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: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

. . .I believe that Jesus was/is the Godhead, . . .
This is probably off topic but I don't think that is even a word. I know people talk about it as if there is such a thing but it seems to be one of these things that Bible version publishers will throw into every Bible so they can sell them to Church going Christians but it really is not even a New Testament word in the Greek. I know this may sound really weird but there just isn't.
edit on 13-9-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


“Future bliss can neither be imagined, explained, nor described. We know nothing of its nature, form, greatness, or beauty, its quantity or quality. This much one should know, the phrase, "the world to come," does not imply that it is a world yet to be called into existence; it exists already, but the phrase is employed to describe the life into which those who are in the present stage of existence will be transposed when they throw off this mortal coil.”

You would probably enjoy my blog.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 

The fact that your username is "NewAgeman" is a warning sign of a false prophet in its own.
By what measure of Judgement do you proclaim him to be a false prophet?
There is a "god of this age" who is the equivalent of Satan. If you belong to this age, you are of Satan.



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


“Future bliss can neither be imagined, explained, nor described. We know nothing of its nature, form, greatness, or beauty, its quantity or quality. This much one should know, the phrase, "the world to come," does not imply that it is a world yet to be called into existence; it exists already, but the phrase is employed to describe the life into which those who are in the present stage of existence will be transposed when they throw off this mortal coil.”

You would probably enjoy my blog.


Existence is not something you can learn by examination.

Existence is something that can only be known by experiencing it.

The ego acts against consciousness/existence. This identification mechanism is constantly associating itself with material things in an effort to determine what it is in absolute. That is where self-conflict comes from, because the activity of the ego to 'know' itself is actually a lost cause. No activity is necessary to know existence. What needs to happen is the cessation of mental activity which comes from the ego. At the cessation of the ego, the activity stops, and then your eternal presence can be observed. Only then can it be known.

That is what inner knowing is. It is how you know something without using your mind. You don't look for information, information comes to you, through you.
edit on 13-9-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2011 @ 10:00 PM
link   
My answer to is there a God is: 1.

If everything exists and came from nothing, then 1. If it doesn't and all is imagined, then 1.

0 is absence of quantity, 1 is something.

Take that 1, suppose it is the first particle or wave, where did it originate? SOMETHING made a decision, and with all physical laws violated, became more than 1. That SOMETHING is 1.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by RevelationGeneration
 


It's not occult if the truth of God's love through Jesus Christ is proclaimed and made known. Your fruits are also. apparent. The heart of a man is usually pretty obvious, as is the heart of Christ yes the fruits are obvious. Don't assume based on my name, that I am not advocating for preparation for something that by it's very nature will not come by expectation.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I make no assumptions but your name is very telling.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Wow , thanks for all the replies! I will read them ASAP and get caught up , i have class this morning unfortunatly.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You wrote:

["The presence of the observer collapses the wave function by causing a leap in the basis states of indeterminate probability."]

That's not exactly what you said last time, but in any case your interpretation and use of it is still wrong.

Quote: ["This is the choice that causes the system to evolve again a different direction"]

No, it's the manifested option, not a 'choice', which decides the outcome. Schroedinger didn't operate with choices.

Quote: ["Current insight into String theory confirms Schrödinger's observations and also confirms that the observer changes the state of matter."]

No-one has denied Schroedinger's theories. It's your misuse of them, which is the issue.

Quote: ["Obviously matter also affects the state of the observer."]

Yes.

Quote: ["BUT (and this is a big but), matter cannot defy information entropy apart from consciousness. Consciousness pre-exists matter. Matter is the fabric of consciousness."]

That's what you intend to prove. Do so instead of just promoting an assumption to a 'truth'.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
There never was a void and there never will be.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Personally, I believe that intelligent life itself is proof for the existence of God.



If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then both Big Banging and zero-point physics are wrong. On what information do you alternatively base your opinion?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


I make no assumptions but your name is very telling.


Both relating to this post and former posts, I must regretfully inform you, that you ARE making assumptions regularly. Some of them rather fatal for your argumentation.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





["The presence of the observer collapses the wave function by causing a leap in the basis states of indeterminate probability."]

That's not exactly what you said last time, but in any case your interpretation and use of it is still wrong.


As always, you make a statement with no context or thought behind the statement. Follow my lead and back your thoughts up with context so we know why you say what you say.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 





Quote: ["This is the choice that causes the system to evolve again a different direction"]

No, it's the manifested option, not a 'choice', which decides the outcome. Schroedinger didn't operate with choices.


If you bother to read about the collapse of wave function, you may come to have a moment of Peripeteia. LINK

"The significance ascribed to the wave function varies from interpretation to interpretation, and varies even within an interpretation (such as the Copenhagen Interpretation). If the wave function merely encodes an observer's knowledge of the universe then the wave function collapse corresponds to the receipt of new information. This is somewhat analogous to the situation in classical physics, except that the classical "wave function" does not necessarily obey a wave equation. If the wave function is physically real, in some sense and to some extent, then the collapse of the wave function is also seen as a real process, to the same extent."

The main mistake anyone makes is to ascribe quantum mechanics to a theory. Instead, we need to ascribe theory to an interpretations of quantum mechanics. That's all anyone can do at this point in our understand of the subject. LINK


edit on 14-9-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 


You wrote:

["The main mistake anyone makes is to ascribe quantum mechanics to a theory. Instead, we need to ascribe theory to an interpretations of quantum mechanics. That's all anyone can do at this point in our understand of the subject."]

Sure. But your interpretation is one of the most irrational ones I've seen for a long time, so I prefer to stay with more sound and competent methodologies and models.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by SuperiorEd
reply to post by bogomil
 





["The presence of the observer collapses the wave function by causing a leap in the basis states of indeterminate probability."]

That's not exactly what you said last time, but in any case your interpretation and use of it is still wrong.


As always, you make a statement with no context or thought behind the statement. Follow my lead and back your thoughts up with context so we know why you say what you say.



For anyone with a real knowledge of the subject, my 'context' stands out in neon-letters.

And I have already twice pointed the context-issue out.

I'm not here to run evening classes in basic science.
edit on 14-9-2011 by bogomil because: addition



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by smithjustinb
There never was a void and there never will be.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.

Personally, I believe that intelligent life itself is proof for the existence of God.



If energy is neither created nor destroyed, then both Big Banging and zero-point physics are wrong. On what information do you alternatively base your opinion?


My [opinion] that energy is neither created nor destroyed?

That's the law of conservation of energy.

Do you mean, what alternative do I propose instead of the big bang and zero-point energy?

I believe the first thing in creation is infinity. I don't believe in zero.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


May I commend you for giving a relevant answer on subjects as this, (I'm not exactly used to recieving such).

And focusing on your basis (your last line)....fair enough. While both Big Banging and zero-point physics have much speaking for them, they don't have SO much, that either of the models reasonably can be said to be THE ultimate answer (as it stands now).

So out of curiousity, is your model something similar to (possibly even identical with) theories like continuous creation. I must make it clear, that this question isn't a semantic trap, because your direction is authentic and has several interesting scientific and theological implications.

But first the continuous creation. Both Fred Hoyle (steady state) and Hawking retracted their versions, so you must refer to something else.

But on the assumption of a steady state/continuous creation, the law of conservation of energy is correct.

Theologically this raises some interesting points. With no 'zero', as you call it, a transcendent, non-cosmic 'god' would not be an option, but if I understand you, there could be some variety of panteism as a description of existence.

I would welcome some detailed comments from you.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


May I commend you for giving a relevant answer on subjects as this, (I'm not exactly used to recieving such).

And focusing on your basis (your last line)....fair enough. While both Big Banging and zero-point physics have much speaking for them, they don't have SO much, that either of the models reasonably can be said to be THE ultimate answer (as it stands now).

So out of curiousity, is your model something similar to (possibly even identical with) theories like continuous creation. I must make it clear, that this question isn't a semantic trap, because your direction is authentic and has several interesting scientific and theological implications.

But first the continuous creation. Both Fred Hoyle (steady state) and Hawking retracted their versions, so you must refer to something else.

But on the assumption of a steady state/continuous creation, the law of conservation of energy is correct.

Theologically this raises some interesting points. With no 'zero', as you call it, a transcendent, non-cosmic 'god' would not be an option, but if I understand you, there could be some variety of panteism as a description of existence.

I would welcome some detailed comments from you.



Well. Honestly, all I have to offer is speculation.

God is the source.

Everything moves towards this source and away from this source.

In infinity is the unmanifest formlessness of all that is and all that can be. It has within it, the existence of creation before creation ever appears. That is consciousness.

Everything that comes out of infinity maintains its connection with infinity by its existence (consciousness). There is no separation from infinity. At the root of creation is pure existence.

Energy is neither created nor destroyed because it is a part of that infinite existence which always is everything that is or can be.

God is the source. God is part of the system. I'm inclined to say continuous progression rather than continuous creation. That is because energy is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes from one form to another. Therefore, there is no creation. There is only progression.

Progression towards the only source with an infinite range of polarities. Infinity itself.
edit on 14-9-2011 by smithjustinb because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


It was more like a theological statement, than the science/logic inclusion I had hoped for.

But being sensible about it you presented it as speculation, so I take it as such. Speculations are not without value.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


It was more like a theological statement, than the science/logic inclusion I had hoped for.

But being sensible about it you presented it as speculation, so I take it as such. Speculations are not without value.


Imagine infinity as a number line going on and on in all directions. The numbers themselves are part of the number line, but they each define a finite quantity of their own. The number line itself has contact with each of the finite quantities while maintaining its existence as the number line.

In infinity is all there is. All there is is from infinity.

Now the thing about this number line is there is always some form of polarity no matter what the quantity is. So the quantity, 2, has a polarity of 1 and 3. 4 has a polarity of 2 and 6 AND 1 and 5.

So with infinity, there is an infinite range of polarities. Infinite potentials. Every flow requires a source and a path. Infinity is the source for all numbers, not zero.

In our case, intelligence is the path and existence is the source for that intelligence. Given the fact that we are part of this universe, then we can assume that that is the case for the rest of it as well.

Infinite existence to infinite intelligence gives you infinite progression. The ultimate polarities for this universe. God.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join