Atheists: A God Might Not be Impossible

reply to post by hidden0


Like an antigravity device?

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Yes, but we're still years away from designing a tree from scratch. And honestly, I don't think we should even try. The day we recreate the work of Source, is the day we decide we no longer need Source. The day we decide we no longer need Source, is the day we decide we are better than Source. The day we decide we are better than Source, is the day we forget Source. And the day we forget Source, is the day we are all truly damned.

We are not yet ready to be gods. And still, we will try. Whether for better or for worse, whether salvation by miracle or disaster by design, remains to be seen. And if we do fail spectacularly, I hope we die along with that dream, like rabid dogs. We are too dangerous for anything else to happen.

Wish I could give a billion stars for this post.

Alas - - you have to settle for one from me.

I like this response too! Only, I'd add that once we decide we are better than Source, we will attempt to create a universe, and probably destroy THIS one! I wonder if Source blew itself up while creating this universe? Gulp!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I can't give you a proper example of something not abiding by the universe's laws, for that in itself would violate those laws. You can't even conceive something not of this universe, nor put it into words. Think Isaac Asimov and his robots, they could not even possibly conceive of something outside of the 3 laws of their robotic existence. Now if your an Asimov fan (and I hope you are) you would rightly bring up the 0th law which is another fun discussion!

An antigravity device is not decidedly impossible, but it does not exist as far as I know. Let me think of a better term than "do something against physics"...hmm..

Do something this universe will NOT allow you to do. Yes, it is paradoxical, but the first statement was supposed to be (until you brought up antigravity )

Originally posted by hidden0

I'm not saying it is not possible - for here we are...but when it comes to the question of gods and godlessness, let us be open minded and realize our own existence is just as divine and wonderful as the questioned existence of a god.

I refuse to use the term god.

I've been in forums for 20+ years. Fundamental believers are the ones who can not separate god into any kind of rational philosophical discussion.

In every discussion I've had along these lines - - if you even mention god - - the Fundies jump on you and say: "AHA! You ARE a believer - - you are just in denial".

I will use the term Creator or Energy Creator.

Originally posted by Atzil321
God as he is depicted in the Bible, Koran ect, suspends or transcends the laws of nature to create. There is a huge difference

Please show where magic is mentioned in the creation of the universe?

Again, allow me to point out that the intention of this thread is to claim that some kind of a god is not impossible. As for the biblical gods, I find them utterly ridiculous, illogical, irrational, unbelievable, and downright insane.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Don't you see that everything you've written is the kind of denial that people would have had just 200 years before we split the atom. People would have said that splitting the atom is god's secret and we're not allowed to know it. Others would have said it's just impossible. Others would have said there's no such thing as an atom.

Unless you think that time travel is possible, or that we can transcend reality, then no, it's not the same thing.

Let me restate what I said earlier. The conditions necessary to put the universe into the state in which the Big Bang happened violate the laws of this reality. If we are to say that that process was a natural one, it was a process that changed, fundamentally, the basis of this reality, and we can neither go back to it, nor make meaningful speculation as to what it was, since there are no means to validate the hypothesis.

In other words, one can imagine that a natural process, which violated the laws of thermodynamics, occurred in a reality which did not have such laws, created all of that energy, and one of the results of the process were the imposing of said laws. That is a plausible explanation, but it doesn't help your cause, because we live in that reality, so we ARE constrained by those laws, and anything that we create would also, as it is a subset of this reality.

It is possible, perhaps, that by throwing out every conceivable and inconceivable theory, the right one may be chanced upon, but it would be impossible to verify or identify from the near infinitely numbered wrong theories, but even if it could, using such knowledge to create another universe would be patently impossible.

Barring the transcendence of reality, which science says is impossible -- not in a "we don't know how yet" sense, but in a "if you think that science can in any way relate, measure or interact with the supernatural, you're a fool" sense -- you are wrong. It is not a remote possibility, never mind being "inevitable."

Originally posted by Daemonicon
I call myself an Atheist to save time.

I know realistically, you have to be 'unknown' about the subject. In these times, I find it easier to label myself as an Atheist, because it seems to be, now a days, that the term Agnostic is reserved for those who are 50-50 split on weather or not there is a God.

I am not on a 50-50 scale, so that's why I go for the stronger term of Atheist. If I had to write it down, I would say I am 90 - 95% certain there is no God, but I leave some room for doubt, because I am not foolish enough to say with 100% certainty there is NO God. I don't think there is, but I like surprises.

(When talking about God above, I am talking about a Theistic God. As far as the Einsteinian God, I am more open to the first cause. That is a God in a sense, but that is a different matter all together.)

Yeah, I call myself an atheist only because it's easier than explaining how I go about poking holes in any theory, be it religious or scientific. I'm not going to uphold the theory of the Big Bang just because it's more natural than the idea of intelligent design. There are certain claims that I find highly suspect. And, if there be a creator, there is no way this entity is in a state of perfection, because perfection is impossible. He's probably just a guy in a lab that accidentally blew something up in another dimension.

reply to post by Annee


Call me lazy, but if I say "God" you and everyone else knows what I'm talking about to some degree. Granted at home around the kitchen table we never even utter the word, it is understood were talking about the main source of all things (whatever it may be).

To me, it just sounds like you have become a little too attached to a definition for a word relax! I think we are agreeing with each other lol.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee

 

I hold with the "I am that I am" = I think, therefore I am.

In other words, consciousness/awareness + intention = God.

It makes sense in a very weird, riddle-ish way.

I think it makes sense in a way that language simply fails to convey.

As for what we can potentially learn...I think we can learn the answers to the ultimate questions
of "How"...we seem to have that capacity.

But to the ultimate answers of "Why"....I don't think we'll get there while we're still wearing these
cumbersome meat-sacks that we lumber around in...

reply to post by hidden0


My word for it is simply "Source".

reply to post by hidden0


What would you say about the idea of "creative intent"? You think it, it happens, simply because you put the "creative intent" into it. Your thoughts, your will, your intent, brought it into being.

That's what Source is. Energy that is aware of itself and everything, but is curious as to the nature of NOT being perfect. Why do you think we have to figure life out ourselves? It is learning from little tiny independent pieces of itself living in an imperfect world governed by a perfect system. The system keeps us as safe as it can without ruining the experiment, the learning experience.

That is Source.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


You may enjoy reading David Gemmel - hes a fiction writer, specifically your knights in armor and medieval war. His Drenai series has a sci-fi twist though, don't wanna ruin it.

The religion in this world is based purely on "the source". They refer to the true god as just "the source", and the "magic" they do is through it. You find out that the energy does have a real source though...good read. And I'm off topic now for sure lol, been a good discussion!

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I agree 100% with this post. Now I know this may not be the place for it, but think of the moon landing (yes, some people here are skeptical it happened...w/e lets assume it did). So many people had the creative intent to make that happen. How long had mankind believed it was utterly impossible to go to the moon? Then, with millions of minds desiring this exact thing, we made it happen in decades. Maybe a bad example?

Originally posted by jaws1975
I have often wondered why near death experiences have not been looked at closer by atheists as evidence for life after death and a creator. These NDE's have been documented thousands and thousands of times and have been experienced by a lot of non religious people.

If atheists can face 6 billion of the religious and say, there's no god, then a handful of NDE claims mean absolutely nothing.

reply to post by jiggerj


Many people have a hard time accepting that the s**t this world is going through is actually worth it, or that a loving creator would do such a thing. Without understanding of the creator - true understanding - they simply cannot grasp it, and so they are forced to consider alternatives, such as what science shows us. That's where atheism comes in. The stigma just encourages spiritual deviance.

Originally posted by adjensen

The other faulty assumption that you're making is that just because something is understood, it doesn't mean that it can be implemented. Where are you going to find the energy to construct a universe?

We can be categorized by our biological age, and our mental age. If we could assign a technological age to humans, then about 70 years ago a bunch of six-year-olds got together and said, "Hey, let's split a teeny tiny atom and do this:



My guess is that, right now, we are at the technological age of 8. What do you think we'll be able to do when we finally grow up?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
Don't you see that everything you've written is the kind of denial that people would have had just 200 years before we split the atom. People would have said that splitting the atom is god's secret and we're not allowed to know it. Others would have said it's just impossible. Others would have said there's no such thing as an atom.

Unless you think that time travel is possible, or that we can transcend reality, then no, it's not the same thing.

Who said anything about time travel?

Let me restate what I said earlier. The conditions necessary to put the universe into the state in which the Big Bang happened violate the laws of this reality. If we are to say that that process was a natural one, it was a process that changed, fundamentally, the basis of this reality, and we can neither go back to it, nor make meaningful speculation as to what it was, since there are no means to validate the hypothesis.

In other words, one can imagine that a natural process, which violated the laws of thermodynamics, occurred in a reality which did not have such laws, created all of that energy, and one of the results of the process were the imposing of said laws. That is a plausible explanation, but it doesn't help your cause, because we live in that reality, so we ARE constrained by those laws, and anything that we create would also, as it is a subset of this reality.

It is possible, perhaps, that by throwing out every conceivable and inconceivable theory, the right one may be chanced upon, but it would be impossible to verify or identify from the near infinitely numbered wrong theories, but even if it could, using such knowledge to create another universe would be patently impossible.

Barring the transcendence of reality, which science says is impossible -- not in a "we don't know how yet" sense, but in a "if you think that science can in any way relate, measure or interact with the supernatural, you're a fool" sense -- you are wrong. It is not a remote possibility, never mind being "inevitable."

And, here is our first stop along the way to becoming gods ourselves: www.wired.com...

Originally posted by hidden0
reply to post by Annee

 

Call me lazy, but if I say "God" you and everyone else knows what I'm talking about to some degree.

Really?

Define God.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
Don't you see that everything you've written is the kind of denial that people would have had just 200 years before we split the atom. People would have said that splitting the atom is god's secret and we're not allowed to know it. Others would have said it's just impossible. Others would have said there's no such thing as an atom.

Unless you think that time travel is possible, or that we can transcend reality, then no, it's not the same thing.

Who said anything about time travel?

Let me restate what I said earlier. The conditions necessary to put the universe into the state in which the Big Bang happened violate the laws of this reality. If we are to say that that process was a natural one, it was a process that changed, fundamentally, the basis of this reality, and we can neither go back to it, nor make meaningful speculation as to what it was, since there are no means to validate the hypothesis.

In other words, one can imagine that a natural process, which violated the laws of thermodynamics, occurred in a reality which did not have such laws, created all of that energy, and one of the results of the process were the imposing of said laws. That is a plausible explanation, but it doesn't help your cause, because we live in that reality, so we ARE constrained by those laws, and anything that we create would also, as it is a subset of this reality.

It is possible, perhaps, that by throwing out every conceivable and inconceivable theory, the right one may be chanced upon, but it would be impossible to verify or identify from the near infinitely numbered wrong theories, but even if it could, using such knowledge to create another universe would be patently impossible.

Barring the transcendence of reality, which science says is impossible -- not in a "we don't know how yet" sense, but in a "if you think that science can in any way relate, measure or interact with the supernatural, you're a fool" sense -- you are wrong. It is not a remote possibility, never mind being "inevitable."

And, here is our first stop along the way to becoming gods ourselves: www.wired.com...

Well, we are not creating life yet...we are creating software (synthetic DNA) that manipulates the hardware.
We haven't created any hardware yet...

In fifty years I fully believe we will have the ability to "re-engineer" some pretty interesting species of life
including our own species--combining DNA traits to manipulate intelligence, strength, acuity of senses,
and ultimately perhaps learn to "turn off" the timing mechanism in our cells that cause them to
age, atrophy, and die....which would lead to a 'mortal' form of immortality---you could still get shot,
but the cells in your body wouldn't just simply wear out and cause death (but that's the fountain of
youth, it is on the list of potential horizons for biology, and is fodder for another thread).

on side note, you sure have a knack for creating discussion...are you sure you're not a woman?

Originally posted by rival

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by jiggerj
Don't you see that everything you've written is the kind of denial that people would have had just 200 years before we split the atom. People would have said that splitting the atom is god's secret and we're not allowed to know it. Others would have said it's just impossible. Others would have said there's no such thing as an atom.

Unless you think that time travel is possible, or that we can transcend reality, then no, it's not the same thing.

Who said anything about time travel?

Let me restate what I said earlier. The conditions necessary to put the universe into the state in which the Big Bang happened violate the laws of this reality. If we are to say that that process was a natural one, it was a process that changed, fundamentally, the basis of this reality, and we can neither go back to it, nor make meaningful speculation as to what it was, since there are no means to validate the hypothesis.

In other words, one can imagine that a natural process, which violated the laws of thermodynamics, occurred in a reality which did not have such laws, created all of that energy, and one of the results of the process were the imposing of said laws. That is a plausible explanation, but it doesn't help your cause, because we live in that reality, so we ARE constrained by those laws, and anything that we create would also, as it is a subset of this reality.

It is possible, perhaps, that by throwing out every conceivable and inconceivable theory, the right one may be chanced upon, but it would be impossible to verify or identify from the near infinitely numbered wrong theories, but even if it could, using such knowledge to create another universe would be patently impossible.

Barring the transcendence of reality, which science says is impossible -- not in a "we don't know how yet" sense, but in a "if you think that science can in any way relate, measure or interact with the supernatural, you're a fool" sense -- you are wrong. It is not a remote possibility, never mind being "inevitable."

And, here is our first stop along the way to becoming gods ourselves: www.wired.com...

Well, we are not creating life yet...we are creating software (synthetic DNA) that manipulates the hardware.
We haven't created any hardware yet...

In fifty years I fully believe we will have the ability to "re-engineer" some pretty interesting species of life
including our own species--combining DNA traits to manipulate intelligence, strength, acuity of senses,
and ultimately perhaps learn to "turn off" the timing mechanism in our cells that cause them to
age, atrophy, and die....which would lead to a 'mortal' form of immortality---you could still get shot,
but the cells in your body wouldn't just simply wear out and cause death (but that's the fountain of
youth, it is on the list of potential horizons for biology, and is fodder for another thread).

on side note, you sure have a knack for creating discussion...are you sure you're not a woman?

And you have a knack for offering argument for the sake of offering argument, without seeing that your responses agree with the idea that we are heading in a certain direction (to know EVERYTHING). If you believe in just fifty years we will begin to have the knowledge to create immortality, what will we know in 5000 years? You know the answer, but refuse to say it because all you want to do is play devil's advocate without a purpose behind it.