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.

 

A theory of proof of a God

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   


any objective fact about reality science finds thus far does not conflict with the possibility of a creator,


Sorry, you cant create that which yourself requires to exist. You made a self-refuting argument... And it's not relevant if man can build sky scrapers, if ants can build tunnels, or if some entity can induce a big bang.. None of them can create reality itself (existence), or exist without cause. Neither of them can magically go get "nothing" to which doesn't exist, and magically make something from it.. Self-refuting arguments are dismissed all on their own by the natural consequence of their arguments. And that is exactly what you deposited. Now if you wanted to say I can dismiss the possibility of an entity, or even an entire species of entities being capable of inducing a big bang, then I would agree as it's just a matter of physics. After all, we to have created light from a vacuum, and could possibly have already created other universes unknowingly in particle collisions. Many Physicists even suggest we could at some point intentionally make other Universes.

So what you call GOD is subjective, and it can't compete with the Pantheist GOD to which entirely makes the concept of GOD moot. You can't move the GOD goal post any higher or further than Existence itself. Once you get to that point, it becomes moot. So unless you want to call me and everyone else here GOD, it's moot!




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



"Where did you get that reasoning from? Energy and capacity are the same, and you can't have a zero capacity. "

I dont get what you mean,,,,, Is there the same amount of energy in the universe now,, as there is...............................................


right now,,.,..,.,

and how about compared to 100 years ago,,,,,,,,,

if it is the same amount,,,, then its a finite amount right? also considering it cant go on forever if anything its a declining finite amount right? yet it will all still eternally be contained within whatever "universe" is...

if it is a different amount from hundred years ago or hundred seconds ago,,, where did the additional energy come from?

you love to condescendingly insult,,, but im just trying to chat,,, so i would appreciate if its not to much of a burden for you,, if you could try and help me understand the way you see the answers to these questions,,



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


"That's great, I wasn't.. My definition is all inclusive and doesn't matter if there are billions of universes, or places within Existence"


if there are other universe,,,,, how can ares be infinite if it cannot take up the space the other universes reside in,,,or create the things other universe can,,,..,,..,,..,

im sure this is about definitions of the word infinite ,,,,,, do you just mean by infinite,,, unmeasurable,,,, or non repeating number,?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


"Closed systems can only exist within other systems. Hence, capacity and volume of the entire system "existence" is infinite."

ok,,, i see what our saying,,,,, if there are things outside the universe,,, those things exist,,, as well as the universe,,,, if the universe is a microchip in gods computer,,, god and gods computer are physical systems which also exist in the greatest definition of reality,,all that is real,,, all that exists,,,

everything that exists must be part of a system,, allowing its existence,,,, even if we cant measure it,, it is measurable in relation to other things,,,even if it doesnt appear physical,,, the fact that it exists,, means there must be a subtle substructure which allows something that appears and manifests,, to appear and manifest....



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


"now you're trying to get into physics questions asking for answers in how something works in terms of physics. This which isn't relevant to my point or the context of my argument. Existence itself governs the physics, and the answer is going to be quantized irregardless.."

ok like richard feynman and magnets,,,,,.. ok so your argument existence governs physics,,, its a self governing system,,,, energy is all,,,, all is energy,,,, so energy is what works out physics? or physics is what happens to energy working? energy doesnt know what its doing,,, its being done? by other energy and whatever form it happens to be in? so is the universe a never ending self solving physical math equation? I just dont get what actually made the energy "desiree" or defaultly form into the observable universe,,, I get how,, if energy/existence is blind chance,, senseless purpose less energy,,, how it is organized,, stable,, systematic,, and makes sense...... I dont get how it did something so awesome if it is such sloppy dumb chaos,,,,



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

I dont get what you mean,,,,, Is there the same amount of energy in the universe now,, as there is...............................................


You need to be more specific because your question doesn't make sense. It's almost if you're asking me if a glass figurine that is getting bigger, is it getting more sand from the infinite pile of sand... The question is irrelevant "/



right now,,.,..,.,

and how about compared to 100 years ago,,,,,,,,,


Again not really relevant :/ ... When dealing with infinite values such as discussed, it's basically an internal expansion within existence itself. Think of it like a single bubble expanding in an infinitely large bubble bath. It can expand till it pops and even get replaced by another bubble. I am curious though..did you read my example regarding the analogy of the brick in regards to capacity and volume?



if it is the same amount,,,, then its a finite amount right?


An atom has a finite amount of energy, but it comes from an infinite resource capable of interfering with itself to produce the atom...The atom is still a literal part of the infinite volume of energy, and there is no actual loss or gain of energy..It's just energy formed into and different state such as the atom.



if it is a different amount from hundred years ago or hundred seconds ago,,, where did the additional energy come from?


Expansion only gives you the impression of adding energy to the over all system when it's not. It's like asking why a wave on the surface of the water is expanding or why there are ocean currents in the system. It's essentially energy interfering with itself. And it's a good thing it can do this since we wouldn't be here if it couldn't. So there is no adding of energy, it comes from itself. It's an internal expansion like a bubble to where the bubble itself is apart of the energy volume.



you love to condescendingly insult,,, but im just trying to chat,,, so i would appreciate if its not to much of a burden for you,, if you could try and help me understand the way you see the answers to these questions,,


No intention to be condescending..I am merely being direct my friend. Hence, I am cutting to the chase and skipping over the fluff and getting directly to the overall point.. :/ .. And this discussion is about "GOD", and so I outlined why the concept is moot. Even everything I discussed about energy ect is not even relevant to the base point made to which makes the concept of GOD entirely moot. At the end of the Day, you owe your existence entirely to existence itself. There is no other source origin, no other possible "first cause", or other total governance of everything. So essentially pantheists would win the theology contest on the concept of GOD, and science would be correct that the natural laws of existence itself governs everything, and produces everything from itself. Thus the only true first cause, uncaused cause, and eternal element is existence itself. Existence is Causality, and any argument otherwise will be in futility since you would require existence to even have the ability to make an argument at all. And that is simply an absolute fact. :/ I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm stating an unarguable point


edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   

edit on 26-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   

its a self governing system,,,, energy is all,,,, all is energy,,,, so energy is what works out physics? or physics is what happens to energy working? energy doesnt know what its doing,,


It doesn't need to know.. Does it need to know what it's doing when making rain, or snowflakes? How much might I ask do you understand physics or even Chaos theory? Can you tell me where energy must need to know how to make a snowflake? Anyways, if you take the time, look up the secret life of chaos, and the secret life of Ice.. Very interesting videos.. Energy reacts with itself and is more than capable of self-organizing into higher complex. And giving that consciousness can't exist without cause, or the inertia of information itself, you're kind of begging the question giving that we can ask:

How does information know to produce a cognitive system capable of achieving a conscious state of just a mere flea vs something on our own level.., or much less the level of what some people are arguing applicable to a GOD..? I remember asking a friend who thought consciousness had no complexity and was the simplest answer.. I then asked him to build me a conscious robotic dog. Well, that quickly turned into trying to figure out what would be needed and required to support such a thing, and that really got complicated. Especially when I can easily demonstrate how easy it is to make unconscious things like a tree house, or just a pile of dirt from a another pile of dirt. I don't have to go too deep into information science and theory to do those things.. But once you start trying to get into cognitive systems theory, it becomes abundantly clear why consciousness is an emergent property of various processes and can't exist without a tremendous amount of cause. Hence, it's not so simple! It's far more complicated and involved than the mere basics of life, or reactionary systems since cognitive systems require a much more complex adaptive system with feedback to which also requires a very complex system to take in and process feedback within a system, and take in and process external information to the cognitive system itself.
edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 




"Sorry, you cant create that which yourself requires to exist. You made a self-refuting argument..." And it's not relevant if man can build sky scrapers, if ants can build tunnels, or if some entity can induce a big bang.. None of them can create reality itself (existence), or exist without cause."

that i will agree with,,, anything that exists or can exist can exist,, if something is real and exists it exists,,nothing can not exist,,,,you are arguing that existence of something is primal and so anything that arises is on the same level as the primal existence because existence exists or something like that,,,, i agree,,,, what exists must exist,,,, but i thought we were arguing about whether or not there may be a creator of this universe, i dont care much of the implications,, more so its interesting to think about if true,,, also i lied the implications are pretty interesting,,,,, so a creator could exist in other ways unimaginable to us, and not depend on this universe and is physical laws in order to create this universe,, you believe that is false because you believe this universe is the truest expression of true reality,, and that this universe is existence naturally expressing itself,,,, i am merely saying this universe and all our perceivable reality could be not the original formats,, size/scale and aspects and rules of reality, ,, nature could be completly contrived compared to the true reality they were manifest in,,,,,



"So what you call GOD is subjective, and it can't compete with the Pantheist GOD to which entirely makes the concept of GOD moot. You can't move the GOD goal post any higher or further than Existence itself. Once you get to that point, it becomes moot. So unless you want to call me and everyone else here GOD, it's moot!"

hmm,,, im just trying to think about what reality and the universe can be all about,,,, the pantheist GOD concept makes the concept of GOD moot in that,,, we observe the pantheist GOD and it is in disarray and out of control of itself? and it couldnt have created itself? or more appropriately dissected itself? what if the pre big bang state was god,,, and god was all knowing,,, aware of its infinite energy/existence and potential,,, in that pre state it had the possibility for you me hitler and every rat and maggot and alien and car and apple pie,,,, so it literally was connected and together everything that could ever be,,.,.,., my view of a creator or god,,,, is more robotic or computer like,,,, that found itself existing without understanding how it came to be or know its past or creator,,,, and so it fashioned this universe,,, mixed with pantheistic view,,,, so that it could experience anti perfection,, or what we know as animal,,,,,, controlled weaving of chaos ,,, to make loose order,,,, the only way to have the concept of freedom,,,, to make an eternal environment for creations to arise and experience,,,be something unique for a while,,,,, because as well as existence being primal,,, there is also a mechanistic theme of the universe,,,, in order for there to be order and measurement,, structure and stability,, and consistency,,, there must be repeating patterns,,, cycles,,, repetition,,,, motion,,,,, rhythm through time,,,, all the biological life nature has created is highly technologically complex,,, in terms of the many parts working in tendon,, and it all being made of the tiniest constituents,,, making a complexly simple controllable body,,,, what we are are robotic computer,,,,, our robots and computers are models of themes of the universe,,,, of what energy and existence is capable of,,,,, i know im not explaing how i see that too well,,,, but do you catch the drift at all? like the themes of cause and effect,,, and quantity,,, and measurement,,, and time,,, and patterns,,, its whats behind anything that exists,,,, and existing is about lasting,,,, more then a picosecond,,, so stable structures formed to be non chaos,,,, to be ordered,,,,,,,



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 



"When dealing with infinite values such as discussed, it's basically an internal expansion within existence itself. Think of it like a single bubble expanding in an infinitely large bubble bath. It can expand till it pops and even get replaced by another bubble. I am curious though..did you read my example regarding the analogy of the brick in regards to capacity and volume? "

ok yea i dont really get it,,,,, what you mean by infinite values...

in your example with the infinitly large bubble bath ,,, what do you mean by infinitely large? that if we did have a tool of measurement.,,,, say light and the speed of it,,,,,, that this bath would go on in all dimensions and directions for 99889989898998989998928^89889999987898 light years? I know infinite really implies numbers infinitely larger then the one i gave but thats the idea your presenting?,,,,, if the bubble is the extent of our physical universe,,,, do you view there being the idea we agreed upon as being infinite space surrounding the physical universe? and this space,,, because it "exists?" is closely related to the nature of the physical bubbling universe? and the physical bubble of universe is also infinite because? ( as we are viewing it in a moment of now it will grow larger of a bubble and eventually pop into the infinite space,, becoming as infinite as the infinite space and infinite as existence always is?)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   
I think there's a difference between some thing being observed and some thing being created, though having a common vibratory denominator. First something needs to be created in order to then be observed. The created vibrates at primary levels, manifested through thought and word - as was when God *said* and the observed, already created move when responding to the consciousness or intent behind the word/thought and by the virtue of their energetic makeup in relation to how they interface with the laws of physics.




Originally posted by LightSource
Hi-

So the other day I was on here and I read a thread and watched a video on the double slit experiment which was amazing. It basically says that matter acts as a wave when not observed and in the act of observing it then acts as "normal" matter. Here is the link to the short 5 minute video.

www.youtube.com...

So my thought on the whole thing is that if matter does not act like matter unless it is "observed" then the universe was not created until it was "observed". Now I don't go to church however, I do believe in God or something to that effect. In the bible when God said "let there be light" and there was light, and that there was nothing before "God" then the universe became the universe when "God" became "aware" (I guess that would be my thought on it). Anyhow, i'm not saying that the bible is right but I do feel that this experiment shows that matter does not act like matter unless it is observed and is proof that our universe was formed out of someone one or something observing it.

edit on 26-7-2012 by rootbranch2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


"So unless you want to call me and everyone else here GOD, it's moot"

i think you are more god then you are what you think you are


what i mean by this is there are a lot of things about you,,, including you that are determined by nature,,, your instincts,,, everything you think,,, your behaviors and desirees are all determined by nature,,, and in that pantheistic view,,, if nature is god,,,,, then you are one of endless flowering expressions of it,



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   

you are arguing that existence of something is primal and so anything that arises is on the same level as the primal existence because existence exists or something like that,,,, i agree,,,, what exists must exist,,,, but i thought we were arguing about whether or not there may be a creator of this universe,


Firstly, this is not what I was discussing. 2ndly, even if some entity induced a big bang, it can't literally create a universe as it would, like us, take from what already exists and making something out of it. Fundamentally, it's conceptually no different than man building a sky scraper. Man has to take what already exists to make a sky scraper. A painter can't literally create their paints, or the canvus to paint on..Hence, they have to make them from something that already exists. And that is as good as the concept of "creationism" can ever get. And this alone is contradictory to religion since religion likes to claim that their deity created "everything"... I even have theists trying to tell me GOD created time..., and that he exists outside of time.. Well I then ask when before time did this god create time, and does this GOD exist then, now, ever, or will it in the future? Hence, most of theology is self-refuting. And that is why it's so easily dismissed.

Now this doesn't stop people from worshiping things as GOD. Even though existence itself makes the concept moot, there is still the fact that the concept of GOD is still an concept of pure opinion. Opinion to the point where everything and anything can be considered a GOD. This to which means all things are GOD's, and that goes right back to existence itself being GOD and everything in and of existence is of GOD and thus GOD. Or that opinion alone can state that there isn't any such thing as GOD and that nothing in and of existence can be considered a GOD or GOD's. Thus again making the concept of GOD entirely moot. Yep it's moot no matter which way you go. And oddly, the only non-contradicting position is that there is no GOD since such a position doesn't have to violate it's position to invalidate another like position such as when Theists have to become Atheists when contemplating another supposed GOD's existence in another religion.. So when I ask a Christian if they believe existence exists, and then ask them if they believe the Pantheist GOD exists, it gets really interesting. Especially when they are arguing for monotheism, and that their GOD must be of existence. It gets more obvious when I simply ask:



What is GOD without Existence?


And the debate ends.. So I am not arguing about the possibility of this Universe that which came from a big bang was induced by some intelligent source. I am going straight to source origin of everything by apply infinite regress to get a Universal Set of All Sets. And no conscious entity can solve infinite regress.
..



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

then you are one of endless flowering expressions of it,


Yep, I am literally a part of existence.. I am an expression of existence.. We are all conscious representatives of existence itself and it's the only way it can be. We can't exist or be outside of existence, or be of non-existence and be here.. So the answer is obvious
You and me, are literally existence having this discussion with itself.
That is the jaw dropping thing about this regardless of our individual unique characters. Hence just because a to works of glass art can come from the same pile of sand doesn't mean each of those isn't unique in their own way.


And if you are looking for an answer on purpose and meaning.. Well, to exist is to have purpose and meaning by consequence of existence regardless of what state or form that is.

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


So it is indeed as simple as "E" (existence).

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


"It doesn't need to know.. Does it need to know what it's doing when making rain, or snowflakes? How much might I ask do you understand physics or even Chaos theory? "

dont know too much,,,, but i think i see all about it with your rain reference,,,,,,, because this happened and this happened and this happened,,,, rain happened,,,,, because rain happened this happened,,, its the presence and action of all other forces and variables that cause a product to be produced,,,, outcomes pile up and ones that can be consistently fed occur consistently,,,, and when something else falls near to this cycle it can benefit from or utilize the consistency of some random consistent physically caused event like rain,,, and that is the beginning of a system,,,

i still think it may be a different story when thinking of the primal energy of the early universe,,, which had to do what it did,,,, for the much later actions of stars,,, planets,, and rain to exist,,,



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


"It doesn't need to know.. Does it need to know what it's doing when making rain, or snowflakes? How much might I ask do you understand physics or even Chaos theory? "

dont know too much,,,, but i think i see all about it with your rain reference,,,,,,, because this happened and this happened and this happened,,,, rain happened,,,,, because rain happened this happened,,, its the presence and action of all other forces and variables that cause a product to be produced,,,, outcomes pile up and ones that can be consistently fed occur consistently,,,, and when something else falls near to this cycle it can benefit from or utilize the consistency of some random consistent physically caused event like rain,,, and that is the beginning of a system,,,

i still think it may be a different story when thinking of the primal energy of the early universe,,, which had to do what it did,,,, for the much later actions of stars,,, planets,, and rain to exist,,,



These answers you are going to have to wait for... But so far, all evidence is self-generation regardless. So to put that into context of why that is.. here an example argument that will even consider basic tenants of "creationism":

Existence creates conscious state, and we will call this the first conscious state.. Conscious entity of existence that was created goes on to create a universe by inducing a big bang through applying physics of the system that also made this first hypothetical conscious entity. The big bang then self-generates and creates all the stars ect, and us.... Now knowing at the start that a conscious state can't exist without cause, we can then know that the system as a whole is a self-generating system..
edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TheJackelantern
 


"How does information know to produce a cognitive system capable of achieving a conscious state of just a mere flea vs something on our own level.., or much less the level of what some people are arguing applicable to a GOD..? I remember asking a friend who thought consciousness had no complexity and was the simplest answer.. I then asked him to build me a conscious robotic dog. Well, that quickly turned into trying to figure out what would be needed and required to support such a thing, and that really got complicated. Especially when I can easily demonstrate how easy it is to make unconscious things like a tree house, or just a pile of dirt from a another pile of dirt. I don't have to go too deep into information science and theory to do those things.. But once you start trying to get into cognitive systems theory, it becomes abundantly clear why consciousness is an emergent property of various processes and can't exist without a tremendous amount of cause. Hence, it's not so simple! It's far more complicated and involved than the mere basics of life, or reactionary systems since cognitive systems require a much more complex adaptive system with feedback to which also requires a very complex system to take in and process feedback within a system, and take in and process external information to the cognitive system itself."

I would agree consciousness is very complex,,,, were you saying this because you thought i was hinting that the particles of energy themselves contained consciousness,,, im not sure about that,,,,, but along the lines of thinking that if there was a creator,,, the laws of physics were its codes or commands or laws for energy to obey, to form a universe we are familiar with today,,,,

"How does information know to produce a cognitive system capable of achieving a conscious state of just a mere flea vs something on our own level"

how does it? how can blind nature create such a genius invention as the fly, by accident,, or without even trying, or looking? is the system of fly just a mini version of your rain scenario?



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
A Creator who contracted or constricted Himself - apart from the whole into 4 elements which would then be the sub-atomic particles of all the universe - above and below could most definitely.



Originally posted by TheJackelantern
[ even if some entity induced a big bang, it can't literally create a universe as it would, like us, take from what already exists and making something out of it..




posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   

im not sure about that


If it didn't, this centrifugal force / G-force would have nill effect on the conscious state. Hence, the disruption of information processing of the system. And information can't be made of nothing since nothing can't exist.. So this fundamentally proves the point:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...



A Creator who contracted or constricted Himself - apart from the whole into 4 elements which would then be the sub-atomic particles of all the universe - above and below could most definitely.


This doesn't make any sense...How do you exist outside of existence to be apart from the "WHOLE"?. That argument again is a self-refutation.. Hence, are you trying to say a GOD can exist in a place of non-existence? Well, at that point, saying your god is outside of existence and in a place of non-existence is like trying to defect to the other side of the debate to try and win the debate. It's a self-admission of the non-existence of said god concept. You can't just toss out "outside the whole" and have it make any sense.
edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 26 2012 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheJackelantern

then you are one of endless flowering expressions of it,


Yep, I am literally a part of existence.. I am an expression of existence.. We are all conscious representatives of existence itself and it's the only way it can be. We can't exist or be outside of existence, or be of non-existence and be here.. So the answer is obvious
You and me, are literally existence having this discussion with itself.
That is the jaw dropping thing about this regardless of our individual unique characters. Hence just because a to works of glass art can come from the same pile of sand doesn't mean each of those isn't unique in their own way.


And if you are looking for an answer on purpose and meaning.. Well, to exist is to have purpose and meaning by consequence of existence regardless of what state or form that is.

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


So it is indeed as simple as "E" (existence).

edit on 26-7-2012 by TheJackelantern because: (no reason given)


nice and cool...

going back to measurement,,, and earthly nature,, and the laws of physics,,,,, there is are themes of seeking some sort of perfection,,,, evolution,,,progression,,, for better or for worse,,,, do you think these things are illusory? does an earth ant equal a 100 million year old alien race that has spaceships that can travel across the universe? a single celled organism might as well be mozart and vice versa? i think this is why nature is so brutal because there is an arena of life to prove purpose,, skill,, and worth,,,, that is the survival of the fittest nature,,,,,, in the jungle,,, its all existence,,, all nature,,,,,the lion loves to exist so he will fulfill this by proving he is worthy of existing,, by capturing prey,,, competition included,,,,, a cheetah is faster then a line,,, this is science,,, and objective measurement,,,, we consider humans to be more important then ants,,,, is that objective fact? is everything equal? or is there a hierarchy and tendancy of progression towards higher perfection and ability/performance?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join