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.

 

Why Creation Is The Only Logical Explanation...

page: 12
42
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: drivers1492
Why is it false to say/believe/posit/expound that God was the source of life when both scientific findings and logic confirm that: 

Life can only come from pre-existing life? 
That Law requires a law giver? 
and that Intelligence require a mind?


I do not hold the belief you do. But it's not false to believe the things you do concerning a creator. There very well may be one I have no idea. I do think that belief causes some problems with the logic your trying to present.
To my knowledge we know of no life that has come from something non living. That lack of knowledge doesn't discount the possibility of it. As mankind has progressed in various sciences we have come to discover many things we couldn't fathom a generation before. So for me personally to say with a resounding no on this topic I simply can't.
So taking into consideration the staggering amount of knowledge we haven't even the slightest notion of I have to say the jury is still out on our origins. Would you agree that you've made your conclusions on what information you have yes? Would you also agree that information is not complete?
As far as a law giver or intelligence those both infer a being that exists already not the creation of one. Again were left with a incomplete amount of information to give a definitive answer as to what can be.


a reply to: edmc^2



Thanks for your honesty drivers1492. I appreciate your input.

Correct, there's no evidence scientific or otherwise that we can get life from non-living things. But we can with 100% accuracy and assurance get life from pre-existing life.

So with this evidence, why is it then hard to believe/say/posit that the creator of life is a pre-existing life?

That part I can't figure out.




posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2

I merely used Craig as an example because he posits a very representative version of the Christian God as having the big OMNI characteristics. The big OMNIS are a good place to start to look at why many atheists reject the notion of such a God.



The atheist's world view that "nothing created the universe" and the Christian worldview that God created the universe, hence the only logical explanation.


I am an atheist. I do not consider atheism to be my worldview and I don't know many atheists that would. Atheism is my stance on belief in god(s) and that's all it is. I do not have any positive belief, as you assert, that "nothing created the Universe". You are creating a straw man and, in your OP, creating a false dichotomy. Even if you prove that what Krauss and Hawking have to say is indeed illogical it does NOTHING to validate the Christian view or even a general deistic creator. Falsifying the physicist answer does not imply you have proven your own alternative, not by a long shot. Setting up a "if I prove this false than I prove X true" argument is bad logic plain and simple.



Life can only come from pre-existing life?
That Law requires a law giver?
and that Intelligence require a mind?


I don't think any of these can be used as proof of God. Let me break down why.

Life can only come from Life:

1) There is ample evidence that the chemical reactions which produce life can arise naturally without any supernatural interference. Experiments have produced amino acids and other building blocks necessary for life. Given that all of the reactions within organisms ever observed has been entirely natural there is no reason to imply a supernatural component.

2) Even if it were the case that life can only come from other life that only proves that there must be some progenitor to life that stretches back to the very beginning of the Universe. It does not establish that there is anything supernatural about this thread of life.

3) This line of thinking leads to an infinite regress OR the God believer must engage in a fallacy of special pleading so that the existence of a LIVING God does NOT have to come from any other form of life. This is similar to the special pleading in the Cosmological argument, stating that all things need causes but then saying God needs no cause. Saying all life comes from other life, so there must be a God and then turning around and saying this God doesn't need to have come from other life is a fallacy.

Law requires a law giver...

The natural laws are descriptive, they are not actual laws written down somewhere but are merely descriptions of how nature is observed to behave. The Speed of Light is not a prescriptive law written down by some heavenly congress, it is a description of the speed that light travels at. Gravity is not a law written down somewhere, it is descriptive, it describes how objects with mass behave in regards to each other.

Intelligence requires a mind...

Again this seems based on the assumption that intelligence exhibited by organisms on Earth is somehow special, magical or beyond the bounds of natural evolution. I simply do not see how this claim can be made without already assuming there's something so extraordinary about intelligence that it requires some other kind of mind to explain its origins.

And again this falls victim to the special pleading fallacy above. If mankind's intelligence requires a God, than God's intelligence requires an UBER-GOD above him.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

Mind if I ask you how many days is the day on this verse?

[Gen 2:4 KJV] 4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"


"...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". Is the day one day or several days or a time period?


BTW - The Hebrew yohm: ‘A day; a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’—Old Testament Word Studies, page 109.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 08:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2

originally posted by: drivers1492
Why is it false to say/believe/posit/expound that God was the source of life when both scientific findings and logic confirm that: 

Life can only come from pre-existing life? 
That Law requires a law giver? 
and that Intelligence require a mind?


I do not hold the belief you do. But it's not false to believe the things you do concerning a creator. There very well may be one I have no idea. I do think that belief causes some problems with the logic your trying to present.
To my knowledge we know of no life that has come from something non living. That lack of knowledge doesn't discount the possibility of it. As mankind has progressed in various sciences we have come to discover many things we couldn't fathom a generation before. So for me personally to say with a resounding no on this topic I simply can't.
So taking into consideration the staggering amount of knowledge we haven't even the slightest notion of I have to say the jury is still out on our origins. Would you agree that you've made your conclusions on what information you have yes? Would you also agree that information is not complete?
As far as a law giver or intelligence those both infer a being that exists already not the creation of one. Again were left with a incomplete amount of information to give a definitive answer as to what can be.


a reply to: edmc^2



Thanks for your honesty drivers1492. I appreciate your input.

Correct, there's no evidence scientific or otherwise that we can get life from non-living things. But we can with 100% accuracy and assurance get life from pre-existing life.

So with this evidence, why is it then hard to believe/say/posit that the creator of life is a pre-existing life?

That part I can't figure out.



An unfertilized egg is not life. It comes from life but is not life. And yet we can get a living thing from it.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
a reply to: SuperFrog

Mind if I ask you how many days is the day on this verse?

[Gen 2:4 KJV] 4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,"


"...in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens". Is the day one day or several days or a time period?


BTW - The Hebrew yohm: ‘A day; a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’—Old Testament Word Studies, page 109.


Reference is to first 6 days... still day - 24 hour period of time, you know.

But what comes later is even more irrational then your misunderstanding of God's words that has clean meaning...

Let's continue... seems you really don't know bible... let me help my friend.



9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.


Note, now we have earth (still forming, day 3, just to make sure you follow) and vegetation, all to their kinds... no sun yet... so nothing to worry, vegetation can survive until next morning...



14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years,
15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.


Now, notice - 2 great lights??? Moon is not light... it's reflection. He seems to be busy creating all stars... no mentioning of planets around them that we now know exist... even no mentions of planets around our sun...

And all of this points that your book is just like all other religions and mythologies... based on stories of unschooled people, those who lived thousands years ago, did not know better, and tried to explain how everything came to be. Of course they were wrong.

It is impressive story, but not as good as for example Ancient Egyptian story...

It is sad that you really believe all this... even more sad that you are trying to accommodate current knowledge with scripture...

Father George Coyne calls that plague...



This video tells a lot...

Only once I know of someone having a dream and it turns out it was true... but no one believed in him and church authorities burned him on astake because he dared to say that stars in sky are stars, that they are like our sun, stars with planets, possible life... You know who am I talking about??


edit on 2-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: edmc^2




So with this evidence, why is it then hard to believe/say/posit that the creator of life is a pre-existing life?



Here's the problem, it's not hard to believe, posit, imagine, theorize or dream that a pre-existing creator, created life, that's easy. It still does not answer the question, how one goes from none-living to living?

It's still infinite regression, inserting your favorite "living" pixie does nothing to answer the question, only deepens the question. What created the pixie and what created the pixies creator? An uber, uber pixie creator?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Correct, there's no evidence scientific or otherwise that we can get life from non-living things. But we can with 100% accuracy and assurance get life from pre-existing life.

So with this evidence, why is it then hard to believe/say/posit that the creator of life is a pre-existing life?

That part I can't figure out.


There is nothing wrong with asking why or to posit or believe that based on what you just said. Life does indeed come from life. Complex life even more so.

There is nothing wrong about that line of though. But you're doing more than just using it as a theory or a belief. You are using it to conclude that because of that observation and assumption God Created the Universe. Never mind the fact that you cannot show evidence for such a leap in making that conclusion. Or that there could be other answers you're not aware of or a million other problems. In fact you're doing the same thing that you complain about when others do the very same thing. Come to a conclusion without verifying that it's true.

Including intelligence isn't needed either. Plants are a form of life but they aren't intelligent. They have no mind that we know of so you need not include that as a necessary piece of the puzzle.

The part about the Law follows the same reasoning. What law are you talking about??? Natural Law??? or Laws of Physics??? Because those Laws are just what we call the observable process of things in our reality. They are just our way of understanding how things seem to be operating and defining it with language. How things truly are and how we understand them are two different things.



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

I think you have this all wrong.

- Verse 1 state: In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth.

What does this verse tell you? Does it tell you that Earth and the heavens were already created at verse 1?

- Probably not, because verse 2 say:

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.



- Verse 3 say.

3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.


This might be what verse 3 might have looked like:


Verse 4.

And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.


By saying: let there be light. God divided light from darkness. Pritty bloody abious right


- Question: Have God created the Earth at this point?


- Since Earth and the heavens have not been finished, verse 5 must have a different meaning than a 24 hour day period.

5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.


- God Calls light for day and darkness for night. God is descibing that light is day and that darkness represents night. And so it does... right.



Verse 6.

6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.


- In verse 6 you have to go back to verse 3. This image:
What do you think is emitting the light?

Could it be the firmament?


Verse 8.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.


Pay attention. God have now created the heaven as stated in verse 1. that God was going to create. Earth is still to come.


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Correct, there's no evidence scientific or otherwise that we can get life from non-living things. But we can with 100% accuracy and assurance get life from pre-existing life.

So with this evidence, why is it then hard to believe/say/posit that the creator of life is a pre-existing life?

That part I can't figure out.



So..you're saying God is a biological human?



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: edmc^2
Correct, there's no evidence scientific or otherwise that we can get life from non-living things. But we can with 100% accuracy and assurance get life from pre-existing life.

So with this evidence, why is it then hard to believe/say/posit that the creator of life is a pre-existing life?

That part I can't figure out.



So..you're saying God is a biological human? And who is the baby-mama or daddy for the rest of us? They must both be biologically human to create human life.
edit on 2-10-2015 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: namelesss
Unless causality is actually determined will.

'Causality'/'creation' is not possible when 'time' is a figment of the imagination/ego, where your 'will' also exists!
'Cause' and 'effect' is a clumsy way to say two mutually arising opposite Perspectives of the same One Reality!
Simultaneously arising!

Like so:

1. "Nothing" as define as: "a thing that has no existence", does not, and cannot, exist. If it did exist, it could only exist as "something": "a thing which exists".


~~~ It is impossible to produce evidence of a 'thing' that has no existence!
Every'thing' exists!
Are you going to place an apple on the table and claim it doesn't exist? A 'thing' that 'ain't'?
Hardly.



2. The fact that nothing cannot exist as "nothing" means that "something" could not have come from "nothing".

Therefor, "something" must come from "something".

You erroneously assume that anything 'comes from' anything.
You erroneously assume a 'beginning' and an 'end'.
If 'something' comes from 'something', there always is and was and will be that 'something'.
No beginning, no end.




3. Further, the fact, that, "something" cannot come from "nothing", means that, what does exist, must have always existed, in some form or another.

First, 'facts' are no more than 'beliefs', imaginary, so 'fact' me no 'facts'!
"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."
www.newsweek.com...
And, ok, I am willing to tentatively accept your statement.
But all existence, the entire Universe, is literally 'timeless'!
Using words like 'always' and 'forever' in reference to the literally 'timeless' Singularity of Existence is.... obsolete to useless!


Therefor, eternity and infinity, must be true about "something". "Something" must have always existed in some form or another, because you cannot create "something" from "nothing".

No, obviously you cannot, but that does not validate the 'eternal/infinite'.
That which exists is perceived, that which is perceived exists!
No one has ever 'perceived' an infinite.
It is a 'concept-thing' in the imagination, a feature of (imaginary) 'math'.


4. The fact that "something" must arise from "something" that is eternal and infinite, means that "causality", or "cause and effect", can not be the causation for "something" from "something", because "causation" requires initiation, and initiation cannot come from something without a start, or "something" that is eternal and infinite. That is, "cause and effect", as it is define, cannot be infinite or eternal because "causation" requires initiation.

Right.


*And I think that is where you stopped at, because you know, intuitively, that "causation" cannot be its own infinite "cause and effect", if "causation" requires initiation.

'Causation fails because the necessary 'time' is imaginary!
No time = no 'cause', no beginning, no after.
Every moment of Universal existence is Here! Now!
Thus no 'cause', no 'creation'.


But instead of stopping, because of the problem with "causation", you should have realized that:

5. "Causation" must be something other than what it is defined as. "Causation", or "cause and effect", must be an effect of something without a cause, because in order to come from "something" eternal and infinite, you must have "something" that, itself, has no initiation - "something" that is, itself, not only free from "cause and effect", but is the cause of said "causation".

And thus we slip deeper into unfounded assumptions in left field.
'Causation' must not necessarily be otherwise defined, unless you are going to redefine it completely to fit some preconceived notion, which is where you appear to be going.
When a study of something leads to paradox, it needn't be 'redefined' necessarily, but perhaps just discarded as error!
Like the obsolete scientific ideal of the 'objective observer'.
Not 'redefine', dump! *__-



So, what is there that meets such requirements?

6. Free will. Free will is not bound by causation, it is, after all, free. And further still, free will causes things to happen all the time, that is, by determining will, a person with will creates "causation".

More nonsense!
The only place that 'free-will/choice' can possibly exist is in the vanity of the imagination, the ego!
'Free-will/choice', if given the least critical thought, always ends in paradox!
Thus proving impossibility!
Every moment of existence already exists!
Not a single one can ever be 'otherwise'!
To completely 'define' anything requires the entire Universe in the definition of what the thing is and what it is not!
To 'change' anything in this One (unchanging, ALL inclusive) Universal Reality, means that you must alter the entire Universe, for what usually amounts to your own personal comfort!
That is vanity! Ego! Imagination!


So what is "causation"? It must be determined will - it is the only thing that meets the requirements. The thing which caused "something" from itself must be the will of someone eternal, as will can only be willed by a person.
7. God did it.

lol, it is the only logical conclusion. Someone who is eternal must have created, or caused, from their eternal will, "something."

False assumptions lead to false conclusions!
God has no more 'free-will'/choice than anyone else.
What is, Is!
That is why 'creation' is not possible!
That Which Is, is 'perceived', not 'created'!

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true." - Demosthenes


edit on 2-10-2015 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

It seems to me we have to discuss first couple of things - first light without source... before sun or stars... and as I pointed out, sun and another source of light - moon... and so on... all illogical things and biggest one of them, you guys don't know how long is a day?! Funny...

Don't blame me for not getting it, it is your book, not mine, I am just reading as it was written by uneducated humans many hundred years ago, revisioned by other humans and translated by yet another humans...

Come on, you can't be serious and believe this is really how everything came to be?!

World, universe... life is much more then your little bronze age fairy tale books tells you...



We are all made of star dust...
edit on 2-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: thedeadtruth

It's turtles.

Turtles all the way down



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: SuperFrog
a reply to: spy66

It seems to me we have to discuss first couple of things - first light without source... before sun or stars... and as I pointed out, sun and another source of light - moon... and so on... all illogical things and biggest one of them, you guys don't know how long is a day?! Funny...

Don't blame me for not getting it, it is your book, not mine, I am just reading as it was written by uneducated humans many hundred years ago, revisioned by other humans and translated by yet another humans...

Come on, you can't be serious and believe this is really how everything came to be?!

World, universe... life is much more then your little bronze age fairy tale books tells you...



We are all made of star dust...


What do you mean first light without Source?

The firmament is the Source that emitted the first light. How the firmament was formed would probably be the issue....


How long is a day when when Earth is not formed? It sure cant be 24 hours. Because there is no Earth present to rotate. There is no sun either.

When God said let there be light. It was not the sun God created. It was the firmament.



Come on, you can't be serious and believe this is really how everything came to be?!


- I dont know how Things came to be. No one knows. I am just stating what Genesis is saying.





We are all made of star dust...


- In Genesis Chapter 1. God does not explain how he created man (male and female).

But i bet Earth plaied a big role in it.



In Chapter 2, verse 1 and 2. God ended his creation and rested on the seventh day. Pay attention to what takes Place in verse 4. When God has ended his work..... Lord God starts to form some of his own creations.


- God never formed man (male) from the dust on the ground. Lord God did.
- God never formed woman from one of the ribs. Lord God did.
- God didnt create the garden of Eden. Lord God did.
- God never created the tree of life. Lord God did.
- God never said that Adam and Eve never should eat the fruits from the tree of life. Lord God did.
- Lord God formed his own beasts in the garden of Eden.
- Lord God formed the serpant who decieved man. God did not.

There is a lot of different Things People should look into.





edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 2 2015 @ 11:41 PM
link   
So much for Christians not pushing their views on people.
This is a conspiracy site, infested with crackpots pushing their creationist agenda with "its all around you" as proof of their belief.
It's not.
Your "scientific" conclusions are anything but.
You belong to a club that collectively has caused more mayhem, destruction, and despair than any other organisation in the history of humanity.
Your groups are oppressive, bigotted, and when you don't get your way, violent and murderous.
You claim to follow the teachings of men of peace, but are almost universally in contempt of it and a mockery of any of the actual teachings of your prophets.
I was going to write a story once about a post rapture world where all of the faithful of all religions were spirited away once,
but I only got as far as:
It was the day after the rapture.
All war and conflict had ended and the athiest population if earth were now at peace.
And they all lived happily ever after.
Thee end.
So I actually hope you are right and your rapture happens sooner rather than later.
It'll be a nice place to live after that.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




Energy cannot be created


And the energy that triggered the expanding mass of the Universe from the singularity of the big bang came from where exactly ?

edit on 3-10-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: VictorBloodworth

Jim Jefferies best explained why eternal heaven would not be a good idea...


Just like my signature shows... (ps. bit of rated R language there)






originally posted by: spy66
- I dont know how Things came to be. No one knows. I am just stating what Genesis is saying.

Who wrote Genesis?

* If is authorship by God, why do you have a problem believing 1 day means 1 day - 24 hour period??
* If is authored by some loons in bronze age, did it ever occur to you that hardly they were witness to such a occurrence?! Did it occur to you to be not more then rest of mythology??

Too many inconsistencies in your so called 'holly' book, and you guys are reading it with abuse of language and go to length to show it the way you want... sorry, it does not work that way. Read it like it said - 1 day, God took day off on 7th day, instructed all to do the same... (makes you wonder why everyone pray on day God has day off??
)

Do you ever wonder, if God created only 1 man and 1 women (again, based on Bible), how everyone else came to existence?? Incest???

Now, bit from Penn and Teller... about bible...







They nailed it...

Do I need to mention this language is also bit rated R...

Here is something SF did long time ago, show - Tripping the Rift - Episode - God is our pilot... beginning of time...


youtu.be... (search you tube to watch whole episode
)
edit on 3-10-2015 by SuperFrog because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Murgatroid
All the quotes you cute are about darwinian evolution, different to the concept of evolution. He had his own assumptions as he was pioneering the theory. He was a victim of limited resources and no peer reeves or existing information. He made assumptions and was wrong. Just like Einstein, Newton and every great scientist before. We have now proved through DNA that evolution as a whole exists, not 1 man's version of it.

Be careful what dribble you quote in future
I know you can't distinguish between the 2 but I thought I would give it a try.



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

What we're both saying is not that different.

Think of time as everything that exists, and the passage of time as the manifestation of "now".

In your apple example, and within time or will (time/will are infinite and eternal), that apple is everything, yet in that moment, it is manifest from eternity/time/will, as an apple within the apple spectrum.

An easy way to grasp what I am saying is to think of it like there is only one color with infinite shades, and as the passage, or manifestation, of time occurs - as will is manifest - as "now" occurs - so is a shade manifest or created from "something eternal"/will/time.

We always existed within God's will, but we were not always willed, or manifested. We belong to the child/bride spectrum.

And instead of thinking that we came out of something, and into nowhere, think of it like we came from "something eternal"/will/time and into the body of God, into formulation/manifestation/now/structure.



Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:


Ephesians 1:3-4
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

edit on 10/3/2015 by Bleeeeep because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2015 @ 06:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: namelesss
What we're both saying is not that different.
Think of time as everything that exists, and the passage of time as the manifestation of "now".

That would be an oxymoron.
The 'passage of time' cannot equal the immediacy of the synchronous manifestation (to Consciousness) of Now!

"In your apple example, and within time or will"

~~~ That you conflate 'time' and 'will' leaves me with nothing!
I have some understanding of 'time', and it's imaginary appearance, but what, exactly, is 'will' that you would conflate the two?
Some magic beams that issue from your eyes that will rearrange the universe in accordance with your comfort?
What is this vanity of 'will' that you mention, toss about, incorporate it into assertions and rules...

" (time/will are infinite and eternal)"

~~~ Again, supporting such assertions scientifically and philosophically will be difficult to impossible.
I think it just muddies the picture.

", that apple is everything, yet in that moment, it is manifest from eternity/time/will, as an apple within the apple spectrum."

~~~ I can kinda see what you are saying, if we can translate "it is manifest from eternity/time/will" into 'we perceive it'.
It is not 'from' anywhere but Here! Now! always! *__-
In this great Cloud of Reality, from this unique Perspective, at this unique moment, I perceive an apple.


"An easy way to grasp what I am saying is to think of it like there is only one color with infinite shades, and as the passage, or manifestation, of time occurs - as will is manifest - as "now" occurs - so is a shade manifest or created from "something eternal"/will/time."

~~~ Again, that problematic "manifest from", which gives rise to fallacious 'creation/causality'!

"You don't need to take drugs to hallucinate; improper language can fill your world with phantoms and spooks of many kinds."
-Robert A. Wilson

To open your eyes and see Self, is an instantaneous thing, Here! Now!
There is not something 'there' that is doing something that we later perceive.
We perceive That Which Is.


"We always existed within God's will, but we were not always willed, or manifested. We belong to the child/bride spectrum."

~~~ Now you're losing me in the jargon of 'beliefs' and a violation of Occam's Razor of the KISS principle; Keep It Simple Stupid! *__-
That undefined and mysterious 'will', again, and the 'child/bride spectrum' thing.
I'm hearing a 'belief' or three; the acceptance of irrational things, and... just moving on from there.


"And instead of thinking that we came out of something, and into nowhere, think of it like we came from "something eternal"/will/time and into the body of God, into formulation/manifestation/now/structure."

~~~ We did not 'come from', We Are! Here! Now!
Not anything exists that is not God!
We Are That We Are!
One Omni- Self!
Here! Now! *__-

You are still 'circling' God... there is still the 'two' of you...

Didn't Jesus say; "As I Am, so can you Be!"?




top topics



 
42
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join