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.

 

Emanation: The alternative to Creationism/Evolution

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Okay, so while I am interested in the creationism/evolution debate, I believe in both of them, in that I can see how they are both plausible, but emanationism is something of a fringe belief even though it is the only theory critical of both creationism and evolution while also providing a theory of its own.

www.attan.com...

"The concept of emanation is that all derived or secondary things proceed or flow from the more primary."

It differs from Creationism because the ideal of emanationism is not a complex being but a simplex Law. Emanation differs from evolution because it views everything as a series of descending stages, as opposed to evolution which sees things go from simple to more complex organisms.

Everything originates from the primary, which is called the Absolute. This Absolute has but one attribute, Oneness. But this Oneness separates into a duality, and the series of emanation begins. The separation is due to the arrival of sense awareness, which is of a lower order than the Supreme Consciousness of the Absolute. So in other words, a being exists partly because of the Absolute's perpetual emanation. But emanation also has room for individuality, in that everything is part of this great chain of being. To realize that the Absolute is at the heart of this chain of being is to realize the unmoving point which does not emanate but stays continuously the same. This is the goal of emanation, to identify with that unchanging essence.

So, at this point, the Creationists could say that emanation is not the "divine word" and that it's probably satanic or false. They could point out that without a loving God the universe would have no purpose in existing. Emanation would answer that creation is a constant process, because the Absolute overflows but never runs out. It is like the Sun, which is constantly illuminating all the lower stages of life. To be aware of this process is to understand the stable simplicity that remains unchanged throughout the various stages of emanation, such that each stage contains an image of this Absolute within the confines of that stage, so in other words there is the Absolute, then there is a spiritual stage, a mental stage, and a physical stage. The physical stage is controlled by the mind, which is controlled by the soul, which is controlled by the Absolute.

An evolutionist would most likely point out that there is no physical proof of this theory, but the proof is the logistical system of emanation. It also would argue with evolution that things do not happen as the result of random accident but rather highly structured stages which are the result of emanation's continuous descent from simplicity to complexity. If evolution says that things do not happen randomly but rather through DNA planning, then the planning is similar to the emanation system, in which a higher reality gives information to a lower reality, and that information is the image of the higher.

Your thoughts?




posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
A potent concoction of pseudo-intellectualism and a recreational drug user's trippy insights.

This is worse than Creationism.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 01:07 AM
link   
This is definitely interesting. It reminds me a little of Hegel, and yet also a little of H. P. Blavatsky and The Secret Doctrine (Theosophy). I strongly support the notion that both evolutionism and creationism are both faulty belief systems, and even that perhaps the intense energy that is thrown into their false dichotomy is meant to hide the "real truth." This is the "third option," which is how I've always referred to it as, and I like that you have a possible name for it--emanation. Emanation ties in nicely with a lot of my beliefs from the metaphysical/spiritual areas. One very strong voice in support of the "third option," coming not from either of the areas just mentioned but more from a scientific angle, is Michael Cremo, author of Forbidden Archaeology. It's a dense read, but highly informative and very rewarding. I would reccomend it to you Filosophia. Thank you for your enriching ideas.

Maat



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by PieKeeper
A potent concoction of pseudo-intellectualism and a recreational drug user's trippy insights.

This is worse than Creationism.



sounds like a typical ad hominem attack. Fail.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by maatunidy
This is definitely interesting. It reminds me a little of Hegel, and yet also a little of H. P. Blavatsky and The Secret Doctrine (Theosophy). I strongly support the notion that both evolutionism and creationism are both faulty belief systems, and even that perhaps the intense energy that is thrown into their false dichotomy is meant to hide the "real truth." This is the "third option," which is how I've always referred to it as, and I like that you have a possible name for it--emanation. Emanation ties in nicely with a lot of my beliefs from the metaphysical/spiritual areas. One very strong voice in support of the "third option," coming not from either of the areas just mentioned but more from a scientific angle, is Michael Cremo, author of Forbidden Archaeology. It's a dense read, but highly informative and very rewarding. I would reccomend it to you Filosophia. Thank you for your enriching ideas.

Maat


thanks for the tip, I'll check it out.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by PieKeeper
A potent concoction of pseudo-intellectualism and a recreational drug user's trippy insights.

This is worse than Creationism.



sounds like a typical ad hominem attack. Fail.


In what way is that ad hominem? I didn't specifically refer to anyone. The content is merely ridiculous in terms of reality, and it's trying to be passed off as if it were some great intellectual insight.

It stands more along the lines of religious philosophy than a "theory of origins."



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


Why exactly do we need a new theory? Evolution has been proven in every field of biology. Its not just "plausible" its PROVEN. And there is nothing whatsoever plausible about the Creationist alternative which is basically an assertion of faith that a deity used divine magic to conjure life (typically from dirt). Evolution has mountains of evidence and has been directly observed taking place in other species and on our own.



Emanation differs from evolution because it views everything as a series of descending stages, as opposed to evolution which sees things go from simple to more complex organisms.


While evolution HAS gradually led to some very complex organisms it in no way requires things to get more complex. Sometimes the simple or stream-lined designs work so well that they remain quite similar to their ancestors. Sharks and crocodiles are a great example of this sort of evolutionary niche. What we see from evolution isn't always a rise in complexity but it is an amazing rise in diversity. We still have bacteria and single-celled organisms today proving that not everything becomes better or more complex. Evolution has no chosen direction, it is not a conscious process.




They could point out that without a loving God the universe would have no purpose in existing.


I could point out that WITH a loving God the Universe would have no purpose existing AT ALL. If human beings are truly God's pet project, his beloved creation, than why exactly did he bother with trillions of stars, billions of galaxies, blackholes, etc? You see the entire Universe, aside from our little corner, are entirely pointless if God created the Earth as his pet project. It says in the Bible he made the stars (and moon) to light the Earth at night, but light from stars takes years and years to get here because of the distances in space, so Adam and Eve wouldn't have even been able to see them.



An evolutionist would most likely point out that there is no physical proof of this theory


An evolutionist would point out that you don't have a theory here, you've got a highly speculative hypothesis.



If evolution says that things do not happen randomly but rather through DNA planning,


I've never heard the words DNA planning from evolution. Population mechanics, genetic drift, frame shift mutations, all things I've heard of that effect evolution but I've never heard of DNA planning. Even typed it into Google and got nothing (well nothing related to evolution anyway).

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish. Scientists are quite happy with Evolution, its one of the best proven ideas in the history of science. And Creationists are happy with their delusions of magic.



posted on Jun, 15 2010 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Titen-Sxull
 


I just fail to see the practical value of evolution. However, as I said, I'm in favor of emanation and not creationism, so I am not going to stand here and defend creationism. All I will say is that my theory is a theory, it is a philosophical theory, which modern science seems to ignore. That is fine that evolution fits a biological need, I just have no need for it.

But just to engage in debate, if you would like to, I've always had a problem understanding how there can be random mutations in evolution. Randomness seems illogical. What if the genetic traits are caused by selective breeding, would that be able to overcome any type of natural mutation?



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join