God does exist.

I see, I think if a "single deity", or eternal intelligence always existed, it wouldn't think of analyzing itself. It has no beginning and no end. Such a concept is way too hard for our minds to grasp, we simply don't understand, I know for a fact I don't. How can something have no beginning? That is simply beyond us to understand. I think the most important thing is unity, if God indeed split himself, all we need is to live harmoniously with each other and become united through peace. Now I just want to say. I don't condemn science, we have made many discoveries, the only thing that brings me anguish of heart is science being used to destroy people and nature.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
I would like anyone to try answering these questions.... Where does the wind come from? Who put the wind in motion? Who put the seasons in motion? Who put the planets in motion? Who created the water? Can scientist create water? Who gave humans eyes to see? Where does wisdom reside? Where does knowledge come from?

Who? Why does it have to be a "who"? And if it is a "who" that is required to initiate anything (everything) then how does the initial "who" come into existence? Obviously, if there's a need for this "who" to create the wind, set the seasons in motion, start the planets spinning and orbiting, create the water, and invent knowledge, then there was a need for this "who" to somehow be brought into existence as well. The need for external initiation is obviously there for all that exists if all of these seemingly basic and fundamentally natural things require external creation by a conscious, determined intent.

It's easy to simply say that the initial "who" simply is and always was, but in truth, that's exactly the same as saying that it doesn't take a "who" to bring anything into existence. After all, if this "who" is capable of simply always being - without being brought into existence by an external initiator - then why bother giving this "who" any credit for the initiation of anything? Why not simply state that everything is, always was, and always has been? Why put an initiating "who" between what is and what was? Why not cut out the middleman and make the whole theory less cumbersome? Occam's Razor requires that you eliminate God altogether and declare everything to be infinitely pre-existent.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
I see, I think if a "single deity", or eternal intelligence always existed, it wouldn't think of analyzing itself. It has no beginning and no end. Such a concept is way too hard for our minds to grasp, we simply don't understand, I know for a fact I don't. How can something have no beginning? That is simply beyond us to understand. I think the most important thing is unity, if God indeed split himself, all we need is to live harmoniously with each other and become united through peace. Now I just want to say. I don't condemn science, we have made many discoveries, the only thing that brings me anguish of heart is science being used to destroy people and nature.

The concept of infinite physical existence is "too hard for our minds to grasp" because it's not possible. The Relative Being State - the basis of physical existence - requires that whatever it is that exists as physically present (like this God thingy must be if it has, or ever had, the capacity to affect what is - or was - physically present) must be capable of existing as separate and relatively distinguishable from (1) whatever else it is that also exists as physically present, and (2) the "background" environment that provides the physically present thing a relative context of any sort whatsoever. The only other being state (than the Relative Being State) is the Absolute Being State, and this being state doesn't and cannot feature any division internally without imposing a Relative Being State at some level within itself as a result of there being any level or degree of contextual delineation (such as the contextual delineation that you and I are experiencing right now as you read what I've just written).

I can prove that you and I exist as two independent quantities at a defined level of relative delineation, and that's enough to eliminate the possibility of there being any version of Absolute Being State in existence. That's all that's required to completely eliminate the existence of any form of deity that can be described as omnipresent, since omnipresence requires existing in an Absolute Being State.

It's too bad that all the best poetry and music and art is based on such an obviously impossible intellectual construct, but I guess that the best that can be done about the fevers of strident ignorance is appreciate what it is that such devotion can inspire.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Fire is one of the four classical elements in ancient Greek philosophy and science. It was commonly associated with the qualities of energy, assertiveness, and passion. In one Greek myth, Prometheus stole fire from the gods to protect the otherwise helpless humans, but was punished for this charity.[1]

Fire was one of many archai proposed by the Pre-socratics, most of whom sought to reduce the cosmos, or its creation, by a single substance. Heraclitus (c. 535 BCE – c. 475 BCE) considered fire to be the most fundamental of all elements. He believed fire gave rise to the other three elements: "All things are an interchange for fire, and fire for all things, just like goods for gold and gold for goods."[2] He had a reputation for obscure philosophical principles and for speaking in riddles. He described how fire gave rise to the other elements as the: "upward-downward path", (ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω),[3] a "hidden harmony" [4] or series of transformations he called the "turnings of fire", (πυρὸς τροπαὶ),[5] first into sea, and half that sea into earth, and half that earth into rarefied air. A concept that anticipates both the four classical elements of Empedocles and Aristotle's transmutation of the four elements into one another

Change it to be different energy harmonic state and you have an description for the periodic table. It can also point towards string theory.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
I would like anyone to try answering these questions.... Where does the wind come from? Who put the wind in motion? Who put the seasons in motion? Who put the planets in motion? Who created the water? Can scientist create water? Who gave humans eyes to see? Where does wisdom reside? Where does knowledge come from?



ETA: These questions are being used as an incentive to find answers, and in the process create more questions that could strengthen our desire to understand more instead of just looking at things on the surface

if you went to school and had kept attention (not sure about US schools tho) you would not need to ask how wind is created, where seasons come from and why planets are revolving. You would also know that the idea of the "four basic elements" is approx. 500 years or so obsolete.

I am also NOT going to answer your questions (like someone else already did)..since I KNOW it's not even in your interest to actually read those answers, otherwise the guy actually answering would have had some replies or stars/flags....which of course he didn't receive for his detailed answers.

Wrong assumption: A religious person like you would be interested in an actual scientific answer.

Of course you are not.

Just because it's too hard for our minds to grasp doesn't mean it's impossible, the mind also becomes cut off by a limit of "understanding", as understanding grows, our knowledge of God or the infinite increases. In truth, we probably will never understand. I think knowledge is an obstacle to bliss. The less we "know" the better, if we didn't know anything at all, we'd live in complete bliss, we'd probably be floating in space. False knowledge is what burdens us and causes all types of confusion, we won't ever know everything, and the continuous growth of knowledge only suggests that we may forget something in a progressive manner of learning. As things stand, the memory is unreliable, nobody remembers every single account or detail of their existence. To say a superior, all knowing "who" doesn't exist isn't a conclusive fact. The only way we can really understand life is if we experience and understand death, since life and death are basically 2 sides of the same coin. What's the point of trying to understand life, creating logical concepts of what the afterlife may hold when we've never experienced it? Concepts can never equal reality no manner how rational they may seem, what matters is conscious experience of the unknown, a type of superlative perception is needed to see beyond our concepts.

reply to post by estimatedprophet

First-off, you should have given your thread a different title because these people are either too ignorant to believe in Him, or they just completely hate Him without any reason or cause, and/or they are secretive agents of Satan…Whatever the reason is, it does not matter because they are Antichrists!

An Antichrist is any individual or many people who do not believe, hate and/or they are just against the Lord, Jesus, who is in reality the “Archangel Michael,” Son of God. His title is actually Demigod and heir to all heaven and earth!!!

Gonna need sources for that one, please. I want proof that I am an antichrist. Personally, I'm not really against Jesus so much as I'm against organized religion. Or most organized religions, anyway.

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
Everything eventually degrades? Have you ever in your lifetime seen the sun degrade? Or do you just believe so?

Yes the sun degrades, so does this planet, universe, you and me.

Stars are born, stars die. Stars exist in all stages. We can observe supernovae...we can observe colliding galaxies. We observe stars where we know they will not last much longer..and we see stars and galaxies born. We have telescopes which can look billions of years "back in time" pretty much to shortly after the universe was born.

THIS is the reality. NOT in your dusty bible believing in 15th century tales. The universe is OUT THERE and can (to some extent) be discovered, learned and understood. Of course not all of it.

But I highly doubt that you will EVER even do the attempt since your bible does not PERMIT you (or at least you *think* so, or you voluntarily allow your faith to limit your own thinking).

I don't think that god said "Don't you ever try to discover the wonders of the universe"..and I don't think that he/she/it said that he can be found between the letters in the bible. Insofar, there is not even an obligation to believe in 15h century tales and "eternal lasting suns"...UNLESS you can prove to me that the fact that suns/stars are born and die would be extremely opposed and in contrast to what the Church says. So..is the church STILL opposing simple basic facts? Pretty sad...

Then..AGAIN you would be back in the 15th century, because back then AS WELL such discoveries were pretty much "against the Church"...where the discovery of planets and the Earths role/movements etc was reason that people were murdered by the Church because it couldn't accept it.

You asking whether "the sun really degrades" is actually pretty close there as well..because you see your faith being threatened by a simple scientific fact...so you need to ask on a forum "well, do you have proof that the sun actually degrades?" in a weak, pathetic attempt to strengthen your faith. (As it would depend on the duration of a star's existence. IF that's the case...that simple things like the origin of wind, the sun, seasons etc. threaten your faith...and finding THE TRUTH about such simple things actually "offends" you, I'd recommend getting another faith/religion because this one obviously is not exactly standing on solid feet if 5th grader knowledge can threaten it. Lol.

Scientific answers isn't all there is to it, scientists themselves are limited to knowing only what their eyes perceive. There is a need to try grasping oil in ones hands, and to believe the impossible.

There really wasn't a need to type all that. You initially said everything degrades. That's completely untrue. Only mortal and finite things degrade. As far as I know, water can't degrade, air can't degrade, and fire can't degrade. The latter may be put out, but only to lay latent somewhere else. It's similar to looking up at the "blue" sky, it doesn't mean the stars aren't there.

There is a higher power, but not Jesus or other gods which were presented to us.

reply to post by estimatedprophet


I agree with you, do you know that today not yet an implantable chip, but the national ID cards (with microchip) are implemented in the most of the world's countries? And no one here on conpiracy forums talk about this issue.

The argument with the revolving planets as "evidence for god"...I can pick this out as ONE example.

If the planets, stars would not revolve around each other YOU WOULD USE THE SAME ARGUMENT. And you know it!

You would look at the universe and would say "How is it possible that planets don't move in relation to each other. What power is there at work which keeps all the planets in the same position, it's entirely non-natural...so this is surely evidence for god!"

From a scientific perspective, cyclic movements, like revolving planets make MUCH more sense than the idea that the universe would be static...in fact it would be much more "non logical" if there would not be such movement.

Point is, so or so you would simple choose whatever..and make this a point as evidence for the validity of religion.
In fact, you can in theory do this in a parallel universe where EVERYTHING is entirely different, beings look entirely different (as opposed to your alleged "perfect" beings on Earth)....heck there could even be entirely different laws of physics on such a parallel world...and you would STILL point the individual things out and say that mathematical chances are extremely slim that things evolved THAT WAY (regardless their ultimate form)....and claim how incredible perfect everything is....so it must be evidence for the validity of religion.

reply to post by BlackSunApocalypse

Scientific answers isn't all there is to it, scientists themselves are limited to knowing only what their eyes perceive. There is a need to try grasping oil in ones hands, and to believe the impossible.

If you adhere to anything but the probable truth, you are adhering to a possible fantasy. What is the point of living a life that is built on fantasy? This means all meaning is contrived and all value imagined. This means that when you die, the perpetuation of that fantasy ends and all of your miracles end along with it.

This is why we rely on science. When we die, science remains. When we die, our scientific achievements go on without us and someone else picks them up in our place. Someone else will make discoveries that we didn't, and someone else will make improvements we didn't think of, and someone else will develop marvels that we could never have achieved without their research and their findings. When this millenia has ended, dozens of spiritual movements will be caught fire and burned to ashes...but science will have made progress that religion lacked for its stability. Science is solid and dependable in ways that religion can never be.

It can all be summed up in one simple and accurate saying: "Both God and gravity are theories, but you do not often see a priest skydiving without a parachute."

Originally posted by BlackSunApocalypse
As far as I know, water can't degrade, air can't degrade, and fire can't degrade. The latter may be put out, but only to lay latent somewhere else.

So basically earth, wind, fire and water. You are trying to debunk science, using an old version of science.

ATS you have been trolled.

reply to post by daskakik


Water, fire, earth, and air do degrade. Every time they change form or composition, degradation is a part of the process.