It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Smartest Man in America says God exists

page: 15
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:15 AM
If this analysis is correct, then God is very very loving and in the final analysis, an absolute riot!

Unparalleled reason and logic = unparalleled HUMOR.

This is of greater intelligence than even the smart doorman's theory, although related to it directly since we are a part of this larger reality creating Godmind.

"Life is a Mighty Joke. He who knows this can hardly be understood by others. He who does not know it finds himself in a state of delusion. He may ponder over this problem day and night, but will find himself incapable of knowing it. Why? People take life seriously, and God lightly; whereas we must take God seriously, and take life lightly. Then, we know that we always were the same and will ever remain the same.......the Originator of this joke. This knowledge is not acheived by reasoning.
But it is the knowledge of experience."

~ Meher Baba

edit on 31-12-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:21 AM
All of his statements were preceded by "I believe"


posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by Runciter33

It was recently discovered that IQ is bogus, that being said...GOD does's called GOLD OIL DIAMONDS and it is the basis for all evil on this planet. Of course you can not have evil without good, the choices made by each individual prove that.

Is there an energy greater than our self, absolutely, I don't call it God and respecting religion is just being politically correct...why do people need a religion? I don't...I know the difference between right and wrong...I am capable of understanding I did not just materialize out thin air...evolution and creationism have to both exist, one cannot occur without the other....that does not take a genius to understand...the cavemen understood that.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by Runciter33

I went to his site and took a look. Well.....One of the first things I read was that he had this way of explaining this so that everyone can understand. BS. He talks in riddles. Sorry but his use of large words makes it really hard to read. I seen nothing that really explained anything that hasnt allready been explained. He went into great detail about what came first the chicken or the egg. He said that it depends if you are talking about a chicken egg or any old egg. Really....Really???? I thought he was going to start defining IS like Bill Clinton did. If this is smarts then I guess I would rather stay dumb.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:56 AM
reply to post by WesternIowaParanormal

It would be dumb though to stay dumb in the face of new information, which can come from any and all directions for those are seeking it.. and by information I don't mean some intellectual curiosity that one can hold like an opinion, at arms length but real information (in formation) which can only be understood if integrated or "grokked" to borrow a term from Robert Heinlein's "A Stranger in a Strange Land", which means to take in a piece of information or new knowledge so deeply, that it is akin to eating or drinking it ie: fully integrated where the real meaning of Education, is a form of self remembrance and recognition (re-cognition).

If he and his evaluation didn't "pass muster" for you, it doesn't mean that the basic premise of his argument isn't valid when placed into another contextual frame of reference so that it can be understood in a meaningful way.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by Runciter33

He sounds intelligent and I concur so far with his evaluation.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:03 AM
I'm not sure i understood or was necessarily buying everything he said on C2C, but what i did agree with was his idea of "intelligent design" and evolution not being mutually exclusive or contradictory concepts. I myself have loosely thought of it as organized in that way somehow.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:07 AM
It does not take a genius to recognize the Creator's Hand behind all creation and the Devil's hand behind all the harm and misery but can simple fools keep from damning themselves with Blasphemy is the question. IMO life is a test, a proving ground for human beings to show if their souls are worth of an eternal life ad you may be sure what I speak of is always between a man/woman and his/her creator and certainly not through the eyes of men or their writings.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:11 AM

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Wonders

There is evidence for God, and there is evidence for "aliens", too many people have turned a blind eye to the evidence, it is suppressed, denied, ignored, and overlooked.

Let's hear it then. What evidence do you have to support the theory? If it has been suppressed, I would like to hear it.

I think I'd be better able to answer that question if you would answer me this: What, in your opinion, doesn't count as evidence? Thanks.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:19 AM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Runciter33

Seems that some other very smart people are arriving at the same conclusion.

The God Theory.

Intriguingly, a colleague of Bernard Haische actually derived Newton's famous equation of motion F=MA while working in equations dealing with the quantum vaccuum. For more on that see Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field.

The model of the smart doorman, in essence amounts to the recent maxim of modern science that "to be is to be percieved", while at the same time acknowledging an intentionality to the entire evolutionary framework in order so that a shared, mutual experience is possible (see The God Theory for more).

Descartes also arrived at the same conclusion by philosophical deductive logic by suggesting that to perceive is to percieve the perciever, because any object of perception, in order to uphold it's own objective reality, must also be perceived, no matter how inaccessible such a perceptual objective reality may be according to the filtered subjectivity of our own sensory imput. In other words we can point to it and say that it's there, but what's really there must itself as part of an objective reality also be held by the mind of God as the absolute objective reality's origin - which is not at all dissimilar to Bernard Haisch the modern physicists viewpoint regarding the Godhead and our reality as an intentional and intelligent subtraction from the absolute formless potential from which a contextual framework for experience is made possible ie: Godmade, on purpose.

U is for Universe.

However, to avoid what a poster above described as "Blasphemy" it is essential that we see ourselves as created beings in relation to, the Absolute Godhead, and maintain our relationship WITH God as that of a beloved and beloved other wherein we forever maintain an indispensible I-Thou relationship through which a continual exploration and inquiry can be made without any loss of integrity or the risk of a fall and separation from our center and source ie: so that the relationship can continue as a relationship on a foundation of love as the first/last cause by which the relationship was made possible to begin with and without which there is no such relationship (if we do not love God).

This also requires a response from us as created beings by virtue of our inclusion in the creation - do we have gratitude, do we run away from it, embrace it (Abba!), what do we do now?!!! That God leaves this open to us as a domain of unfettered freedom since love to be real love can only be real if it's free, places us into a type of humorous predicament or double bind, the unravelling of which brings us into koinonia or a deep, intimate, participatory relationship via a shared joke at our prior ignorance's expense (that we were all alone) and this thrills us, that God's love for us, precedes us, and includes and envelopes us in this way - and then we understand the true meaning of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, who, having come to his senses and set off for home with a repentant heart, ends up discovering to his utter dismay, that his father (who he was worried would not take him back), seeing him from a long way off (but returning) RAN to him and hugged him, while rejecting the son's plea to be taken back as nothing but a mere servant and ordering the appointments by which that son would be utterly restored to his prior status as true son (even though he was bad and blew his part of the inheritance on "riotous living" including "whoring" around and whatnot).

It's absolutely hilarious to really "grok" it at long last, imho. It's enough to bring any reasonable person both to tears and to the laughter and love capable of wiping away the tears from our eyes.

It's magnificent and beautiful. Indeed it (the recognition or realization) really is the hand of God that wipes away the tears from our eyes referenced near the end of the Bible in the Revelation of John, at the point when God will come to live with us, and we will be counted as his children, and he will be our God.

Best Regards,

A Bride of Christ

The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life.

~ Revelation 22:17

edit on 31-12-2012 by NewAgeMan because: final final edit

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:30 AM

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman

Originally posted by Wonders

Originally posted by Ryanssuperman
Your thread title is an oxymoron.

Your support for Ron Paul is ironic.

I don't think ironic is the word you're looking for here. If you're going to attempt an insult, at least have it make sense.

You're absolutely right, I wasn't sure about that word either but seriously, is it rediculous that you're in support of someone that you don't believe is smart because they believe in God?

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:51 AM
His beliefs are akin to the Upanishads and even Erwin Shrodinger who held similar beliefs.

Btw God is just a word and many people have different ideas of what that is. Meaning of God for one person is not the same for another.

Whether there is, or there is not a designer/creator, will that really change anything for you?

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 02:04 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
One must also keep in mind that if we did arise from natural evolutionary development we were not designed by God in his image. We were designed by random events and natural selection, a completely mindless process.

But then one has to question why physical laws and interactions of matter, and such, are just so, that these processes can occur. The physical laws and such were predetermined before any such processes.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:06 AM
Perhaps he is the most intelligent in America, but it doesn't take much does it... He's probably been indoctrinated from a child to believe in a creator and has put pieces together that he can't explain. But an intelligent person wouldn't accept their belief... An intelligent person would question the uncertainty within the observable universe and listen to their biological functions and think... Am I limited to what I can sense? I'm just an animal that can think a little more than the others...

There is nothing here other than his pseudo-scientific status...

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:34 AM
The fact that he, a conscious being, is doing the math that would link consciousness to the universe and god automatically involves adding a paradoxical variable that changes the equation. And by this I mean he concludes that there is a god because his brain is biased, as is all of ours.

Our brains are powerful but they can only process so much. He may be able to absorb and retain all that he learns but has this man proved that he is responsible with this kind of ability? Well lets look at what he has done with this wealth of knowledge. Oh yeah- nothing.

The power of genius, (and by genius I mean the ability to bridge a gap between different things and innovations to alter, better, and even create new things) does not always allow the brain much room to store useless information. I don't think that this man proves that he is capable of performing this act of genius. Even computers can store vast amounts of information. That does not mean a computer can develop new ways of producing liquid hydrogen.

This man has assimilated all of the information of all of the technologies today- but if he does nothing with it, then what was it all for?

Of course this man believes in god, because his brain can only process facts- truths or falsehoods. His mind can not think in the realm of the unknown.

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." -Andre Gide

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:53 AM
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

You are correct.

In fact, most notable people in history who were considered geniuses were agnostic, even Einstein.

If this man is the smartest, and by smartest I mean a person who has an impeccable memory, then he probably remembers a lot of what is written in the Bible. I doubt however, that he is capable of coming to any logical or prudent conclusions; as seen in the poor life decisions he has made. Or the fact that he wants to make a factual argument based on belief.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:56 AM

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
Adding "God" as the "cause" of evolution is unnecessary, as evolution needs no cause.

Why set your sights so short? Why is adding a 'cause' unnecessary? Is it really enough to know that something works, and of absolutely no benefit to us to discern why something works? A stagnant intellectual is no more useful than a simple machine. Curiosity and thirst for knowledge is a human's life-force. Personally, knowing that evolution exists is not enough. I want to know why it exists, and the argument that "discovering the answer to that question is tough" is not a good enough deterrent for me.

But what do I know?

edit on 31/12/2012 by TheAnarchist because: ~

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 03:58 AM

Originally posted by SilentKoala

Originally posted by Biigs
If everyone believed in God, perhaps they would behave more and not have so many wars.

Can't say I agree here. More wars have been waged in the name of God than for any other reason.

Not only in the name of GOD, but in the name of many GODS.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:13 AM
This is what religious people dont understand...

A person's belief or opinion is irrelevant in the debate.

Just like "concensus" among scientists doesnt make something true.

Science is neither a dictatorship nor a democratic process.

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 04:39 AM
reply to post by dominicus

Who says there are various gods? Another assumption?

Humans do. There are multiple Gods that humans dreamt up.

top topics

<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in