It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


How did God come into existence?

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by NorEaster

Yes I would agree with you 100%....

The Construct that all is organised on/in is Not necessarily physical, as this is only the interpretation after human involvement, as being the decoder (through the Brain) of what has been delivered.

What produces this little Universe and how it is produced, is not the same as we interpret as being so called physical.

Its a bit like a computer first person game and your body is generated within it (part of the game) but far more sophisticated, and we Look into this game as a first person game. We Look from the Outer but experience the Inner of the Phenomenon via the Human structure being interactive with an environment, both being generated through a processing system.

Both parts of us are of a Construct that involves All.

a. Awareness, Consciousness, Mind LIFE or wahatever name you wish to give it and...
b. The manifestation of the experience (Human form and its Environment)

The whole experience actually, is taking place in something, which is non-dimensional, having No size or Shape.

Our experience (what you call Physical) is Generated in/through this Non Dimensional state.

This involves the structure and organised state, containing strict rules or laws, of applied concepts, Non-physical that control the Manifestation, interpreted as Physical by us.

Human kind do Not appreciate the awesome nature of the complete system, nor what it has taken to achieve such a phenomena, as a Universe we can experience.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:10 PM
This is from another thread but most of the material here, is relevant to this thread also.

Part 1 of 2 Parts

To be honest with you I can’t find the correct words in English
to give a true title, to what I am trying to Identify but it is sort of like
as state of being Aware. Or the ability to observe, Compare, and evaluate.
I don’t mean in the personal sense as you would understand as being like
any species whether or this world or any other for that matter.

I am of the opinion that this was a third state of the opposites existing
which I can only describe as Nothing & something. I will try to explain
by comparing the existence of Nothing and Something to a common situation
of our perception…

I am Not a writer by any stretch of the imagination, so my communication skills
may be not the best.
But any way here goes…

This “Nothing & Something” pair of Opposites, could appear as the origin
and that which is Conceptually Not of the origin but rather away from it
whether in the geographic sense conceptually or not.
Even in the condition of a question a similar logic would apply so we are not talking
of anything we may interpret as being of physical nature.

The state of consciousness which is probably a poor analogy of the word
would be the presence of something that could consciously be aware of difference
by the function of comparing one or more situations.

I can’t find in any Dictionary a suitable word to use and in using other words
or terms Corrupts the True meaning of what I have found.

This may be the third State that existed with or as the result of Something and Nothing.

I would suggest that such a situation evolved out of these two opposites existing together.
As time would not have existed, in this condition nor even energy,
it would be sort of like the centre of a disc having no size or shape
and could be said to be nothing yet it exists conceptually.
And the Outward component gives shape and size even if only existing
in the conceptual state or sense.

Where this evolution started, I understand was from the existence
of this strange pair of opposites.

The Origin and that which is Not…. being its opposite..

To better explain the steps of evolution, I will represent these steps graphically,
(in order the events took place) as "a picture is worth a thousand words".

As we are tying to relate to this in a way we can understand, I will represent this state
as being "Darkness". You may say that darkness lacks light but I tend to understand it as...
darkness being that which lacks hue, or perhaps Contrast, (Conceptually)

In order to grasp the start of evolution we need to put everything in existence
as we know of now, out of our mind and perhaps understand in abstract logic,
involving a conceptual state of existence only.
So in order for this to develop I am persuaded, to look at darkness being that of greyness.
Even if we accept this as lacking light, the model still works the same.
But I rather would interpret "greyness" as being made up of a pair of opposites. In this case Black & White.
Black and White are Opposites.
And if we mix Black and White we get Greyness whether we like it or not.

So I will represent this Mixture by showing an area of Greyness.

Drawing 01.

The first Conceptual movement I believe was “To & Fro”,
producing a Concept of a straight line between the ends of the Concept “To & Fro”.
The length of the Line or the distance the ends are apart, are irrelevant,
as it does Not alter these three components…
Two similar and One different.

a. The two ends are Similar yet Opposite.
b. But the Conceptual line that exists between these two ends is different.

Drawing 02.

And its Opposite.

Drawing 03.

Drawing 04.

Because this condition of Awareness could be Conscious of this Concept
it was left with the question which resulted in producing other rays of the same nature.
This lead to the discovery of Rotation as a result of comparing
the rays with each other extending away from the origin.
It was discovered that the rotation could be in either direction.
(again the Pair of Opposites Clockwise & Anticlockwise.)

Drawing 05.

This was the Second Concept.

Are we able to perceive anything that does not have an Inner and Outer ?
Are we able to perceive anything that does not have an Opposite?
Are we able to perceive anything that is neither Straight, Curved
or the combination of these two?

So you can see that different pairs are appearing.

There are two basic forms of Rotation.

a. about the Origin
b. about a point between the ends.

Note; we have again a pair.

So the "To & Fro" action passed through the Centre of Rotation thus doubling in length.

Drawing 06.

This could also rotate, in either Direction producing another Pair of Opposites.

So as the "To & Fro" Action producing the Concept of the Line, Rotated about its Centre,
it created the Second form…. A Disc.
(The First Form being the Straight section between the ends.)
As the Line rotates, it cause the Concept to "Oscillate" between Something and Nothing,
if we consider one point or location within the disc, between the centre and the perimeter.
The Conceptual Pulse comes from the Line (Conceptual) Passing over any Point or Location.

This produced the First Face. The Disc.

Drawing 07.

At this stage the concept can’t change within itself, so another pair was produced,
using the line.

One Line Rotated over the Other..
And they would be opposite from each other, in other words one would rotate
while the other remain static.
As the rotating Line Rotated, the opposite orientation was discovered,
every time the rotating line passed through the orientation of that of 90°,
to the static line, was noted thus forming a cross.

Drawing 08.

A third disc remained in the Centre. It doesn’t matter what position the static line
remains in and just for convenience, I have chosen the vertical position.
The rotating Line producing the Disc then traversed to one end of the static line.

Drawing 09.

And again another conceptual disc then traversed to the other end of the static line.


As a result of the Transition of the disc, a trace by the perimeter of the rotating line
or disc was discovered. This resulted in forming a Square.
(Referring to the Perimeter.)

Drawing 11.

The same phenomena was also discovered, if the horizontal static line at 90° was used,
instead of the vertical, for the transition of the rotating line or disc, reinforcing the concept of the Square.

This Square was the Second Face that was discovered.

And Two images were noted. The first being a vertical line in the Square,
dividing it into Left and Right equal portions… A bit like the Pages of a book we know today.

Drawing 12.

The other Image was the same, but in the horizontal orientation, as though laying down ?
Note; again the Pair and the Opposites ? Both Vertical and Horizontal Conceptual Images.

To comply with the discovery of the opposites and pairs, a copy of a side
was rotated through an arc, to extend Diagonally from one corner of the Square
to the other, but of course fell short, of connecting to the other corner.
So a copy of this diagonal line was stretched to connect to the opposite corner.
It was at this stage, “Distance” was discovered by the comparing
of the two diagonals with each other. The diagonal being of course √2.

Drawing 13.

Drawing 14.

So now the two diagonals are added to the Concept.
Notice a par of diagonals, similar but Opposite again.

Drawing 15.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 06:21 PM
Part 2 of 2 Parts.

Now at this stage of development, conforming to the first Concept of To & Fro,
“Back Engineering” took place. And as the mid position was in the place of the Origin,
i.e. the Inner, the Back Engineering took place from its opposite end the Outer
but using the first Concept of To & Fro.

Take one side…. (any side But I have just chosen this one for convenience to present understanding.

Drawing 16.

And now on the return of the producing of the Line (if I start from the lower left Corner)
instead of retracing along the same root instead incorporate the second To & Fro found
in the discovery of the Diagonal (the To & Fro both of the vertical and horizontal simultaneously)….

Drawing 17.

And on returning to just the Vertical direction arrived at the Upper Right corner in this case.

Drawing 18.

And returning back along this Rout found the origin of this second To & Fro.
Forming the geometry of this glyph which is similar to our “N” in Greek,
and English language today.

Drawing 19.

On recalling the Second Concept i.e. Rotation, this glyph was Rotated and of course
can be rotated in either Rotation. Clockwise or Anticlockwise. Resulting the form changing
from a “N” to a “Z”.

Drawing 20.

Giving the original structure as in Drawing 15 ???

Drawing 21.

In a clearer Form… So these three Components Represent the Geometric Algorithm
displayed as I N Z.

Drawing 22.

Now when we rotate this through 90° in the Vertical axis, so the face is now side on.
I can show you the mechanics of a face. Even though The face has Zero thickness
the concepts still apply.

Drawing 23.

And in this Drawing shows that any given Plane has two Faces, even if only Conceptual,
as well as in what we refer to as the Physical sense. So the first and Second faces
(The first Face being Round or a Disc and the Second Square Face.) have a Front
and Rear Face ???

Drawing 24.

And Conceptually, if we portray what exists between these two faces, there is an action
taking place, separating the Components of the Greyness, into its Two Sub Components
of Black & White.

White on One Face, Black on the Other Face White (Front and Rear Faces)

Now this is where it gets a little weird…
In fact as a result of understanding Conceptually, what was believed to have had Two Faces
i.e. a Front and Back Face actually has more than just Two Faces.

Drawing 025.

It is extremely Important to Understand that we still don’t have any so called physical Universe and Still no Energy, Not even Gravity as we know it yet, at this Stage of the Evolution Process of Awareness or what ever label one wants to put on this…
As all exists in Conceptual form only…

But anyway, Notice in Drawing 025. Taking into account that there is Nothing Physical, but only the representation of Abstract Logic or Concepts, there are Four Faces and Not Two…

a. The Two Outer Faces… Front and Rear.
b. The Two Inner Faces …. Front Inner and Rear Inner.

It is between these Two Sets of Two Faces, we find the Activity of that Awareness,
resulting in an oscillation of what we call LIGHT today ????

This is How Light was Formed Out of Darkness.

[edit on 26-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 10:16 PM

Originally posted by SugarCube
reply to post by NorEaster

Hi NorEaster, "he tasks me, he tasks me" ;-)

Within your first paragraph you give a ready clue as to the purpose of "emanation", in that "Without structure, cohesive expression would be impossible"

Assuming emanation is just that, an assumption. It can't be proven logically, and can't even be defended logically. It's a simple assertion and nothing else.

In terms of corporeal presence, and so definable by physical dimensions, (i.e. tangible) this represents only the emanation and not the ante hoc state of being which I essentially quoted as entirely intangible and undefinable.

The singularity is defined as a 'corporeal' material and by insinuation has a multitude of different attributes to it, all co-existent within a single 'structural' framework that supports the application comparative attributes (i.e. as in the 5 elements by division and notional multiplication, i.e. dividing by 2 resulting in double the number of entities).

Nothing can "emanate" into one state of being from a state of being that is physically isolated from the entered state of being. You can claim it as a possibility, but claiming such a thing doesn't make it possible. The only possible way that two dynamic uniques can interact is if they share the same fundamental contextual state of existence, and always have shared that fundamental contextual state of existence. Emanation pertains to gases, which can emanate from one sub-environment into another sub-environment, but in all definitions of this term, the sub-environments exist within the same fundamental contextual state of existence.

Missusing terminology doesn't alter reality.

ante hoc must be an unknowable state, but the axiom of "as above so below" represents a reflection of the process of emanation as applied to the corporeal nature of the universe as observed almost three hundred years ago and indeed, prior to that.

This axiom is a hell of a lot older than 300 years. And, ante hoc (before the fact?) is not the issue, since the real determination lies in the capacity for any two unique wholes to dynamically interact. This capacity predetermines the nature of both unique wholes involved, since the requirements are absolutely established before any interplay can occur. Basically, if a Deity can reach out to its creation, then the two must share a foundational elemental structure. Raw logic is extremely clear about this.

"By divine manipulation of division was birth given to multiplication and in this do we see the very working of the world about us for does man not multiply by division?"

This actually provides nothing to the discussion.

I do not believe that there is a question over whether this state of being (i.e. post hoc) may exist since many scientific theories support the occurrence of a 'big bang' initiation of the physical universe (I say 'physical' rather than 'corporeal' since there are elementary particles with zero mass).

Again, the states of being cannot change, and isolated being states can't allow for direct interplay. It's simply a logical impossibility.

In terms of whether a Deity Entity has 'always' existed, a prerequisite for this assessment would be the constant presence of 'time' in order to sustain. Since time may be regarded as an associated attribute of dimensional physics, without it we could conceive that the presence of the The All may exist without age and without beginning or end, or even a spatial existence (as is implied by the original quoted text).

You can only apply the consistent and consequential logic of progressive advancement to an environmental state where time is applicable, otherwise, all events occur simultaneously within a non-dimensional existence or at least a non-coherent fusion of all states that must always occur.

Time isn't the issue. Again, it all comes down to foundational context, and this is what determines the capacity of any two (or more) unique wholes to physically interact. If there is a Deity and if that Deity interacts with a creation of its own, then the foundational existential properties of the creation are shared by the Deity itself. It can't be any other way.

posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 01:21 PM
reply to post by NorEaster

Hi NorEaster,

You appear to be missing the point of this discussion, although I believe that this may simply be a deliberately obtuse attempt to undermine conjecture since you are evidently labouring the point concerning the logical interaction of entirely abstracted environmental states of being without providing any segue for development of the debate. Your earlier posts appeared to imply an interest in discourse rather than just rebuttal - It takes a lot less wind to say "You're wrong" and makes it easier for people to skip over, although I don't believe that this is your intent.

Of course I am making assertions in my posts, the point of which is the invocation of debate since there is no way of knowing anything "before the fact", that is to say, the point at which a knowable elemental structure may be experienced and defined (i.e. the physical universe).

Your protestation that the axiom is "a hell of a lot older than that" is clearly unwarranted since I explicitly stated that it "represents a reflection of the process of emanation as applied to the corporeal nature of the universe as observed almost three hundred years ago and indeed, prior to that." The reference to 300 years was a clear indication of the age of the material I was specifically quoting in the posts. Speed reading can be the mother of assumptions on ATS.

Indicating that isolated states of being do not support direct interplay is one thing, but you are disregarding the point that the process of 'emanation' provides a nexus between the ante hoc existence of the Godhead and the post hoc environment we experience. Logic does not dictate that all dimensional attributes of the disparate structures need share exactly the same attributes, although in the case of a parent/child relationship you might expect inheritance to come into play.

Surely that is the point of the emanationist philosophy? The conversion of the Godhead represents a change of form where the common foundational elemental structure is in fact the essence of the Godhead itself, malleable for any dimensional state of being after transformation.

Now, I know, I just know that you couldn't possibly be mulling over the idea that logic 'disproves' the possibility of a 'Godhead' (I make the distinction from a religiously defined God being). Let me be clear, I make no assertion of 'proof' for a Godhead, however, I entertain the concept for debate that may lead to an epiphany which often dawns just as sure as the sun rises in the east.


posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 05:29 PM
Here is a simple example of The All being both "Something" & "Nothing" in/as the One.

Consider a Plane or Face.
Just for the discussion, I will choose a flat Disc or Plane to explain my thoughts.

Irrespective of the size, and even if the disc exists in 2D it retains both an “Inner” and “Outer” (Radial).

The Opposites.

If we consider the "Outward", it contains both size and Shape.
The shape may be abstract, if between the Centre and Boundaries of the disc if not defined.

But if we consider the Centre only, we discover the Absolutely Centre, has NO Size or Shape, and thus can be said to be "Nothing", yet that "Nothing" is "Something", and that "Nothing" is the Centre.

Now in a strange sort of way, the Centre is both Part of the "Outer" and the "Centre" is also the Child (Smaller) of the Parent "Outer" (Larger)????

The other Fact is, there exists 2 "Outer" Faces to this Plain, whether in 3D or 2D.

In other words if we Look at one Face of the Disc, there exists a Rear Face or away Face.

So we could say there are 2 ends to the Disc or Plain.

One end or Face Closest to us and the other End, away or Outward from us.

a. The Near Face; "Inner".
b. The Rear Face; "Outer".

So there exists 2 "Outers" and 2 "Inners" to the face, whether the Plain is in 3D or only 2D (the same model still exists regarding "Inners" & "Outers" if only 2D is considered, or for that matter if only considered conceptually.)

a. The Near Face; "Inner".
b. The Rear Face; "Outer".


c. The Centre; "Inner".
d. Away (Radial) from the Centre; "Outer".

Remembering it is only the "Outer" of the Form that gives shape.

If we consider the "Outer" of the All, all must be known, because the "Outer" contains the All, as well as the Absolute Centre.

On the other hand, if we consider the Absolute Centre, which has No size or Shape, yet exists as the Centre, can Not know anything at All, yet the Centre is a Component of the "Outer" ???

Both Awareness and Information can be Downloaded into the Centre (Nothing) strange as that may seem, but can be explained.

This is why in the beginning we don’t know anything, Yet our "Outer" knows all.

So to rounding this up, the Opposites can and do exist as One.

a. The Centre which is Nothing yet Something (The Centre)
b. The Outward having Dimension, or shape.

So as you can see, the Base opposites will be "Something" & "Nothing" as The One.

The third Component will be "Awareness" i.e. to be Aware of these 2 opposites within its self in the One.

I believe we can both discover the base structure of Concept, and understand its Nature and behaviour, as we are its children, each of our minds being as a centre of our Parent...

a. Nothing.
b. Something.
c. Awareness (i.e. of the Opposites within its Self)

[edit on 27-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Termite197
If God came from nothing, and always existed........Then how did he get so smart and "all-knowing"? Isn't knowledge and character something we learn from yrs of experiance? Where did he get his language from? ways of communication and thinking?

My point to these questions is......I am leaning towards there being more than one God.

Hows the quote go? "made man in OUR own image"?

I will always stay open minded to religion but not be fooled by it. We all have to stop pretending like we know what the hell is going on in the world because we don't, and until the entire world realizes that, religion will continue to destroy us.

Before I begin I propose one question to everyone before I touch on your post. The idea of God is sometimes debated when it's mentioned that he is the "Alpha and Omega", the "Beginning and The End", yet people argue that something cannot come from nothing. Yet, consider this...what came before the big bang. I mean, many believe the universe was created by a massive explosion, but what created the particles and atoms to begin with. It's said that the entire universe exploded from a ball roughly the size of a golf ball. But how could that dense material exist in the first place, because something surely like that can't just exist. Just a thing to think about before I begin.

A lot of people say that the bible isn't an accurate source of information, yet many scientists will refer to writings from past civilizations all the time. A lot of what we understand about the past is from the works of authors, stories, and writings in caves. We create this theory and suddenly we find a picture within a pyramid and we're to believe it as fact because that picture reveals the truth to our theory. So how are these ancient writings any different than the writings we find elsewhere? Fragments of all the books of the Old Testament except Esther exist as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a collection of roughly 900 articles of writing discovered in 1947-56 in eleven caves around the ruins of Khurbet Qumran. These articles are said to date between 150BCE and 70BCE. My thoughts are that most people find the bible untrue because of the contradictions that are tend to be found, which aren't necessarily from the writers, but from the way we read it, what we assume, and from the fact that many only consider parts of verses without considering the whole chapter.

In the beginning God creates the heavens and the earth. Heavens in plural form, plus it's widely accepted that the Hebrews considered 3 different heavens, the atmosphere, actual outter space, and the actual Heaven where God is to exist. At this point, God is in his spirit form (we'll touch this in a bit). My thoughts are that Genesis 1:1 is just saying God created everything, the entire universe and that we're a jumping back almost as a flashback to look into creation in detail in following verses day by day in the same way that the story of Adam and Eve happens after it's explained that God created man.

At this point, the Earth is only water and it says his spirit (again implying God's spirit form) is hovering of the water. So if we take a step back now and look at creation in detail day by day, first God will create the concept of light and darkness. I think that at this point, God just has the idea for light and dark, that light will rule over the day and darkness over the night. He sets these ideas in place, but has not yet created the origin of light. The other thought is that, he's creating the "Light of the World" or Jesus. The bible states that Jesus is the light of our world, and that this verse could imply he creates the third part of the trinity, of course this may or may not be true, Jesus may already or may not exist in spirit form.

So now, before I go further let's touch base on the idea of the Holy Trinity in the next part...Continue please.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 08:17 PM
Part 2

So the idea of the Holy Trinity is this: There is the Holy Spirit, God the Father (a physical form that actually goes to Earth and creates man from dust), the God the Son (Jesus). Keeping this in mind will help understand as I continue.

So the idea of light is created and in place, but there is not yet an origin to the light. It's known that light is good and darkness is bad, which makes sense if Jesus is the light of our world. Everything that is light is Jesus and good, and anything without is darkness and without Jesus. I think it's acceptable to believe that darkness is actually simply the absence of light.

So next, God as the Holy Spirit divides the water, some above the Earth and some below. As we all know, much of the atmosphere is moisture and humidity (some places more dry and some places quite humid), and of course clouds are as we know are created from water vapor and rain condenses (however it won't rain for awhile in the bible). Now how did people at this time ever think that water was in the sky before we could ever accurately study clouds...perhaps they just figured it must be up there because it falls from it when it rain.

Then God creates land which is Pangea or the singular land mass that broke apart eventually, perhaps when the flood water erupted and violently separated the continents. So now there is water and land. Next come plants which will produce seeds to create new plants.

It's at this point that God actually implements his concept of light, creating the sun and the moon as rulers over night and day and as the origin of light. God also creates stars to help people know the seasons, the time of year and days, and also as a map to find their way.

Then God creates sea life and birds. Sea life is found to be the oldest life forms on the face of the Earth, and there is a distinct connection between the fossils of prehistoric animals and birds. Next come the animals of the Earth. And then God makes humans, and it's at this point I think the physical existence of God takes place. So when Genisis says, and we'll "make human beings in our image and they'll be in the image of us" I think it's referring to God speaking of creating a life form that is similar in image and spirit to the Holy Spirit, the physical God, and the son. They are three separate entities, but yet all the same. Hard to understand, but it's a possible concept. So when he refers to us, it's like Golum in the Lord of the Rings talking in a 3rd person with separate and saying "our precious" as well as "my precious" almost in the same way.

So why do I believe that God the father is a physical being. Well, God was heard walking in the forest and Adam and Eve hid from him. He literally gave birth (was the father) to man by blowing into his nostrils after picking up the dust from the ground. He also, literally took a rib from Adam to form Eve. The bible also suggests that Adam was not the only man God created, but perhaps maybe just the first. You see god says human beings (plural) and also Cain was afraid to leave the garden of Eden because he would be killed. And if he was one of two children, who else would kill him?

There's much more in depth I could go I think beyond this, including the flood, the first sin of man by eating the fruit, why the Earth was created, why God doesn't just kill off sin, why God wants us to choose to love him and follow him, how dinosaurs fit in, how the Ark and animals all work, and how the Tree of Knowledge fits in. Just ask and I'll try to answer, or I'll say, ya know...I don't know, but I'll work on a possibility and research it.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by ElscottHavoc

Do you know where the Alpha or the Omega came from or understand the meaning of the Form... (The Gometry of the Letters)

From The Infancy Gospel of Thomas Quote;

14. And when Joseph saw the understanding of The Child and his age,
that He was growing to maturity, he resolved again that He should not
remain ignorant of LETTERS;

and he took Him and handed Him over to another teacher.
And the teacher said to Joseph:

"FIRST I will teach Him GREEK,

For the teacher knew The Child's knowledge and was afraid of Him.
Nevertheless he WROTE the alphabet and practised it with Him for a long time;
but He gave him no answer.

And Jesus said to him: If you are indeed a teacher, and if you know the LETTERS
well, tell Me the MEANING of The ALPHA,

and I will tell you that of THE BETA."

And the teacher was annoyed and struck Him on the head.

See how the Ω Comes from the "O"....

The O is an endless Cycle and is Eternal thus the Beginning and End in The One....

Where the Beginning is there the End is Also and where the End is there also is the Beginning.

Now if we break the "O" and bend the opening out it forms the Letter Ω

This is why the letter Ω is the Last letter of the Geek Alphabet !


Because it ends The Cycle...

But the ZIONic Ω is One Ω inverted and laid on top of or super imposed on the original Ω ???

Now do you understand the ZIONic Ω as this gives an "O" with 4 little Diagonal lines (each at 45 degrees).
The Ω Came from Eternity which is the "O" ???

Now as for the Alpha it came out of the Delta Star or Star of DAVID hence the Alpha coming from the Root of DAVID.

If we look at both the "Delta Star" (6 Pointed Star) and The "Alpha Star" (6 pointed Star) they appear exactly the same.

But the "Alpha Star" is Hidden in the Form of The "Delta Star" and Came Out of The "Delta Star" hence The "Alpha" is the First Letter of the Greek Alphabet.

There is a description of the Alpha and the nature of the form of the Alpha given by Jesus the Carpenter himself from The Christ In the same Book mentioned above.

**The ZIONic is the Language Used by/in the Soul.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 09:26 PM
The Bible tells me to avoid foolish questions, but I will say this, that God is love and He created the Heavens and the Earth including humans so He could show His love. When Adam messed it all up, well He didn't stop loving. He sent His own son to die so that which was lost could be regained, which is fellowship with God through the Son. Again God is love!

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:27 PM

Originally posted by Cor Leonis
The Bible tells me to avoid foolish questions, but I will say this, that God is love and He created the Heavens and the Earth including humans so He could show His love. When Adam messed it all up, well He didn't stop loving. He sent His own son to die so that which was lost could be regained, which is fellowship with God through the Son. Again God is love!

Once we find ourselves believing in God, this is an easy concept to understand. Once we've set our mind on the truth of God, we don't need proof of his existence to just know he exists. But there is a very large scientific community which has a wealth of evidence supposedly against his being; and therefore, a large community of people which deny his existence. To merely argue that God exists because you simply believe is not enough to prove that he exists. To win over the large majority of people, they want to see proof, they want miracles to happen, they want an understanding of why events unfold in our world that are bad when our God is supposed to be great and kind.

Sure, it's great that you and me both can easily fall asleep at night with the understanding that someone far greater has a larger plan without necessarily diving deep into any argument for or against his existence. But in order to show people the truth and the light, it will take far more than simply believing in something and isn't much different than asking someone to believe in Santa Clause. The greatest thing in my mind is to take the modern scientific evidence that has been found and show how it actually supports what the bible says, and help other people understand why God allows and doesn't allow certain things to happen.

We can't expect an atheist to simply spontaneously believe in God, just as they cannot expect us Christians to spontaneously not believe. Just the other day, I saw in the news that once again another expedition to Ararat Mountain to find Noah's Ark was successful and the area is currently being prepared and protected with hopes of perhaps getting a dig set up. Can you imagine how many people would begin to seriously consider more of the truths in Christianity if a major finding is reported and it can be proven? There is already lots of supporting evidence it is Noah's Ark, and that's enough to strengthen my faith, but it's also enough to spark interest and spin the scientific world upside down. Fighting science with faith isn't always the best move, rather we should attempt to use science to support our faith.

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:58 PM
One thing I'd like to know is this as well and be easy because this is just a thought.

The more pressure something is under, the hotter it gets. Assuming that the whole universe is squeezed into this tiny ball, I'm guessing that's an INSANE amount of heat, far greater than we can imagine and far greater than the sun, I mean this is the most trependous amount of heat you can imagine!!. And after the explosion there was also intense heat as particles rushed apart from each other, and as things slowed down and hit an equilibrium within the "center" of the universe began to cool.

However, I pose this question? We supposedly evolved from bacteria or something, or from the simplest forms of life. But, how could any form of life ever survive such an amount of heat. Life doesn't exist on other planets because it's either too cold or far too warm, and the Earth is the perfect distance. But if other planets are too cold or warm for life, surely the original intensity of heat would have killed off life to begin with. Life would never have even had a chance to begin at such a temperature, unless that life form could handle the tremendous heat.

And if it could handle the tremendous heat, than planets closer to the sun would have life forms as well, created from the same "bacteria" or other life form that evolved to handle the heat as well. Furthermore, if our original ancestor of "bacteria" or whatever we evolved from could handle the insane amounts of heat, wouldn't we have evolved as well to handle heat far better than we are capable of.

posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 03:32 AM
reply to post by ElscottHavoc

Just a matter of interest, have you ever taken notice of the Covers on old Hymn books and early bibles?

Do you recognise this ???

Often The middle vertical line extended above and below the box. And the background wasn't always shown as Black.

I will see if I can post a Photo of a Cover of an ancient bible in this thead in the next couple of days...

It is these 3 Letters Super-imposed on each other...

They referred to it as ("In the Beginning was The Word")


This happens to be The Paradox "Algorithm"

The Ancient Greeks knew this.

Often the Letter Z was displayed on Jesus Gown in Ancient mosaics in Monasteries.

The Letter Z stands for Life.

In Greek ΖΑΩ or ΖΩΩ and in ZIONic Z

And it is taught in the churches that All was Created by the "WORD" of God.

A Word is made of Letters...

Ever noticed the Letters on the Old Gowns the Priests wore ???

It is through the Strings of Letters and Words that All is Created...

i.e. a Program.

Refer to The Revelation of J.C. (Which there are 110 different versions (Original Greek texts))

The Books that are Opened in Heaven that No one could read and could only be opened by the Lamb of God.

Remembering The Good Shepherd is Not a Lamb.

so isn't interesting that the church placed these Letters INZ on the old Hymn books and bibles.

See how this was formed in a Post, I made earlier in this thread on this page involving 25 Drawings.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by The Matrix Traveller]

posted on Apr, 30 2010 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by ElscottHavoc

Here is an old Photo copy of the INZ Found on the Covers of Hymn Books and Old bibles...

Note; the "Z" is shown as what was known as the "True Vine" (The Life of God) explained in my earlier post that ΖΑΩ or ΖΩΩ and "Z" in ZIONic (The Language of the Soul produced by The True Mind) translated in English means LIFE.

Note; The "I" is extended The "I" represents the First Movement of The True Mind which is "To & Fro" Hence the "I Am".
And the "Z" is the Result of a Rotated "N" The Second Movement of The True Mind, "Rotation".

The "N" was formed through the "To & Fro" in both Directions together (Vertical and Horizontally together.)

But my point being; that even in Religious material the "PARADOX ALGORITHIM" is recorded by humankind in History.

posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 02:03 PM
Great thread, what a thorough discussion on this topic.

The following is kind of 'out there' as well:

"I read a pdf book where a guy who receives information while he meditates tried to explain the creation of God. He said that there was just energy moving back and forth in motion for an infinite amount of time until parts of this energy collided. This set off a huge chain reaction of energy colliding that created energy patterns, and from patterns you get intelligence. From the beginning of this growth of God, there was always a natural force opposing this growing reaction, because every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Since God is the source of all life and is all of life in itself, there is always a natural opposing reaction to this growth of all life. Where as God is light, this was explained by the guy to be the dark, the natural force that opposes God and all life.

Since God is Love (the attraction between all life), the opposing force to God could possibly be Fear.

I don't necessarily take this to be the truth, but am just trying to offer a possible explanation as to what Fear incarnate is. I don't know how Fear and this opposing reaction would incarnate in physicality. I assume incarnate means into physicality. I'm sure a lot of this stuff is unfathomable to us at this moment. How can we understand how God functions any more so than an ant would understand us?"

[unauthored comment on website unknown, not sure where i found this]

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 08:26 AM
The thought of a conscious, all knowing, all powerful being just always existing makes no sense at all. How can it have a consciousness with no nervous system, body, or sensors?
From "Edge of Consciousness " by Cire:
"Awareness rests upon the beating of your heart,
the firing of nerves, and the actions of a universe
of tiny little branches for every single thought
required for the concept of what you think you are."
No creator I've ever heard of as had a nervous system.
Hence, it is either mindless or non-existant.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 09:39 AM

Originally posted by flyindevil
The thought of a conscious, all knowing, all powerful being just always existing makes no sense at all. How can it have a consciousness with no nervous system, body, or sensors?
From "Edge of Consciousness " by Cire:
"Awareness rests upon the beating of your heart,
the firing of nerves, and the actions of a universe
of tiny little branches for every single thought
required for the concept of what you think you are."
No creator I've ever heard of as had a nervous system.
Hence, it is either mindless or non-existant.
You can't explain God with human reasoning. LOL And God never had a beginning, He's referred to as the "Eternal One".

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by ChrisJr03
Many of us on these threads debate how the universe and how it was made. I'm just curious though, if God (The Creator) made the universe, how did God come into existence. I'm not sure if anyone has asked this yet, but I just decided to throw it out there, please give me your thoughts, whether you believe God created the universe or not; I am interested in knowing what you think.

Hello chrisjr03-

In my thoughts over this subject I have had many Ideas and at this time this is my view. God was made like us and he is not perfect. He learns as we learn but has been around for so long we view him as perfect.

God is the universe and every form inside of it is a part of him. God also has parents just like us that brought our universe (God) into existence. It is like our own family tree, each new generation is brought with new life just as in the universe (God). While God is growing he produces life and watches over all to learn and yes, at times he makes mistakes. Maybe not the same mistakes as you and I but, in giving life not all becomes pure and some must be removed.

If you follow your heart good will come of this and peace is what you will be rewared. If you are full of hate and rage, your mind will slowly be eaten away like a raging fire in a lush forest, leaving a hollow shell of once a creature of God. If you look at the world around you and you see people who seem to not have a care in the world and do so much harm to others around them they will not last. In the end there mind will be eaten away and they will no longer be who they once were, a creature of God. I do not go to church and feel that you do not need to go to church to be with God. He made us, he is always with us, he can only show us the door but we have to be the one to choose to walk with him.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by anxietydisorder
God was created my man, and it's the worst piece of fiction ever created.
It was desperate men trying to seek answers for questions they could not understand.
Once a society had a God, or Gods, it was then used by men to control the people. The more horror or fear that could be instilled on the populous the better.

I'm of the opinion that it was man that created God, not the other way around.

The problem with this attitude is that it's often used as a cop-out from even thinking about mankind's greatest questions.

Just because the gods we know were man-made inventions, doesn't mean there isn't one who's not (though if this is the case then chances are it's not an old bearded man sitting on a throne in the sky). By declaring all gods man-made, you completely shut down this area of inquiry.

I would also like to add that if you can put aside the metaphysical dogmas, many of the words attributed to great religious figures such as Christ and Buddha have real merit. The whole idea of karma, that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, is actually quite intricate and well-developed and many of its assertions are, even in a materialistic universe governed by simple cause and effect, damn near indisputable. It's basically a really generalized form of a universal action-reaction law, often recognized by various philosophers throughout the ages in its more specific instances: yin and yang, Hegelian dialectics, vicious circles, retaliation and escalation, Netwon's Third Law, the wavefunction, etc.

I understand your attitude because I've been there too. I think the "militant atheist" phase is a necessary step for anyone struggling to outgrow the religious dogmas of their childhood, but it is still a phase that persistent truth seekers typically outgrow over time.

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 06:51 PM

Originally posted by Trudge
If you follow your heart good will come of this and peace is what you will be rewared. If you are full of hate and rage, your mind will slowly be eaten away like a raging fire in a lush forest, leaving a hollow shell of once a creature of God. If you look at the world around you and you see people who seem to not have a care in the world and do so much harm to others around them they will not last. In the end there mind will be eaten away and they will no longer be who they once were, a creature of God. I do not go to church and feel that you do not need to go to church to be with God. He made us, he is always with us, he can only show us the door but we have to be the one to choose to walk with him.

Well said.

top topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in