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.

 

God In a Few Words or More

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 




How can a person deny something does not exist just because they have no evidence or comprehension of it YET.


I don't think anyone can deny something doesn't exist. Everything exists in some form or another. The word unicorn even points to some literature and artistic depictions. But it's up to the reader to conclude whether it exists anywhere outside those words, which, if it never appears, involves a faith in the promise of those words.




posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


You nailed it. When we pray we are not praying to God as such, but we are praying to the hope that what the Bible says is true.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Yeah, the Unicorn may have been some sort of goat....According to some articles I have read.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





God is not limited to the Bible. That word is internal and inside of each of us. The reflections (Mirror) of that word are in every creation of mankind. We express the Word which is inexpressible; which is inexhaustible and without end. Forms in nature make this possible by unlimited combinations.

The real question here is to ask the question, "Is God Personal?"

The Most Profound Truth comes through Reflection

Is God personal? Read the link above. Confucius said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

Look where you wish, but God's image is in everything we touch as humans. Why? We are his image. Why did the Temple of Delphi say this: "Know Thyself"


I agree with this. Human language is a method of "infinite possibility using finite means." Out of the alphabet, one can construct an unlimited amount of words and phrases out of 26 letters. This is where God lies, only in the words of language, and he evolves with language and culture. It is no wonder that statues of gods appear to have similar features to the ones who built them, because they were cut off from the influence of other words and culture, thereby leaving the "Gods" of other cultures to remain relevant to the ones who created them.

edit on 1-6-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





God is not limited to the Bible. That word is internal and inside of each of us. The reflections (Mirror) of that word are in every creation of mankind. We express the Word which is inexpressible; which is inexhaustible and without end. Forms in nature make this possible by unlimited combinations.

The real question here is to ask the question, "Is God Personal?"

The Most Profound Truth comes through Reflection

Is God personal? Read the link above. Confucius said, "I hear and I forget. I see and I learn. I do and I understand."

Look where you wish, but God's image is in everything we touch as humans. Why? We are his image. Why did the Temple of Delphi say this: "Know Thyself"


I agree with this. Human language is a method of "infinite possibility using finite means." Out of the alphabet, one can construct an unlimited amount of words and phrases out of 26 letters. This is where God lies, only in the words of language, and he evolves with language and culture. It is no wonder that statues of gods appear to have similar features to the ones who built them, because they were cut off from the influence of other words and culture, thereby leaving the "Gods" of other cultures to remain relevant to the ones who created them.

edit on 1-6-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)


You are incorrect on this. Only ONE God is without image. The Hebrew God made a point to show that there was no image visible.

Deuteronomy 4

15 You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the Lord your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the Lord took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are.

99.99% of all Gods you can find are personified by nature in some way. The God of the Bible is unique in this regard. If a God could be imagined from quantum physics, what would the primary source of the description lead us to: Of course, to information, energy, light and wave function. What means did God use to reveal Himself to the Hebrews? Pillars of fire, clouds, WORD (WAVE), Logos, Breath and Light. He made a point to disengage His conception within an image, yet the entire universe proclaims Him in parable. Name even one God that can claim this.

Secondly, name one God that has dared proclaim the future. You can't. There are none. Remember, 100% accuracy is necessary. I will point you to this evidence as one example, but there are thousands: Evidence that cannot be Denied...

There is only one rational answer. Using logic and reason will only lead you one direction if you embrace truth. God can indeed be found and seen, but not with our senses. He is found within the inner temple. For the eyes to open, the beast of our animal and selfish natures must be subdued.

2 Timothy 3

3 But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

The mark of any beast is selfishness and God provides multiple levels of understanding with this one symbol. Above, there are 18 items describing selfishness (6+6+6). In Revelation 13, we see that the mark of the beast is 666. Connecting this to Genesis 3, we know that the fruit of knowledge is what we took. In modern terms, 666 is Carbon (6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons). Carbon is the mark of mankind and it is the mark of our selfishness. Again, in modern language, our selfishness is tied to our use of the fruit of knowledge (Technology). What is fruit? What we produce by our own word and creative potential. The tree of life was protected by God with a flaming sword in Genesis 3. What is that sWord?. DNA is the language of that tree. It is impenetrable. Can I verify this outside the Bible?

Through the Looking Glass:

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory,"' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant, "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument,"' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master - - that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again.

`They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs, they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'


edit on 1-6-2013 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:06 PM
link   
There are thing not fathomable by human, or perhaps any intelligence, there are things not expressible in words. What are of these things in relation to the words that have become gods ?
The scriptural gods appear questionable in their scope and purpose.
Yet there exists the unnamable, the innumerable.
edit on 1-6-2013 by rom12345 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Would you agree that there is an exact and actual way the universe is? An objective truth whether we know it or not, which has a causal chain of history going back further then we may think we can think?

Would you agree that there is no way for us to certainly know the objective nature and story of this universe, that we can only rely on our logic and reason, experience and feeling, and ever increasing knowledge?

From this burdened subjective vantage point, how then ought we judge the existence of the universe? You seem to be certain in your judgement declaring 'no God'... Others make no judgement at all... and some are compelled to believe that 'something' (other then nothing/accidents/stupidity) had a role in the creation of this universe.. and those people have many varying reasons for believing so...

Regardless of these beliefs I think one of the most important thing for all these people to understand is that they do not certainly know the truth, I wish they did and would share it, but I think the truth is far beyond what any human or a few has accomplished thus far. Science has been attempting to discover truth, and has been at it for thousands of years, millions of minds, and the totality of science has discovered a massive amount of truths and potentials, but it is still not the complete objective truth. So how can one simple person feel comfortable thinking they know the truth.

Ive thought before; ' I wonder if any human that has ever lived has properly understood the true nature or truth of the universe?' ya know, like captured a glimpse of the vast objective truth in their minds, and if they did, how would they know it was right?

So while one may not be able to comprehend all the various details involved they can make, more or less, an educated guess. There are only really 2 options (maybe 3); Either an intelligence intended this universe to exist, or it did not (can anyone think of any other options?).

The other option I maybe thought of is if the universe is mechanic/mechanistic, and this would basically breach the understanding and conception of what intelligence means. It is a progressive development that can create many different things of great complexity and potential, but it works within parameters. I could argue that what we deem as intelligence is not even intelligence then (if the universe is not considered intelligent), We can only create what we can create, the universe has parameters and potentials and allowances, we merely draw them out to their evolved conclusions, following mechanistic rules and laws like the macro universe itself.

If we were to create AI, and it was similar to our intelligence or vastly superior, would we be their God? their intelligent designer? If those AI flew off to another planet and created new species of life, would they then be intelligent Gods? If those AI created an entire universe system that eventually sprouted intelligent life, would those AI have intelligently designed that universe? Or are all these actions and choices allowed by the already existing ultimate reality, we all share? and that is the problem with non believers of God, they cannot imagine that this universe was created by an intelligence? Or they posit that at some point there must be the original primal reality, and an intelligence couldnt have possibly created that, therefore a mechanistic, law abiding nature must have made the first moves... So any intelligent God or creature after that earliest primal point, would not be a grand master, or absolute deity, because they would have been fashioned just like we or our AI would be fashioned?

But we can admit that these relationships are contextual and relative. Our fathers can be considered intelligent designers of us, our Gods... They used their intellect to make the proper actions to create us, and then took care of us in our early stages of existence, we would not be here without their intelligent (or not so lol) decisions, that to me is the definition of a God...Take that idea to the furthest example of the big G God, the creator of the universe.

I dont think about it that often because its either a yes or no (with other importance as well) whether other life forms created humans, they would not be the creators of the universe but they would still be intelligent designers/gods... Just as the inventor of the telephone and car are intelligent designers of those items.
edit on 1-6-2013 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Some (purely philosophical) realizations.

After considering the premise that our faith lies not in an actual God as such, as one can not go and experience that God as it is described, but is found instead in the words and thus the idea “God” as it has been presented by whomever conceived of the idea, we then push forward and find that language itself is the basis of all metaphysics and faith. We constantly speak metaphysics every time we use terms such as “is”, “are”, “be”, “was” etc. The symbol, the alphabet, “the Word”, language itself, is the foundation of all metaphysical speculation. Without the development of language there would be no God, no mathematics, no science, just the same reality and the same universe we’ve always lived in.




There are two main theories regarding when modern human behavior emerged.[2] One theory holds that behavioral modernity occurred as a sudden event some 50 kya (50,000 years ago) in prehistory, possibly as a result of a major genetic mutation or as a result of a biological reorganization of the brain that led to the emergence of modern human natural languages.[3] Proponents of this theory refer to this event as the Great Leap Forward[4] or the Upper Paleolithic Revolution.

The second theory holds that there was never any single technological or cognitive revolution. Proponents of this view argue that modern human behavior is the result of the gradual accumulation of knowledge, skills and culture occurring over hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution.[5]Proponents of this view include Stephen Oppenheimer in his book Out of Eden, and John Skoyles andDorion Sagan in their book Up from Dragons: The Evolution of Human Intelligence.

Source


If a genetic mutation some 50,000 years ago was the catalyst for human creativity and language, then Genesis is partly correct, “in the beginning was the word”, without it there’d be no human knowledge. Language is the only trunk from which all branches of knowledge and thought have grown.

To illustrate, try thinking without words; it takes a sheer act of will to silence that inner voice. It seems that at all times we are computing reality into a form of language, “mentalese” as Jerry Fodor describes it in his Language of Thought Hypothesis. To be creative without that voice, to grow branches of thought without that trunk, is near impossible. We need the metaphysics of language as the ground floor on which we can place whatever rug we deem comfortable enough to stand on mentally.

Religions have always changed with the culture and the language, because language is the one true metaphysic, where all deities reside, the one thing we find faith in, while reality continues on despite what we name it.

Knowing this, we find the power is in the creativity of metaphysicians, those who can create worlds for our minds to wander. It’s up to the metaphysician to cultivate from his mind and use the alphabet in such a way to provide an intellectually and emotionally satisfying explanation of reality for those who may be too afraid to face the metaphysical heavy lifting. The metaphysician can knit a new rug to stand on rather than simply pulling the rug out from beneath—but the floor will always be there.

Secondly, the power is in everyone to become creators, knitters of rugs, or they can step off the floor altogether and be silent.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 





You are incorrect on this. Only ONE God is without image. The Hebrew God made a point to show that there was no image visible.


Yes, but only according to your chosen axiom of truth, the words of the Bible. As one who doesn't accept that axiom, I must also discard everything derived from it. We stand atop different foundations. You peer from your mountain, I peer from mine. The only difference is the faith in what language we choose.

I find the Bible too limiting to my own creativity and happiness. From it I cannot explore further my own ideas and the world. That's my choice and simply a matter of personal taste.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




You seem to be certain in your judgement declaring 'no God'


I only declare that there is no God as it is described. I cannot experience it outside of its description in scripture. But I also understand that, as a word, it is serving its purpose by identifying and describing "something", but since it may be too abstract a concept, it only ends up being able to describe itself, not something out there. Still, it is nonetheless a concept derived from the same reality we all experience, only expressed differently.

There is no way anyone can eliminate the subject/object relationship. The only way we can reach objective consensus is if the idea works. We can only have certainty in our own intellectual and emotional response we have towards a certain idea.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 



There is certainly something sophisticated about the universes laws and potentials and creativity and genius of its physical material and interactions. If a human intelligence was to design a universe I wonder if it could/would be more fundamentally intelligently designed then our universe is.

Also biology in general, but the brain and consciousness specifically. These are things that serve a purpose, supply awareness (something necessary for any being...worthy of being) and the universe figured it out, many times over, with such an ingenious design, our supreme intelligence (millions and millions) cant even figure it out.

So if in reality and truth, an intelligence did create this universe, or if people who would never give the possibility of intelligent design the light of day, were existing in a different universe, or a number of different universes, all created by intelligence, but all having the same "lack of objective evidence/no God holding their hands", wouldnt they still hold the same acceptance that they existed, and nothing was responsible for them existing? And wouldnt they be wrong? What im trying to ask is if an intelligence/God did create this universe or any universe you were existing in, how would you know? What would potential clues or signs be?

Or are you arguing that it is impossible for an intelligence to ever create a system?



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


About the language thing... Isnt there a large portion of language that exactly grasps reality (or attempts to)? Words that describe things we sense, words used to describe everything. And then we exist in a reality with time, so we have words that link how the things we describe relate to one another over time, events and causal relationships. It is amazing how far we have come and how 'easy' it is to navigate and interact once we share a language, and know many words and ideas.

So in a sense, reality is a physical language. As language is a symbolic, digital, informational representation of physical reality. The language = the reality (the language that attempts to exactly describe reality...from atoms, to chemicals, to rocks, to different kinds of rocks, etc.). So then we can see that reality it self is an interplay of information, a story, its just that its words are physical sets of matter, and what will happen next is determined by physical laws/parameters (laws of physics). And we can describe all this with our symbolic words.

Its also very interesting then how much our words and language influence our thoughts, and abilities to conceptualize and imagine. We then use the symbolized words to store information in our brains, and then we can use the language stored in our brains like a filling system, to psuedo-physically view the words physical counterpart in our mind.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by winofiend
 





If god is infinite and has always been, then he both exists and not exists. To be everything, he has to be nothing at some point. Or there is a limit to his being. A limited god?


If god is infinite he must have always existed, and always will exist. Because the infinite can never disappear. Where would it disappear to?

If God is infinite and formed the foundation of our finite existence. Gods existence must also be a physicall one. Since God is physicall and infinite, god must represent a absolute empty infinite space. Because only this space is absolute neutral. And it is absolute infinite. No other space can be absolute neutral appart from this space.

A absolute empty space is what you would call nothingness. This space does not disappear just because we have a presence of finite. >The infinite can never disappear. Nor can finite/energymass. it can only become what it used to be.
Finite can not disappear because the infinite empty space is infinite and takes up all space possible outside the space that makes up our universe.




I can throw seeds into a garden and then build a patio on the seedlings. I do not expect the seedlings to worship me for creating their ability to live... any more than they should thank me for removing it.


Right. You didnt create the seeds you put in the ground. You should thank God for creating them for you.
You havent created anything that gives you the right to be worshiped. If you have kids you should be thankfull not worshiped.




God is simply put, a mans inability to understand reality. Nothing more.

You have no right to put a limit on my understanding and put your self above me.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Good thoughts Fungi.

However I must go out and enjoy the day. I will be back to respond. Please return.



posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by MaryStillToe
 


No. Creator of the creator, in this case being man, is real, but the product of his or her creation is simply imagined. Hence the Tolkien example: Tolkien imagines Orcs; Orcs are imagined, therefore nonexistent outside of the realm of imagination.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



About the language thing... Isnt there a large portion of language that exactly grasps reality (or attempts to)? Words that describe things we sense, words used to describe everything. And then we exist in a reality with time, so we have words that link how the things we describe relate to one another over time, events and causal relationships. It is amazing how far we have come and how 'easy' it is to navigate and interact once we share a language, and know many words and ideas.


This is very true. It is relatively easy for a child to learn a language. Even Helen Keller, who was deaf-blind, had a magnificent language capacity despite her inaccessibility to words. She would never see hear or read after her illness, but would still be able to communicate by learning to speak, understanding communication through touching of the lips, touching of the hands while signing and so forth. She ended up being a lecturer despite the limited function of senses.

According to Noam Chomsky, the language capacity of humans hasn't evolved in 50,000 years (he mentions this in some lectures). He also shows that a child from Papua New Guinea will easily adapt to the languages of western culture, which also shows that language capacity differs little between less "civilized" cultures and ones with a larger lexicon of knowledge. Although there is a fair amount of criticism towards Chomsky's ideas, there an interesting theory called "Universal grammar", the idea that all humans share a genetic grammar in every language, where we will aways find grammar in the form of negation, contradictions, nouns, verbs etc.

Like Chomsky, I think this shows that language is physical, something bio-linguistic and from within, and not simply a product of culture, since Keller's access to culture would be very limited.



So in a sense, reality is a physical language. As language is a symbolic, digital, informational representation of physical reality. The language = the reality (the language that attempts to exactly describe reality...from atoms, to chemicals, to rocks, to different kinds of rocks, etc.). So then we can see that reality it self is an interplay of information, a story, its just that its words are physical sets of matter, and what will happen next is determined by physical laws/parameters (laws of physics). And we can describe all this with our symbolic words.


I think that the implications of calling reality a language might be a little severe, but I also don't think you're far off. There is however, no contradiction nor paradox found anywhere in reality. This is how one knows the language surrounding an idea does not actually work in reality and it should be questioned. But it also shows that language can never directly represent reality to the fullest, and will always be lacking in something or another.



Its also very interesting then how much our words and language influence our thoughts, and abilities to conceptualize and imagine. We then use the symbolized words to store information in our brains, and then we can use the language stored in our brains like a filling system, to psuedo-physically view the words physical counterpart in our mind.

Right. It has been argued (by Wittgenstein, Derrida and others) that language is all we can really know. It is the limit of our minds. I'm beginning to think that that is the case. All knowledge is a compilation of written and oral language passed down from generation to generation. In this sense, only language can be God, and our faith can only be in language as an expression of reality.

Good thoughts.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Right. It has been argued (by Wittgenstein, Derrida and others) that language is all we can really know. It is the limit of our minds. I'm beginning to think that that is the case. All knowledge is a compilation of written and oral language passed down from generation to generation. In this sense, only language can be God, and our faith can only be in language as an expression of reality.


Another view is that words create an illusiory construct of the contents of consciousness, thereby obscuring the essential beingness of that which is described.

The many words and concepts for God conceal and obfuscate the very nature of God-beyond-words. At best, the words may serve as a vague pointer to a consensual subjective realization of the numinous experience.
edit on 2-6-2013 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


That sounds like a fair view. However I would say that the words conceal and obscure according to how much one has faith in the language. I think that if one has a relative understanding that language is only a written account, and not a direct 1 to 1 ratio to reality nor anything worthy of having a superstitious faith in, language might help reveal rather than conceal, insofar as it is able to help one progress and express something creatively.

Good point. It seems a reconciliation between a mystical, religious and empirical metaphysics is possible, as long as we understand that all are explications, and not explanations, of the universe. It seems possible that If the terminology is adapted linguistically to fit another view, we might find we are talking about the sames things but merely using different words and methods of interpretation.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


That sounds like a fair view. However I would say that the words conceal and obscure according to how much one has faith in the language. I think that if one has a relative understanding that language is only a written account, and not a direct 1 to 1 ratio to reality nor anything worthy of having a superstitious faith in, language might help reveal rather than conceal, insofar as it is able to help one progress and express something creatively.


Yes, I do agree with you here. I am not against words or using the intellect constructively and creatively, but when discussing metaphysical realities, it may help to recognize that words can lead us to water, but cannot help us drink.



Good point. It seems a reconciliation between a mystical, religious and empirical metaphysics is possible, as long as we understand that all are explications, and not explanations, of the universe. It seems possible that If the terminology is adapted linguistically to fit another view, we might find we are talking about the sames things but merely using different words and methods of interpretation.


Precisely! Reconciliation is a laudable aspiration, and I welcome it wholeheartedly.



posted on Jun, 2 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
God is a Cosmic collective with individuated consciousness.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join