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.

 

Is it not Impossible for God NOT to exist?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Shortly put, you are in OP talking about causality, and as usual (when presenting one version or another of diverse 'intelligent design' models), this causality is supposed to the theist 'trump'.

Either you haven't done much homework on this subject, or you have chosen to ignore it, but....the better informed theists are finally deserting the 'intelligent design'-concept for the simple reason, that it's bosh.

Very easy to oppose and it surprises me to see it pop up regularly in spite of the increasingly general knowledge of its meaninglessness.

You should also have acquainted yourself with what's called 'gnostic' and 'agnostic' positions, before you started. They are important.




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Either you haven't done much homework on this subject, or you have chosen to ignore it, but....the better informed theists are finally deserting the 'intelligent design'-concept for the simple reason, that it's bosh.



Would you care to elaborate on that "simple reason" (it being bosh) that "better informed" (better informed according to who) theists are deserting the intelligent design concept?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by graphuto

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by graphuto
I agree wholeheartedly! It takes alot more faith to buy "evolution" than it does "creationism." Think about this:

In nature (creation) everything goes in cycles. Moon cycles, sun cycles, seasonal cycles, a seed forms a tree which bears fruit, which bears seeds. In creation we have cycles of reconciliation.

There is no chance for reconciliation in evolution.


I guess, that you must be talking about cosmological evolution, not biological (as this has little to do with this thread).

Meaning that some kind of creationist cosmogony/cosmology is correct. Which one, and where do you find support for this idea?


I have no reason to believe that this model doesn't adhere to both biological AND cosmological. I find support for this idea in the observable world around me, and in The Bible. As above, so below. As below, so above.


As far as I can see, your argument is that that you have faith in faith, and that faith tells you, that scientific results also are faith. It's not a very convincing reasoning chain, especially as the concept faith per se means a personal opinion without any evidence or validation.

Well, everybody have a right to opinions, but presented as you do it here, you must be prepared to be met with the criticism, that your comments are completely irrational and subjective and have no value outside the faith-circle you are part of.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by graphuto

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Either you haven't done much homework on this subject, or you have chosen to ignore it, but....the better informed theists are finally deserting the 'intelligent design'-concept for the simple reason, that it's bosh.



Would you care to elaborate on that "simple reason" (it being bosh) that "better informed" (better informed according to who) theists are deserting the intelligent design concept?


Yes, I can elaborate. You want the short or long version (the last requires some basic understanding of science/logic)?

And 'informed' theists are those who understand what it is, which is 'hijacked' in the 'I.D.' concept. You don't think, that you can steal ideas from other truth/reality-seeking systems and just 'adapt' them to your own uses (if you want to keep SOME respectability).

Any serious theologian trying to do such would soon be the laughingstock in academic or educated circles. There's a dialogue amongst serious scientists, scholars and researchers. It's not the small missionary world and its tricks.
edit on 13-9-2011 by bogomil because: grammar



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I'll take the long version. Don't get overtly technical though, and try to use moar action based words as opposed to abstract thoughts and ideas. So I have some idea as to where you're coming from, am I correct to assume that YOUR main problem with religion is this "hi-jacked" "I.D." ?
edit on 13-9-2011 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by graphuto
I'll take the long version. Don't get overtly technical though, and try to use moar action based words as opposed to abstract thoughts and ideas. So I have some idea as to where you're coming from, am I correct to assume that YOUR main problem with religion is this "hi-jacked" "I.D." ?
edit on 13-9-2011 by graphuto because: (no reason given)


Thanks for a straight answer. Unfortunately I can't reduce the 'long version' to normalese~daily-use language. That's what the short version is for.

It's quite correct to assume, that much of my opposition to (some types of) religion originates from scenarios like the hijacked 'I.D.'. I find intellectual dishonesty detestable; actually I see it as a kind of sophisticated lying. That's the 'academic' perspective.

I also have a social perspective which says, that faith is completely OK, as long as it STAYS on the grounds of what a faith is. A subjective, personal choice legitimate for everybody. Anyone transgressing the limits of personal choices and starting to interfere with other individuals or society, has lost his/her faith immunity and is to be considered as invasive.

There's a world of difference between offering and pushing (ands ofcourse with a grey zone also. But anyone on a public forum takes a risk of opposition).



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Well let's have the long answer then, as you would have it!



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


I believe we live in an evoutionary eternal recurrence, driven by a creative will ie: God, but that God is interwoven into the heart of reality (tangled hierarchy) from the point of an apex or an Absolute which is fully informed in eternity (Akasich Field or Zero Point Field) and self aware, having had all of eternity to do so, whereby the universe is an informational matrix ie: a mind. We then, as evolved, self aware byproducts of this evolutionary process, are the crown of creation, and as a "chip off the old block" are "made in the image of God".

For more, research the scientific works of:

Dave Bohm (holographic universe)
Carl Pibram (holographic mind)
Bernard Haisch (the God hypothesis)
Irvin Laszlo (Akashic Field)
Amit Goswami (monistic idealism and "the self aware universe")

That we are here, having a spiritual experience, included, proves that God can't NOT exist.

I am, this is, you are - therefore there is God.


edit on 13-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by graphuto
 


The versions of 'intelligent design' I'm familiar with are based on a regression of the positivistic theory of the Big Bang. ('Continuous creation' and zero-point physics thus disregarded for now).

In the Big Bang theory there is an 'event horizon', i.e. what's observable in a cosmic context, but it does imply the conclusion, that matter/energy and space/time are created with the Big Bang. Matter/energy and space/time (as we understand the concepts) being part of the cosmic fabric only.

The transition from the observed to the non-observed (which I'm most familiar with) is the quantum entaglement hypothesis resulting from the double-slit experiment. Indicating a trans-cosmic existence-level in a small and specific meaning. But not more.

Scientific considerations don't go further and any claims of them doing so don't come from science itself, but from hijacked 'science'.

At the transition-point from observed to non-observed 'logic' is the only rational tool for a continuation of a reasoning chain, in this case expressed through 'causality'. But as matter/energy and space/time no longer are reference-points (trans-cosmically), the causality-logic based on matter/energy and space/time (the one mankind knows) breaks down in a trans-cosmic context.

As in the standard versions of theist vs. 'rational' positions, what's trans-cosmic is anybody's guess. Here including the validity of trans-cosmic 'causality'. The 'intelligent design' concept being reduced to be another extension of 'agnostic' (~'we don't really know') positions.

Inversely the theist claims from highly structured complexity in cosmos are equally 'agnostic' from a rational perspective. The scientific starting-point is an ackowledgement of a basic observable structured order (already considered non-regressive on rational tems above). No use in returning to that, as I NOW am considering how complexity evolves. Take any initial structured conditions with dynamic qualities and let them combine and recombine into growing complexity. The endresult will be an outcome of those initial conditions, and while our cosmos manifests as it does, other cosmoses with other initial conditions would also manifest similarly complexity according to THEIR initial conditions.

That our cosmos gives rise to the specific astro-physical result we observe and to (at least) carbon-based biology simply means that that is the outcome of 'our' initial conditions. With other initial conditions complexity, such as self-organization, is possible, though again (both ways theist-rational) still another 'agnosticism'.



edit on 13-9-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by milkyway12
 


I believe we live in an evoutionary eternal recurrence, driven by a creative will ie: God, but that God is interwoven into the heart of reality (tangled hierarchy) from the point of an apex or an Absolute which is fully informed in eternity (Akasich Field or Zero Point Field) and self aware, having had all of eternity to do so, whereby the universe is an informational matrix ie: a mind. We then, as evolved, self aware byproducts of this evolutionary process, are the crown of creation, and as a "chip off the old block" are "made in the image of God".

For more, research the scientific works of:

Dave Bohm (holographic universe)
Carl Pibram (holographic mind)
Bernard Haisch (the God hypothesis)
Irvin Laszlo (Akashic Field)
Amit Goswami (monistic idealism and "the self aware universe")

That we are here, having a spiritual experience, included, proves that God can't NOT exist.

I am, this is, you are - therefore there is God.


edit on 13-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)


You've had a whole thread with this 'quantum religion' stuff and few of your steps there hold water, when scrutinized from somewhat competent perspectives.

But such details as having your cottage-industry hypothesis debunked counts ofcourse as nothing compared to the missionary zeal of spreading it. Not even the risk of being exposed as intellectually dishonest.

The common theist method: Ignore any kind of opposition, even if it turns out to be right, and try again as if nothing has happened. And you even claim to rely on scientific procedure...obviously not when it comes to establishing credibility.
edit on 13-9-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

I would like to add to that two things:

1) God as higher power (than self) "who's thoughts are, relative to our own, as high as the stars of the heavens are above the earth" (paraphrased), is valid, but;

2) In light of modern understanding, God as a separate entity (from self), is a primitive concept, and is patently absurd (unless we're dealing with an "agent" or a "demiurge" ie: not God).

By these two statements, and what I offered above, we might recognize a demarcation in man's evolving undersanding of, and relationship with, God - from the Old, to the New Testament of the Bible.


edit on 13-9-2011 by NewAgeMan because: addition



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Hey bogomil! Instead of chasing me from other threads and claiming that i have no cred, why not just reply to what I've offered in THIS thread and in that post in particular. What are YOUR thoughts about what I stated there? Thanks.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by bogomil
 


Hey bogomil! Instead of chasing me from other threads and claiming that i have no cred, why not just reply to what I've offered in THIS thread and in that post in particular. What are YOUR thoughts about what I stated there? Thanks.


That some of your thoughts and use of quantum physics are straight enough, but that you make the peculiar inclusion of 'god' into it without any seemingly reason except 'inductive similarity'; the bane of all theist hijackers.

You could even have gotten almost away with it, if you had considered the semantic nightmare connected with the concept/word 'god'. A word which is an open invitation to going off in 50 different, incompatible directions at the same time.

(PS Don't get any ideas about being 'chased'. I'm in general opposition to many of our resident missionaries, and all believe at one time or another, that I target on them).



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Time and the measuring of it is a human construct. It is a human creation. If god exists, and I don't think he does, he wouldn't be bound by the laws of a human construct. Anything is possible...we just don't know it yet.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by milkyway12
However , i have a simple question , is it not impossible for God Not to exist? How could that first particle form ? How could that first few particles form to create a chain reaction from a Void? Nothing is there , i dont understand how it just appears out of no where , when there is nothing there. Zip ... its a Void.


Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean "it must be god".



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


God has to exist, because evolution is false.

That's what i am sure of.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 

If we live in a self aware universe eminating from a fully informed Absolute in eternity - why not call that "God"..?



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 

God has to exist, because evolution is TRUE.

That's what i am sure of.

Ironic, isn't it, that we both are true believers, that Jesus Christ was/is God in the flesh, and the creative dynamic of love as the logos/word emobied-pesonified.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Sorry man, but you are not a true Christian if you believe in evolution. I suggest you read Genesis again.

May God show you the light of the demonic deception known as evolution.

My brother.
edit on 13-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Sorry man, but you are not a true Christian if you believe in evolution. I suggest you read Genesis again.

May God show you the light of the demonic deception known as evolution.

My brother.
edit on 13-9-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)


At least gen 1 and 2 are bosh, considered from a rational perspective of contemporary knowledge. Gen. 3 is the source of the most absurd religious dorctrine I've ever met, and rests on complete circle-argumentation.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join