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.

 

Philosophy of god, science, and nothing

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I don't mean that we are proof of God. What I meant is that, in my view, God is the canvas on which God the painter paints God the painting. All is one. I know you don't want debate, i just want to clarify.

RE: the number 3....there were great minds that have contemplated what you are talking about for millenia. We have the writings of some of them that you can reference. A good start is Manly P Hall, as he has a compendium of various writings compiled in The Secret Teachings Of All Ages.




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jiggerj
 


This is the "flatlander" story. I think you can read the book for free online. If you can't find it, i should have it somewhere on this hard drive. You can U2U me.

RE: a single dimension "space"....this would seem to be the real of "God". If consciousness could exist without form, it would exist in this place. It could be aware, but its awareness would be only self aware. The reason for this is, in a single dimension space, there is nothing else that can exist but "self", as you are the entirety of that space. You are infinitely large and infinitely small simultaneously.

Nothing would preclude a single dimension space. I would actually tend to support such thinking, at least until I can meditate on it, as it would make more sense as to how/why God, the "Creator", can be the Universe in our reality. If "he" existed in a one dimensional space, or rather AS a one dimensional space, then the timeless state that he would find himself in would mean that he exists in such a state at this very moment. That, my friend, brings up all sorts of philosophical questions, like whether or not we are currently existing in this 1 dimensional state in the form of what could only be described as "a dream".?


Sorry, it just seems like you are trying to prove the existence of god. I'm not debating that at all. But you do make some interesting comments. Like: "If consciousness could exist without form, it would exist in this place."

If consciousness could exist in any state and in any form, wouldn't it still require energy to formulate thought? If so, then in the terms of this thread, this consciousness would still exist in a state of 1, and not zero.

The questions here are: Can we prove that a state of absolute nothing ever existed? Can we return anything to that state (reduce something to absolute nothing)? So far I haven't seen any suggestion even close to proving this, meaning that (for me) my belief still stands - that everything exists simply because a state of absolute nothing cannot exist, and has never existed.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jiggerj
 


What I meant is that, in my view, God is the canvas on which God the painter paints God the painting.



Even as an atheist I would have to agree with this. Though I would change the word 'god' into 'energy' it still works for me. Energy is the canvas on which energy the painter paints energy the painting.

So, maybe the believers in a god have this slight edge over science, that god (energy) has always existed, where physicists claim there was NOTHING before the Big Bang.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by spy66

I will give a a new image.
In this image; is the straight line the first physical dimension?



If so; What dimension would the physical dark background be?



Is this premise even possible? If there is an exterior condition to one dimension, then no matter how flat, short, and narrow it is, it would still be a three-dimensional proposition. That dark void would have to allow for the line's length, width, and height, so the void itself would also be 3-D.

So I'm thinking that either a single dimension isn't possible, or if there were a single dimension, then that's all that could exist.







Is this premise even possible? If there is an exterior condition to one dimension, then no matter how flat, short, and narrow it is, it would still be a three-dimensional proposition.


Correct. There is not one thing you can mention that is not surrounded by space/void.

The first dimension/volume is infinite in all directions. So all other dimensions must exist inside it. That is why all other dimensions must be a minimum of 3 dimensions.






So I'm thinking that either a single dimension isn't possible, or if there were a single dimension, then that's all that could exist.


I think you getting there. But you have to understand that the very first dimension must be a infinite volume of empty space. Empty means that the volume of infinite space consists of a single void. There are no other physical dimensions present except the void of the infinite dimension.

This makes the first dimensions a true mathematical constant.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Yes. Energy. Energy that is aware. That is God. That is not to say that God actually cares or anything. I simply use the word "God" in place of "Creator" for ease of communication.

Regardless, the whole "there was nothing" before the big bang is a misnomer. It is more that there was something that was infinitely dense and infinitely small, with nothing tangible to today existing. The rules of physics had not been mapped out, and reality as we know it existed only in a kinetic state.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Yes. Nothing can exist. That is absolutely correct. There is no zero, as our ancient philosophers noted. When I say "nothing can exist" i mean "'Nothing' can exist 'alone'" (it is difficult to be clear when discussing this).

Further, 1 cannot exist without other. Why? Because without other, you have no context. For example, without light, how do you have dark? Does dark exist in a reality without light? Or is it a concept unconsidered by that reality, and therefore nonexistant? So if you have 1, then you have 2 (other). This is the beginning of the mystical understanding of the number 3 I referred to above. I would rather leave it to you to find the rest of (as the search will make so many other things make more sense). But this is one way that the ancient philosopher grappled with understanding his world. And it is the basis of all the modern talk of "illuminati" and other nonsense. In short, it was a philosophy that turned into a knowledge that made men into demiGods. The understanding of our reality/God.

Take that for what you will.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by spy66
 


"But you have to understand that the very first dimension must be a infinite volume of empty space. Empty means that the volume of infinite space consists of a single void. There are no other physical dimensions present except the void of the infinite dimension. "


first of all I always thought the example of the first dimension is a point,,,,,,, the tiniest point,,,,, which means the first dimension is impossible,,,,, because the point would have to be literally the tiniest and most indivisible dot,.,.,, which oddly enough is what all material is made of,,,,,,, to take up every space of the infinite of space,,, solid matter must densely fill all of the space in an area to create a stable energetic, physical structure.,,,,,,


before anything physical existed,,,,, how could you prove or tell that the infinite void dimension was infinite? if nothing existed in it,,,, would it being infinitely large be the same as it not existing at all? ( if it is actually nothing and made of nothing) I think this is what the big bangers think,,,, because they believe the big bang,,, beginning of energy is what drew out space-time......

also i dont know why you can biasly say that our universe resides in infinite space,,,,,,,,
our universe can be a pond in a world with many seas.....
your like a fish in the ocean telling his buddies the ocean just goes on forever,,, theres nothing beyond,,
edit on 3-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jiggerj
 


I don't mean that we are proof of God. What I meant is that, in my view, God is the canvas on which God the painter paints God the painting. All is one. I know you don't want debate, i just want to clarify.

RE: the number 3....there were great minds that have contemplated what you are talking about for millenia. We have the writings of some of them that you can reference. A good start is Manly P Hall, as he has a compendium of various writings compiled in The Secret Teachings Of All Ages.


I'm just now listening to a lecture on Hermetic Philosophy. FINALLY, a belief that honestly admits flaws and contradictions.


For others:




posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
also i dont know why you can biasly say that our universe resides in infinite space,,,,,,,,
our universe can be a pond in a world with many seas.....
your like a fish in the ocean telling his buddies the ocean just goes on forever,,, theres nothing beyond,,
edit on 3-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)


.

Oops! Sorry. Thought you were referring to one of my posts.
edit on 7/3/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





first of all I always thought the example of the first dimension is a point,,,,,,, the tiniest point,,,,, which means the first dimension is impossible,,,,, because the point would have to be literally the tiniest and most indivisible dot,.,.,, which oddly enough is what all material is made of,,,,,,, to take up every space of the infinite of space,,, solid matter must densely fill all of the space in an area to create a stable energetic, physical structure.,,,,,,


Prove to me that the tiny point you mention can exist or even be a tiny point without the space i am talking about.

If you can do that you can call my theory a bias.

Just for the hell of it. How would you know that the tiny point is tiny? Tiny compared to what? The space surrounding it?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Another way of looking at it is;
The cinema screen is always there (it has to be present before the movie starts), it could be said to be empty, empty of 'things', there is no thing there on the screen. When the projector is turned on there appears to be 'things' on the screen and the screen is obscured, not noticed, no one ever sees the screen when the pictures are on it, they just see the movie and the screen is forgotton.

The screen alone is pure awareness and it is what you experience in deep sleep - nothing. You don't experience anything in deep sleep because there are no images/pictures appearing (no things).
When the screen of awareness is full of image (in waking state) awareness sees, hears and knows the image that is appearing. The image and awareness are not separate, like the mirror and the reflection, it is not two. The mind is a sympton of this what appears to be duality - the seen and the seer, or the image and the screen. They are one but it looks like two.
Awareness, like the screen or blank canvas is empty of 'things', it cannot be percieved, it is what some call nothing.
The nothing/awareness is the only true. The screen of awareness (no thingness) has to BE prior to any 'thing' appearing.

This is Tim Freke 'The Absurb Notion of One'.
youtu.be...
edit on 3-7-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


You know, the problem with me speaking in clear terms on this is two fold. The first is that I honestly think in abstracts and metaphors. I will mix metaphors like no tomorrow because in my mind that is how i have built understanding. So when I type, sometimes what I say is abundantly clear. Sometimes it isn't.

The second issue is that as you read more and more into the literature (and as you find that magical "7 iterations of meaning" in the symbols), you find yourself thinking of the content in several contexts at once. With someone like me who thinks metaphorically, this is a recipe for disaster when trying to explain to other people.

Regardless, I am glad you found it helpful. I was once an atheist. I have since decided that Atheism is superior to common theism because the atheist has begun to think for him/herself. IT is the first step in the process: eschewing the God of your ancestors. It shows that you ahve a free and critical mind.

The next step is the realization that there IS a God, and he is us/everything. Keep searching, my friend. There are many paths to the same city.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





first of all I always thought the example of the first dimension is a point,,,,,,, the tiniest point,,,,, which means the first dimension is impossible,,,,, because the point would have to be literally the tiniest and most indivisible dot,.,.,, which oddly enough is what all material is made of,,,,,,, to take up every space of the infinite of space,,, solid matter must densely fill all of the space in an area to create a stable energetic, physical structure.,,,,,,


Prove to me that the tiny point you mention can exist or even be a tiny point without the space i am talking about.

If you can do that you can call my theory a bias.

Just for the hell of it. How would you know that the tiny point is tiny? Tiny compared to what? The space surrounding it?




well the bit about the point,,,, i was just talking about how you and jiggari were talking about the diagram of the line,,,, and i was just saying I did not think that was a representation of 1d like you were saying it was..............

could that tiny point not exist if this universe was in a snowglobe?

I agree that space may be infinite in the terms that it can go on forever,,,,
but i have a hard time believing that this universe and infinite space have to be the only one......

so is it possibly for a universe to exist with infinite space ( ours ) yet be contained by something else?

like a snow globe can be shaken and re shaken for infininte time,.,.,.,,.

or a computer can calculate almost infinite numbers,,,forever,,, yet where the computer is making the calculations is in a contained area...



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


"The screen alone is pure awareness and it is what you experience in deep sleep - nothing."


the absence of experience,,,,, or the experience of constant nothing,,, is the opposite of awareness,,,,,, awareness needs "something" to be aware of,,,,,, at least it needs itself to be aware of,,,,, our awareness is a technology and works by the functioning of mechanisms ,,..,,.,. reality is many different sized and powered screens and projectors,,,,,,, reality is projected as reality,,,,,, we absorb this projection onto our mental screens,,,, and project what we absorb against past absorbtions and projections to create memories,,,,, and our own screen and projection of reality......
edit on 3-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


"The screen alone is pure awareness and it is what you experience in deep sleep - nothing."


the absence of experience,,,,, or the experience of constant nothing,,, is the opposite of awareness,,,,,, awareness needs "something" to be aware of,,,,,, at least it needs itself to be aware of,,,,, our awareness is a technology and works by the functioning of mechanisms


You speak of consciousness. To be conscious one has to see or know what appears to be other. Awareness is the one constant, consciousness comes and goes. Awareness has to be prior to consciousness.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jiggerj
 


You know, the problem with me speaking in clear terms on this is two fold. The first is that I honestly think in abstracts and metaphors. I will mix metaphors like no tomorrow because in my mind that is how i have built understanding. So when I type, sometimes what I say is abundantly clear. Sometimes it isn't.

The second issue is that as you read more and more into the literature (and as you find that magical "7 iterations of meaning" in the symbols), you find yourself thinking of the content in several contexts at once. With someone like me who thinks metaphorically, this is a recipe for disaster when trying to explain to other people.

Regardless, I am glad you found it helpful. I was once an atheist. I have since decided that Atheism is superior to common theism because the atheist has begun to think for him/herself. IT is the first step in the process: eschewing the God of your ancestors. It shows that you ahve a free and critical mind.

The next step is the realization that there IS a God, and he is us/everything. Keep searching, my friend. There are many paths to the same city.


I totally suck at explaining myself. I have a vast vocabulary, yet when I make even the slightest attempt to use it in order to nail down an idea, the words escape me. I don't know why.

Anyhow, I wish there were a way to keep a conversation like this from escalating into metaphors and vague analogies, to stick with the physical question of how can something come from nothing. How can real, verifiable energy come from an unverifiable, dormant state of nothingness. I say it can't.

I say that no matter how the brilliant minds of physics came to the conclusion of nothing before the Big Bang, a physical state of absolute nothing has never been and can't ever be.

As for Time, I say there HAD to have been one second before the Big Bang. And if there was one second, then there had to be two seconds, three, an hour, a decade, millennium, eternity. There had to have been Space before the Big Bang. There had to have been Energy before the Big Bang.

I can't agree with there being any type of consciousness before the Big Bang (not yet anyway), but I can side with this idea better than I can with the idea of there being nothing.


edit on 7/3/2012 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaFungi

or a computer can calculate almost infinite numbers,,,forever,,, yet where the computer is making the calculations is in a contained area...


Ooh, I like that!



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 







or a computer can calculate almost infinite numbers,,,forever,,, yet where the computer is making the calculations is in a contained area...


A computer cannot do anything if it is not programed beforehand to calculate. It will not calculate Bits (0 and 1s) if it is not programed to do so. You would have to build the components of the computer and the program to run it and give it the information to work with.

If you compare the computer to the infinite space. They are both a constant until a command is given. But the big difference is that a computer would need a physical and external consciousness to make the commands for it. So that it will have a proper function. Something the infinite space wouldn't never have. A infinite space would never have a external consciousness giving it commands. It must be consciousness and physical all on its own.





could that tiny point not exist if this universe was in a snowglobe?


Yes, it could exist inside this universe. It can also exist outside it. But not outside the infinite space.

-No matter how many universes there are. They must all come from one source initially. They must when you have a dimension of space that is infinite.

The computer would have to have a starting point. And if you reverse the count it will end up where it started. It will end up with the number 1. If it is programed to only add the physical as 1 bit. 0 bit would most likely be empty space. Our universe would look like a Bit map where Zeros represent nothing and 1 represent the physical.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

edit on 3-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by Itisnowagain
 


"The screen alone is pure awareness and it is what you experience in deep sleep - nothing."


the absence of experience,,,,, or the experience of constant nothing,,, is the opposite of awareness,,,,,, awareness needs "something" to be aware of,,,,,, at least it needs itself to be aware of,,,,, our awareness is a technology and works by the functioning of mechanisms


You speak of consciousness. To be conscious one has to see or know what appears to be other. Awareness is the one constant, consciousness comes and goes. Awareness has to be prior to consciousness.



ok since you accepted my definition of consciousness I understand what we are speaking of when we use that word,,,,,,, can you give me the definition of awareness?
edit on 3-7-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join