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.

 

The Definition Of God

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
A recent conversation I had concerning God's regard of mankind helped me recall a question I read once: "What is God?" According to the person asking that question, there has been no satisfactory answer as to the precise nature of the being we call God. No one agrees on any one definition.

I'll paste here the part of the conversation that pertains:

"...There is a saying: 'Actions speak louder than words.' Mankind assumes that if one cares about someone or something, they take the time to make sure that someone or something is taken care of. The chaos and destruction we witness every day on this planet belies that concept, leading to the inevitable question of 'does He/She/It REALLY care?' I realize that the above proverb is related to human understanding, rather than a transcendant idea or capability, but how in the world are we going to define the true nature of God's regard if we cannot rely upon our own understandings? The simple answer: we can't.

But here's the problem with that. If we cannot define the true nature of God's regard for the life he has created...how can we trust those who have already defined it? How can we trust ANY definition of God's true nature? For in saying that the human mind is incapable of grasping or defining the true nature of any aspect of God, that would logically be extended to ALL aspects of God, thereby rendering Him/Her/It beyond our ken."

As much as you may hate to admit it (and by you, I mean the religious factions whose leaders claim to have a deep understanding of God) there is a powerful point in that argument. I find it difficult to believe that humans, who are at this point far from omnipotent and omniscient, could have anything more than a small grasp of God's true nature. And yet we assume to know exactly what He/She/It wants, and what He/She/It will do if He/She/It does not get it. In fact, we assume to know God's very personality. Now tell me...in all of our mythology, we have had only a slight idea of what each god and goddess is like. A short sentence's worth. All the rest are stories, and in those stories, we have been shown that gods and goddesses are fickle entities, strongly ruled by a wavering balance between wisdom and passion (which contradict each other on principle, I might add). How, then, can we know the exact desires and thoughts, and therefore the exact nature, of God?

Another point to raise is that a being that knows everything all the time would have a personality not exactly befitting of a human mind. We have no idea what such a thing would look like...but we pretend to. If insanity is not the obvious conclusion, then something far more than human is the next one. Clearly, we cannot apply any characteristic even REMOTELY human to something that ISN'T even remotely human. The very nature of human is to be imperfect, and ruled by instinct and desire. Is that God? Not according to our experts.

Essentially, every single means used by our experts and religious masters has had a human basis. We have used human standard, human definition, human understanding and human thought to define something that is NOT human. Is that meant to be accurate? If we were to use sound to define colors, would it be accurate? I have not met a single person, in real life or online, who can describe a color to a blind man who has never seen it and help him understand that color.

We are not godly. Every country and culture disagrees on what makes a god. So how can we define God?
edit on 13-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: spelling

edit on 13-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: revision




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
God is the Aether. YHWH was an Anunnaki space traveler. The Aether is sound. Sound is vibration. Everything is vibration.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:29 AM
link   
And... Yes. Yes we are godly. We are jealous, narcissistic, greedy, hateful, harsh, etc...



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by binkbonk
 


Wonderful illustration of the OP's point. How can people know what God wants if they can't agree on a definition? I've heard so many wild and imaginative definitions of this thing people call "God" that it means nothing. If something has 50,000 definitions, based on people's opinions and personal views, how can we possibly know what it is???

I think God is a human construct. An idea only. God was made by man in his image to provide some sort of answer to the eternal question: "Where do we come from and what's to happen to us next"?

.
edit on 1/13/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
God is the Aether. YHWH was an Anunnaki space traveler. The Aether is sound. Sound is vibration. Everything is vibration.


I think...I love you. Nah, just kidding. But seriously, you are one of very few people to hit one of the secrets of the universe squarely on the head. And by 'secrets of the universe', I'm talking about something that isn't widely known.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by binkbonk
 


Wonderful illustration of the OP's point. How can people know what God wants if they can't agree on a definition? I've heard so many wild and imaginative definitions of this thing people call "God" that it means nothing. If something has 50,000 definitions, based on people's opinions and personal views, how can we possibly know what it is???

I think God is a human construct. An idea only. God was made by man in his image to provide some sort of answer to the eternal question: "Where do we come from and what's to happen to us next"?

.
edit on 1/13/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



I'm going to say here that the nonexistence of God is statistically impossible. Math does not lie, as long as you have all of the necessary variables. The chances of our entire world and all of the biology forming as it did out of sheer chance is next to none. A chronic gambler would be terrified to take a bet on it. And if the construction of the universe is truly random...how is it that something as complex as the atom fits so well together? Are you telling me that the structure of the smallest collection of particles in the universe was purely coincidental? There are countless instances of a divine intelligence undeniably playing a part in the structure of our reality, as per the Law of Probability.

You are, of course, welcome to your own opinion. But I would love to hear your response.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: revision



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by FRATERPERDURABO
i'll just leave this here:

Enoch's message


inb4 DA FUQ


Also, that says absolutely nothing in response to the topic, except through vague references taken out of context.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: revision



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by binkbonk
 


then why not just use the word vibration when describing god?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by binkbonk
 


then why not just use the word vibration when describing god?


Because to describe God as vibration is to imply that all vibrations are sentient, or have the potential to be sentient. Also, because I'm not one of those people who decides to craft myself a clever sounding definition and tote it around like a high priest. This is a discussion that clarifies and refines the ideas being chewed on here for our own education and understanding, rather than taking one singular idea and declaring it to be truth because we think it is.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 
If the word that we referred to when speaking of god was instead, Vibration, then YHWH would have told everyone his name was Vibration... It's semantics



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 
If the word that we referred to when speaking of god was instead, Vibration, then YHWH would have told everyone his name was Vibration... It's semantics




Haha...I am so appreciative now of the person who revealed this: YHWH is Hebrew, and Hebrew just happens to be a pictographic language. Quite literally, the sequence of pictures representing the name YHWH are a hand, a nail, and the term 'to see'.

In essence, YHWH literally translates to "see the hand, see the nail."


edit: credit to chr0naut for this insight.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: revision



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The older I get the more difficult it becomes for me to believe God is who these religions say he is and what humans are constantly claiming. As the OP said we just can't understand it. There might be a mental block or something that is preventing us from connecting with it if it is there or even wants to speak to us. That's enough I have a headache whenever I speak of God.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Starchild23
 

Maybe he is calling himself the architect, or builder of the universe. Maybe he actually was, but his YHWH character was just an avatar?



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by binkbonk
reply to post by Starchild23
 

Maybe he is calling himself the architect, or builder of the universe. Maybe he actually was, but his YHWH character was just an avatar?



According to the Bible, that is how he identified himself. We are assuming it was his true form...although as I keep saying, the Bible is largely metaphor. The literal interpretation is for mankind as a baby race, the metaphorical is for mankind as an evolved and ascended race...for that is when we will be able to SEE it and understand it. "Milk for babes, meat for men," as the Bible says.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
I'm going to say here that the nonexistence of God is statistically impossible.


Define God and we can talk.
I kinda thought that was your point. How can you say, "Bilkadorn exists! I don't know what it is, but the chances that it doesn't exist are statistically impossible."

How can you discuss it with me if I haven't defined "Bilkadorn"??



The chances of our entire world and all of the biology forming as it did out of sheer chance is next to none.


How can you make that statement? With our limited knowledge, there is NO WAY we can say something like "God", which isn't defined, exists OR "I don't know how our universe formed, but it sure wasn't by chance"! (I'm not claiming it WAS by chance, but making definitive statements about the chances of something we have such limited knowledge about is probably not going to be taken seriously, except maybe by whose who share your opinion.)


And if the construction of the universe is truly random...how is it that something as complex as the atom fits so well together?


I'm not claiming that it is random. I'm claiming that we don't know enough to say.



Are you telling me that the structure of the smallest collection of particles in the universe was purely coincidental?


No. If you didn't read it in my post, I didn't say it.


There is NO EVIDENCE that God exists.
There is NO EVIDENCE that Bilkadorn exists.

Was the Universe created? Maybe...
Was it created by us? Perhaps.
Our collective consciousness? Maybe.
Could it be nature? Sure.
Was it random? Possibly...

We just don't know.

I would be very interested to hear you definition of God.


.
edit on 1/13/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Starchild23
I'm going to say here that the nonexistence of God is statistically impossible.


Define God and we can talk.
I kinda thought that was your point. How can you say, "Bilkadorn exists! I don't know what it is, but the chances that it doesn't exist are statistically impossible."

How can you discuss it with me if I haven't defined "Bilkadorn"??



The chances of our entire world and all of the biology forming as it did out of sheer chance is next to none.


How can you make that statement? With our limited knowledge, there is NO WAY we can say something like "God", which isn't defined, exists OR " don't know how our universe formed, but it sure wasn't by chance"! (I'm not claiming it WAS by chance, but making definitive statements about the chances of something we have such limited knowledge about is probably not going to be taken seriously, except maybe by whose who share your opinion.


And if the construction of the universe is truly random...how is it that something as complex as the atom fits so well together?


I'm not claiming that it is random. I'm claiming that we don't know enough to say.



Are you telling me that the structure of the smallest collection of particles in the universe was purely coincidental?



No. If you didn't read it in my post, I didn't say it.


There is NO EVIDENCE that God exists.
There is NO EVIDENCE that Bilkadorn exists.

Was the Universe created? Maybe...
Was it created by us? Perhaps.
Our collective consciousness? Maybe.
Could it be nature? Sure.
Was it random? Possibly...

We just don't know.

I would be very interested to hear you definition of God.


I like you. You're funny.

I don't have a definition for God. As for your "statistically impossible" argument, I never specified anything. The exact term is "divine intelligence". That could be a lot of things...it's only limited by what we apply the description to. For instance, the term "Presidential Candidate" or the title "Principle" can apply to anything we want it to, across dozens of organizations and countries.

"Chances are next to none". OMG, how can I say that?! ...Mathematics, that's bloody well how. Try Googling it. Don't try to refute what dozens of highly renowned mathematicians have proved through very reliable formulas. Try reading "More Than A Carpenter" by Josh McDowell.

Oh...oh. I get it. You're either atheist or agnostic. Well, good luck defining and predicting the miracles around you through algorithms of pure chance and impossible odds. We just must have been that friggin' lucky, eh mate?


See ya



edit on 13-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: revision



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
I'm going to say here that the nonexistence of God is statistically impossible.




I don't have a definition for God.




So, let me see if I have this right... the nonexistence of something you can't define is statistically impossible...

Wow... That's heavy.


If you don't have a definition of God, then what do you mean in the sentence above? How can you use a word you have no definition of???


The exact term is "divine intelligence". That could be a lot of things...


Yeah... Kind of like the word "God"...



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23

So how can we define God?
edit on 13-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: spelling

edit on 13-1-2012 by Starchild23 because: revision


covenant implementing angels is cool.
one love.one master.one god.one seed.one blood.one covenant.one medjugorge.one explanation.one husband.
144,000 wives.
look for me under the stone of the faith and all will be revealed.they will have stopped you from lifting that stone. then see GOD.
find me.
find GOD.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




Let me explain something: a very, very unlikely event that is so detailed and immaculately designed has a much greater chance of happening on purpose than by pure coincidence. The Law of Probability determines this.

Half of your argument is in saying that something that cannot be defined cannot exist. I didn't say it couldn't be defined. I said WE could not define it. But there is evidence of it everywhere. If I were to wake up one morning and see a bunch of blue footprints all over the house (floor, walls, ceiling) but not know where they came from, I have undeniable evidence that SOMETHING was in my house, but I cannot define what it was because I don't have enough knowledge of it.

Now, let's presume that it left behind rips in the very fabric of reality itself, as well as reversing time so I woke up two weeks before I went to sleep. Not only am I unable to define it physically, other than that it has feet-like appendages, I am also unable to discern its precise nature, because it most likely comes from beyond what we earthlings are familiar with.

My point here is lack of specific definition does not equate with lack of existence. Evidence defines the capability, but not the nature...especially not when the capabilities are beyond the natural order of anything we can readily identify and examine.

Come at me bro.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join