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.
How can a person deny something does not exist just because they have no evidence or comprehension of it YET.
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"
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)
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
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.
You seem to be certain in your judgement declaring 'no God'
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?
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.
God is simply put, a mans inability to understand reality. Nothing more.
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.
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.
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.
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.