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.

 

CHALLENGE: Prove That You Are NOT God

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 0d1n5Unh0ly6h05t
 



My girlfriend doesn't change much in looks between lives. She's always blonde hair blue eyes. Blonde hair blue eyes are not prime ape traits.

My other girlfriend is a master energy body because she's female it makes sense that being the mother she is the root.

The other girlfriend looks like me with minor differences. But we don't look like twins by any means. Just look like we could be brother sister. Which would make sense that her soul is very connected to me.

So it makes sense I'am not god since my girlfriends have god traits. And I do not have blonde hair blue eyes. And I change from life to life.


if you were to have blonde hair, blue eyes, and EVERYONE somehow manifested a "standardized vision of beauty" this would be the only way to actually destroy the sense of beauty itself. You are correct to say that you see God-qualities in them but where you fall short, is being able to at least UNDERSTAND that you also contain these qualities albeit in an entirely different combination..

humbleness is much more useful than to always look for these qualities in yourself, because in a sense it is like trying to find the back of your own head, and out of embarrassment at failing, claim to have memorized the details and proceed to explain.. no one wants to hear the description in the first place, and searching for the back of your own head will only teach you about the futility of such tasks..

BUT! without at least acknowledging that you are not above or below anyone or anything, you will.. always damn yourself to be below, or elevate yourself to be above..
neither extremes offer much enjoyment (for me at least) and I have just found that no one can help being a perfect manifestation of everything religious folk have been led to believe is an "external God"..

but the diversity of people (like 3-girlfriended folk like yourself) demonstrate the fun of exploring all possibilities.. evolution isn't happening through desperation, but rather through curious and creative expression..




posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



You aren't really asking people to prove they are not "god"; you are asking people to prove they are not connected to a divine source. That's a totally different question.


Not necessarily. I can't entirely disagree, because most people do conceive of "God" as this sorta.. Telekinetic Superman-esque being who changes things by looking or thinking about them.. but this isn't the God-model that i'm working with. In fact, I'm using a MUCH more grandiose model of God, which is essentially a simultaneous manifestation of Zero and Infinity.

And as you said, I am implying that people are connected to God, but this doesn't necessitate that people are somehow "below" God.. Just as 1 and 1,000,235.65 are both included equally in Infinity (neither are "closer" to representing Infinity than the other..) they are CONNECTED to Infinity and can be seen to demonstrate the same qualities as the whole (as with a Fractal)..

for example, I want to count from 1 to 2 using decimal points.. but i'll never arrive. the numbers 1 and 2 obviously have different characteristics, but they equally represent a sort of "island of proximity" with which we can judge it's relation to other values in a system, but can never be considered inherently "more-inclusive" than any other number.

edit on 10-12-2013 by HyphenSt1 because: tags!

edit on 10-12-2013 by HyphenSt1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 0d1n5Unh0ly6h05t
 



Each god is like each individual person on the earth. They all represent a side of god. To understand god you have to use each individual as a puzzle piece.


this illustrates my point, though i'm not sure if you intended it to..

each person is indeed like a puzzle piece, but the puzzle is being solved by the same solver and hence in placing the pieces in different places, gathering similar patterns together.. the same consciousness works through each piece to find its place inside the whole.

we just tend to mistake ourselves for the piece rather than the player..



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 0d1n5Unh0ly6h05t
 



Each god is like each individual person on the earth. They all represent a side of god. To understand god you have to use each individual as a puzzle piece.


this illustrates my point, though i'm not sure if you intended it to..

each person is indeed like a puzzle piece, but the puzzle is being solved by the same solver and hence in placing the pieces in different places, gathering similar patterns together.. the same consciousness works through each piece to find its place inside the whole.

we just tend to mistake ourselves for the piece rather than the player..



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 



I just tried to play Beethoven's Fifth despite not practicing piano in a long long time.

I failed.

I need practice.


haha thank you for both an excellent come-back and a good laugh



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I'm a sinner, therefore I am not god. Whats so hard about that?

You asked the question. I like the easy threads.



posted on Dec, 10 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PRS395
 


okay, so you shouldn't mind defining your terms then, should you..? what is a "sinner" and what is "God" to you..? If God is all-powerful, and against Sin, wouldn't Sin be impossible to commit?



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 


My point was that how can we prove we are not gods if we don't have a clearcut definition of the word "god"? I've already demonstrated how vague and abstract the term is. People just use it according to what they want from it. That's not how scientifically established terminology is meant to operate. Unless we are sticking strictly to subjectivity here...?



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by BlackArrow
 


So...you're essentially agreeing with the points I was making?



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
My point was that how can we prove we are not gods if we don't have a clearcut definition of the word "god"? I've already demonstrated how vague and abstract the term is. People just use it according to what they want from it. That's not how scientifically established terminology is meant to operate. Unless we are sticking strictly to subjectivity here...?

Your point was to advertise how amazing you think you are. The subject was just the vehicle.

The OP *gave* you a clear-cut 5 point definition to work with toward...


...and that deity-mind is You.

You spoke nothing about that and for some who see differently... you were indirectly supporting the OPs point.

But you instead spent your time demonstrating how much you *don't* understand the reasons for the lack of a "clear-cut definition" of the word God and using your lack of understanding as evidence that there must not be a good reason.

"I can't understand how this could be true... therefore it must be false" is no different than "I can't explain it... therefore God did it."

The atheist God of the Gaps is "if I can't understand your way of describing things... you're wrong".

Turtles all the Way down is mocked. By people who don't understand it.

You didn't have a point except to puff your chest retreading old arguments the OP has clearly heard before while extending zero attention toward the very precise boundaries the OP offered to work within in order to have a meaningful discussion.

When you didn't get attention... you whined.

Now you have your attention. Your ego has been serviced.

Best to ya. /hug and /salute

I make no claims of being any different from you, btw. Just in a different point on the circle right now therefore able to offer perspectives different from yours but from someone who used to speak and think just like you.

I have an entire history on another site years earlier in my life that would look very similar to your history here.
edit on 11-12-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 



Your point was to advertise how amazing you think you are. The subject was just the vehicle.

The OP *gave* you a clear-cut 5 point definition to work with toward...


I am amazing. You're just jealous. And now that you've tried to puncture my bubble with a five-finger death punch, I'll state that the 7 points the OP made are, in my opinion, inadequate quantifications of the term "god". They are all unimaginative and short-sighted and make little effort to render justice to the modern understanding of the term.

In short, they are reinterpretations of the same crusty rubbish. Poop, from a different angle and in a different light, is still poop.



edit on 11-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   
"The deity mind is you" can be somewhat an accurate statement in my opinion.

The Mind of God is where the light is. We all have that image within us. This kingdom within is where God resides.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   

MamaJ
"The deity mind is you" can be somewhat an accurate statement in my opinion.

The Mind of God is where the light is. We all have that image within us. This kingdom within is where God resides.




Of course it is. God is exactly what we want him to be. Which is why I don't subscribe to it, because I've learned the kinds of things we humans want for ourselves.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:28 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
I am amazing. You're just jealous.

I actually do think you are amazing.

If I didn't think you were amazing I wouldn't allocate my time to you.

That doesn't mean your understanding of this subject matter is amazing though.

It's about as amazing as a person who only knows geometry and rejects trying to understand Calculus.
edit on 11-12-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by BardingTheBard
 


Like your comprehension is any more admirable? The term "prove" implies the necessity of a scientific approach, while the discussion is based on a premise that has no scientific establishment. It's all speculation, woo woo and "what if"s.

This thread will end no differently than dozens of others. I am attempting to divert such a conclusion by encouraging a direction which may provide answers or possibilities which have not been considered before. I am attempting to return this to actual science and not just woo woo land.

If you don't like it, keep scrolling.
edit on 11-12-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
I think the subject matter is about as clear-cut as frayed knot.

Yes... you put a lot of effort on this site advertising just how much you don't understand it.

I did the same thing on another site too 10+ years ago.

When I sit with a person I'm tutoring and they say "this Calculus stuff is about as clear-cut as a frayed knot"... the confusion does not lie in the very deep and broad and complex world of Calculus which has many different facets and faces, simple and complex, common and rare, etc.

The confusion is in the student.

Different ways of describing the same core concepts catered different people's ways of looking. Metaphors for laymen. Etc.
edit on 11-12-2013 by BardingTheBard because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:41 AM
link   

AfterInfinity
If you don't like it, keep scrolling.

You chose to not participate in the thread on its own terms (because you don't understand/accept them) and instead are trying to force your own vision of what you think it should be on it... trying to "divert it" to something you *do* understand.

All while talking about how awful it is that people keep deceiving themselves by only "seeing what they want to see".

It was you that needed to keep scrolling if you didn't like it.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

AfterInfinity

MamaJ
"The deity mind is you" can be somewhat an accurate statement in my opinion.

The Mind of God is where the light is. We all have that image within us. This kingdom within is where God resides.




Of course it is. God is exactly what we want him to be. Which is why I don't subscribe to it, because I've learned the kinds of things we humans want for ourselves.


What we "want him to be" or do you mean what our mind's eye expresses him to be?

God first thought. He then moved ( acted on said thought). We do the same. It's called expression.

He expressed loved and giving of self. We too have this attribute within us. This makes way for the stepping stones in life. When we give of our own selfish desires this becomes expressed as old stumbling blocks.

It's all a choice. Act on the thought without wisdom and bam... you are screwed.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 


I meant exactly what I said.



posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by AfterInfinity
 


Well, that doesn't make sense.

God is what we WANT him to be. Ok.

Meaning it's a desire (want) to be fulfilled.

A desire to perhaps not feel like we have no prupose and therefor just randomly roaming around Earth waiting to die without a purpose to be had.

Meaning our loved ones who have died, including our children are just buried and are no more. Cease to exist even still... with no purpose....even though science and nature prove energy transforms. Even though in a mere spider we find it's purpose within the nature of things. Hmmmm???

Nope... not making sense. I tried to make sense of it though.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join