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.

 

God Inhibits the Sciences

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
A note to all: My proof does not disprove God, and that was not its intention. It simply shows that perhaps those who believe in God (and their definition matches mine) are in a spiritual contradiction.

Protector,
Proofs do not have hypothesis or experiments. For example, look at any mathematics proof.

muzzleflash,
Taoism really does not posit a God.

badkitty,
It is not a theory; it is a proof. Moreover, while science does not know all possible variables, it must at least know which to eliminate to have a control set. For example, having an animal trampling over a control group of grasses does not make for a valid experiment. That is, the animal can impact the control set in such a way where the experiment is fundamentally changed, and an omnipotent God can obviously do this. Sadly, a variable *this huge* is not something science can deal with and still be considered valid.

Albert Einstein in later books considered himself a deist much like Spinoza. (or, how he used it "Spinoza's God"), who in a matter of fact way pretty much said God is nature. That exists the realm of my definition as well as the definition of the major religions.

Thomas Payne had it a bit wrong, unless he wants to consider Descartes tobe inspired by God when he wrote "The Method;" while it can be argued that science merely rediscovers God's creation, it doesn't mean that science is God's invention. Oddly enough, some people argue that Descartes wasn't much of theist, and only appealed to the church not to be burned at the stake for when he published his book. He actually suggested that humans were to become Gods using his methods.

Science, as an inductive activity, does not have certainty in its end result. In reality, it gives correlations and probabilities, but never necessarily truth. However, in order to give those correlations and probabilities, steps of this inductive method need to be done with a degree of certainty, especially with the certainty or assumption that a God is not or will not mess with your control group.

The irony: If christian (or other religious scientist that has at least my definition of God) scientists want to assume that God will not interfere with their control group, by implication, they assume they know God's will. (Bad assumption? I think so.)

If christian sciestists (or other religious scientist that has at least my definition of God) want to assume God does not exist, so he can not interefer with their control group, by implication, they have doubted God just for a human pursuit. (Bad, bad scientists)

They are living in a spiritually contradictory stance, and probably do not even know it!




posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
When you speak of god, does it have to be the christian or desert god? Why can't science and the belief in God coexist? If he created the earth (not in 6000 years) and all it's creatures, he would have to be considered the most knowledgable scientist that ever existed.

On the other hand, how can a creationist discount the idea that man is similar or share the same history as animals on this earth? Are we not all carbon based life forms? What seperates humans from animals are the thoughts and ideas to formulate logic.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
radardog:

You have some interesting points and I will address those. However, let me rebut a few things:




Moreover, while science does not know all possible variables, it must at least know which to eliminate to have a control set.

True, but because you cannot know all possible variables you can never know precisely what to eliminate. Therefore you can only eliminate the known variables, as in your example of the animal trampeling the grass. However, your proposition says science is invalid becuse you can never know if God is intervening right? Well reconsider your example of the grass and the animals. Now if the patch of grass is in a wilderness where a great number of "Bigfoot" sightings have occurred would you say you cannot rely on the experiment because there may be a Bigfoot in the area that may decide to trampel the grass? (Note I am viewing this topic from a standpoint of defending science - not religion)




Albert Einstein in later books considered himself a deist

Yes he did - and so do I, that is why I chose him to quote. And Einstein never said God is nature, neither will any true deist. The core of deist philosophy is that God created nature and can be better understood through our study of it. In other words nature is Gods word and law. Deists reject "revealed" religious ideas.




Thomas Payne had it a bit wrong, unless he wants to consider Descartes tobe inspired by God when he wrote "The Method;" while it can be argued that science merely rediscovers God's creation, it doesn't mean that science is God's invention.

First let me clarify one thing when we say science we have two applications for the word. 1. The study of principles and persuit of knowledge and 2. The principles themselves (nature, physics, math, etc.) Payne didn't say that science (as in the study of principles and persuit of knowledge) is Gods invention. In fact he said just the opposite. He said science - as in the persuit of knowledge, is a human application. It is the principles (science) of nature, math, physics and such that Payne claims are the creation of God. These principles are not and cannot be created by man. They are only discovered by man through the application of scientific method. Thus man developed scientific method in the persuit of understanding eternal principles that he cannot create or change.



Science, as an inductive activity, does not have certainty in its end result. In reality, it gives correlations and probabilities, but never necessarily truth.

Yet it is truth (or fact if you prefer) that we seek through science. If we are unable to attain perfect truth it is only due to our limited knowledge - not because truth does not exist. We must continue to grow, learn and improve our methods. I believe I said it was the persuit of truth - not the attainment of it (thought I do believe it is eventually possible).



The irony: If christian (or other religious scientist that has at least my definition of God) scientists want to assume that God will not interfere with their control group, by implication, they assume they know God's will. (Bad assumption? I think so.)

You may have a very good point here. It appears to be very hypocrytical to say the least. Not being a christian myself I will leave comment on this to those who are. In fact, I was raised a christian and very involved in the church until about three years ago. And in fact, it was my logic, reason and love of science that lead me to start questioning and eventually leave christianity. So I agree with you on this point that christianity and science appear incompatible. But I disagree that God and science are.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
The pursuit of science and technology without a strong moral-spiritual foundation results in people performing medical experiments on intelligent creatures and using them as slaves and for breeding purposes – all of which are perverse activities to say the least. Scientific pursuits that are not god-centered (i.e., that don't adhere to the precepts of The Golden Rule) become corrupt and evil.

There are a number of assumptions about “God” that were made in this thread that I would like to address:

1. Statistically speaking, it figures that an intelligent being initiated The Big Bang but why does that God have to be omnipotent? Many scientists now consider the Universe to not be endless, just extremely large, which points to a very advanced yet finite Creator having made it.

2. Why does the God that initiated The Big Bang have to also be the origin of all the laws of physics and metaphysics? It is equally plausible that The Original Creator simply learned how to use those laws to a high degree in manifesting the Universe. To assume that God made the laws is like the ancient Greeks assuming that the "gods" were responsible for moving the stars.

3. Why does God have to been responsible for directly creating this world and its peoples? It is equally plausible that this world is only a number of many that didn't receive any direct attention from the original source after The Big Bang.




[edit on 7-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Paul_Richard




Scientific pursuits that are not god-centered (i.e., that don't adhere to the precepts of The Golden Rule) become corrupt and evil.

Are you proposing that only those who believe in God are capable of morality? Are you suggesting that an atheist is automatically immoral? While I am not an atheist and further am a theist I do not believe that morality cannot exist without a belief in God. In fact I would wager that many of those “immoral” scientific experiments were perpetrated by those claiming to believe in God. Heck, some of the most gruesome acts against humanity were perpetrated in the name of God.



Statistically speaking, it figures that an intelligent being initiated The Big Bang but why does that God have to be omnipotent and omniscient?

It seems radardog’s entire premise was based on questioning the established beliefs of Christians and the like. You will note on the first page that I suggested the same thing – we do not know if God is omnipotent. However, those he is calling out in this discussion are those who share this common belief.



Why does the God that initiated The Big Bang have to also be the origin of all the laws of physics and metaphysics? It is equally plausible that The Original Creator simply learned how to use those laws to a high degree in manifesting the Universe.

It is possible that the creator of this universe did not create the laws on which it was founded. However, that would imply that the creator of this universe then is not God but a being below God – the God who did create the laws.



Why does God have to been responsible for directly creating this world and its peoples? It is equally plausible that this world is only a number of many that didn't receive any direct attention from the Original Source after The Big Bang.

It is possible, even probable in my view that God does not direct any attention to this earth. That does not preclude his having created it (as well as everything the universe).



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by badkitty
Paul_Richard


Scientific pursuits that are not god-centered (i.e., that don't adhere to the precepts of The Golden Rule) become corrupt and evil.

Are you proposing that only those who believe in God are capable of morality? Are you suggesting that an atheist is automatically immoral? While I am not an atheist and further am a theist I do not believe that morality cannot exist without a belief in God. In fact I would wager that many of those “immoral” scientific experiments were perpetrated by those claiming to believe in God. Heck, some of the most gruesome acts against humanity were perpetrated in the name of God.


Most people need to believe in a higher power or a God in order to live moral lives. But there are exceptions. The best indicator for operational (and not just conceptual) morality is The Golden Rule. I agree that there can be ethical existentialists who strive to live moral lives in accordance to TGR. Outside of those who use God as a scapegoat (like al Qaeda for example), most who believe in God or a higher power also believe in ultimate accountability for one's actions.


Originally posted by badkitty
Paul_Richard


Statistically speaking, it figures that an intelligent being initiated The Big Bang but why does that God have to be omnipotent and omniscient?

It seems radardog’s entire premise was based on questioning the established beliefs of Christians and the like. You will note on the first page that I suggested the same thing – we do not know if God is omnipotent. However, those he is calling out in this discussion are those who share this common belief.


There are many here who are not Christian and question God’s omnipotence.


Originally posted by badkitty
Paul_Richard


Why does the God that initiated The Big Bang have to also be the origin of all the laws of physics and metaphysics? It is equally plausible that The Original Creator simply learned how to use those laws to a high degree in manifesting the Universe.

It is possible that the creator of this universe did not create the laws on which it was founded. However, that would imply that the creator of this universe then is not God but a being below God – the God who did create the laws.


Assuming of course that the laws have to be created by a God being and not just be a condition of existence, i.e., the only way reality can take shape – which I believe to be the case. God didn't create the laws, God learned how to work with them in order to manifest what was desired.


Originally posted by badkitty
Paul_Richard


Why does God have to been responsible for directly creating this world and its peoples? It is equally plausible that this world is only a number of many that didn't receive any direct attention from the Original Source after The Big Bang.

It is possible, even probable in my view that God does not direct any attention to this earth. That does not preclude his having created it (as well as everything the universe).


I agree that God does not direct any attention to this planet. However, I also believe that the reason for the lack of attention and presence is not because of the choice of indifference, but because The First Coming has yet to take place. The world's traditional religions were started (at best) by large groups of basically spiritual discarnates or "angels" and were not initiated by God. This explains why there are so many faiths, so many discrepancies in scripture, and why there is not one, all-encompassing religion that proves beyond a shadow of doubt the existence of God -- a One True Religion with which we are all members.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Paul_Richard:

You've really got me spinning in circles here. = )




Assuming of course that the laws have to be created by a God being and not just be a condition of existence, i.e., the only way reality can take shape – which I believe to be the case. God didn't create the laws, God learned how to work with them in order to manifest what was desired.
So does that imply that the laws exist outside of God? Did they exist before God? Is God subject to these laws? Are they God? Where did these laws come from?



However, I also believe that the reason for the lack of attention and presence is not because of the choice of indifference, but because The First Coming has yet to take place. The world's traditional religions were started (at best) by large groups of basically spiritual discarnates or "angels" and were not initiated by God.
I have seen even less proof of the existence of angels than of God. Why do you believe that angels exist? And what exactly is the “First Coming”?



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   
There is no real 'proof' of this theory...

As previously stated the facts considered in the hypothetical experiment can only ever be a tiny token of those factors which may be taken into account, this is the case with all science.

As it is impossible to monitor every changing force within the universe, science therefore subjectively chooses those factors which it will take into account for the purposes of proving the theory at hand.

There is no perfect control group, never was, never will be...

For this reason alone it would be impossible to either include or exclude divine will as a determinant...



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Paul_Richard




1. Statistically speaking, it figures that an intelligent being initiated The Big Bang but why does that God have to be omnipotent? Many scientists now consider the Universe to not be endless, just extremely large, which points to a very advanced yet finite Creator having made it.
[edit on 7-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]


How are there statistics proving that god created the universe ot intiated the big bang. The is very little to prove god even existed other than stories of people from a period where science was scarce so they blamed evrything on god. And so you have religion.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by badkitty
Paul_Richard:

You've really got me spinning in circles here. = )



Assuming of course that the laws have to be created by a God being and not just be a condition of existence, i.e., the only way reality can take shape – which I believe to be the case. God didn't create the laws, God learned how to work with them in order to manifest what was desired.
So does that imply that the laws exist outside of God? Did they exist before God? Is God subject to these laws? Are they God? Where did these laws come from?


These are excellent questions.

My present level of understanding or belief if you will is that reality can only be manifested in certain ways and that the laws and energy in the Spirit which were used to manifest the Universe (often referred to as Universal Law and The Light respectively –- the latter of which many near-death experiencers report seeing) are constant and unchangeable; they always existed and always will exist and predate the emergence of consciousness. Without Universal Law and The Light, there can be no stars, no planets, no souls, and no Creator. God is just as accountable and subject to these laws as we are, as they can never be changed -- although many have tried. It’s like trying to change the law of gravity; you can manipulate gravity but you can never actually change the law itself.



Originally posted by badkitty
Paul_Richard:


However, I also believe that the reason for the lack of attention and presence is not because of the choice of indifference, but because The First Coming has yet to take place. The world's traditional religions were started (at best) by large groups of basically spiritual discarnates or "angels" and were not initiated by God.
I have seen even less proof of the existence of angels than of God. Why do you believe that angels exist? And what exactly is the “First Coming”?


An addition to being a metaphysician and ufologist, I am also a spiritual medium and have conversed with many people on the Other Side, and still do. Angels are simply people who are basically spiritual and who have crossed over. After many years I came to realize that most people join a group consciousness after they leave the flesh. These Group Entities (especially the larger ones), by virtue of having the combined energies of the collective, often depict themselves to those in the flesh as one powerful spiritual being or ascended master, just as many spiritually apathetic people on the Other Side like to combine into a GE that depicts itself as one powerful demonic figure.

Both are deceptions. An "angel" is a spirit who is not individually powerful enough (i.e., spiritually evolved enough) to move objects telekinetically or heal people significantly. But get hundreds, thousands and especially millions of “angels” that are combined into a Group Entity, and their chosen prophet has substantial Gifts of the Spirit like Healing, Charisma, Telekinesis, the ability to change water into wine, create bread and other food, etc. – like the prophets Issa and Sai Baba.

The First Coming will be the emergence of The Original Creator in this space-time continuum, whereby God’s presence is made known to billions of people on this and many other worlds that harbor humanoid life. The energy required to manifest billions of galaxies is far greater than that of any angel collective. As such, proof positive of God's divinity will be made from the manifestation of far greater miracles of healing and telekinesis than any Gifts channeled through and around the angel prophets or central figures of the world's traditional religions. An example would be healing millions of people a day of terminal affliction. No traditional prophet (like Issa/Jesus and Moses) was ever been able to pull that off simply because none of them were aligned with the power of The Original Creator; they channeled the energy of angel collectives, not God.

When there emerges a prophet that can heal millions of people at once on a daily basis, then we will know that we are no longer dealing with just an angel prophet who channels a large Group Entity, but someone who is representative of a genuine God Realized Master...like The Original Creator.



[edit on 7-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmokeyTheBear

Originally posted by Paul_Richard

1. Statistically speaking, it figures that an intelligent being initiated The Big Bang but why does that God have to be omnipotent? Many scientists now consider the Universe to not be endless, just extremely large, which points to a very advanced yet finite Creator having made it.
[edit on 7-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]


How are there statistics proving that god created the universe ot intiated the big bang. The is very little to prove god even existed other than stories of people from a period where science was scarce so they blamed evrything on god. And so you have religion.


The probability of the Universe having been created through intelligent design outweighs the possibility of it having emerged without rhyme or reason. I side with Albert Einstein when he said, “God does not play dice with the Universe.”



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Paul:



Without Universal Law and The Light, there can be no stars, no planets, no souls, and no Creator. God is just as accountable and subject to these laws as we are, as they can never be changed -- although many have tried.

So are you saying that the Universal Law predates the creator of the universe and is separate from and above this creator? If so, wouldn’t that make the Universal Law God and “The Creator” a separate entity which is lesser than the law?


When there emerges a prophet that can heal millions of people at once on a daily basis, then we will know that we are no longer dealing with just an angel prophet who channels a large Group Entity, but someone who is representative of a genuine God Realized Master...like The Original Creator.

Woah! Now you’ve really turned me upside down. If God (the creator) is subject to the laws of the Universe then how can he break/change/supercede them? I mean, it is against the laws of physics to spontaneously heal millions of people in a day. And if the angels are merely dead people then it would seem foolish to listen to anything they have to say. What makes them so much wiser now that they have “crossed over”? Did they receive some devine revalation from the creator while they were there? If so then they are not deceptive but are beneficial. If not then they are just fools like us pretending to have answer that no human can have.



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by badkitty
Paul:



Without Universal Law and The Light, there can be no stars, no planets, no souls, and no Creator. God is just as accountable and subject to these laws as we are, as they can never be changed -- although many have tried.

So are you saying that the Universal Law predates the creator of the universe and is separate from and above this creator? If so, wouldn't that make the Universal Law God and The Creator a separate entity which is lesser than the law?


Now that you have fallen down the rabbit hole, so to speak, I'm not sure how far you want to go with this.

Universal Law is what governs The Light. The Light is the energy in the discarnate dimensions that is infinite and nonliving. The more spiritually advanced the personality, the greater its ability to unite with that energy of Spirit. The principles surrounding The Light cannot be changed and it existed before The Original Creator came into being. The Light represents the only way that reality can manifest itself from nothingness.

On a related issue, time is a condition of consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no time, which is how in a linear context something can come into being from nothingness. With the utilization of The Light, something can spring into being from its own probable existence -- which is exactly how The Original Creator emerged.


Originally posted by badkitty


When there emerges a prophet that can heal millions of people at once on a daily basis, then we will know that we are no longer dealing with just an angel prophet who channels a large Group Entity, but someone who is representative of a genuine God Realized Master...like The Original Creator.

Whoa! Now you've really turned me upside down. If God (the creator) is subject to the laws of the Universe then how can he break/change/supersede them? I mean, it is against the laws of physics to spontaneously heal millions of people in a day.


Technically, The Original Creator cannot supersede the "Laws of the Universe." However, what God can do is use The Light Of The God Force within Universal Law, which actually allows for a great deal. Healing millions of people a day doesn't break any laws, it only uses The Light to a very high degree to amend physical affliction.

Another illustration...

There is a basic law of physics which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another. But with The Light matter can indeed be created because The Light transcends the physical spectrum of energies. Through the eons, various large angel collectives have created matter to a small degree with their minor miracles, e.g., creating food, changing water into wine, etc. The Original Creator used The Light to a much higher degree to manifest The Big Bang. No physical machine can actually create matter.


Originally posted by badkitty
And if the angels are merely dead people then it would seem foolish to listen to anything they have to say. What makes them so much wiser now that they have "crossed over"? Did they receive some divine revelation from the creator while they were there? If so then they are not deceptive but are beneficial. If not then they are just fools like us pretending to have answer that no human can have.


Well, it is true that just because someone is dead does not mean that he is automatically highly evolved, knowledgeable of the subject, and/or sincere in wishing to help. But there are those on the Other Side who are indeed very wise and knowledgeable.

I have come to know that there are discarnates that are beyond the angels but not quite Masters; these are the discarnate Saints/Archangels which should not be confused with the traditional archangels like Michael which are just "calling cards" for angel collectives. These Saints are nobler, more objective, wiser and more truthful than angels. The problem is that Archangels are usually overshadowed in energy from the Group Entities. A GE with thousands of members can easily overshadow a single discarnate Saint in energy, distorting things in their favor.

Did angels receive divine revelation from The Original Creator?

No, not directly, but they have through the eons often acted in God's capacity and in doing so furthered their own political, sociological and religious influence in forming and maintaining new faiths. Angels found that they preferred to be a part of a group consciousness. This stymied their spiritual development because one cannot progress in any significant way while being part of a Group Entity. But they generally preferred being part of a collective nonetheless.

A logical question arises...

Wouldn't God have insisted on guiding the angel collectives who acted as God's representatives?

In answer to that question, I have to go back to near the beginning of the Universe. After The Original Creator manifested The Big Bang with The Light, as part of the long-term plan, the God. was totally and irrevocably divided up into trillions of basically spiritual entities or angels. Once this was done, combining the consciousness of the angels would not bring the God. back. The result was that you had a very large number of basically spiritual discarnates in an expanding Universe that was slowly allowing corporeal life to emerge in many systems, in accordance to the program set forth by The Original Creator. The Light was still there as it always was but there was no God or Ascended Master in existence to guide the angels; they had to learn on their own as The Original Creator did, only they had each other while God had no one.

Dr. Melvin Morse, a pediatrician, author, and researcher into the near death experiences of children, once prayed for insight about the relation of souls to God. The answer came back to him in a flash of insight: a "fractal." A fractal is a holographic part of a greater whole that contains within it the blueprint or program of that greater whole. For example, if you take a piece of a holographic image, it will contain the whole image within it.

In a spiritual sense then, all souls are "fractals of light" of The Original Creator; we all contain within us the god spark that was developed to a large degree within the Being of Light that we came from. Some souls have a more developed god spark than others.

Now that I got you and probably a number of other people in this forum thoroughly confused, perhaps it is best to just not to worry about all this.



[edit on 7-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 05:57 AM
link   
.
Simple answer, yes.

God/religion is acceptance of a 'truth' on faith without inquiry,
Science is determination of truth by inquiry.

But there is something else to consider about science,

Virtually all Science [and even Math] is done with the idea that some determination can be made about something. While the true objectivist would say part of the inquiry is to 'see' if a determination can be made, the actual emotional motivation is to figure/find something out. If someone were really up in the air as to whether or not something could be figured out they probably wouldn't spend the time and energy on it.

So most science is done with an implicit belief that there is some kind of order to things that can be determined. Does that initial bias put the results of the experiment in question? Is it possible to see order in something where none exists? I personally believe that is what Religion does.

Does the idea that there is some deeper truth to uncover, uncover something that was intrinsically there before, or could the 'truth' be a creation of the mind working on it?

Do we allow our expectations to 'guide' us? We decide to test our assumption that X causes Y. But are the results skewed because we are only looking at X? If there is a random relationship between X & Y will we spot it? Or will we misinterpret it? Will we figure it out if Y causes X instead? Could it be that X is only associated with W which is the actual cause of Y? Or X works conjunctively with K to cause Y which is why there is no apparent direct relationship between X & Y? Are there other more ambiguous or indirect relationships than cause and effect and association?

Sort of like the cops when they come across a murderer they sometimes try to attribute many addtional unsolved murders to them to close cases. It turns into a kind of rationalization instead of a purely empirical determination of truth.

How limited is the depth of our thought process? If your eyes can't see UV wavelengths how will you be able to perceive and then comprehend it?

I think most scientists believe in some kind of God, order or something.

I am not so sure.

I also think that a lot of 'Cause' and 'Effect' relationships are assigned instead of determined. Eventually the proper relationship between cause, effect and association do get figured out, but with more care that might be determined earlier in a less wreckless process.
.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Paul:

At this point I don't know whether to believe you are extremely wise or extremely insane. However, my inquisitive nature is driving me to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes – so I’ll continue the tumble and hope there is a bottom to this hole.





The principles surrounding The Light cannot be changed and it existed before The Original Creator came into being. The Light represents the only way that reality can manifest itself from nothingness.

OK then, does that mean the “Orignial Creator” which most refer to as God had a beginning and the Light was eternal? If so then, as I said before doesn’t that make The Creator a creation of the Light and thus the Light is actually God? (Meaning the Creator is not God but rather a creation) Yet you say the light is non-living. Does that mean the light has no consciousness? And without consciousness this light spawned a being with consciousness (the creator)?



On a related issue, time is a condition of consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no time, which is how in a linear context something can come into being from nothingness.

Ahh, time – one of those concepts that has the ability to turn my brain inside out if I really consider it. I have often pondered the idea that time is not linear. Einstein worked on this concept and while his theories are seemingly plausible I’ll wait for the next genius to prove this.




There is a basic law of physics which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another. But with The Light matter can indeed be created because The Light transcends the physical spectrum of energies. Through the eons, various large angel collectives have created matter to a small degree with their minor miracles, e.g., creating food, changing water into wine, etc. The Original Creator used The Light to a much higher degree to manifest The Big Bang. No physical machine can actually create matter.

Yes, I have a very basic understanding of the law of physics which is why I can only conclude at this point in human understanding that there must be a God. However, you previously stated that angels were discarnate humans. So are you saying then that when we die we gain the power of god (or the light or the creator) to form matter from nothing? And how can the creator which is a product of the light have the power to manipulate its creator?



Well, it is true that just because someone is dead does not mean that he is automatically highly evolved, knowledgeable of the subject, and/or sincere in wishing to help. But there are those on the Other Side who are indeed very wise and knowledgeable.

How do some become more evolved than others if they are discarnate humans? Do you believe in reincarnation are do they evolve after they become discarnates?



After The Original Creator manifested The Big Bang with The Light, as part of the long-term plan, the God. was totally and irrevocably divided up into trillions of basically spiritual entities or angels. Once this was done, combining the consciousness of the angels would not bring the God. back. The result was that you had a very large number of basically spiritual discarnates in an expanding Universe that was slowly allowing corporeal life to emerge in many systems, in accordance to the program set forth by The Original Creator. The Light was still there as it always was but there was no God or Ascended Master in existence to guide the angels; they had to learn on their own as The Original Creator did, only they had each other while God had no one.

Whoa! So let me get this straight. Each one of us living today, in the past and in the future are actually pieces of the creator? There is no longer a creator – only the light (which has no consciousness)? If so, why do we have not knowledge memory of this? And why don’t we all combine back into one entity when we die? And why did we not all come to earth at the same time? Why is the population continually growing? And wouldn’t this mean that there is a finite number of humans that can ever exist? Or again, do you believe in reincarnation?

I know - a lot of question packed in here but I just can't figure out if you are serious, just messing with me or insane. Help me to "see the light".



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 08:05 PM
link   
Hi Badkitty,


Originally posted by badkitty
Paul:

At this point I don't know whether to believe you are extremely wise or extremely insane. However, my inquisitive nature is driving me to see just how deep the rabbit hole goes – so I’ll continue the tumble and hope there is a bottom to this hole.


Okay, but don’t say I didn’t warn you.




The principles surrounding The Light cannot be changed and it existed before The Original Creator came into being. The Light represents the only way that reality can manifest itself from nothingness.



Originally posted by badkitty
OK then, does that mean the “Original Creator” which most refer to as God had a beginning and the Light was eternal?


Yes. The Original Creator had a beginning and The Light Of The God Force always existed and always will exist.


Originally posted by badkitty
If so then, as I said before doesn’t that make The Creator a creation of the Light and thus the Light is actually God? (Meaning the Creator is not God but rather a creation.)


No. The Light is an energy spectrum like electricity and gravity and is nonliving and infinite; it cannot initiate action. The Original Creator utilized The Light in order to come into being through His own probable existence.


Originally posted by badkitty
Yet you say the light is non-living. Does that mean the light has no consciousness? And without consciousness this light spawned a being with consciousness (the creator)?


You're partially correct. The Light has no consciousness of its own, just as fire and electricity has no consciousness. It cannot create life but consciousness can use The Light to come into being, which is how The Original Creator emerged.



On a related issue, time is a condition of consciousness. Without consciousness, there is no time, which is how in a linear context something can come into being from nothingness.



Originally posted by badkitty
Ahh, time – one of those concepts that has the ability to turn my brain inside out if I really consider it.


Just remember that the only way you can have something spring from nothing (in the Spirit) is with The Light and that time becomes a factor only after someone is around to experience it.


Originally posted by badkitty
I have often pondered the idea that time is not linear. Einstein worked on this concept and while his theories are seemingly plausible I’ll wait for the next genius to prove this.


Time has more flexibility in the discarnate dimensions than it does in the physical spectrum. You can’t have something emerge from nothing with the help of The Light in the physical sense, but it can and has happened in the Spirit.



There is a basic law of physics which states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, only changed from one form to another. But with The Light matter can indeed be created because The Light transcends the physical spectrum of energies. Through the eons, various large angel collectives have created matter to a small degree with their minor miracles, e.g., creating food, changing water into wine, etc. The Original Creator used The Light to a much higher degree to manifest The Big Bang. No physical machine can actually create matter.



Originally posted by badkitty
Yes, I have a very basic understanding of the law of physics which is why I can only conclude at this point in human understanding that there must be a God. However, you previously stated that angels were discarnate humans. So are you saying then that when we die we gain the power of god (or the light or the creator) to form matter from nothing? And how can the creator which is a product of the light have the power to manipulate its creator?


The vast majority of souls incarnated at one time or another. Very few stayed in the Spirit. None of those who did stay in the Spirit have grown significantly beyond the Mid Realms of Spirit where the angel collectives dwell.

When a soul is free of matter, it ascends into The Light on the Other Side, the extent of which is determined by its spiritual evolution -- centered around the ability to love genuinely and deeply and from its application of The Golden Rule.

When one can ascend so far into The Light that one’s projected thoughts are amplified enough (by The Light) to manifest matter, then that soul is considered to be God Realized. The Original Creator was very God Realized. He was not a product of The Light but utilized it in order to come into existence. The Light cannot directly manifest anything without consciousness directing it. Consciousness provides the will and The Light provides the energy.



Well, it is true that just because someone is dead does not mean that he is automatically highly evolved, knowledgeable of the subject, and/or sincere in wishing to help. But there are those on the Other Side who are indeed very wise and knowledgeable.



Originally posted by badkitty
How do some become more evolved than others if they are discarnate humans? Do you believe in reincarnation are do they evolve after they become discarnates?


It all boils down to one’s application of The Golden Rule, in serving others, and in working on one’s own growth directly. Although most don’t take advantage of it, for the spiritually conscientious, one can actually progress more rapidly in the flesh than in the discarnate dimensions – simply because it involves much more emotional pain and pain in general. When I say “progress” I don’t mean in energy, I mean in evolution. Many get this confused. One can be very highly evolved and still be in the flesh with absolutely no God Realized abilities whatsoever until he or she ascends from the flesh and into The Light. The number of incarnations is irrelevant to one’s growth. One does not become an “old soul” from having many incarnations. It is what you do spiritually in your life that counts, not how many times you have lived. Most don’t come into the flesh for spiritual reasons.



After The Original Creator manifested The Big Bang with The Light, as part of the long-term plan, the God. was totally and irrevocably divided up into trillions of basically spiritual entities or angels. Once this was done, combining the consciousness of the angels would not bring the God. back. The result was that you had a very large number of basically spiritual discarnates in an expanding Universe that was slowly allowing corporeal life to emerge in many systems, in accordance to the program set forth by The Original Creator. The Light was still there as it always was but there was no God or Ascended Master in existence to guide the angels; they had to learn on their own as The Original Creator did, only they had each other while God had no one.



Originally posted by badkitty
Whoa! So let me get this straight. Each one of us living today, in the past and in the future is actually pieces of the creator? There is no longer a creator – only the light (which has no consciousness)?


You are absolutely correct.


But there is more to it than that. All this is part of The Original Creator's long-term vision and genius in eventually emerging in our space-time continuum.


Originally posted by badkitty
If so, why do we have not knowledge memory of this? And why don’t we all combine back into one entity when we die? And why did we not all come to earth at the same time? Why is the population continually growing? And wouldn’t this mean that there are a finite number of humans that can ever exist? Or again, do you believe in reincarnation?

Actually, many in the Spirit do have some knowledge of this. The problem is that most people are of a collectivistic mindset and do not value this awareness enough to make it more well known in the flesh.

The reason why we did not all come to the planet at the same time is because there are many planets in the Universe with which to incarnate and because there are many who prefer to live in the discarnate dimensions for one reason or another.

The reason why we don't all combine into one Group Entity after we transition is because there are many different cultures and mindsets and levels of awareness and value systems in ALL THAT IS. The discarnate dimensions is largely a collection of special interest groups. Another reason is because there are limits as to how large a GE can be. To have one with billions of members is unheard of because of the inherent instability of having so many souls combined in consciousness and energy. Yet another reason for the small percentage of saintly types, is that they don't want to be part of a group consciousness but strive, just as The Original Creator did, to become a Light onto Oneself.

The population may be growing physically but there are a finite number of souls in ALL THAT IS. The total count of souls far outnumbers the humans currently living on this planet.


Originally posted by badkitty
I know - a lot of question packed in here but I just can't figure out if you are serious, just messing with me or insane. Help me to "see the light".


Hmm. I see your point.

How about: "insanely serious in helping you see The Light."

That would be the closest approximation.




posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Paul - I think we have hijacked this thread. Radardog - I appologize.

I would seriously like to continue this discussion - (I still haven't figured out if you are insane or not)


Paul - I think you should start your own thread, or we should U2U, or at least we should get Radar's input.

I vote for you to start your own thread - this is a very intense discussion that I don't want to lose sight of but don't want to be rude here.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Hi Badkitty,

I read your U2U message. We will continue this through e-mail correspondence.

I don't think we hijacked the thread but had a good discussion on the subject and related topics. You posed questions that were relevant to the topic.

An Alternative Mystical View On God



[edit on 9-1-2005 by Paul_Richard]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
The "golden rule" in and of itself is ethically undefendable. It requires something beneath it for two things: 1. Allow it to determine what is good, and 2. Allow it to apply to all persons.

Why?

"Do to others as you would have them do to you" (NIV bible) suggests you do this, but at the same time, it would not suggest you murder someone if you wish to be murder, nor would it suggest to steal if you wish to be stolen from. Nay, this statement applies to things which are not already covered by God-command-theory (in christianity, the commandmends, etc.). This is also true for any thought, too; the golden rule does not define what is absolutely GOOD, or absolutely BAD, but rather what YOU would like to happen.

In essence, the golden rule is a dice roll into subjective ethics, which is not good for society; societies require a relatively objective way to judge others and actions, and if those judgments are relative to the person, then there is no way to determine if anyone has actually acted in an immoral manner. As aristotle says, and just laws are laws based in morality, and as consequence, if a morality can not be established then there can be no just laws.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
If god created a universe with a certain set of laws, it does not mean those laws apply to god. In the same way when we write software for a computer character. It does not mean the laws apply to us.


You said this BEAUTIFULLY! Excellent!

My input -

When something is created, the creator is outside it ... over it ...
above it. For the creation to box-in the creator ... it doesn't work.

God made science therefore to say that God inhibits science is
incorrect. Perhaps some people within religions inhibit science,
but to blame God for that would be wrong.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join