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: 19
40
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Billions of people live their whole lives without perceiving God once. That's a lot of evidence.




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 

Not my "belief" but my experience, and the thing that makes me laugh out loud in regards to the entrenched position of the materialist monist, which in light of the ... humor of understanding, reveals it's absurdity. Who then is the who who can stand apart from one's self and be aware of the movements of the self's mind and even be aware of the awareness of self and who can apply any number of models by which to evaluate both self and the world at large, who is free to do that if not the free self who transcends the machinations of automatic reaction/responses?



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Billions of people live their whole lives without perceiving God once. That's a lot of evidence.

That's an absence of evidence, not evidence. First it was the 3d denial of an authentic 2d coincidence in regard to the radius of the earth to the moon to the sun, now this, yet you hold yourself up as some sort of intellectual superior for your no-God viewpoint, I don't get it..



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by grainofsand
 

Not my "belief" but my experience, and the thing that makes me laugh out loud in regards to the entrenched position of the materialist monist, which in light of the ... humor of understanding, reveals it's absurdity. Who then is the who who can stand apart from one's self and be aware of the movements of the self's mind and even be aware of the awareness of self and who can apply any number of models by which to evaluate both self and the world at large, who is free to do that if not the free self who transcends the machinations of automatic reaction/responses?

Yes it is belief albeit based on experience, but belief nonetheless.
I perceive an existence as previously explained. My perception of this existence (I assume) shall end when my body ceases to function.
I do not believe in the 'soul' idea and have no need to cling to hopes of an afterlife.
If this idea of mystical unproven spiritual magic assists you with your own perceptions of existence then I am pleased for you. I however, do not require such unsubstantiated concepts to enjoy what I perceive now.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by grainofsand
 

Fair enough to each his own but I'll hate to lose you as a potential friend because this life is just the blink of an eye and then according to you, all is forgotten ie: that the experience of life is framed by two oblivions, another amuzing hypothesis when you really think it through all the way since I thought death was just part of life and not the other way around!



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


It's easy to declare God does or doesn't exist, but let's add a little context. What does God exist as NewAgeMan?

Within the context of reality, God does exist, but only as an idea. But I don't expect to find a confession by the person who invented the concept.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by grainofsand
 

Fair enough to each his own but I'll hate to lose you as a potential friend because this life is just the blink of an eye and then according to you, all is forgotten ie: that the experience of life is framed by two oblivions, another amuzing hypothesis when you really think it through all the way since I thought death was just part of life and not the other way around!

We can agree on one thing for sure, the detritus feeding creepy crawleys will certainly make my death a big part of their lives when I'm buried


...I'm ducking out of this topic now though as going out for some non-gods-approved evening fun, if it's a while before I respond to anyone, It's not I'm ignoring, just non-digital world is making me a better offer!.
Pleasant wishes for all in 2013, I look forward to interesting debate over the next 12 months



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



I'm not denying circular objects, only perfect circles. I can see how pixelated that particular circle is from here. If that's your idea of perfection I would say you should raise your standards a little.


Then you do not understand perfection. Everything we know about perfection comes from what humankind desires from perfection. What perfect is there in the lack of room for improvement? What perfection is there in the end of a road? Just existence. Pure existence. Nothing except the enjoyment of no challenges. Without challenge, there is no triumph. Without triumph, no joy. Without joy, no meaning. And without meaning, no purpose.

Perfection is the same as having no purpose. Is that what you want in life? Is that the goal of our species? To have no purpose because there is no challenge? Perfection is a prison of stagnancy.

Take this circle, this pixelated circle. It shows that there is no clear cut definition to anything, because it is always comprised of smaller elements giving shades of nuance to the nature of all that exists. The closer you look, the more you see hundreds of overlapping segments that unite to create a larger picture from the sum of its definitions. Is a tree just a tree? No, it is an indescribable number of cells dancing in a process that continually engages in a game of give-and-take with the world around it, interacting with a myriad of varying organisms that work together to create a masterpiece that people will look at in wonder as the seasons change, that people will sit under for shade, that children will climb and scrape themselves on, that will provide a perch for a singing bird blessing passersby with its music or the occasional photographer with a memory that will last for centuries. A tree is not just a tree. It is a learning experience. Just like this circle. It is flawed, and that is what makes it perfect.

That's my idea of perfection. Because when perfection is just an end, it provides nothing except a reason to want more. That is your perfection. You say I should raise my standards a little? My standards allow room for growth, for learning, for life. There is no reason to set my standards at the finish line, because I don't give myself a finish line. Why race at all? Take a moment to stop and look at that tree. Pick a flower. Say hello to someone. Make a child laugh. We race through life, never realizing how much we leave undone with every quick step we take.

My perfection gives us a reason to DO more, because it will never be completely finished. An eternity of creation, just waiting for us to notice it. How's that for perfection?


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



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
You know, because I like to remain open-minded, and scientifically-minded, towards any and all possibility, I've often considered, very seriously, whether there might be a THIRD option whereby BOTH the atheist AND theist are right, in some sort of paradigm shifting, mutually shared joke told at the expense of the ignorance of both of us. The only problem with that idea, however, is that it's a joke that could only be told from the POV of an infinitely mysterious Godhead who both is and is not and who is therefore capable of bridging the divide between both worldviews..

It's like a Buddhist koan, and it makes for a very interesting conundrum/paradox.

Things that make ya go hmmmm.. I think I'll have to sleep on it.


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



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Actually, that's not too bad. I enjoyed it. I remain unconvinced that a circle is in anyway divine, but that shouldn't take anything away from what you wrote.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



Actually, that's not too bad. I enjoyed it. I remain unconvinced that a circle is in anyway divine, but that shouldn't take anything away from what you wrote.


Well, that's something at least.
A little more something for you to chew on: They say "God" has no beginning and no end. What else matches this description?


I know, I know...you desire concrete proof. Sometimes, looking at everything but the picture reveals the contour of the picture itself. The merest suggestion of an image, but a suggestion can tell you where to go next in your quest.

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



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

I enjoyed that description as well re: the circle and the flaw.

Here's another way of looking at it compliments of a couple of very smart people.

The God Theory


"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249274834&sr=8-1

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt


If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-1

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality
www.amazon.com...=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1249275852&sr=8-6

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:


[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."

an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything


Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."

Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward higher forms of consciousness and self-realization.


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



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


I don't understand what you mean by beginning and end. You can hold a frisbee in two hands. Circles have an edge, a diameter. If you were to trace a circle, the circle would begin where you put your pencil down and end where you picked the pencil up. If something was able to trace a circle infinitely, I would have to laugh at it because it would be doing something that was infinitely pointless.

Nonetheless your ideas here parallel Plato and his forms. Check out the Republic if you haven't already (I think book 5 if I remember correctly). He might add more arguments to your arsenal.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



I don't understand what you mean by beginning and end. You can hold a frisbee in two hands. Circles have an edge, a diameter. If you were to trace a circle, the circle would begin where you put your pencil down and end where you picked the pencil up.


Indeed. So if you were to enter a tube of stainless steel absent of any markers, that you had never seen before and knew nothing about, how long would it take you to walk from point A to point B? If it were a matter of discernment on your part, would you be able to do it? And if a similar tube were to be attached to a particular segment and loop around to another segment on the same circular tunnel, would you know the difference? If you have no means of comparison except your naked eyes, would you be able to determine if it was the same tube or not?

It's all in the perspective. You have the perspective to define a frisbee, but you do not have the vantage point to define life so precisely.


If something was able to trace a circle infinitely, I would have to laugh at it because it would be doing something that was infinitely pointless.


If something is pointless, you have made it pointless. One can say that it is pointless to spend all night staring at the stars, but I would look at them and say, "Those stars are where we all come from. Once upon a time, a star died and its pieces fell to earth. And they become part of us. I am looking at the future of our race." Or any number of other deep philosophical responses I could toss out. The point is, I often see meaning where others do not. And the meaning is more a matter of caring than a matter of nature. I can look at the death of a child and see a valuable lesson in the harsh tragedy. It's a matter of being willing to look for it.

If it is pointless, that is not fact. That is a choice of perspective. It reveals more about how you feel in regards to your world than anything else.


Nonetheless your ideas here parallel Plato and his forms. Check out the Republic if you haven't already (I think book 5 if I remember correctly). He might add more arguments to your arsenal.


I use little bits and piece from everyone, tiny snippets of perspective that I find interesting, that resonate with my soul. The majority of my arguments, however, comes from within. My arguments are purely me.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

I guess in some parallel universe there a people walking around inside circular tubes trying to figure out how to get out. I would hope no one ever finds themselves in such a position. I do understand what you're trying to get at, but we have to invent unrealistic things to prove unrealistic things. We can all think of circles in our mind just as we can imagine such scenarios. It is a good explanation though.


If it is pointless, that is not fact. That is a choice of perspective. It reveals more about how you feel in regards to your world than anything else.

I agree with this. But you must admit that the same can be said of meaning. I am not a nihilist, but I've personally moved past bestowing divinity and meaning on things that, in my opinion, are often unnecessarily deified beyond what they currently are. To me, thinking profoundly about circles doesn't make my life seem any more profound. It is a circle, not a life principle. But like you said, this is perspective. The stars are actually real, visible, not of our creation and worth contemplating.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Speaking of circles, as someone else mentioned earlier in the thread it almost sounds like his theory is related to hermetic philosophy in some way. Our human 'little minds' compared to God's 'big mind' reminds me of "as above, so below" and also this quote;

"God is an infinite sphere, the center of which is everywhere, the circumference nowhere."

- Hermes Trismegistus, book of the Philosophers.

I think a lot of people get hung up on the word 'God', which is understandable on both sides of the equation whether believer or disbeliever. The word has a long history that makes it a point of contention for good reason i suppose.
edit on 31-12-2012 by Runciter33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   


In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.


I really like this part because it meshes with my beliefs, which are similar. Thanks for the thread SNF.
edit on 31-12-2012 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


The "Big Bang" was not an explosion. The moniker was assigned originally as an insult by those who did not accept the theory. In physics it is understood as the rapid unfurling of matter into space-time. Also, the universe as it is now, was not just "exploded" perfectly into existence. It also grew, evolved, changed, and transformed over the previous 14 billion years.

I do not disagree with your reply though; only that, as you said, it is not God. Entropy, chaos, the Big Bang... these are all scientific, or at least a part of physics and mathematics. They stand solidly on their own evidence, without the need of an "Unmoved Mover" or a "First Cause" to have set them in motion.

If you believe that God is physics, and chemistry, then more power to you. But you can just as easily accept the science behind physics and chemistry, and cut out the middle-man, because God is still unnecessary.

As for the opposition between light and dark, creation and destruction... that's getting into philosophy, metaphysics, and personal conjecture. I do have my own opinions (which find darkness, evil, and destruction just as necessary as their counterparts), but this is neither the time, nor the place for me to go into a deep discussion of them.

All said, I agree with much of your intent; but disagree that God, or some Philosophic Cause, was necessary for our universe to begin, transform, and arrive where it is now.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TheAnarchist
 



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?


You're trying to twist my words; what an ugly little thing to do. I never said that we should not push to know "why" a thing happens. What I said was that saying God is the why is being intellectually dishonest. The most honest thing we can do, when we do not know, is say I do not know. But I am trying to find out. God is an unnecessary filler, an answer for the gaps. We credit something to God when we're too lazy, or too impatient, to find the real answer.

~ Wandering Scribe



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I love all the atheists on ATS.

You folks always bring a smile to my face.

Your comments remind me that even though I may have my faults and vices at least I'm not a pedantic self-righteous piece of trash like you.

Thank you.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join