Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

So how do you explain existence ?

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 08:58 PM
link   
With regard to this thread. Posted by Intrepid.
I ask for your civility, your manners and that you be polite to follow members.

Why is it that so many conspire to ridicule the creation account given in Genesis, when they don't seem to have a better one of their own. Not just on ATS, but anywhere you go on the web, or in the world for that matter. It can be seen that, when someone expresses their positive opinion, about the account the Bible gives us for creation of the Universe ( Existence ). Their immediately jumped on by what can only be described as trolls, when they have no better explanation to offer ultimately !

So that will be the premise here'in. Is this a conspiracy or do people of science or anyone else have any explanations for existence, that don't sound just as loony, as most of the trolls make the account given in Genesis sound ? To date, I haven't heard one. Evolution conveniently just doesn't go there. To me it just makes sense that existence and consciousness come from something that exists and is conscious. It's that way in everything we see everyday. And I don't believe we humans are the highest form of existence or any of the aliens either.

But if you have one ? I'd like to read it .



+3 more 
posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Just because we don't have the answers doesn't mean we should stop looking for them and return to stone age thinking. What makes genesis any more relevant than any other creation myth? Science has proven, for the most part, that the bible's claims are entirely unfounded, and as such genesis will likely be no exception.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


Hmmm....A better story than Genesis?.....hmmm....Okay, how about a giant aardvark created the universe? lol



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I truly don't think it matters where we came from or how we became to be. If we found out the answer, then what? The truth is that we exist and the question should be -where are we going to go from here? I believe the truth we are looking so hard far is right in front of us. The shiny objects in this life keeps us distracted from what we are truly capable of. And what is that? you may be asking yourself..- whatever we want it to be. We have the ability to make our future and the life we have the best that it can be. We Live and we Die -what we do in between is up to us. We have and average of about 80 years to figure things out (give or take a few years). Be cool/Stay safe. Peace



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Well, there's the Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu, and so on. I would consider all of these equal to the Genesis account, and just as reasonable. Some accounts even have similarities to the Genesis account...



So I would say the reason the Genesis account of creation gets so much criticism, is because it is no less a myth than the others.

Abiogenesis is a possible explanation for existence. Although admittedly, I don't buy it. I just don't buy the idea of the Gods of all the religions either. Could we have been created? Sure, it's possible. But I don't think there's a religion on earth that has it right, if that's the case.
edit on 10/15/2012 by Klassified because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
Well, there's the Sumerian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Hindu, and so on. I would consider all of these equal to the Genesis account, and just as reasonable. Some accounts even have similarities to the Genesis account...



So I would say the reason the Genesis account of creation gets so much criticism, is because it is no less a myth than the others.

Abiogenesis is a possible explanation for existence. Although admittedly, I don't buy it. I just don't buy the idea of the Gods of all the religions either. Could we have been created? Sure, it's possible. But I don't think there's a religion on earth that has it right, if that's the case.
edit on 10/15/2012 by Klassified because: (no reason given)


Right On \m/



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Well I think the basis of Christianity and all other religions are faith. You need to have "faith" to accept a religion as true because there is no definite proof for any religion. I get the feeling that you saying that because nobody can say Genesis isn't real, as they don't have absolute proof, that therefore stating a negative opinion on Genesis is not aloud.

For example lets say religion represents a blue tie and evolution represents a red tie, a older boy tells two younger boys that he is a prophet and has received word from a all knowing adult that they will $1,000,000 if they choose the right color tie inside a mystery box (and they can't look) and that they will be broke all there life if they guess the wrong color. The older boy continues to say that the tie color is blue and that if you want the $1,000,000 you need to understand the truth and wisdom of the adults words that he has heard and written down. When a younger boy questions the credibility the older boy simply responds saying that because the adults words are truthful and were sent to a prophet to be written in a book that it must be true because the book says so. Now another older boy comes and tells the younger boys that the one saying there is a blue tie is wrong, he says that his scientific theory tells him the tie is red. Though this boy says it doesn't matter what color you choose because there is no prize or consequence anyways, its all a big scam and its just a meaningless tie in a box. The guy saying the tie is blue argues that because it can't be proven that the tie isn't blue that anyone who says otherwise is being a troll. He also mentions that anyone who supports the red tie is obviously stupid. The one supporting the red tie disagrees but also can't prove his argument. In the end could you ever know what color tie it is unless you happened to guess the right one? How about if the tie is a whole new color all together, like green?
edit on 15-10-2012 by vendettent because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   
I get the point you are making. However, as far as science is concerned, it does not currently address creation on a wide scale. What I mean is that only relatively recently have mainstream scientists began work that predates the "big bang," which is what must be preceded to say it deals with creation...At least in my opinion.
What happens after that singularity is all traceable, has a history, and any creation from that point on we are able to understand.

But as far as what set everything in motion, science doesn't really know. Some of the theories, such as M-Theory for instance, do pre-date the big bang, but they basically still fail to go back to the point of creation. For instance, if our universe is just a big membrane in a sea of other membranes, then creation would have to be something that created the membranes. So even if it were true that our universe was created from two membranes smashing into one another, that still does not explain creation...ie the beginning.

I am semi-religious, but have views that tend more towards the ancient Gnostics, which believed that God was inside each and every person. Some of the Old Testament scripture was believed by them, but not all. None of their works made it into the Bible as we know it today.

That raises another problem I have with the Bible in general, which translates into a problem with Genesis. The books chosen for inclusion in the Bible, as we all should know, were chosen by fallible men. Men who had to compromise among one another, at a meeting set up by Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. So the problem arises because there are many, many other Gospels that were not included in the official canon, and many of these Gospels present ideas that are different from the Gospels in the Bible today.

This is something most Christians do not understand, and I think it is something that should make everyone call into question their beliefs. Also, those parts of Christianity that apply to aspects of Jesus' life that also are found in religions pre-dating Christianity. Such as Mithraism, which holds many similarities to the events that happened to Jesus, like his birth, crucifixion, etc. So while some aspects of the Bible may be true, it is quite obvious that the majority of them cannot be. This is quite an interesting topic to research, and I suggest everyone do so if they have not already. It may just change your current views on Christianity as it is practiced today.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by randyvs
 


Just because we don't have the answers doesn't mean we should stop looking for them and return to stone age thinking. What makes genesis any more relevant than any other creation myth? Science has proven, for the most part, that the bible's claims are entirely unfounded, and as such genesis will likely be no exception.


Lets say for the sake of argument I did say Genesis was more relevant. Wouldn't that be covered by what I already said at the end of the OP ? Existence and Consciousness coming from same ? The story in Genesis is also very well documented.
edit on 15-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 
Try this new book written by Jim Holt
Why does the World Exist
I'm reading it now and to me it makes much more sense than the bible. But then again maybe Mr. Holt and I are more under the devils sway than you are.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
reply to post by randyvs
 


Just because we don't have the answers doesn't mean we should stop looking for them and return to stone age thinking. What makes genesis any more relevant than any other creation myth? Science has proven, for the most part, that the bible's claims are entirely unfounded, and as such genesis will likely be no exception.


Lets say for the sake of argument I did say Genesis was more relevant. Wouldn't that be covered by what I already said at the end of the OP ? Existence and Consciousness coming from same ? The story in Genesis is also very well documented.
edit on 15-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Genesis is very well documented? Where? In Genesis, or just further along in the bible where they were just repeating what they read in Genesis.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I get the point you are making. However, as far as science is concerned, it does not currently address creation on a wide scale. What I mean is that only relatively recently have mainstream scientists began work that predates the "big bang," which is what must be preceded to say it deals with creation...At least in my opinion.
What happens after that singularity is all traceable, has a history, and any creation from that point on we are able to understand.

But as far as what set everything in motion, science doesn't really know. Some of the theories, such as M-Theory for instance, do pre-date the big bang, but they basically still fail to go back to the point of creation. For instance, if our universe is just a big membrane in a sea of other membranes, then creation would have to be something that created the membranes. So even if it were true that our universe was created from two membranes smashing into one another, that still does not explain creation...ie the beginning.

I am semi-religious, but have views that tend more towards the ancient Gnostics, which believed that God was inside each and every person. Some of the Old Testament scripture was believed by them, but not all. None of their works made it into the Bible as we know it today.

That raises another problem I have with the Bible in general, which translates into a problem with Genesis. The books chosen for inclusion in the Bible, as we all should know, were chosen by fallible men. Men who had to compromise among one another, at a meeting set up by Constantine called the Council of Nicaea. So the problem arises because there are many, many other Gospels that were not included in the official canon, and many of these Gospels present ideas that are different from the Gospels in the Bible today.

This is something most Christians do not understand, and I think it is something that should make everyone call into question their beliefs. Also, those parts of Christianity that apply to aspects of Jesus' life that also are found in religions pre-dating Christianity. Such as Mithraism, which holds many similarities to the events that happened to Jesus, like his birth, crucifixion, etc. So while some aspects of the Bible may be true, it is quite obvious that the majority of them cannot be. This is quite an interesting topic to research, and I suggest everyone do so if they have not already. It may just change your current views on Christianity as it is practiced today.


Indeed a well informed response. I am aware of the Council of Nicaea and Mithraism and do file such matters more under the faith in God dept. It just seems to me that if people want to ridicule ? They should at least have a better explanation than the one their pursuing so mercilessly ?

Otherwise ?



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by TerryMcGuire
 





enesis is very well documented? Where? In Genesis, or just further along in the bible where they were just repeating what they read in Genesis.


Excuse me ? My bad, I should've said THE STORY in Genesis is very well documented. Apologies !




and I are more under the devils sway than you are.


But you can just stop with listing your preferred possibilities.
edit on 15-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
With regard to this thread. Posted by Intrepid.
I ask for your civility, your manners and that you be polite to follow members.

Why is it that so many conspire to ridicule the creation account given in Genesis, when they don't seem to have a better one of their own. Not just on ATS, but anywhere you go on the web, or in the world for that matter. It can be seen that, when someone expresses their positive opinion, about the account the Bible gives us for creation of the Universe ( Existence ). Their immediately jumped on by what can only be described as trolls, when they have no better explanation to offer ultimately !

So that will be the premise here'in. Is this a conspiracy or do people of science or anyone else have any explanations for existence, that don't sound just as loony, as most of the trolls make the account given in Genesis sound ? To date, I haven't heard one. Evolution conveniently just doesn't go there. To me it just makes sense that existence and consciousness come from something that exists and is conscious. It's that way in everything we see everyday. And I don't believe we humans are the highest form of existence or any of the aliens either.

But if you have one ? I'd like to read it .


The best explanation will be the truth.
Do we have it yet?
No.
May be one day.
Until then, I'm fine with "I don't know" rather than settling for a a story .



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 





The best explanation will be the truth. Do we have it yet? No.


But who are you to be the judge of that ? Why such an irresponsible statement coming from someone with far more intelligence than you've just expressed ?



May be one day. Until then, I'm fine with "I don't know" rather than settling for a a story .


But if the story is true that would make it his story wouldn't it ?
edit on 15-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


We know the Bible is not a science textbook.

Heaven and Earth come into existence.

Earth is a world covered in water, waiting for starlight to arrive from vast distances.

Land forms, then vegetation, then animals,

Then Man.......


Now let them try to simplify the scientific understanding of the beginning of the universe and our Earth, into a couple of pages.
edit on 15-10-2012 by dusty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs



But who are you to be the judge of that ? Why such an irresponsible statement coming from someone with far more intelligence than you've just expressed ?


I am rather new here, so excuse me. I am a little confused here, as the thread you pointed out in your opening post was about comments like this, no? To be honest, I thought your thread was about the other one you directed us to?

THEN, you go on about existence, but then bring up creation? Which one is it you are trying to get to the bottom of? You might as well be asking, "what came first? The chicken or the egg?"

It seems to me that you are struggling to defend something that you know in your heart is at the core of your own beliefs, so why would you care what other people think? Religion is just one of those things that people don't often change their minds on, no matter what.

So, what is it exactly you are looking for, besides further validation of something you are unwavering on anyway?

It's awfully hard not to take trolling when you are a troll yourself. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by dusty1
 





Now let them try to simplify the scientific understanding of the beginning of the universe and our Earth, into a couple of pages.


I see your point Dusty. Well done.
edit on 15-10-2012 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sissel

Originally posted by randyvs



But who are you to be the judge of that ? Why such an irresponsible statement coming from someone with far more intelligence than you've just expressed ?


I am rather new here, so excuse me. I am a little confused here, as the thread you pointed out in your opening post was about comments like this, no? To be honest, I thought your thread was about the other one you directed us to?

THEN, you go on about existence, but then bring up creation? Which one is it you are trying to get to the bottom of? You might as well be asking, "what came first? The chicken or the egg?"

It seems to me that you are struggling to defend something that you know in your heart is at the core of your own beliefs, so why would you care what other people think? Religion is just one of those things that people don't often change their minds on, no matter what.

So, what is it exactly you are looking for, besides further validation of something you are unwavering on anyway?

It's awfully hard not to take trolling when you are a troll yourself. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."


This is your response ? Semantics, circular reasoning and " you are " ? Calling me a troll when all I've done is write a thread addressing a solid issue ? Just checking.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I have not sufficient enough experience or observation to come to my own conviction quite yet. I'm still working on that. Out of other peoples interpretations, I enjoy Wittgenstein's approach.




1 - The world is everything that is the case.

1.1 - The world is the totality of facts, not of things.

1.11 - The world is determined by the facts, and by these being all the
facts.

1.12 - For the totality of facts determines both what is the case, and
also all that is not the case.

1.13 - The facts in logical space are the world.

1.2 - The world divides into facts.

1.21 - Any one can either be the case or not be the case, and everything
else remain the same.

2 - What is the case, the fact, is the existence of atomic facts.

2.01 - An atomic fact is a combination of objects (entities, things).

2.011 - It is essential to a thing that it can be a constituent part of an
atomic fact.

2.012 - In logic nothing is accidental: if a thing can occur in an atomic
fact the possibility of that atomic fact must already be prejudged
in the thing.

2.0121 - It would, so to speak, appear as an accident, when to a thing
that could exist alone on its own account, subsequently a state
of affairs could be made to fit.
If things can occur in atomic facts, this possibility must already lie in them.


.....and onwards until...



6.54 - My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands
me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out
through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw
away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world
rightly.

7 - Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.


Tractactatus Logico-Philosophicus - Ludwig Wittgenstein






top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join