posted on Dec, 24 2009 @ 07:07 AM
How can I teach people the truth? How can I share this with others?
You have to be honest and clear, too many are lost in the false happiness of the world, and can not see the truth. Imagine a man who has grown up all
his life without the knowledge of reading, and comes upon a man who can read. Where is the common ground? If they both at least speak the same
language, there is a common thread that can be expanded upon.
Everyone knows basic sciences, such as math and physics.
Then use that. Take math for example, everyone knows that mathematics is considered the most disciplined science because of its accuracy. The numbers
can be verified, and there is no opinions to it. Mathematics is based on the principle of one side equaling an other, so that one side of the equation
can have different symbols, but so long as they follow along with the principles of mathematics, the two sides can be equal, and a proof or equation
can be established.
So that there must be necessarily principles of science.
Now I ask you, is the principles of science also principles of nature?
I would say that they are perhaps derived from science, but also man made, but I would like you to clarify this more for me.
Very well, if man creates the rules of science, then obviously the principles are man made. However, a man can create something from his own
imagination, but he must do this in the realm of nature. So that I do not think that these principles are completely independent of nature.
Furthermore, nature in this perspective is passive, awaiting the implant of human means. Passive, but not completely controllable. Man must be able to
harness the power of nature. So a principle of science is nothing more than the means by which a man can harness the power of nature. So it is clear
then that nature contains the real power, man has limited power to manipulate this power.
So that if one man has more control over nature than another, he can be seen as more powerful?
But if this power is not beneficial or practical, it is worthless?
So that only those manipulations which are both possible and practical are good. All others are not good. So what I am getting at, is to use science
as a framework, we can say that the real goal is to find practicality, even in things which are seemingly impractical, such as metaphysics. So what is
the practical applications of metaphysics?
I can think of a few, namely, the satisfaction of man's curiosity.
Very well, we shall use that as a stepping stone. If man's curiosity is to know where he came from, and where he is going, by what means do you think
he can learn these things? You surely know how the difference between a living man and a dead man, and you judge life to be greater than death, so
what is the practical way of gaining life? Do you think immortality is a practical thing?
Can you clarify what you mean?
Is life good?
Good for its own sake or good because it is practical?
I would say good for its own sake.
Then immortality, by that same logic, would be good for its own sake. Now, as a mortal, would it be good to learn the secret to immortality?
Then immortality has to be good, and since goodness is practicality, immortality must also be good. The reason then to study metaphysics is to uncover
the secret of immortality, and so no one can deny that this is practical.
So, if immortality is defined as life without end, what is it that exhibits this characteristic?
Correct, and let us be specific in what we are talking about, for there are two kinds of immortality, perpetual and eternal. The universe is said to
be perpetual, it exists infinitely, however it progress from past to future. Eternity, on the other hand, exists simultaneously of itself and is
beyond the scope of past, present, and future. Since this is inconceivable by human senses, we shall look first at the universe. If we think of
ourselves as body, is body immortal?
No, certainly not.
Is the world immortal?
It's been known scientifically to not last forever.
Is the sun and stars immortal?
They last for a very long time, but perhaps not immortal.
Does gravity last forever?
I am not sure.
If gravity is dependent upon bodies, then gravity would last only as long as bodies lasted. But if gravity is a property exhibited by bodies, then
gravity would have to precede the existence of bodies. The forces of nature are the closest thing we can come to be immortal. And since gravity
impresses its force upon each individual body, we know that gravity is not just in time, but also outside of time.
That seems plausible.
But, what people call gravity now was what they called God's force, the force that controls the heavens and seasons. At this point we have to say
that empirical means of study can never come to the fruition of immortal bliss, because as soon as you define something, it loses its inherent nature
and becomes an object of thought. So I would conclude then with perfect logic that that which is eternal can not ever come into the perpetual sphere
And so if a thing exists, but is never born, is it not immortal?
So why these people become so befuddled is a question they need to ask themselves. Would you wish to fish in the sky or catch birds in the ocean? Why
then do people constantly seek in the material sphere for what is immaterial? But to answer this question, we should properly define "existence" and
see if we have made some mistake or error. For we said that if a thing exists, but is never born, it can never die, this is obviously different from a
thing that never existed and thus is never born but not truly alive. But if Eternity is outside of time, and anything in time is divided three ways by
past, present, and future, how can it be said that it truly exists? Whenever you think of yourself now, compared to yourself in the past, and then
yourself in the future, you are thinking of yourself in three different ways. In truth, everything is outside of time, but our minds catch the
changing nature of those things, and gives upon it the impression or illusion of time. If a thing existed forever, you could say it never changed and
thus never truly existed in time. So what that means is that if a thing is eternal, it truly exists.
And so the material universe, if it exists in time, does not truly exist!