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 theory: I attempt to prove the existence of God (mind you I said 'attempt')

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
So, basically I give you my God theory, and you critique it in some way, and I defend or clarify the theory. Sound good?

First rule of God (note: these rules are not hard and fast, more like guide points)

1. God is the term used to describe the absolute creator of everything. While this is a bit confusing because this does not mean the God of the bible, but rather the God of all Gods, so if you are a Christian, this would be the highest God. So, going off this definition, God is both the creator of everything, and absolute to everything else. The creator can not be created by anything else, so out of all the things in the universe, God is the most supreme creator.

1b) God is not only the absolute creator, but also has the supreme Perfection out of any other thing. God is absolutely Perfect in every way, and thus can not be guilty of error (evil).
1c) God is transcendent to all things, having none of their imperfections, but also has an image of Itself within everything, so that God is both imminent and transcendent, being the highest thing and the soul of all things, and since the soul is immortal within all things, the contradiction disappears when you view this from the perspective of God, but appears to be embodied when you look towards the lower world.

(the first rule can be added to to describe all the different characteristics of God)
2. (following from 1c): The lower world is thus created by God, and a part of God enters into this world, as a lower soul, so that the soul is both connected to body (embodied), and also has a part of it in the highest realm. Thus, the soul is both divine, but also embodied.

3. Since the first rule is God and his characteristics, and the second rule is Soul, the third rule would be the connection between these two, the mind. The mind, just like the soul, has two phases. The soul has a higher and a lower embodied, and the mind is both psychic and physical, so that the mind can contemplate mental ideas, but also is connected to the body. The proof of this is physical pain. If the mind was not connected to body, an individual would not be able to feel this pain in their mind or explain the pain (hot/cold, intensity of pain, location).

4. Since the mind can experience pain, a natural desire is created to avoid pain. This is why the mind recoils at harmful things. On an intellectual level, a wise man can say that the self experiences pain when the mind is attached to body, and so if the mind was detached to body, there would be no pain. Thus, a mind free of body, would have no pain. This mind, free of body, would be the higher part of the Soul, meaning it would be equal to God. So rule 1 is God and its Supremacy, rule 2 is the Soul and its higher divine part, and its lower embodied part; rule 3 is the mind and its psychic/physical nature, and rule 4 is that the mind can be directed to its highest point, being equal to the highest point of soul, which is equal to the Supreme Absolute. Thus, there is a way to the Divine, because the divine God does not completely leave the lower creation, but rather stays as the highest part of the soul, even though this soul is connected to a lower body and thus enchaining the Soul.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so as I said, these rules are not hard and fast, and each one can have subsections, so 1a...1z, etc, for God's characteristics, 2a...z for Soul's characteristics, 3a...z for mind's characteristics, and 4 for all the different ways to reach the divine, or have realization of the divine.

if we were to have a rule 5, it would be evil or error

5. Evil can not have power, because then it would have emanated from the supreme Good (God). So evil is rather an error or miscalculation of the divine. God has no imperfections to it, and thus has no error to it. The soul and mind are also spiritual creations of God, and have very little error, the universe too is very ordered, and so there is very little error, the only evil that exists is a result of creature's mortality. If every creature was immortal, there would be no evil in the world. Why would anyone cry over murder if it is impossible to murder? But if everything was perfect, there would be no creation, no diverse forms, and God would not be a creator, but rather a boxed in theoritical idea that could be contemplated by no one. And since God involves both creation and contemplation, it must expand outwards from itself as a lower and inferior reality. Evil exists in this field because it is separate from God, however, through contemplation, it can return to God, meaning nothing is so evil that it is absolutely evil and thus nothing. If there were something Absolutely Evil, it would be nothing, and so we would say it does not exist.

--------------------------------

Okay, that's it, now it's your turn.




posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:22 PM
link   
you talk like the creator created us intentionally, and not in some background natural process that happened in another dimension

I believe there is definitely something bigger than our universe, we are just in our dimension, we cant perceive others, but they PROBABLY exist

so, you cant say for sure that a creator created our dimension intentionally because of that



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
God creates the universe as a natural process of his being. Creation is like filling up a beaker of water, until it becomes full and then overflows out of the container. Creation is like the overflow of God, a lower part, since God is perfect and does not need the universe, but is the infinite variety of the universe regardless, because that is the nature of God's supremacy.

If we can see variety in nature, that variety must exist as a potential of Nature, and if God is beyond these qualities, it must be that these qualities were produced as a natural part of God's being. If nature contains variety, then variety is part of the natural order. The natural order is the creation of creatures, and each creature has instincts, meaning the physical realm is attached to the mental realm. Since this mental realm can access the higher realm, it proves that the lower realm was created and hardwired by the higher, so if this was done by accident, there would be a disconnect between the lower and the higher, and the mind would not be able to control the body, or feel the body's pain. But since the mind can feel the body's pain, it must be that there is an order or hierarchy to the system of the universe, so it could not have been done by chance.

It is true that God did not create this out of a need, since that would contradict its Perfection, and so the only possibility left is that God created it out of his divine nature. If God did it through intention, that would mean that God specifically creates each tree, like an artist painting a picture of a tree, but rather, God creates it through natural emanation, where nature's power dissipates into all possible modes, so that trees, the sky, birds, and everything else come about because they have the potential to come about, and because they each have their being in reality, which at its absolute level, is the Supreme Principle of life, the soul, or God.

The "background natural process" that you are speaking of is the mind, that is the dimension of contemplation, which coincides with the creation. Creation and Contemplation, that is how God creates, by creating something, and the soul contemplating it back to God, so that God sees all things, while itself being separate from these things.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by filosophia]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
All I see here is some creative(albeit scattered) literature. I am not saying that you don't have some great points within your rules though. All I wish to say, is that perhaps you should re-evaluate your wording. Structuring your theory around such "rules" gives other people the sense that you are being vague, by skirting around the main issue at hand: Can your theory prove God?
I know you are only trying to offer a new perspective, but this theory is but one in a sea of millions.
P.S. I do believe in a higher power/consciousness, I am just playing some Devil's Advocate, and giving you something to respond to.

edited for:
I also wanted to ask you a question that you may be able to incorporate into your fledgling theory. If God is the true, supreme creator and has no beginning or end, then where did he come from? How has God arisen?

also, starred and flagged!

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Negotium of Verum]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Negotium of Verum
 


I did say it is an attempt at proving God and the laws of creation. It is more like abstract philosophizing and not concrete science.

If God is the supreme origin, then he could not have been created by anything else. Nor can any power be given to him by an outside source. Nor could there be two separate supreme Gods, because each would be lacking to each other and therefore be devoid of each other's power. So it is proper to say that God is not created in time like the objects of creation, but rather is Eternal and therefore is uncreated. God is self-created in that he has always existed, and has arisen without the aid of any external creator, so it seems like he is self-created by himself, but since there was never a time when God did not exist, it follows that he has always existed.

(note that if you are a strict materialist, this is the only logical conclusion you can have for how matter came into existence, in that it didn't, it simply always existed, otherwise the only other position is to say that it was created out of nothing, which brings up some illogical problems, like what created it out of nothing).



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I need an explanation of how God comes into existence. This is due to your assertion that God creates what we see and what we experience, and that for God to be capable of affecting the corporeal (physical) world like this, God must have a true physical presence of some sort that can directly impact this world. You can claim that God's physical presence simply always existed, and that's what everyone does because it's easy to do. However, saying that this is so, and proving that this is so, are two very different accomplishments.

You are trying to prove the existence of God. My assertion - your God either must have a genesis that you can describe and (at least) logically defend, or you must prove that your God needs no genesis. If you can't do either, then you can't prove that your God exists. It's as simple as that.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by NorEaster]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:46 PM
link   
I don't think God can be proven or disproven, partly because of semantics. I think you have a very thought out post, but the question of something always existing, gives as many questions as matter arising out of nothing.

I look at the possibility of God as the Unified Field Theory, or the Theory of Everything, but really, what is it/he/she? An unexplainable mystery. Everyone has a different idea/opinion of the concept of God. Millions or billions of different concepts.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
I need an explanation of how God comes into existence. This is due to your assertion that God creates what we see and esxperience, and that since God does this, God must have a true physical presence of some sort. You can claim that God's physical presence simply always existed, and that's what everyone does because it's easy to do. However, saying that this is so, and proving that this is so, are two very different accomplishments.

You are trying to prove the existence of God. My assertion - your God either must have a genesis that you can describe and (at least) logically defend, or you must prove that your God needs no genesis. If you can't do either, then you can't prove that your God exists. It's as simple as that.


God exists eternally, Eternity being outside of past, present, and future. Things created in time have a beginning, a middle, and an end, God has no beginning in time, exists in the eternal present, and transcending all things, exists as the future of all things (the end of all things, thus the end of time).

God's true physical presence is transcendent and imminent, so it is more than how a tree has physical presence. In that regard, God is not physical at all, but physical-spiritual-transcendent, existing as the pure truth of all things.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
I don't think God can be proven or disproven, partly because of semantics. I think you have a very thought out post, but the question of something always existing, gives as many questions as matter arising out of nothing.

I look at the possibility of God as the Unified Field Theory, or the Theory of Everything, but really, what is it/he/she? An unexplainable mystery. Everyone has a different idea/opinion of the concept of God. Millions or billions of different concepts.


I did say this was merely an attempt at proving God, but the difference between all those opinions is the science of metaphysics, in that there can be logistics behind those opinions. If I were to say that God was created by the sun making love to the moon, you would ask why, if God was the true creator of everything, was it possible for him to be created by the sun and moon (that would imply the sun and moon precedes God).

Take Zeus for example, the mightiest god, who was created from Kronus, who procreated with Gaia, so in other words Zeus is the coming together of the sky and earth. This has logical problems to it.

However, if you say that God is the supreme origin, it was not created by anything outside of itself, but was in fact self-created.



[edit on 20-7-2010 by filosophia]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
OK, lets look at the nature of the infinite. If God has always existed, it stands to reason that at some point he created our universe. It also stands to reason that he must have created all that is. If this is so, then where does god reside? Where did he reside before there was a place to reside in? If God has always been, it stands to reason that he is that which exists beyond our universe, and our perception. So tell me, how did we end up enveloped in the God Bubble.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Negotium of Verum]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Negotium of Verum
OK, lets look at the nature of the infinite. If God has always existed,, it stands to reason that at some point he created our universe. It also stands to reason that he must have created all that is. If this is so, then where does god reside? Where did he reside before there was a place to reside in? If God has always been, it stands to reason that he is that which exists beyond our universe, and our perception. So tell me, how did we end up enveloped in the God Bubble.


God does not reside in the universe, but outside of it. God is eternal, the universe is perpetual.

God resides in the eternal present, meaning the past, present, and future to us is actually all one thing to God: the eternal present. So from God's perspective, there is no universe. But, because God is divine consciousness, his awareness creates an unlimited amount of souls to experience the infinity that is God, which these souls see as the universe. We are stuck in this God bubble if we only see the physical qualities of the universe, and do not look towards the creator of the universe. We become stuck in identifying ourselves as body, and miss out on the nature of our soul. If we were to view our true nature as God, we would no longer be stuck in this God bubble, because we would no longer be concerned with our senses, but rather we would live on reason and intelligence, and not the senses. We must use our senses at first, but after you experience all that you need to know, you retreat from the senses and no longer require sense perceptions, at least that is what a master yogi/Buddha/enlightened individual would think. A fully enlightened being would not need sense perception, but rather would know God through internal vision of God. A true yogi is views God as the highest joy, which is why they spend hours in meditation, because they do not need to see the forests, even though they are beautiful, or hear the birds, even though they are beautiful. They do not need to imagine sweet things, even though they are beautiful, or reason about the wonderful order of creation, even though they know it is beautiful, all they need to do is know God, and that is all they need.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by NorEaster
I need an explanation of how God comes into existence. This is due to your assertion that God creates what we see and esxperience, and that since God does this, God must have a true physical presence of some sort. You can claim that God's physical presence simply always existed, and that's what everyone does because it's easy to do. However, saying that this is so, and proving that this is so, are two very different accomplishments.

You are trying to prove the existence of God. My assertion - your God either must have a genesis that you can describe and (at least) logically defend, or you must prove that your God needs no genesis. If you can't do either, then you can't prove that your God exists. It's as simple as that.


God exists eternally, Eternity being outside of past, present, and future. Things created in time have a beginning, a middle, and an end, God has no beginning in time, exists in the eternal present, and transcending all things, exists as the future of all things (the end of all things, thus the end of time).

God's true physical presence is transcendent and imminent, so it is more than how a tree has physical presence. In that regard, God is not physical at all, but physical-spiritual-transcendent, existing as the pure truth of all things.


I'm going to try and explain this as best I can, so that we don't end up having two incompatible conversations here.

For something to create something else, there has to be foundational context that exists that can be built upon with the contextual bond that results via the actual creation itself. This contextual bond cannot exist if the two things have no possible way of sharing a foundational context - as is the case with a non-physical entity and a physical entity. The logic simply doesn't work out, and no amount of word-play can fix the problem.

If you can prove the assertion that a shared foundational context is not required, then you might be able to publish a thesis on that alone, but that requirement is as fundamental as requirements get, so I'll be surprised if you accomplish it.

Like I said - if you simply assert something, or lean on a book that also simply asserts something, without proving the validity (even if only through airtight logic) of your assertion, you're just typing words that mean nothing at all. This is the reason why people simply declare that you have to use Faith when dealing with an eternal God. It's not as if this issue hasn't ever been addressed before.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:19 PM
link   
I will add a rule 6: a perfect being.

If rule 5 is about evil, which has been defined as error, and not a spiritual power, but rather a lack of power, then rule 6 deals with a perfect being who has conquered evil, and is no longer subject to error. How is this possible?

It is possible by rejecting the lower forms of perception in favor of the highest form of knowing. So in other words, a perfect being does not need to use their 5 senses, or imagination, or even reason, but rather they know the truth, and operate on the faith of their wisdom. A faith not based on desire, but rather based on the truth derived from reason, imagination, and sense-knowledge, but one that is devoid of the lower. Imagine a yogi that spends all day in meditation, he is experiencing inwards, he is basking in the true light within, and even then, his mind is only illuminated every now and then to help him remember the truth, eventually he can break off completely from the mind and experience the quietude of his inner soul. This silence of the soul is knowing the true nature of reality, beyond all duality and forms. To most people, it is a vast emptiness, a void, but to an enlightened one, it is pure bliss, freedom for the mind. The bottom line is that it is devoid of evil, and thus is perfect goodness. To identify with this goodness is hard to achieve, but it is the basis of intense meditational practices. While it is hard to be completely submersed in this state, a quick experience of it allows one to understand with certainty the existence of a higher state of being, this is the real proof of God. It is the realization that this true nature always exists within us, and we can turn to it whenever we want, and that is our true happiness, what we should strive for with diligence.

To be precise, this state of mind is devoid of secondaries, and so it is itself alone. To even make a statement about this is only an indication of what it is not, so if everything under the sun is mortal, this must be different from these things, and so it is immortal.

A true seeker of God gives up all lower forms of knowledge in favor of direct communion with the highest aspect of his nature.

Rule 7 would be reincarnation, in that anyone who falls short of true perfection must be re-embodied in a mortal state, separated by God because of a lack of wisdom, but not entirely apart from God, since the way of contemplation is always there. This would mean that a perfect being is free of reincarnation, and lives like God, completely free of reincarnation/creation, but instead lives in Eternity.

Rule 8 is the superiority of Eternity compared to perpetuity. A perpetual thing is valued because of its life, however fragmented it is. Life can only be appreciated in the present. We may cherish the past, but we cherish it in the present, so our life is always most important in the present. We may look forward to things in the future, but that is merely a conceived notion of what may be, all while being conceived in the present. Thus, if life is of value in the present, an Eternal present is one that is self-contained in the present, lacking nothing of the past or future, because Eternity is different from forever: the universe can go on forever, but it still goes from past to future, while Eternity is separate from time, so it is itself always.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Negotium of Verum
OK, lets look at the nature of the infinite. If God has always existed, it stands to reason that at some point he created our universe. It also stands to reason that he must have created all that is. If this is so, then where does god reside? Where did he reside before there was a place to reside in? If God has always been, it stands to reason that he is that which exists beyond our universe, and our perception. So tell me, how did we end up enveloped in the God Bubble.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Negotium of Verum]


I reckon god is infinite infinity. There is nothing that god isnt. I dont think creation was created out of nothing to get something, rather finite elements were distilled from the infinite background to produce a universe or world, and whats missing from the local universe is what makes it what it is.
So the infinite creation always was, there wasnt a time before it was created then a time after when it was created, it has always just been infinite so all has always been and will be in an eturnal present.

Nothing can really be said about the infinite creator or god, no attribute can be ascribed to it, for it has infinity attributes.
The only thing that can really be said about infinity that makes any sense is that it is also unity, all is one, god is everything, including you. Fractally you are both a part of god and the whole god at the same time, however the nature of the current illusion means we appear seperate as a subset "part", this seperation and forgetting is the gift because it allows us to explore our own creation without knowing what we're gonna find, and meet another person(ourself) without already knowing all about them.

The wildest part about finally meeting god, must be when we fully realize we are god. For the mean while we continue stumbling around in the dark with amnesia always knowing deep within we are to seek the light.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

God does not reside in the universe, but outside of it. God is eternal, the universe is perpetual.



As I said, "it stands to reason that he is that which exists beyond our universe, and our perception."

Anyway, I am still playing Devil's Advocate. Time to show my true colors. I believe that, much like Quantum Physics suggests, we live in a state of superposition, or infinite possibility. In this state, all things that have happened, will, happen, or are happening occur simultaneously. Our earthly filters allow us to experience a linear view of time, which is really just an illusion; our senses simply can't comprehend the "allness"
In a way, this is very similar to what you said about how God experiences the Universe.
I also adhere to views that represent God as existing in, and permeating all things. My personnel take on the 'God Bubble" is very complex, but I will try to translate it into words as best I can.
I see God as the source, and our universe exists within this source. This could, if you were to look at God from an anthropomorphic standpoint(which I think he is not), mean that in a way, we exist as a creation of his mind.
Anyway, thanks for posting this, I'm liking your theory and your ability to stick to your guns.
As always, critiques are welcome!



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

1. ...The creator can not be created by anything else, so out of all the things in the universe, God is the most supreme creator.


This isn't playing fair. You get to have a theory, but also get to ignore how this being came into...being. Granted, you can know something exists without knowing where it came from, but if someone asks where a rock came from I can't claim it came from nowhere, because then it doesn't really exist.


3. ... so that the mind can contemplate mental ideas, but also is connected to the body. The proof of this is physical pain. If the mind was not connected to body, an individual would not be able to feel this pain in their mind or explain the pain (hot/cold, intensity of pain, location).

....

4. Since the mind can experience pain, a natural desire is created to avoid pain. This is why the mind recoils at harmful things. On an intellectual level, a wise man can say that the self experiences pain when the mind is attached to body, and so if the mind was detached to body, there would be no pain. Thus, a mind free of body, would have no pain. This mind, free of body, would be the higher part of the Soul, meaning it would be equal to God.


I don't understand how either of these rules contribute to your theory. This is kind of you just describing things the brain does. Of course the mind is connected with the body, that's why our heart beats and how we can raise our arms (note: these are not the only two things the brain can do). What you've put out sounds more like an endorsement for the evolution of a nervous system. Either way, it doesn't make much to do with god's nature and isn't good proof for its existence.



5. Evil can not have power, because then it would have emanated from the supreme Good (God).

...the only evil that exists is a result of creature's mortality. If every creature was immortal, there would be no evil in the world. Why would anyone cry over murder if it is impossible to murder?


Frankly, this is a ridiculous idea. An immortal child could be molested by an immortal person and it would still be evil and cause pain. Then there's also things like greed which cause a lot of evil.

Also, by your thinking evil would have to come from god. God creates man, leaves a bit of its soul in man, man (or man's mortality) somehow manufactures evil. Either directly or indirectly, it would come from god.


But if everything was perfect, there would be no creation, no diverse forms, and God would not be a creator, but rather a boxed in theoritical idea that could be contemplated by no one.


If god created a perfect human world then the humans might not create due to lack of necessity, but the god would still be a creator. Also, your theory kind of limits contemplation, deflecting such questions as where does god come from (nothing and nowhere, apparently) why does the creator do X, Y or Z (he's perfect, there's no need to question it).


Evil exists in this field because it is separate from God, however, through contemplation, it can return to God, meaning nothing is so evil that it is absolutely evil and thus nothing.


I don't understand what this is supposed to mean.

All right, the thread title was kind of misleading. This doesn't have anything to do with the existence of god, but rather the nature of god. It would've been nice to hear how you came to these conclusions.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


the foundation between God and his creation is the soul, which is part body, part divine. The body experiences pain, which is then transmitted to the soul, via the mind. The mind in turn is the foundation between body and soul.

The point is that everything is God, but appears to us as being different because of our lower modes of knowledge (senses, imagination, reason). If we were like God, we would see ourselves everywhere, since God is the truth. There would be no false impressions (or error/evil in our thinking). But because we are not perfectly enlightened beings, we see a universe, and wonder how on earth it could have come from nothing, not realizing that it did not come from earth, but rather from a higher, transcendent principle.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Negotium of Verum

Originally posted by filosophia

God does not reside in the universe, but outside of it. God is eternal, the universe is perpetual.



As I said, "it stands to reason that he is that which exists beyond our universe, and our perception."

Anyway, I am still playing Devil's Advocate. Time to show my true colors. I believe that, much like Quantum Physics suggests, we live in a state of superposition, or infinite possibility. In this state, all things that have happened, will, happen, or are happening occur simultaneously. Our earthly filters allow us to experience a linear view of time, which is really just an illusion; our senses simply can't comprehend the "allness"
In a way, this is very similar to what you said about how God experiences the Universe.
I also adhere to views that represent God as existing in, and permeating all things. My personnel take on the 'God Bubble" is very complex, but I will try to translate it into words as best I can.
I see God as the source, and our universe exists within this source. This could, if you were to look at God from an anthropomorphic standpoint(which I think he is not), mean that in a way, we exist as a creation of his mind.
Anyway, thanks for posting this, I'm liking your theory and your ability to stick to your guns.
As always, critiques are welcome!


I agree that our senses can't comprehend the allness, if it could everything we see would be the same (it would be God). I also agree with you that God is the source, and the universe exists within it, I would clarify by saying that the ideal plan of the universe exists within God, but as this plan evolves through God's will, the universe appears as "separate" from God in that it becomes mortal, or rather, it loses its immortality. However, this too is an illusion, since nothing is entirely separate from God, because all things can return to the source through contemplation. So in other words, I said it before, God creates his universe, and this universe contemplates its source and thus returns to that source, but does so in mind, while the body remains separate from the perspective of the senses.



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
To Polarwarrior, and filosophia;
I am seeing an interesting thing occurring between us.
First, I would like to clarify something. I believe it was in my first post here that I said I was going to play Devils Advocate. This is because If it were me presenting a theory, I would wish for an opponent to help me work out aspects I might have overseen.
In actuality, I am loving this op, and your post as well Polarwarrior. I think we can all agree that our beliefs share something in common with Buddhist Philosophy, which I love.
A little bit of the source shines within all of us.

[edit on 20-7-2010 by Negotium of Verum]



posted on Jul, 20 2010 @ 10:31 PM
link   
okay everyone, thanks for the great critiques, but I have to go for now. I will be back on tomorrow night and have responses to any questions I may have missed.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join