Atheism vs. God-Belief (the final debate).

It's the perfect will the perfect intent and the perfect love with infinite intelligence, fully informed from the first/last cause in eternity.

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

/the end. (new beginning)


Best Regards,

NAM
A Bride of Christ (however poor a future wife I may be lol). [speaking allegorically of course]

In Summary

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
There are two principal aspects of the argument I'm going to make (when time permits). The first will argue that the manifest reality, including consciousness (as a tangled hierarchy), has arisen as a result of an intelligent subtraction from, the absolute formless potential as a first/last cause or as a downward causation emanating from the Godhead aka Creative Agency, whereby the phenomenon of consciousness is not and cannot simply arise as an epiphenomenon of matter, and the second, to "join the circle" will aim to show a manifest example of superintelligent design embedded by anticipation and with intent, into the geometrical relationships and integers of our own earth-moon-sun system/configuration as a precursor to earth's evolutionary development including that of the human being as self aware observer, and even as a marker or a "sign" or signature intended for our own recognition, by the Creative Agency, but done in such a way that it cannot be dismissed either as pure coincidence or nullified as meaningless by the strong anthropic principal.

Just wanted to offer a head's up, out of fairness, due to the delay.

Best Regards,


NAM

Part 1) The Fully Informed Eternal Godhead

Part 2) Evidence of Superintelligent Design by Creative Agency in Earth-Moon-Sun Cosmological Configuration/Framework

reply to post by NewAgeMan


All I see is you jumping to conclusions. Do you have any peer-reviewed articles proving without a doubt that such a celestial arrangement indicates intelligent design? Assumptions don't quite cut it for me.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

What, now you can't think and evaluate for yourself? Now you need expert opinion.. It either is, or it isn't. It's either by design, or nothing but accidental "coincidence", it's either significant and meaningful (by virtue of our own observation) or it isn't.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

What, now you can't think and evaluate for yourself? Now you need expert opinion.. It either is, or it isn't. It's either by design, or nothing but accidental "coincidence", it's either significant and meaningful (by virtue of our own observation) or it isn't.

By virtue of your observation. I prefer the opinion of doctors and scientists...you know, people who are paid to draw these conclusions, and do so from years of dedicated research and mind-numbing analysis. Not armchair studies.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
By virtue of your observation. I prefer the opinion of doctors and scientists...you know, people who are paid to draw these conclusions, and do so from years of dedicated research and mind-numbing analysis. Not armchair studies.

I am wondering how this request fits in with your declaration of "spiritual independence".

reply to post by AfterInfinity

There's no real consensus on how the moon was even formed, since the "double whack" (by rogue planetoid of unknown origin) theory is now in disrepute because it's inadequate to explain the tilt of the Earth's axis, speed of rotation and orbital characteristics of the moon, which even if it were accepted would stretch the boundaries of the random coincidence argument even further (not one whack by a rogue planetoid, but two of them) based on what's already been presented on the last page. Neither can the moon be a captured body, since it's made up largely of the same material that formed the Earth's mantal, and originated at about the same distance from the sun as that of the earth (proven by chemical analysis of elements). To form the moon, something, some object of some kind must have sucked the mantal material straight from the forming earth,


and as we've learned this must have been done with the utmost precision i.e.: to just the right size, and distance, no more and no less in order for us to enjoy the conditions of life that we do today, and for the apparent circumference and diameter of the moon to perfectly and with absolute precision equal that of the sun at this epoch in Earth's evolutionary history when there are sentient observers to notice it.

P.S. I really liked your new avatar animation which showed an arrow of progress (purpose?) from macro to micro ending with the human eye (observer), but then you went and changed it to "lost in space".. (not as cool).

reply to post by AfterInfinity

Can you make any assessment without an appeal to authority? re: intelligent design vs. accidental coincidence?

How convenient..

How intellectually disingenuous..?

reply to post by bb23108

Originally posted by bb23108

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
By virtue of your observation. I prefer the opinion of doctors and scientists...you know, people who are paid to draw these conclusions, and do so from years of dedicated research and mind-numbing analysis. Not armchair studies.

I am wondering how this request fits in with your declaration of "spiritual independence".

Oh, that's easy. "Spiritual independence" doesn't mean "ignore people who can obviously prove they know more than you."

To date, I've seen no reason to place any deities under such a classification.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

How about the guys I ref'd and quoted here? Do they count?

Part 1) The Fully Informed Eternal Godhead

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Can you make any assessment without an appeal to authority? re: intelligent design vs. accidental coincidence?

Do you have a problem with appealing to the cumulative understanding and research of organizations who have been studying these matters since before your grandparents were born?

How convenient..

How intellectually disingenuous..?

dis·in·gen·u·ous
/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
Adjective
Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

What do you know about appealing to established investigative research authorities that would discourage such deferential regard?

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

Part 2) Evidence of Superintelligent Design by Creative Agency in Earth-Moon-Sun Cosmological Configuration/Framework

 

Please note that Part 2) of the argument presented doesn't end at the post linked, but continues to the end of the page (page 19) of the this thread, thanks.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


How do their findings support your thesis?

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Is there any way I can obtain a transcript of the Goswami material? Something I can read instead of listen to? I like to read things, makes it clearer than struggling through the dialect of a foreign speaker.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

He's written a number of books including "The Self Aware Universe". You can look them up on Amazon or get them from your local library. Also Google is your friend..

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

How do their findings support your thesis?

Fully informed infinite intelligence as a causal mechanism evidenced in the manifest creation including the evolution of the human being and form or a formative causation with intent by the Godhead as Creative Agency.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Fully informed infinite intelligence as a causal mechanism evidenced in the manifest creation including the evolution of the human being and form or a formative causation with intent by the Godhead as Creative Agency.

How do their findings support that?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

~ excerpt from "The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
Oh, that's easy. "Spiritual independence" doesn't mean "ignore people who can obviously prove they know more than you."

This appears to be an admission that you are not independent for your spiritualism because you are drawing on the knowledge of others.

You can't look at what was presented on page 19 and then say "I can't see it" I must appeal to higher authority because it's either by-design (with intent) or a mere coincidence which just happened to generate life as we know it. You can't not take a position while claiming that you're not being intellectually disingenuous.

For the atheist, the "coincidence" of eclipse (for starters) MUST be just that and nothing more. In other words it cannot be assigned any intrinsic meaning or significance or purpose or intentionality by any Creative Agency.

There's a bias there then or a blindspot that refuses to and cannot see or recognize any evidence to the contrary. But according to the proper definition of "atheism" (as discussed earlier in this thread) this can't be so. In the presence of evidence demonstrating intelligent design, the atheist is then placed in a real predicament you see. At best it's "no comment"..

I would just like to see the argument to the contrary, and in the face of the evidence, that's all.

I made my argument, that this can be nothing other than the result of an infinitely intelligent Creative Agency. I did my part..


Best Regards,

NAM