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.

 

Atheists: A God Might Not be Impossible

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
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.


So far - - I'm agreeing with you.

I may change Energy Creator to Source.




posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   


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.
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The last bit of my post was jovial not adversarial...it's just that your threads take off and provoke
discussion...

back on topic...

I had already replied that I believe that we (humans) have the capacity to answer the biggest "How"
questions...How did the universe begin? How do all the physical forces interact? etc..

But I don't think we will ever answer the biggest GOD questions of "Why?"

I think we are playing a BIG game here, and I think we have the capacity to learn all the rules (which
weren't provided)....but I don't think we will ever learn the "Why are we playing" question, or learn
the reason why this universe (or we) exist.

At least not while we are still stuck in our human form...



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


It's the same thing, really. Who cares what we call it, so long as it's not late for dinner?



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

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?


How ironic... a theist trying to rationally explain science to an irrational atheist


No, you're not getting it. I don't want to try and teach you physics, but saying "look at all this energy from a teeny atom" has nothing at all to do with this. There are fundamental laws of physics that govern this reality. They are the same here as they are on the other side of the galaxy, and the same today as they were a billion years ago. If they were to somehow change, even by a little bit, it would destroy the universe, and if they were a little different originally, the universe would never have formed.

You are claiming that, somehow, human beings will develop to the point of being able to operate outside of those laws, and that is fundamentally impossible. Not "really hard to do" and not "we'll get there", it's utterly impossible. Science tells us that.



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?


How else are you going to determine how to create a universe? It can't be rationally determined through observation and can't by verified as a hypothesis.


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


Yeah, I read that article in 2010 (I subscribe to Wired, big surprise, lol.) As I earlier said, when you can create synthetic life, sentient and conscious, out of nothing, not just fiddling with what's already there, you might have a claim to your deification, but only as regards your new species, and given your understanding of science, I'm guessing it won't be you doing it, so godhood goes to the actual creator, sorry.
edit on 16-7-2012 by adjensen because: oopsies



posted on Jul, 16 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Weird, I meant to reply to AfterInfinity I think?

But anyways - just insert your definition of God. Close enough for me and you to have a conversation on the topic, no matter how far apart our beliefs are.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee
 


It's the same thing, really. Who cares what we call it, so long as it's not late for dinner?


It doesn't matter to you and probably most of this "crowd".

However - - it does matter to some - - and once you use the word god (even in terms of source) - - it puts a road block on the discussion - - because they no longer care what you think/believe. You said the word god - - and that's all that matters to them.

So I no longer use it.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I was the one saying God. God god god!
Think what you want, were not here to control or sway you.
My definitions are...well, moot if you think about it. Your tackling THE issue here. How can we communicate effectively when everyone is coming up with their own intuitive reality based on the details provided?

I say God - you think A
I say God - I think B
I say God - AfterInfinity thinks C

Yet A, B, and C are all letters right? We can all agree on that much, and that is the point I'm trying to make. Go ahead and use which terms you like, and judge other's uses of terms as you please. It doesn't mean you are correct in your assumptions of what I or some other individual are thinking. BUT we are all talking about some unseen powerful force generating the GO of our universe. Go ahead, pick that apart too lol.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by hidden0

I was the one saying God. God god god!


OK. I will use Source or Energy Creator.

You can use God.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


...What I'm trying to say Annee is those are words. More specifically, they are keys you are pressing and putting on your screen and you are just hoping everyone reading them reaches the same conclusions as you do.

Words, letters, symbols, they are all ambiguous. The most important thing, when discussing topics such as these, is not nomenclature (which I could say "chair", and be meaning "Energy Source", if I will it so). The important thing is the message - do you understand what I am saying, and do I understand you? Like AfterInfinity said, who cares what we call "it"? It is more important that the terminology I use conveys the proper message.

I did not know what the proper message would be on ATS - how could I? There are AfterInfinity's and Annee's, both of them different...screw it, I'll say "God" and see where it goes.

I am still "meaning" the same thing as you, just "saying" God. Say what you want!! No one is taking that from you. What I am feeling here is that you are upset we are using a specific term because of it's ability to deadlock conversations. So far, you are the one deadlocking this conversation over terms and nomenclature lol.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by hidden0
 




I say God - you think A
I say God - I think B
I say God - AfterInfinity thinks C

Yet A, B, and C are all letters right?


No, because 'cat' is not spelled 'bat', and 'apple' is not spelled 'cplle'. I understand that my scope of sight is not nearly broad enough to judge Source, and my desires are too personal to affect how I view Source.Your definition and understanding is limited by your desires. It's that simple.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


It doesn't matter to me because a word does not define the concept behind it. The concept defines the word. Thus, words mean different things to everyone. That's why I say it doesn't matter what we call it, but how we define the concept after we name it. The label is only as good as the meaning behind it.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by Annee
 


It doesn't matter to me because a word does not define the concept behind it. The concept defines the word. Thus, words mean different things to everyone. That's why I say it doesn't matter what we call it, but how we define the concept after we name it. The label is only as good as the meaning behind it.


It matters to me.

God relates to religion - - which is man made. Very specific.

God - - a label humans gave to "off-planet beings" - - descending from the sky or appearing out of no where (such as a dimensional being manifesting physical).

Source or Energy Creator - - the beginning of: existence/energy consciousness/thought energy/creative thought/etc

They are definitely not the same thing to me.


edit on 17-7-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

What about love Annee, could love have it's own reasoning or logic?

Think of the love of a mother to her child - could the self aware energy not also feel the same thing towards all his children (begotten of as a first/last cause)?



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   
To afterinfinity: Yeah but its all still language and letters and symbols. Cat may not be bat, but I could maybe think you mispelt it or had other intentions for it's usage.

To Annee: Your using terms like mankind, and that God implies religion etc etc. I'm telling you that as a human being I personally can define those things as I please. And I define "God" the way you define "Energy Source". In fact I define the vice versa as well. Like I said, have your beliefs and say what you will, because it is unimportant. But please, do not tell me that because I use the term God that it "must" be implying religion. Because I'm not. YOU can imply whatever you desire.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hidden0
 



To afterinfinity: Yeah but its all still language and letters and symbols. Cat may not be bat, but I could maybe think you mispelt it or had other intentions for it's usage.


Thank you for proving my point. See, it all comes down to what we think, not what was meant. Hence, modern Christianity. We will adjust our own thinking for comfort's sake, even if we must accuse others in order to justify ourselves in our own mind.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 



God relates to religion


Define "god" without including Christianity.


God - - a label humans gave to "off-planet beings" - - descending from the sky or appearing out of no where (such as a dimensional being manifesting physical).


And how many people will agree with this definition? My point is, you came up with that definition. That is how YOU define god, no one else. Therefore, you can completely redefine god in your mind, because there is no solid definition. No universal definition. Admittedly, it's a loose word, but whatever.

Do as you will.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Annee
 

What about love Annee, could love have it's own reasoning or logic?

Think of the love of a mother to her child - could the self aware energy not also feel the same thing towards all his children (begotten of as a first/last cause)?


Different discussion.

Define Love. What exactly is Love?

Right now I am teaching my 12 year old granddaughter about chemical reactions of the body - - pheromones.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Do you teach her to hate the idea of God as well, I sure hope not..



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Pheromones are sex, not love.



posted on Jul, 17 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity=

And how many people will agree with this definition? My point is, you came up with that definition. That is how YOU define god, no one else. Therefore, you can completely redefine god in your mind, because there is no solid definition. No universal definition. Admittedly, it's a loose word, but whatever.

Do as you will.


I'm only saying "I" will not use the term God - - except in context of how I perceive it.

I will use Source - Energy Creator - - in the context of how I perceive it.

You all - - can continue with whatever term you want.




top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join