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.
From concept of God to object of God in existence
page: 6share:
a reply to: Talorc
Indeed it is.
I prefer to embrace the beauty, variety and wonder of the phenomenal world and the glorious, near-infinite potential of the human mind. These are much more tangible and satisfying than the phantoms of rationalism (and other forms of faith).
I agree with your opinion, but cherish the hope that at least they will stop looking in nonexistent places.
What might that ideal be? And while you’re explaining, could you also show how you managed to deduce a factual claim about the human species ‘by reasoning’, as you stated earlier?
It's such a persistent delusion though, isn't it?
Indeed it is.
If only we could all discard it and embrace cold, sterile scientific materialism.
I prefer to embrace the beauty, variety and wonder of the phenomenal world and the glorious, near-infinite potential of the human mind. These are much more tangible and satisfying than the phantoms of rationalism (and other forms of faith).
In my opinion, it's ridiculous to believe humans will ever stop searching for the ultimate cause and reason for everything that occurs, even if it means torturing ourselves and reducing everything we cherish to ashes and ruin in the process.
I agree with your opinion, but cherish the hope that at least they will stop looking in nonexistent places.
Science has a certain Ideal that it is intent on upholding, there's no mistaking it.
What might that ideal be? And while you’re explaining, could you also show how you managed to deduce a factual claim about the human species ‘by reasoning’, as you stated earlier?
originally posted by: Observationalist
originally posted by: Blarneystoner
originally posted by: Observationalist
originally posted by: Blarneystoner
originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: Blarneystoner
Tangible means you can touch it. Intangible means you cannot. Tangible isn't talking about whether it's detectable or not... Only if you can literally touch it. Can you feel a radio wave, can you grab it with your hand? How about wifi? No? They are intangible.
You're wrong.
Well it was fun while it lasted 3 flags and 5 pages. I guess we can only take so much of philosophy. Well onto the shouting match. Wee
Making a point.... thanks.
Well done. Now I know more about you and your limitations than I know about the words lucid and intangible. Your tangible actions reveal the intangibles of your heart. A tangible fist is evidence of intangible anger.
Oh that's funny. Are you trying to be clever? You know nothing and please don't pretend that you do. If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to engage me privately. Until then, direct your self righteous attitude elsewhere.
a reply to: LucidWarrior
If it's true, as you claim, that you "wish always for understanding, of, for and between myself and others. It means I fight for clarity. I See my own iniquity, and I Fight it. I See the iniquity in the world, and I Fight it." ; then why do you rail against someone who attempts to provide further understanding of a word?
Personally, I think you're delusional...
If it's true, as you claim, that you "wish always for understanding, of, for and between myself and others. It means I fight for clarity. I See my own iniquity, and I Fight it. I See the iniquity in the world, and I Fight it." ; then why do you rail against someone who attempts to provide further understanding of a word?
Personally, I think you're delusional...
a reply to: Blarneystoner
You misunderstand me sir, I was never railing against you. On the contrary you are the one who felt the need to attack my name. But, to answer the question: it's because conflict can draw out clarity. I had my opinion, and though I was asserting it I wasn't fighting for it... I was matching it against yours and trying to go from both to the truth... The only way we can really grow is through other people...
You were attempting to provide further understanding, and I did not understand/felt like you didn't understand. So I made my reply based on what I knew, in an attempt to draw closer.
Delusional? Juries still out on that one I'm afraid
You misunderstand me sir, I was never railing against you. On the contrary you are the one who felt the need to attack my name. But, to answer the question: it's because conflict can draw out clarity. I had my opinion, and though I was asserting it I wasn't fighting for it... I was matching it against yours and trying to go from both to the truth... The only way we can really grow is through other people...
You were attempting to provide further understanding, and I did not understand/felt like you didn't understand. So I made my reply based on what I knew, in an attempt to draw closer.
Delusional? Juries still out on that one I'm afraid
a reply to: Pachomius
If there is a Creator, an architect of perceived reality, an “entity” which is responsible for the existence of the universe and all dimensions, how can anyone possibly comprehend such a being? I think it is the epitome of hubris to even suggest that understanding such a being, from which all things spring forth, is even remotely possible.
Since the dawn of mankind’s conscious awareness of his existence in the world, the questions posed in the OP have been asked over and over again. For eons, mankind has sought to understand the Creator but hasn't even come close to understanding the universe in which he exists.
“This do I ask, O Lord, reveal unto me the truth!
Who is the first begetter, father of the Cosmic Law?
Who assigned orbit to the sun and the stars?
Who causes the moon to wax and again to wane?
Who other than Thee? This and else I wish to know!
Who is the upholder of the earth and of the sky?
Who prevents them from falling down?
Who maintains the waters and also the plants?
Who yoked speed to winds and clouds?
Who is the creator of the creatures?
Who is the architect of light and darkness?
Who created sleep and wakefulness?
By whom exists dawn, mid-day and night,
Which monitor the duties of men?”
~ Zoroastrianism. Avesta, Yasna 44.3-5
In the OP we have been invited to discuss the possibility of discovering the existence of the Creator in our objective reality. That premise makes the assumption that the Creator actually exists within the construct of Space/Time. The OP presupposes that G*d actually exists in the physical universe and is restricted to it.
Isn’t it true that Abrahamic religions tell you that it’s not possible to comprehend G*d?
Job 36:26 “How great is God—beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out.”
Isaiah 40:28 - “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, He will not grow tired or weary and his understanding no one can fathom.”
Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was, and who is to come. The Almighty.”
The Hindu Purusha-Sukta verses in the Rigveda tell you that the Creator exists outside the construct of Space/Time. Purusha, the primeval god is infinite and immortal.
2. “This Purusha is all that yet hath been and all that is to be; The Lord of immortality… “
This entire exercise prompted by the OP is futile and arrogant in nature. Most can’t even comprehend themselves, let alone the Creator of all things. The first thing that people need to understand is that they know nothing. Only then will you be open to learning the true nature of creation and it's Creator. Approaching the question from your current perspective will achieve nothing.
In the grand scheme of things mankind is infantile. Maybe a better exercise would be to try and understand each other as human beings first. Learn to crawl before attempting to fly.
"To realize that you do not understand is a virtue; Not to realize that you do not understand is a defect." ~Lao Tzu
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders. ~Lao Tzu
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding. ~Lao Tzu
Best of luck to you all in your journey of discovery.
If there is a Creator, an architect of perceived reality, an “entity” which is responsible for the existence of the universe and all dimensions, how can anyone possibly comprehend such a being? I think it is the epitome of hubris to even suggest that understanding such a being, from which all things spring forth, is even remotely possible.
Since the dawn of mankind’s conscious awareness of his existence in the world, the questions posed in the OP have been asked over and over again. For eons, mankind has sought to understand the Creator but hasn't even come close to understanding the universe in which he exists.
“This do I ask, O Lord, reveal unto me the truth!
Who is the first begetter, father of the Cosmic Law?
Who assigned orbit to the sun and the stars?
Who causes the moon to wax and again to wane?
Who other than Thee? This and else I wish to know!
Who is the upholder of the earth and of the sky?
Who prevents them from falling down?
Who maintains the waters and also the plants?
Who yoked speed to winds and clouds?
Who is the creator of the creatures?
Who is the architect of light and darkness?
Who created sleep and wakefulness?
By whom exists dawn, mid-day and night,
Which monitor the duties of men?”
~ Zoroastrianism. Avesta, Yasna 44.3-5
In the OP we have been invited to discuss the possibility of discovering the existence of the Creator in our objective reality. That premise makes the assumption that the Creator actually exists within the construct of Space/Time. The OP presupposes that G*d actually exists in the physical universe and is restricted to it.
Isn’t it true that Abrahamic religions tell you that it’s not possible to comprehend G*d?
Job 36:26 “How great is God—beyond our understanding! The number of his years is past finding out.”
Isaiah 40:28 - “Do you not know? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth, He will not grow tired or weary and his understanding no one can fathom.”
Revelation 1:8 - “I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was, and who is to come. The Almighty.”
The Hindu Purusha-Sukta verses in the Rigveda tell you that the Creator exists outside the construct of Space/Time. Purusha, the primeval god is infinite and immortal.
2. “This Purusha is all that yet hath been and all that is to be; The Lord of immortality… “
This entire exercise prompted by the OP is futile and arrogant in nature. Most can’t even comprehend themselves, let alone the Creator of all things. The first thing that people need to understand is that they know nothing. Only then will you be open to learning the true nature of creation and it's Creator. Approaching the question from your current perspective will achieve nothing.
In the grand scheme of things mankind is infantile. Maybe a better exercise would be to try and understand each other as human beings first. Learn to crawl before attempting to fly.
"To realize that you do not understand is a virtue; Not to realize that you do not understand is a defect." ~Lao Tzu
To the mind that is still, the whole universe surrenders. ~Lao Tzu
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery.
Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations
arise from the same source.
This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gateway to all understanding. ~Lao Tzu
Best of luck to you all in your journey of discovery.
originally posted by: Blarneystoner
originally posted by: Observationalist
originally posted by: Blarneystoner
originally posted by: Observationalist
originally posted by: Blarneystoner
originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: Blarneystoner
Tangible means you can touch it. Intangible means you cannot. Tangible isn't talking about whether it's detectable or not... Only if you can literally touch it. Can you feel a radio wave, can you grab it with your hand? How about wifi? No? They are intangible.
You're wrong.
Well it was fun while it lasted 3 flags and 5 pages. I guess we can only take so much of philosophy. Well onto the shouting match. Wee
Making a point.... thanks.
Well done. Now I know more about you and your limitations than I know about the words lucid and intangible. Your tangible actions reveal the intangibles of your heart. A tangible fist is evidence of intangible anger.
Oh that's funny. Are you trying to be clever? You know nothing and please don't pretend that you do. If you'd like to discuss this further, feel free to engage me privately. Until then, direct your self righteous attitude elsewhere.
Clever, or obnoxious you decide. So basically you woke me up from my philosophical slumber, and I can get a bit punchy if I don't get my cup of rational thought. I may not know you, but I have seen this pattern over and over again. I guess I was hoping for something else.
Check your messages
new topics
-
D.B. Cooper mystery may be solved
General Conspiracies: 4 hours ago
top topics
-
D.B. Cooper mystery may be solved
General Conspiracies: 4 hours ago, 13 flags