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.

 

Smartest Man in America says God exists

page: 17
40
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by grainofsand
 


But if it isn't chaos, which I have shown, it can only be order,

According to your theory which requires predefined assumptions.


which by definition requires a certain degree of intent.

Again, another assumption.


I would argue that consciousness doesn't necessarily exist in such a case because a robot isn't "conscious", and yet it is fully capable of intent. The true divinity comes from energy whose very nature is to function in this manner.

No evidence of any 'true divinity' anywhere but hey, I guess it fits with your personal theory and gives you some comfort to get through life then good luck with those beliefs.
At least you do not present it as fact like many religious types tend to do.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ken10
I'm pretty sure most intelligent people declare themselves Atheist/Agnostic.

Einstein for one.


Educate yourself before you spew garbage to which you know nothing about.

Einstein himself stated quite clearly that he did not believe in a personal God:



"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."


In developing the theory of relativity, Einstein realized that the equations led to the conclusion that the universe had a beginning. He didn't like the idea of a beginning, because he thought one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So, he added a cosmological constant to the equation to attempt to get rid of the beginning. He said this was one of the worst mistakes of his life. Of course, the results of Edwin Hubble confirmed that the universe was expanding and had a beginning at some point in the past. So, Einstein became a deist - a believer in an impersonal creator God:



"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."


However, it would also seem that Einstein was not an atheist, since he also complained about being put into that camp:




"I'm NOT an Atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 

It is by far easier to try to tear down another person's conceptions and descriptions of reality than it is to propose one yourself. To then suggest that is it they who are deluded and are using it as a crutch by which to feel better about the mystery of life, is utterly absurd and asinine.

I'll make a statement about the deep nature of reality and see where it gets me..!


Life is made up of story, which is told through language or symbol (same diff) whereby meaning and context is decisive. However, story and language are things of the mind, ideas, thoughts. A mindless, thoughtless universe has nothing to say, and therefore no meaning can be assigned to it, if that were the case. In this regard, all human perception, and all science, would be absurd and utterly delusional in it's ability to describe reality, and yet by it's language (of math and physics) it has predictive capabilities, and therefore the universe is governed by language, tells a story, and may therefore trace it's origins and destiny to the thoughts of the mind of God.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by grainofsand
 

It is by far easier to try to tear down another person's conceptions and descriptions of reality than it is to propose one yourself. To then suggest that is it they who are deluded and are using it as a crutch by which to feel better about the mystery of life, is utterly absurd and asinine.

No suggestions of delusion have been made by myself, you must be referring to someone else.


I'll make a statement about the deep nature of reality and see where it gets me..!


Life is made up of story, which is told through language or symbol (same diff) whereby meaning and context is decisive. However, story and language are things of the mind, ideas, thoughts. A mindless, thoughtless universe has nothing to say, and therefore no meaning can be assigned to it, if that were the case. In this regard, all human perception, and all science, would be absurd and utterly delusional in it's ability to describe reality, and yet by it's language (of math and physics) it has predictive capabilities, and therefore the universe is governed by language, tells a story, and may therefore trace it's origins and destiny to the thoughts of the mind of God.

Interesting belief which I do not subscribe to. If it makes you happy though I am happy for you.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand
Interesting belief which I do not subscribe to. If it makes you happy though I am happy for you.

Please then, by all means share yours, and how it differs from what I offered, not as a belief, but as a type of proof, if you would be so kind, thanks.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Why should he provide any kind of evidence when you did not?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by dominicus
 


The search for God is not a spiritual one anymore. The theistic-minded are no longer content with finding their own personal god. Now they wish for their deity to become part-and-parcel within the physical universe.

Our understanding of fundamental interaction, evolutionary theory, anthropology, and psychology (among other things) have helped us map out the way galaxies are born, how planets form, possible ways life could have begun, how species evolved, and the subtler mechanics behind how things remain as we currently know them. They have made God unnecessary.

Instead of accepting this though, and turning inward, seeking God within their own psyche, the theistic-minded are getting wrathful and aggressive: waging a war against all that we know and understand. They are decrying advancements in medicine, psychology, biology, and history in favor of mystery and obscurity. God is no longer necessary for the Universe, so the theists think it means God can no longer exist. That is their mistake though. It is why they push so hard to subjugate science under God's realm.

They simply fail to understand what role faith has in human psychology. Anyone who tries to say that a God, or creation, were necessary to begin things... has failed to understand the way in which faith and human consciousness coincide.

As for some inconsistencies and other Biblical errors:

There could be no light before the sun
Bats are not birds, as the Bible claims
A 450 foot boat could not support 2-7 of every species on Earth
Saltwater fish surviving a world-wide flood of fresh water is impossible
Pi does not equal 3 exactly
The earth does not have corners
The sun cannot stand still without the Earth being burnt away
Two humans could not produce all the races through inbreeding and incest

It's not hard to find quote-by-quote commentary with Scriptural references for these things either. Just a simple Google search for "Biblical inconsistencies" or "Lies in the Bible" or any type of wording you'd care to put together on the topic will produce a plethora of results. My personal favorite being Jesus Never Existed for Biblical historical revisionism; and the Skeptic's Annotated Bible for lies, contradictions, inconsistencies, and more.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Please the tape back through again, I did offer evidence, and if he's going to sit there from the comfort of his armchair and cast dispersions upon the views of others, in this case YOURS (how ironic) then surely it's incumbant upon him to offer up an alternative and better explanation.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by koagula

Originally posted by grainofsand

Originally posted by koagula

Originally posted by grainofsand
reply to post by koagula
 

Nothing useful to offer to the debate then?
Kind of trollish if you were to ask me, but mildly amusing so I won't break my heart or worry that any argument of mine has been undermined by your post.



It's the mathematics of string theory... I think it's actually quite fitting for this thread.

If followed up with some personal interpretation to support your argument I'd be mildly interested, but presented as you have I shall ignore it as insignificant to the debate.



If the universe is a fractal, then, mathematically, the smartest person in America makes some sense here, in that we are all a part of GOD. However, is GOD an I-phone application with an unknown function or the creator of this app? If the latter, then we are only a product of its mind, not its being.


Interesting thoughts but again, just faith based argument relying on one or more pre-defined assumptions.
No different to the religious zealot who uses scripture to support their argument. One has to assume the scriptures are valid for the argument to be made.


Purely conjecture;

It's possible that we are random UN-wanted biological manifestations which have gained consciousness over eons of evolution inside a HDD. Disease and virii are quite possibly algorithms created by the universes anti-virus programme to rid itself of an infestation, namely us.

This leads me to the idea that the universe may have begun when a computer was turned on, i.e. the big bang or swell. Therefore, our GOD might be a computer and its GOD might be a person and so on in a fractal-esque way. Scale is not really a problem in quantum theory.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 

You really should check this out..


Originally posted by NewAgeMan
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.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by grainofsand
Interesting belief which I do not subscribe to. If it makes you happy though I am happy for you.

Please then, by all means share yours, and how it differs from what I offered, not as a belief, but as a type of proof, if you would be so kind, thanks.

I don't require any magical answer to fill the gaps in the unanswered questions which science cannot satisfy at the deepest levels.
As I said previously, people blamed gods for earthquakes before knowledge of geological processes improved.
I do not assert that any belief is wrong just that it is a belief, not fact.
My contributions to this thread have been inspired by members posting their faith based arguments as fact.
As with any such assertions, the burden of proof lays with the person making such statements.
If presented as belief alone then I care little about the opinion, but when presented as fact I will question it, if only to allow more impressionable members of ATS to see that the argument is based on pre-defined assumptions of unproven magical forces, or gods. Not proven facts.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 

ah...ok then.. you're off the hook.

Would have been interesting though to get some idea as to what your competing argument might have been.. oh well.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 


I like the clever changing of which post your reply links back to. Luckily, I'm not lazy, and was able to go and find my original post. Here it is. Now then, you say:


If you had looked at my signature, you could have spared yourself the copy and paste of your list of demonic entities.


Which makes me think you failed to read my entire reply. Here's a fun fact for you: your God was in my post. Specifically in the part you failed to quote:


Anu, Enki, Enlil, Ninhursag, Utu, Nanna, Inanna, Nergal, Ninurta, Nanibgal, Re, Ptah, Atum, Thoth, Horus, Isis, Hathor, Selket, Tum, Maat, Seshat, Asherah, Anat, Baal, Teshub, Telipinu, Kamrusepa, Hannahannas, Kybele, Yahweh, Yam, Mot, Nyx, Ouranos, Cronus, Tethys, Okeanos, Atlas, Prometheus, Aphrodite, Zeus, Hades, Poseidon, Athena, Ares, Ahura-Mazda, Mithra, Varuna, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Kali, Yama, the Buddha, Guan Yu, Han Xiang, the Jade Emperor, the Dragon King, Brighit, the Daghda, Lugh, Morrigan, Maponus, Taranis, Bel, Sulis, Odin, Ing, Tyr, Heimdallr, Freya, Baldr, the Six Grandfathers


You just called your God a demonic entity. Which, near as I can tell, lying is a sin in your religion. So, congratulations on revealing the truth to yourself and everyone else on this board. Your God is just as much a demon as all of the other gods I listed. Well done.

Unless you were lying in your response. In which case, your God is going to be very displeased with you. What a conundrum you've gotten yourself into.

Also, there's no empirical, undeniable evidence for God's existence. Saying there is, does not make it so. God is not necessary for us to exist. Sorry to break the news to you.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAnarchist
 


Wanting to know why evolution works is what science has been doing since the theory was proposed. Natural selection, phylogeny, speciation, and a whole host of other fields exist to answer this question. The real "intellectual stagnation" is when, instead of embarking on a journey to find a scientific rationale, we instead allow ourselves to lazily accept "God did it" as the reasoning. We already know that "God didn't do it," so we'd be taking a step backward in believing evolution needed God as a cause.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Wandering Scribe
 



Also, there's no empirical, undeniable evidence for God's existence. Saying there is, does not make it so. God is not necessary for us to exist. Sorry to break the news to you.


I agree with this...to a point. See, "God" may not be necessary, but order and stability certainly are. If scientists are correct in thinking the universe was generated by an explosion, then the universe should have been constructed primarily by the chaotic maelstrom of particles. And yet, everything fit together like a puzzle that got dumped in a mad jumble from a hundred feet in the air and still hit the ground fully assembled - all by itself.

This makes sense to you? I am not saying there is a god. I am saying there is a force that uses chaos to maintain order. Kind of like using a finger to keep a spinning coin upright. If chaos is not the sole force of creation, then there is order hidden in the folds. Order requires intent.

And that intent is a circle, a principle that feeds into itself. That, to me, is divinity. The ability to keep yourself going in spite of all opposition. The ability to grow in spite of darkness, to grow BECAUSE of darkness. To take strength from darkness and light, and find the perfect balance necessary to come out on top. Divinity. Because if you always take one side, you will always be fighting the other. And if you are fighting, you will eventually destroy something.

Life is not destruction. It is growth. And that what the universe is. Experience, growing, learning. Chaos is not learning. It is meaningless, unless there is order behind it. Wherever you turn, there has to be order. None of this is possible without order.

Not a god. Just a principle. A principle meant to show us that there is no such thing as evil. There is only motion, and motion becomes experience, and experience becomes value, and value becomes happiness. The only evil there is, is the inability to take something positive from something negative. Add positive intent to a negative experience, -1 and 1 and you get...0. Nothing. Neutrality. Balance. You've learned stability. That's what motion is, going round and round. All the way from the galaxy to the atom, particles and planets spinning round and round, maintaining stability in the greater scheme.

The circle shows us how to do that. You want divinity? Study the circle. Hours and hours. That's where you'll find your god. Because the circle is our life. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust. From the stars we came...

And to the stars we will one day return. This is my personal opinion, shared with the thread for the benefit of those interested in an alternative perspective.

edit on 31-12-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wonders
 


Originally posted by Wonders
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.



evidence |ˈevədəns|
noun
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid : the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination.
• Law information given personally, drawn from a document, or in the form of material objects, tending or used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in court : without evidence, they can't bring a charge.
• signs; indications : there was no obvious evidence of a break-in.


fact |fakt|
noun
a thing that is indisputably the case : she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public | a body of fact.
• ( the fact that) used in discussing the significance of something that is the case : the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut.
• (usu. facts) a piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
• chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation : there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter.


It's probably best to stick to the commonly held definition of evidence. I mean if there is some evidence in favour of intelligent design that I may have overlooked and it proves to be indisputable, you will watch a man's entire belief system crumble before your eyes.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Life itself is the language of God speaking and telling a story, and once started, he never stops talking, but instead of only telling a story about himself he also invites us to tell our own story about ourselves, and about our relationship with him or with the larger story of life within which we are immersed. It's a magnificent thing that can only have arisen by conscious thought and intentionality.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Does math count as evidence? According to Dr. Hugh Ross, based on observable phenomena in life-forming processes as documented in scientific history:


Thus, less than 1 chance in 10 to the 182nd power (hundred trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such planet would occur anywhere in the universe.


If anyone wants to translate that number into numerical figures, please feel free to do so.


So how about it, LesMis? Does this qualify as evidence that some form of intent was, at the very least, involved in the development of this particular planet? Because math doesn't lie. And if you find any legitimate flaws in the calculations as demonstrated in the link below, please share them with us.

www.reasons.org...

Please remember, I do not use this as an argument for the existence of the Christian god. I use it as an argument that the existence of our universe isn't due to pure chaos and chance. The Christian god isn't the only available explanation by any means. In fact, any sort of god isn't the only available explanation. Let's try to remember that.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I mean if there is some evidence in favour of intelligent design that I may have overlooked and it proves to be indisputable, you will watch a man's entire belief system crumble before your eyes.

Really? Have you ever done any deep research into the nature of the moon-earth-sun relationship and it's "coincidences"? If so, I can't recommend it enough for someone who's not unwilling to consider intelligent design, but who would like to try if possible to rule it out.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Try to leave the sentimental testimony for the fictional stories section. It's next to worthless in a discussion based on empirical data.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join