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 SumnerKagan
God is beyond any SIMPLE logic a person may have or offer.
But, it was funny to see you guys act like you have figured out the nature of God in a few sentences.
Originally posted by justamomma
That is a false assumption that you are making. I have not stated that one should cease to study. Once one knows the Truth exists and did regardless of aknowledgment, then comes the fun part which would be finding the truths within the Truth. But to argue the Truth when it is not something that can be argued is ignorant and shows that you do not actually know the Truth.
Originally posted by badmedia
As I said, I see people who live like this all the time.
They always take the easiest answer and then they cling to it until they are proven wrong.
Originally posted by badmedia
And then they sit there and say prove it wrong, so that they can appear to be right at all times
Originally posted by badmedia
and then once new evidence comes out they change their mind, to appear to be right again
Originally posted by badmedia
and then say stuff like - well it wasn't proven. But all the while they were wrong about it
Originally posted by crmanager
reply to post by Gregor100
Are you that clueless?
That jibberish is proof to you?
I am curious why you need to spend this much time and energy to dispell something you do not believe in?
I don't believe in Santa, I won't spend time disputing his existence.
Originally posted by badmedia
Preferable, not right. As I said, I see people who live like this all the time. They always take the easiest answer and then they cling to it until they are proven wrong.
And then they sit there and say prove it wrong, so that they can appear to be right at all times, and then once new evidence comes out they change their mind, to appear to be right again, and then say stuff like - well it wasn't proven. But all the while they were wrong about it, and why? Because they chose the easiest answer, rather than looking for what is true. All you are doing is making the "safe bet".
You are looking into the creation for evidence of the creator. And this is silly. This is like looking inside your Windows OS and hoping to find Bill Gates.
Sure, you can look there all you want, you can look out in creation for evidence all you want, but where you need to look is inside you.
You surely won't be able to understand the father if you can't even understand your own true nature. Hint: John 14:20.
You can not prove it to another person, it only comes from personal understanding and seeking.
Well if he is talking out loud to god, then he obviously doesn't know where to find god.
And what of Genetics? If I buy a Honda Civic, and it has a problem with it's airbag, then chances are cars just like it are also going to have problems with it's airbag. Similar to genetics.
But it is the owner of the car who determines if the car is dirty or clean, how fast it drives, how erractic it is, and how it behaves. The limits of the driver is determined by the car, just like in genetics. Go figure.
Biology is just nanotechnology and DNA is the code the little self reproducing nanobots follow.
Soul is better known these days as consciousness. I would love to hear about how science has figured this out. Please, tell me how 1 chemical reaction to another chemical brings about the ability to observe and feel. What is the magical observitanium element? I'm very interested to know how an electrical signal and chemicals reaction to bring about an observer and consciousness.
The only thing that can come from nothing is thought.
Originally posted by whoswatchinwho
reply to post by dbates
dbates... a slightly off topic but question to your post..
I've just watched the videos on here that explain in idiot terms the concept of the 10 dimentions, It's a lot to get your head around but my way of understanding it was:
we cannot see the whole of our 3D universe/timeline, but we can look at the whole of a 2D universe, like looking down on it from above...
So you can only see a whole universe from outside that one, a 4D will see all of ours etc etc.... untill you bring in the concept of God .... to see everything he would (by my thinking) need to be outside the 10th dimension, but the 10th dimension encompasses all of all there is so where then is God??????
My brains hurting now, lol, I hope you understand my post....
Originally posted by TruthParadox
Like the ever popular "God did it"?
Originally posted by badmedia
And then they sit there and say prove it wrong, so that they can appear to be right at all times
You mean like Christians who trumpet the "you can't disprove God, nana nana boo boo!"?
Originally posted by badmedia
and then once new evidence comes out they change their mind, to appear to be right again
You mean like when Christians move the goal post back a bit further?
God of the gaps?
The 10th dimension?
Outside of the 10th dimension?
The 14th dimension to the power of 58 times pi?
Originally posted by badmedia
and then say stuff like - well it wasn't proven. But all the while they were wrong about it
Yep, sounds very familiar ...
Originally posted by Gregor100
www.youtube.com...
If you cant be bothered going to youtube the video says this:
"The god of the bible is claimed to be omnipotent and omniscient.
If you can change the future you are not omniscient.
If you cannot you are not omnipotent.
Myth busted"
Pretty hard evidence right there....
Edit - Well spotted out i mis-quoted... wooops..
[edit on 19/2/09 by Gregor100]
Originally posted by nj2day
If their answer is proven incorrect, than they need to go back, and incorporate the new data they have been provided into the existing data set that they have... thus finding a new truth by being shown to be wrong... This is actually very exciting to me when it happens... as it usually results in an extremely deeper understanding of nature of whatever it is we're questioning. I can't help the people you see who wrongly use Occam's Razor...
This is the scientific method at work. Kudos to the people who annoy you by changing their beliefs based on new evidence... but, its most likely much closer than taking an idea that has unchanged for over 4000 years... and refusing to admit new evidence.
While you call it a "safe bet", the rest of us call it being rational.
While without supporting documentation and a complete data set, this would be indeed absurd.
Fortunately, we have other sources of knowledge than our Windows OS... and can irrevocably find bill gates... The bible has none... unless you want to count midieval forgeries made during the "relic rush"...
Bring me new verifiable data... and we'll add that to the data set and draw conclusions afterwards.
Thats convenient. And I suppose if I look "inside me" and draw a different conclusion, I'm doing it wrong?
Don't you see how this is a false argument?
We know way more about our nature as humans than you seem to acknowledge.
Ah, so this is the rationalization you have for ignoring any new data that might come your way?
according to you. I guess you're the definitive source of information on all things god?
Yes, if the problem is with a faulty part... but cars don't have genetics... although the prospect of watching my cars have sex with each other... I have to admit... is pretty intriguing.
Right... and in this situation, the driver is akin to the "car's brain". If that brain evolved with a predisposition to go fast... the car will go fast. This has to be the weakest argument I've heard on genetic pre-disposition.
Biology is just nanotechnology and DNA is the code the little self reproducing nanobots follow.
No its not. Nanotech is manipulation of molecules and such... if we could create nanotech with the ability to self replicate, you religious people would go insane... as we would have created a new life form completely unseen before.
nah, i've done consciousness with you before... you change definitions and refuse to acknowledge points I bring up when we talk about that...
But, than if another animal were exhibiting signs of consciousness, would that mean it has a soul?
and how would we be "special" if that were shown... cause believe it or not... some animals show a high likelyhood that they are sentient.
Originally posted by badmedia
You mean that which created the universe and is the only actual observer that is and always will be? It is impossible for such to not exist, if there is no observer then there is nobody there know it doesn't exist. If there is no afterlife, you'll never know 1 way or another. Because you will not be there to observe it. The very act of being there to observe and "know" if there is an afterlife requires and afterlife to view it. I always giggle when people say - we'll know when we are dead, because the only way to know is if there is an afterlife. If there was no consciousness and nothing to view creation, then it would not be known to exist. The very act of observing is separate from the creation itself.
LOL thats funny, I mention that it doesn't take consciousness to observe, and you go off on Artificial Intelligence.
The father is pure consciousness. He is the sum of all consciousness past, present future and all of creation, that which is known and beyond. The father is the only observer in the end.
But you do not realize the difference between patterns running based on the logic given, and the actual ability to understand and observe. That which is not conscious is unable to learn new logic.
Well I hope you don't bring up psychology, as it is only able to recognize behavior patterns, not consciousness itself.
But what you fail to understand is that consciousness is not part of the creation.
Has to be because you've discribed god as pure consciousness... and he said "let us create man in our own image". This was the rationality you used when explaining why god isn't "man shaped".
Nifty little contradiction you have going there.
If you see yourself as only flesh, as being only a creation and result of this universe, then you are blind to the truth. Only if you realize your true self(consciousness/soul) can you understand why I say what I do.
LOL classic! If I don't agree with you, something must be wrong with my thinking, and I'm somehow inferior to you...
This is actually a pretty common christian response... and you wonder why other religions despise christianity.
Where are these magical molecules that have consciousness in them? You see yourself as being flesh and see yourself as machine. And yes, your body is from the dust of the earth, it is from the creation and it is a machine. But you are the driver, and if you can't understand that, then you will never understand me.
I've said this before... you're the one saying you have all the answers... (especially with the whole consciousness thing) Not me... I say its foolish to make the leap... and will instead wait for science to run its course...
There's no shame in admitting that you don't understand something. For some reason, believers have to attribute misunderstanding to "god"
So we will not find agreement as long as you associate yourself as being flesh rather than soul/consciousness.
Oh we could agree, if science someday finds facts supporting your myths, I'll add that to my data set, and re-evaluate my positions.
But please tell me, to what are the electrical signals in your brain presenting this reality to?
Other chemicals and electrical impluses in your brain... interperited by receptors. You're starting to assign value to something because its a warm fuzzy...
How does an electrical signal become the image you see? If it goes from light to the eyes, converted into electrical signals which go to the back of the brain, to what is that image presented to?
Optical receptors in the area of the brain that controls vision
To what are feelings presented to? Isn't it beyond just a signal telling you something is happening? If all these things like free will and such are illusions, then to what are the illusions to?
Christ, we could go at this all day... but it doesn't change the fact that just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it can't be explained. I swear, If science comes up with a way to create "consciousness in a jar", you'd find some other reason to explain your situation...
It's not man's flaw that we can't generate a random number that can be predicted.
really? You can prove randomness doesn't exist? I'm sure you're the chaos theory expert now?
[qutoe]It's just because the program has to follow a pattern and logic given to it. It has to take a number, apply equations and such to it to arrive at the random number. We can make them random enough that a person can't tell the difference, but because it is based on logic it can be predicted.
The best they can do to get random numbers is to take in something which is unknown and then base the equations off that. We can get random enough to suit our purposes, but it's never truly random.
Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Cant resist adding my two cents on this one....
I have seen far more people who have set out to prove God does not exist become Christians, than I have seen become atheists.
Originally posted by badmedia
reply to post by nj2day
You always want to argue against the worse arguments you can find and then act as if that is the only description of god or anything as such. Things which are clearly misunderstood. When pressed with other points of view, it's "moving the goal posts".