Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Atheism vs. God-Belief (the final debate).

page: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 




Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Don't count me out yet.

I knew that was coming! It must have been some non-local consciousness happening!


I don't give up that easily. It must be a symptom of some latent masochistic tendencies or some such flaw.
I know others have given up on me with surprising ease - their hunger for brutal self-imposed critical analysis is somewhat lacking, I fear.

But not on my watch!
edit on 20-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

Thanks. I think it will take me about two weeks to complete Part Two while successfully demonstrating it's linkage to Part One. Part One without part two is just metaphysical speculation for the most part, but in Part Two we shall be considering tangible evidence or proof of superintelligent design by the fully informed, infinitely intelligent Godhead as a causal Creative Agent and first/last cause (Alpha and Omega) in the very same creation that we presently inhabit.

No matter how smart or credentialed these scientists, to say that our reality and existence in the manifest creation represents an intelligent subtraction from the fully informed eternal Godhead, or as an intentional and intelligently conceived creative process, is one thing, but to then show actual evidence of intelligent design, is another. Taken together, in recognition that no matter what, it's all arisen from a first/last cause, even if from a "point zero" singularity of the "Big Bang" and we'll have the basis for a type of circular reasoning that makes perfect rational sense and that is open and subject to verification.

Once the whole argument is made I purport that no one will be able to cut it up or slice it apart with a "knife of reason" simply because there'll be nowhere to make the first cut or to draw any distinction by which to form a dialectic or competing argument and even if they presume to do so, the opposing argument for random occurrence or accidental coincidence (absent intent or purpose) will be a rather difficult one to mount at that point I would think, especially given the true and proper definition of atheism.

Thanks for your continued interest.

Best Regards,

NAM

edit on 20-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by SoulReaper
 

Would you close the door on your neighbor though?

I know if I was let in that I wouldn't do that, but would instead be found at the door inviting in as many as possible.

The whole work and the whole treasure is available because the treasure is his love.

It's an issue of love and the mutual brotherly love of man in relation to his fellow man.

It's all available, free, to freely eat and drink, so what are we to do but receive it and then extend it in the same spirit to others.

May Love and forgiveness, mercy, and grace upon grace be yours also, amen.


edit on 19-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)



In my view of the matter, it is not in my authority to open(or close for that matter) the gate for myself or anyone else. The gate will only be opened according to the will of God. Those who enter by it, have not merited this right, nor do they "deserve" it more then the one who does not enter, rather they only enter according to the good pleasure of their maker. The evidence of Gods pleasure will indeed begin to transform the righteous here in this life and the love of God will flow into and through them to other men. As Christ says "They will know you by your fruit, by the love which you show to one another."

So while a remnant of grace will indeed abide in the love of God, this expression of love was not the totality of Gods purpose for creating. There was a higher purpose by which God wished to display his glory as not only a redeemer, but also as a conquering king. In this purpose, God saw fit to raise up an opposition to his throne, a contingency of dissenters, a rebellion against his Kingship and the effects of this rebellion are seen in our world today. Yet they are fleeting and temporary and will one day meet their end. Why has God chosen to work out his purpose in this way? It really is beyond our ability to comprehend the deepest motives of an infinite being, as he says "my ways are higher then your ways".

The biggest mistake humans make when attempting to perceive God, is to bring him down from his throne and subject him to our human concepts of reason or justice. His mind is beyond our comprehension, and to judge it according to human reason is a fools errand.

Soul



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 

Redemption? From what? And what is our part, exactly? What is our obligation in this game?

Redemption from ignorance and folly born of all manner of egioc structures and attachments that wreck havoc upon our fellow man and the world of man.

As to our part and obligation in this game - I don't have time to address that right now because I have to get my ass back to work. Will come back to you on that.

You must admit that there must be something to be be done and choices to be made..



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 

I agree with that (star), and bear in mind that here for this thread I am only hoping to posit the existence of God nothing more.



For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

~ Romans 1:20

edit on 20-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: edit



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


If you are "positing" the existence of a god, and nothing more, I wouldn't recommend you start with the Bible. Dig into deeper, more culturally rich and substantial texts. Like Indian folklore, Nordic legends, or maybe Asian literature.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Fair enough,

I've enjoyed the thread thus far and am encouraged by the level of civility that has been maintained by all involved.

I hope that continues.

God Bless
Soul



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by SoulReaper
 

I have noticed however that while you don't profess to have the authority to work the gate or door (who is Christ and God-consciousness itself), that by your name/monicur, you appear to presume to be in possession of a sickle, and one which you seem prepared to make use of wherever possible and in particular, against me. Oh the irony!

As to the gate, I do believe it's something that Jesus wanted to make available to us as an opened doorway.


“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

Mathew 23:13



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

I cannot posit the existence of God using any texts from any tradition, but for the record I also love the Bhagavad Gita. Taoist texts would have me call God the void at best or to say nothing because words are insufficient.

Any outward evidence for the existence of God cannot come from any text but only from the manifest creation itself.

The knowledge of or communion with God is as we've already been discussing another matter whereby the Spirit can be tested, but because that resides in the domain of individual personal experience, while we can talk about it and explore it, even examine it's logos or logic I know and understand that it's not the kind of "evidence" that the atheist is willing to deal in or accept.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Why do you believe in a conscious entity that rules the universe? Why not a quantum function, a simple law that operates within all other laws?



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Aye Christ was speaking to the Jewish religious leaders in his day who resisted his efforts. Christ however made it quite clear that the leaders themselves would not enter through the gate, as for their attempt to "close the gate" or "prevent others from entering". We need only look a little further in the text to see how this endeavor worked out for them.

Verse 38
"See, your house is left to you desolate."

Christ cannot be prevented from saving his people out from under the rule of religious leaders in Israel or even today. It is not by men that we enter into the Kingdom of heaven, but only by God.

Thus Christ was pitting his desire to open the gate for his people against the desire of the pharisees to keep it shut and to keep Israel under their religious rule. Of course Christ conquers all and the house of the pharisees is "left desolate".

Soul



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

Because of intentionality and creative intent demonstrated in a design and therefore arising from a thoughtform of some kind and one capable of both causing and anticipating future causes.

Could you describe your "quantum function" and show how it is without originating creative intent, is not alive, and is non-conscious? And, if so, how would it know in advance and plan out future causes from initial conditions?

Siding with you and your potential argument for a moment, I could imagine how an eternal quantum fluctuation might arrive at a moment of absolute perfection (law within all laws), the outcropping and byproduct of which, according to sacred geometry is the enfolding and unfolding of that perfection (perfect order). But if it has embedded within itself an arrow of progress imposing order on chaos and giving rise to complexity and evolutionary development, and thus a purpose, in what way could it be said NOT to have a perfect will and a perfect intent and thus conscious awareness?

Furthermore if the Zero Point Field is fully informed and the cosmological unity an informational processing matrix, in what way is not NOT to be considered a "mind of God"?



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 


Not if the very fabric of existence itself were designed to follow a specific rubric organized according to chemicular/nuclear composition at any given point in time, proportional to the time frame or time elapse and the environmental factors.

But then your next argument would be that such a design would have to be intelligently created...well, not if this universe were merely one of an infinite number of attempts. Perhaps this is one successful trial per one trillion failed trials.

It's time for me to close up shop, but I will continue this discussion with you tomorrow.
edit on 20-3-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
Because of intentionality and creative intent demonstrated in a design and therefore arising from a thoughtform of some kind and one capable of both causing and anticipating future causes.
Why do you assume there has to be intentionality by the Absolute to account for Beauty in the universe? What about everything arising all at once in each and every moment in which everything displays its virtue (or not) based on how "much" Perfect Conscious Unmodified Light it is connected to and thereby emanating?
edit on 20-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

reply to post by bb23108
 

Part Two re: intelligent design, will address these issues It will take some time to put it all together though, so I have to ask for your patience.

I'll say this, that the evidence is all around us and right in front of our noses, and bb the light isn't UNmodified but modified in every conceivable manner in order to generate the means by which this experience we call life is possible, so it's infinitely modified. If unmodified it would just be a sea of uniform light without any differentiation or design and therefore no beauty to behold.



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
I'll say this, that the evidence is all around us and right in front of our noses, and bb the light isn't UNmodified but modified in every conceivable manner in order to generate the means by which this experience we call life is possible, so it's infinitely modified. If unmodified it would just be a sea of uniform light without any differentiation or design and therefore no beauty to behold.
Well of course what we see is modified in endless diversity, but the Unmodified Light is Beauty Itself.
edit on 20-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 

How could an unintelligent, spontaneous "quantum function" anticipate, from a first cause, the conditions of life we enjoy today?

Your argument still amounts to "by accident", even as one that took an eternity and an infinite amount of failed "attempts" to become manifest.

That is one totally awesome coincidence or cosmic "lottery" and it's an idea I'm not unwilling to consider, which strangely, fills me with almost as much joy as the God-hypothesis, to consider deeply. It certainly has the OMG wow I'm in AWE factor to it that's for sure.

But can an unintelligent and uninformed quantum flux even after an eternity generate from an initial cause a cosmic structure, at all levels, perfectly tuned for this life as it is? I suppose anything's possible, but could such a first cause anticipate a future cause and embed in it with intent a marker or sign that would be meaningful or significant only a self aware observer at a certain point in time and cosmic evolutionary history? I don't think so. What am I talking about? (more to follow as the thread progresses).

Your argument isn't bad and represents really the only possible alternative (to intelligent design), and it's one which leads inexorably to the strong anthropic principal (see I'm even giving you tips as I go), but in light of evidence I aim to bring forward, the strong anthropic principal can be shown to be unscientific because it attempts to utilize a type of paradox to render the "data" meaningless and of no significance whatsoever, and therefore undermines itself for reasons that we'll be exploring as we go.

edit on 20-3-2013 by NewAgeMan because: link added



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by bb23108
 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and truth something in the heart and soul.

Can nothing at all be considered "beautiful"?

Which leads me to suspect that the original intent is love and appreciation of beauty, something that can only be shared in mutuality.

This is a much better view than to call the manifest creation an illusion of which we are to have no regard.

I tell you Buddhist thought is nihilistic and terminal, don't fall for it.

Behold the Majesty of Creation, including yourself, love God above all and no less vital your neighbor as yourself.

And now that we're here, in it, there's no escape and why would we want to when we think it all the way through, relative to the alternative which is nothing at all..



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NewAgeMan
 
You are jumping to conclusions again that somehow I am assuming that what is arising cannot be beautiful. All that I am saying is that the Divine Conscious Light is The Beautiful Itself, Absolute Unmodified Beauty - beyond subject and object.

And all arising is a modification of this Absolute Beauty, and such modifications demonstrate this Beauty to the degree that they truly reflect Reality's Perfect Light. This is why Spiritual Realizers look Beautiful to those who recognize the Divine Light.


edit on 20-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 20 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NewAgeMan
And all arising is a modification of this Absolute Beauty, and such modifications demonstrate this Beauty to the degree that they truly reflect Reality's Perfect Light. This is why Spiritual Realizers look Beautiful to those who recognize the Divine Light.

I'm somewhat astonished that our exchange was evocative of this reply for reasons that we'll be exploring later on, and I mean that in a very good way. To me this signifies that I am on the right track and so are you, and so was a certain Realizer who saw the sign and who realized that it was pointing to him and his relationship with the Absolute Godhead (as the Eternal Light of Life). I will bring this quote of yours back to the fore at some point and then you'll see what I mean. Let me say this at this point. Our manifest outward reality contains an allegory for the Perfect Light you speak of, as a sign or symbol for a deeper truth, and it's the kind of thing that a mindless, unintended quantum flux/function would not be capable of generating.

Please be patient. There's a point of intersection where your argument and mine intersect believe it or not.

Wow, this is getting really interesting. Thank you bb for your participation!





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join