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: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
Half of your argument is in saying that something that cannot be defined cannot exist.


That is not my argument. YOU said God exists and you cannot define it except in very illusive terms that don't really mean anything. I don't have any problem with "woo-woo". I meditate and believe in more than the physical, but it's a personal belief and I understand that. I have no interest in people agreeing with me or sharing my beliefs. Nor do I need to have proper nouns like "God" to talk about it.

My resistance comes from the fact that man has now redefined God to mean something that is a little easier to believe in than a big bearded man sitting up in the clouds watching over us... Some people call it a force, some call it The Source, some call it Divine Creator... The list goes on and on. But not ONE can tell me what they mean. No one agrees. Each individual has his or her own interpretation and vision of what this "god" thing is and the only thing they agree on is if you don't believe in it, you're wrong


Yes, I'm an atheist. I opened this thread in hopes of seeing some actual definitions, but alas...



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.


But if you were born and raised in a house that had blue footprints all overt the walls, would you wake up one morning and consider it undeniable evidence of the presence of something else?

It's not like you're waking up one day and seeing all this new evidence of something having been here. Whatever "evidence" you use for God's existence has been here since the beginning of mankind. I'm interested in what that evidence is, though.




My point here is lack of specific definition does not equate with lack of existence.


I can agree with that. I just think if you're going to say that "GOD" exists, you should be able to tell me what GOD is. You don't have to give a bunch of details, but is it an energy? A being? An entity? You seem to think it's sentient... How do you know this?



Come at me bro.


Make that 'sis'.




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You make some valid points; I will admit that the arguments regarding the exact meaning of God are fuzzy at best. But I think we are looking for the same thing here.

My definition of God is simply this: energy. God is energy, which means everything is God. Rather unspecific, isn't it? I was hoping to see what others thought, so that I might be able to include other perspectives, as I am not arrogant in assuming my perspective is the right one.

However, I was also suggesting, for the sake of argument, that perhaps the human mind is INCAPABLE of grasping the exact nature of God. Why? Because even though God is, to my understanding, energy...I suspect God exists on more than one plane of existence, more than one dimension or reality. Which means that my definition is only valid as concerns one facet of God, and that the rest of God is beyond our science.

Thus, my search for other views.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Ah...you're a girl. Makes no difference to me, although I find argumentatively intelligent females very intriguing. But one to another point you made. You questioned my implication that there is a sentience...and why I think there is a God in our world.

The answer is simple: explosions do not automatically build things. They destroy them. Hence, the Big Bang theory is flawed. Besides that, the intricate structure of everything naturally occurring around you happened through two possible ways: either something guided the growth of our world, or the materials of our world came with the design.

Ok, if matter came with the design to become animals and trees, does that not mean that there is an intelligence that CREATED that design? Such complex things are not written by chance.

There you have it. The only way for an intricately detailed design to be created is by something that understands the design. The odds are too great for it to be random...which is supported, as I said, by the Law of Probability.

Here's some reading material, mademoiselle.

blogs.plos.org...



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

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

Enoch's message




wow, when i saw the thread i was going to reply until i scrolled down read a few comments and then clicked this link, through this website u can find everything i was pretty much going to say. thank you for the link, it taught me more of the knowledge i am discovering right now. god is love, we are all parts of god creating ourselves anew.

an easy way to put it..lots of people think god is some higher power, but the best way i can describe it is we are all pieces of god, we are just in an illusion that we are not and god is something else. now people seem to have to believe that there is some sort of higher better power, but what they mistake is god is not a higher power himself, and we are not lower beings, he is just in a higher state of awareness. he/she is life and knows what he/she is and therefor is at a higher level. where as we have the same potential but are not at the same awareness level, we are in an illusion that we are something else. if your curious to learn where these ideas came from or learn more about the subject or in general become more spiritually aware and find your self. use the "enoch" link he posted, that website contains a lot. or the way i first opened my mind to all of this is through "friendship with god" by Neale Donald Walshe



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Starchild23
Half of your argument is in saying that something that cannot be defined cannot exist.


That is not my argument. YOU said God exists and you cannot define it except in very illusive terms that don't really mean anything. I don't have any problem with "woo-woo". I meditate and believe in more than the physical, but it's a personal belief and I understand that. I have no interest in people agreeing with me or sharing my beliefs. Nor do I need to have proper nouns like "God" to talk about it.

My resistance comes from the fact that man has now redefined God to mean something that is a little easier to believe in than a big bearded man sitting up in the clouds watching over us... Some people call it a force, some call it The Source, some call it Divine Creator... The list goes on and on. But not ONE can tell me what they mean. No one agrees. Each individual has his or her own interpretation and vision of what this "god" thing is and the only thing they agree on is if you don't believe in it, you're wrong


Yes, I'm an atheist. I opened this thread in hopes of seeing some actual definitions, but alas...



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.


But if you were born and raised in a house that had blue footprints all overt the walls, would you wake up one morning and consider it undeniable evidence of the presence of something else?

It's not like you're waking up one day and seeing all this new evidence of something having been here. Whatever "evidence" you use for God's existence has been here since the beginning of mankind. I'm interested in what that evidence is, though.




My point here is lack of specific definition does not equate with lack of existence.


I can agree with that. I just think if you're going to say that "GOD" exists, you should be able to tell me what GOD is. You don't have to give a bunch of details, but is it an energy? A being? An entity? You seem to think it's sentient... How do you know this?



Come at me bro.


Make that 'sis'.





God is Life. easiest way i can put for you.



posted on Jan, 24 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Starchild23
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The answer is simple: explosions do not automatically build things. They destroy them. Hence, the Big Bang theory is flawed. Besides that, the intricate structure of everything naturally occurring around you happened through two possible ways: either something guided the growth of our world, or the materials of our world came with the design.

Ok, if matter came with the design to become animals and trees, does that not mean that there is an intelligence that CREATED that design? Such complex things are not written by chance.

There you have it. The only way for an intricately detailed design to be created is by something that understands the design. The odds are too great for it to be random...which is supported, as I said, by the Law of Probability.



While I can agree with you in the idea that the big bang theory is or may be flawed, I don't agree with your reasoning. Making the assumption that it could not have lead to what we have today by basing your thoughts on what we do know of explosions that are comparably so minute is a bit short sighted. We have such a tiny understanding of our universe personally I can't see how someone can simply write it off as a possibility.

We do not understand how things could have come to be. While the idea of something guiding things as and explanation of the incredible things in our universe is a possibility it is not the only one. If I may point out that using the law of probability to show the reasoning for your argument is flawed as well. The primary reason being we haven't a clue as to all of the variables involved in order to make a proper equation to do the math. Anyone that uses that argument without acknowledging that simple fact is using a faulty argument for proof of what they believe is a faulty argument.

What we can do without question is make assumptions. Some of those assumptions may be correct, but until the variables are known we are left to assume that we know enough to say that we are correct. I personally dont believe in a creator or god. But, unlike many I also cannot say with absolute certainty I am correct.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join