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.
Originally posted by Philodemus
How did God make the universe? Through his will you say? So, you hold a subjective worldview, right?
edit on 7-7-2013 by Philodemus because: (no reason given)
The purpose of evolutionary theory is not to deal with the question of the origins of life. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started.
also recognize the significance of the fact i presented which more than marginally debunks the theory of evolution as ever being able to answer creation itself..
Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by filledcup
The purpose of evolutionary theory is not to deal with the question of the origins of life. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started.
also recognize the significance of the fact i presented which more than marginally debunks the theory of evolution as ever being able to answer creation itself..
Originally posted by filledcup
The consciousness behind living creatures is a Spirit within the animate vessel we call the body. an essence of God the creator , and so evolution theory cannot debunk him!
Originally posted by Philodemus
Originally posted by filledcup
The consciousness behind living creatures is a Spirit within the animate vessel we call the body. an essence of God the creator , and so evolution theory cannot debunk him!
And thusly, you can't prove him either.
You use a remarkable number of concepts and non-concepts in your theory. I would like to know what you believe the words you use to actually mean. I would also like to know how you inform these concepts. What is and where did you get the theory of concepts you use?
What is consciousness?
What is essence?
What is God?
Originally posted by Philodemus
reply to post by filledcup
No, I'm not going to debate you on the theory of evolution. You've miss-identified so many key concepts that it's hardly worth it.
In this reality in which we operate there are subjects and objects. I am a subject and every other thing I can gain knowledge about and even that knowledge itself are objects.
In an objective world view, the objects of reality hold metaphysical primacy over the subject. Meaning, I can not change the nature of the objects based purely on my consciousness or wish.
In a subjective worldview, the opposite holds. The subject holds metaphysical primacy over the objects. In other words, "God" (a word that is conceptually referenceless) can change or manipulate the objects based only on his whim or wish. By means of conscious intent alone, he can change anything about reality. Including the rules. In this worldview, no holes are barred. Anything goes. I have no assurance that adding sugar to my coffee will sweeten it even though it has for thirty years. Tomorrow, if God arbitrarily wishes, sugar could cause my coffee to combust.
So, you affirm a subjective worldview?
In Humanity,
Daniel
consciousness is to have an identity and the realization of the awareness of that identity. It is the force of life given individual thought autonomy. The Spirit or Soul.
Essence is like a worm. and having the a quarter of the worm cut creates two worms. Essence is one worm cutting off a portion of itself to stand independently of it. carrying all it's attributes however in a smaller package.
God is the original worm.
What is a concept?
my theories and concepts
What is existence?
are derived from spiritual understanding of existence
So, you do or do not have a sense other than your five sense modalities that you can use to understand the world around you? Not clear here.
having attained samadhi several years ago. with it i am able to understand anything i read and as well decipher and predict logically all truth in what i read and all that should be taken with a pinch of salt clearly.
what is "spiritual in formation and how do you obtain it?
i am well educated on both scientific and religious/spiritual information.
the combination of both giving me insight to the progress of scientific discovery. in effect, i see where science succeeds and where it will fail.
How do you maintain more than one point of view on something and avoid contradiction?
the answers in my previous post should clear up the issue here. uve attempted to confine me to one point of view.
You'll have to do better than cutting worms to help me understand
which is what essence explains.
Read my reply again. The way you've worded this sounds like the opposite of what I said. Unless that's you meant. If it is what you meant then you just affirmed a subjective metaphysic.
we were subjected in creation, but once created i suppose you can say we become objective.
Absolutely not.
my explanation of the word essence should have cleared that up.
So your God is powerless and impotent now? Sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too. There really isn't a middle ground here.
The will of God is required for creation, but once the creation is complete it possess it's own independent will.
So, you don't need any other input other than one's own consciousness? Introspection only works if you have something to introspect on (i.e. awareness of objects). I know I like Thai food. I can introspect on that.
Essence is like a worm. and having the a quarter of the worm cut creates two worms. Essence is one worm cutting off a portion of itself to stand independently of it. carrying all it's attributes however in a smaller package.
This doesn't really answer the question. It's only metaphor.
God is the original worm.
Was this the definition of God? A worm?
Hmmm....nice assertion. But how can I verify this?
define something for me, anything, without using a metaphor or form of reference.
They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”[\ex]
Any Rand Lexicon Online