeks to express the true nature of his creative impulse and perfect will, through mankind, and realize the object of his desire, to know thyself, while sharing within a family framework the riches of the whole of creation.
Please tell me what is wrong with this conception..
"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.
If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.
Next, by Ervin Laszlo
Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.
In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".
Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:
[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."
an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything
Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."
Originally posted by Magnus47
reply to post by SaturnFX
Thanks, and I pretty much agree with you. I think many atheists are over-eager to say "I KNOW there is no god, and all religion is the source of evil," etc. But when you press these people on the hypothetical question "what would you do if you discovered solid evidence for the existence of God," they scratch their heads, and eventually admit that they would change their belief. You cannot prove a negative in science. You can only operate on the assumption of that negative until there is evidence for a positive.
As for myself, I tend to be an agnostic atheist, but lately I'm leaning slightly toward agnostic theist... in my context, meaning "someone who only believes in one religion, but does not know whether or not that religion is true." There is a reason for this, and that is because I had a UFO sighting that involved some curiously Christian phenomena. But there are multiple possible explanations for my sighting, so in principle, I am still an agnostic atheist.
The Galileo affair was a sequence of events, beginning around 1610, during which Galileo Galilei came into conflict with the Aristotelian scientific view of the universe (supported by the Catholic Church), over his support of Copernican astronomy.
In 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope. These and other discoveries exposed severe difficulties with the scientific understanding of the universe that had been around since the beginning of science, and raised new interest in studies such as the heliocentric theory of Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543).
Many scientists attacked the theory because it disagreed with Aristotle's model of the universe, as well as several passages of Scripture. Galileo's part in the controversies over theology, astronomy, and philosophy culminated in his trial and sentencing in 1633 on a grave suspicion of heresy.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by mac420
It's not a literalist all-or-nothing proposition ie: if the world wasn't created in six earth days 6000 years ago, the whole thing is bunk, that's absurd, but, that's the way many atheists like to roll when it comes to debunking something they don't understand.
Originally posted by furzball
My only qualm about this is that there still needs to be a moral core of ethics taught to children replacing religion. Otherwise a few generations of atheists in, we may be sheeples to law and not questioning it.
Originally posted by nicolee123nd
If you ever get into a religious conversation with an atheist, at one point the person almost always says "I was raised Christian..." How come you never hear a person say "I was born an atheist..."?
Originally posted by TheLastStand
When science decides to play god I hardly ever see any atheists there to stop them. I think we are better off having those from both walks in life.