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.


Criminal Universe (Freedom Of Choice Is A Lie)

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

You're asking me to prove a negative. Surely it would be much easier for you to prove that the universe is perfect. Good luck with that.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
The universe is perfect, and you being of it don't even realize how perfect you are, but that's the beauty of it to me, watching you grow.
[edit on 9-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

So if I'm perfect, why do I need to grow?

[edit on 10-12-2007 by resistor]

posted on Dec, 10 2007 @ 11:29 PM
Freedom of any kind must be self evident before it can be questioned. If it is not present, there is nothing to take issue with.

The form of bondage then is primarily the focus of attention. Not the reason or the source of that bondage.

Then it is not a question of valid forms, but rather a question of existence on the most basic levels.

We are only as free as we are able to, by good faith; maintain the balance of the world we live in.

When the reins of power are instinctively handed over to a "legitimate" entity, we lose the capacity to express the totality of our will with the implements necessary to actualize any distinctive results.

We as Americans hand over our representation to a "legitimate" entity but call our form of government a republic, when it is in fact a representative democracy. Again, focus on the form of bondage and not the source of its existence.

To quote some one smarter than I,"the more rules a society has, the more corrupt it must me."

[edit on 10-12-2007 by newyorkee]

[edit on 10-12-2007 by newyorkee]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 07:35 AM

Originally posted by resistor
You're asking me to prove a negative. Surely it would be much easier for you to prove that the universe is perfect. Good luck with that.

Since we're talking I don't have to prove anything but the continuity of this interlocution. The perfection of existence is an axiom; a self evident truth. It's impossible for anything to be happening "imperfectly" unless failing the precepts of your expectations. Again, expectation is the root of all imperfection.

So if I'm perfect, why do I need to grow?

You don't need to, but you've already begun. Growing merely implies transforming. When one can dispell all emotional attatchments and impulses, then one will be more readily able to recognize the perfection of eternity.

The expectation of the idea of freedom sets itself up for "existential vertigo". Well, if I'm truly free in all circumstances then I am not allowed to choose to not be free, or then again, even if I am... I am still a prisoner of freedom. These are words of duality, endless non-sense. It's in the study of the universe that we leave behind this petty speach, these messy words, concepts and ideas. They are no longer needed when we are the masters of learning instead of enforcing and trying to escape senses of desparity, etc. The problem with language is that there are 2 sides, two usually emotional sides. These emotions take clarity away from life and cause interspersing logic. Existence just is, happens, etc. I think leaving the idea of freedom behind in one;s own mind is acquiring a sense of true freedom.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:33 AM
The problem with this approach at looking at the universe is that it starts as a philosophical question of freedom and force and laws... and stays that way forever.

What is a more proper way of looking at it is from an energetic point of view. Ever since Einstein came up with a theory that everything is energy (it has been proven beyond any doubt countless times ever since) we have known this is an "energetic universe" (to put some label on it). What we still don't know without a doubt (science hasn't come up with any proof of it yet) is that this is a FINITE universe.

Now, a finite universe doesn't sound like something of great importance... until you ask yourself - if universe is finite, does that also mean that it contains a finite pool of energy? The answer is, quite unsurprisingly - yes it does.

Now, that we've established that hypothesis, how about asking yourself what a finite pool of energy really means...

Do you come up with some surprising conclusions? If you don't, let me help you - a finite pool of energy means that EVERY LIVING BEING inside this universe WILL HAVE TO STRUGGLE for energy in order to do anything, or even exist.

Why would anyone create such a place, you may also ask yourself. For you, it will be purely theoretical question, since this is just a hypothesis of a finite universe. For me, it has become a fact ever since I saw what this universe looks like from the outside.

I won't be describing it at this moment since I'm conducting a little test right now in another thread. As soon as that test finishes, I'll post a link to a thread on another forum where I described my experience.

What I can tell you now is that I have no doubt anymore that this universe is a construct, an artificial creation. It's clear to me now it was designed for a very specific purpose.

The following is what I've sent someone in order to explain what I've come to understand in the meanwhile, after that experience of seeing this universe from the outside.

I believe this world is a big "energy" generator (the kind of energy we can only describe as consciousness), forcing elemental blocks of consciousness coming from environment outside of this world (The Source ?), to join together, increase complexity, and thus grow energetically. Consciousness grows through experience, and some kind of suitable experience environment had to be created.

This world was designed to force generation of consciousness through suffering. There is nothing more potent to force such a generation than suffering itself. It's built like that on purpose. Our wishes to stop suffering are meaningless inside this world as it is. The suffering will always exists simply because everyone will always have to struggle for energy, taking it from someone else. Another design by intent - to force everyone to struggle for energy.

This is a finite world and everything in it has a beginning and an end. Even time as we perceive it. The finiteness of this world means that everything inside it happens in cycles. It works just like a machine, and from what I've seen and concluded - an energy generating machine.

Consciousness is generated, then used (burned in a sense, to extract energy from it), and returned to environment in its elemental form (deprived of energy). And the whole cycle repeats. It's truly the ultimate energy generator, giving designers all the energy they need, theoretically - forever.

It's not a pretty picture, I know, but it's the only one that makes sense of everything I've witnessed. I always wanted to see the reality of this world, however beautiful or ugly it may be, and I have. I got help seeing it. I very much doubt I could have done it all by myself.

[edit on 11-12-2007 by elendal]


posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 08:56 AM

Originally posted by MITCHEL
(If you are going to respond then respond to the message. Attacking me only means you are putting your weakness on display.)

ahhhhh......and down the rabbit hole we go.

i love these kinds of discussions. you seem so very sure of yourself. that's ok. its important to do so.

I disagree with your primes as I understand it. as I understand it, we do not have "freedom of choice". I believe we do. I know you'll say that is an oxymoronic statement. that's ok too. you are free to choose what you want to believe.

what I believe, is, you have stumbled upon chaos theory. and, your are trying to pigeon hole it into an absolute fact. truth is, there are no absolute facts.

we live in a world were we have a set of accepted norms, or better stated, accepted modalities of thought. these sets of norms are a generally agreed upon set of laws to live by, which allows everybody to happily coincide. from time to time, since this world is dynamic in nature, these laws need to be amended to return to having a happy generally accepted set of laws.

these philosophies you so highly speak of are not new. they have been thrashed about in so many great minds throughout the ages. funny thing, every person who had the displeasure of trying to make sense of the experiences you attempt to define as truth, also thought their conclusions were absolute facts. but, along come another guy who amended them. its the nature of the beast. that was a metaphor by the way.

don't get fixated on the corruption you see all around you. as in nature, there are things that exist that are not pretty. the trick to life is to focus and surround yourself with things that are. the goal is to be happy in mind, body, and spirit. all other things are distractions.

another note about religion.
religions are nothing more than a group of like-minded people who gather together to worship the god of their choosing. this is the basis, and all other things arise from it. these people do so of their own "freewill".

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:36 AM
Haha... Great! I completely forgot that I posted on ATS a link to that thread with my experience some time ago. Though, AstralDynamics forum stopped working yesterday, so my little test may still have a chance of success.

Anyway, here it is again, for the time when AD comes back online. I really hope it will, since the coincidence of it stopping working yesterday was really strange, as I said in another thread around here.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 11:57 AM
Just in case AD forum doesn't recover from whatever happened to it, I'll post a description of this world here. My test has been completed, so there's no reason to keep it a secret anymore.

You can read description in this thread:

Now, the really interesting question is what lies outside of this world, at least the very first thing one notices. It simply can't be missed by any account.

I'll keep that one to myself for now, until I see what happens with AD forums.

posted on Dec, 11 2007 @ 09:35 PM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

For someone who so eschews the power of words, you certainly make much use of them.
I do agree with you L O V E, that spiritual freedom can exist under any physical circumstances, and that too many people allow the physical to overcome their spirituality, but that does not mean that physical freedom is any less real, or not worth fighting for.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 06:02 AM
I'd love to agree with you and sit down for a nice verbal picnic, but I'd rather be hated for who I am then loved for who I am not.

I do not understand what spirituality is nor do I believe in it. I do not believe in God, angels, spirits etc. To me the word soul simply implies what it always was supposed to have meant; the soul of the person. What do you walk on? The soul of your foot. Then what is the foundation of your person or your personality? The soul. It's not a supernatural ghostly apparition that incarnates from body to body after and before life and death, rather it is the basis of who you are.

So, spiritual freedom? I do not comprehend because I am not familiar with the context that you are using it in. The physical is what we have, the physical is what we are. The physical can not interact with the non-physical and if there was such a thing then I'd postulate that as a result of their interactions they are both then rendered of the same material attributes, thus physical and non-physical no longer become an argument of substance but are known to be one and the same. Put more minutely; there is no non-physical. Freedom is subject to one's personal awareness.

posted on Dec, 12 2007 @ 08:47 PM

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
I'd love to agree with you and sit down for a nice verbal picnic

Whether you agree with me or not, this is little more than a verbal picnic.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Freedom is subject to one's personal awareness.

On that we certainly agree, whether you like it or not.
You need only to pursue spiritual awareness to be convinced of it's reality. Careful what you pursue though.

posted on Dec, 13 2007 @ 12:47 PM

Originally posted by resistor

Whether you agree with me or not, this is little more than a verbal picnic.

I suppose you're correct until someone begins eating their own words

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Freedom is subject to one's personal awareness.

On that we certainly agree, whether you like it or not.
You need only to pursue spiritual awareness to be convinced of it's reality. Careful what you pursue though.

Whatever spirituality means
When you can explain spirituality then I'll persue. I'll tell you something: I persued such in the past, I perceive it more as an illusion than a reality. It's much too emotional for me. With all ups often come the eventual downs, with all downs often come the eventual ups, though the previous is not inevitable. I tend to place it safe and consistent through staying neutral through the act of infinite cancelation: I am the observer of emotions, I am the observer of spirituality; I'd rather not become involved.

[edit on 13-12-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:23 PM
reply to post by JSR

You say "there are no absolute facts".
Is your statement an absolute fact? To qualify your statement you are going to have to prove there are no absolute facts!
If you could prove it then what would you have? You would have an absolute fact.
Your statement is self-referentially incoherent.
Please try to wake up and stop thinking backwards.

posted on Jan, 22 2008 @ 10:15 PM
It would appear that there is an absolute one truth or answer to everything we logically conclude. Example: There are no absolutes is an absolute statement. Now there is revealed a "one" truth, or universal truth, the only problem now is that one can never be proven, but is that really a problem?

So, the truth must be an immeasurable one... a.k.a. eternity.

An immeasurable singularity.

[edit on 22-1-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

posted on Jan, 23 2008 @ 12:41 PM
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

I guess I will have to start a thread on the subject of proof to put this "there is no proof" issue to rest. I know there is such a thing as proof and I can prove it. Do you think I am wrong? If so then prove it! I tried to get you to respond to this once before and it was your usual incoherent nonsense of claiming it is both and neither at the same time. You are admitting the things you say are invalid when you respond in this manner because there is no coherent logic in your words and it is "MIB" style evasion and confusion nonsense . If you are not a disinformation/confusion agent then you should apply. Include your responses to this thread with your application.

Redundant: First you say there is no proof. Then you say there is both and neither. Your second statement disqualifies your first statement. First you say something is a certain way and then you say it is not certain at all. Your words are meaningless! Why do you bother saying anything at all?!!!!! Unless you are a schizophrenic sophist. Do you want me to take your words seriously?! Either start using coherent logic or go away!!!

Are you verbiage happy?

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:08 AM
Well you want things to be one and whole, you search for one truth. The one truth is evident, but one can never be mathematically proven because all things are interconnected through the definition of energetic absence, that which can not separate any two things. Sure, through material we can prove one's existence. If you put a ball in front of me I will agree that there is one ball, I won't be hard headed, but would you stick around to listen to why one is really an illusion?

So, am I schizophrenic? Well are you? I'm asking you, not me! I dunno, are you?

Look... we self conversed and we can't figure out whether we're schizo or not.

There are no absolutes

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:28 AM
reply to post by MITCHEL

if you desire true "freedom" then you as an individual must be alone and live alone. you can not have "freedom" as you so define and be with any other human. why?... because your "freedom" will be in direct competition with anothers freedom. if you do live with other humans and have "freedom" again with your own definition, you would have to take on the role of a god. nobody would be able to limit matter what you wanted to do to them, others or yourself. will have to go live somewhere isolated from every other human.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by jimmyx

Either you did not read it or you did not understand it. Living alone is not enough because one is still in bondage to nature. The "nature" of this universe violates freedom and holds the contents of this universe in bondage and this is why it is a criminal universe. You missed the whole point, or at least you missed the big picture.

Yes, one would, in effect, have to be a "god" in order to be free. (Assuming “god” is defined as being free from everything including time, space, and nature.)

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:18 PM
Here is an improved version for clarification.

Freedom is not subject to limitation, bondage, requirement, commitment, or consequence. Choice requires commitment. If you have freedom then you do not have choice because you are free of commitment. If you have choice then you do not have freedom because you are subject to commitment. Refusing to choose is still a commitment. This means you are not free before you choose because you are already in bondage by being subject to commitment. Choice means you are in bondage to commitments and consequences. Freedom is free of commitments and consequences. Freedom and choice are mutually exclusive.

It is impossible to "choose freewill" because you cannot become free of commitment by making a commitment. Freewill does not occur as a result of choice, freewill is the elimination of choice and consequence. Choice and freewill are mutually exclusive.

This does not mean we do not have choice. We do have choice, but it is ‘bondage of choice’, not "freedom of choice". "Freedom of choice" does not exist and cannot exist because it is a contradiction/oxymoron.

People resist acknowledging "freedom of choice" as a contradiction because there are religions and governments based upon the "freedom of choice" contradiction and such religions and governments are illegitimate because of the contradiction.

If you resist, and think this is wrong or unconvincing, then understand this: if "Freedom of choice" existed then it would include the freedom to undo choices and the freedom to choose the choices. If someone or something enforces choice or chooses the choices for you, then there is bondage to someone or something. "Freedom of choice" means no one and no thing (including "God", "Nature", and "Government”) may enforce choice or choose the choices for you. Freedom to undo choices and freedom to choose the choices means choice does not exist because there are no commitments, no consequences, and no limit of options, which means there is freewill instead of choice. This proves choice does not and cannot exist unless there is bondage to someone or something which is enforcing choice and choosing the choices for you. Freedom and choice are absolutely incompatible. Anyone claiming otherwise is either brainwashed with the "freedom of choice" oxymoron or a liar. "Freedom of choice" is always an error or a lie.

There is no freedom in this universe because there are limiting, binding, and controlling "laws" which give this universe the parameters it operates by. Laws are not the problem. Force is the problem because force puts the laws into effect. Force is criminal because force violates freedom and places one in bondage to the force. This is a criminal universe and force is the source of crime.

Laws do not cause force to exist, force causes laws to exist.. Laws are an effect caused by the crime of force. Laws are powerless without enforcement. Authority is criminal because authority manifests force. Nature is criminal because Nature manifests force. If force is manifested by "God" then God is criminal.

Corruption and incoherence will only exist within a corrupt and incoherent universe. This universe is not automatically legitimate simply because it exists. Crime exists because this universe provides the circumstances and conditions which cause crime. Freedom is not subject to need, temptation, or entrapment. One must already be entrapped by need before one may be lead into temptation. "God" committed the original sin because "God" created the circumstances which made temptation possible. There is no freedom in this universe, there is only involuntary entrapment here.

posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:00 PM
I agree, it did seem criminal. Until you realized that you made it that way on purpose. Then you just smiled and threw your hands up for the ride.
Maybe drink some ayahuasca, it seriously breaks cosmic laws, it does things that are not possible. Its got a very special place in the hearts of many deep thinkers. It might just show you some aspects and concepts within your theory you didnt know you thought about. Things you wont be able to explain with linear language, things you probably realize on the outskirts of your thoughts and dreams but cant seem to grasp completely because rationality acts as a sort of firewall.
And I might just be preaching to the choir...
excellent thread.

new topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in