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.

 

Understanding Creation.

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by AusiAnarchist
 


The experience I am describing IS from the perspective of God, but God is not bound to this dimension. He exists also in a dimension where everything happens at once and there is no time. So yes, we are all fragments, but only in this dimension. From God's perspective, he never even fragmented yet at the same time did and has all that experience too. It's complicated, but what I'm trying to convey is, God (higher self) is you even more so than "you" are you.

If one realizes this, then they can shape their future by will alone.

Also, it is one thing to read and talk about it, but it is another to experience it, and for me it is easier to experience it when I realize that 5 minutes from now is happening now.




posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


Yes i agree

i have no argument with you by the way on your view of us being fragments of the whole.
i just choose to stay here having seen what it means to be at the top of the game

i ave no wish to spend eternity as God.
i would come here too to be fragmented and have some fun.
my way is outside the road to salvation though jesus.
that dosnt mean i dont belive , just that my task is on a different road.
and as we are all parts of the same source, it dosnt matter to me what road we take.. as they all lead to the same place.
i just choose to stay on the road till there is no one else here.
think of it as a rear guard to make sure no one gets left behind on the way home.
especially the ones others dont want to help..

our belief isnt that different



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sprocket2cog
 


No our beliefs aren't that different at all.

I would like to say that in a realm where time is inexistant, you are already living every life there is, ever was, and ever will be. Therefore, it is by my understanding, even possible to reincarnate as a self-aware entity in a previous time.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
yes, and i think its even possible to meet ourselves in the same time and place

some people ask if we are all the same god in different bodies, why dont we know each other and what we are going to do next etc.
i say because we choose to forget, so we may experience things like they are the first time..
other wise it would get very boring rather quickly.

peace



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sprocket2cog
yes, and i think its even possible to meet ourselves in the same time and place

some people ask if we are all the same god in different bodies, why dont we know each other and what we are going to do next etc.
i say because we choose to forget, so we may experience things like they are the first time..
other wise it would get very boring rather quickly.

peace


Well when you look at me, aren't you looking at yourself? When you look at anything.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


yes, that's why i choose to stay on the road
because i wouldn't want to leave myself behind

I once had a friend tell me he would hate to live in the world i created, but i laugh now at the statement.. because he is already here too


leave no man behind



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The fact that some people get it supports my claim.


No, it doesn't.

People in Heaven's Gate cult "got it" when Marshall claimed they had to die to ride the Hale-Bopp comet. Their "getting it" didn't make it true.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by smithjustinb
The fact that some people get it supports my claim.


No, it doesn't.

People in Heaven's Gate cult "got it" when Marshall claimed they had to die to ride the Hale-Bopp comet. Their "getting it" didn't make it true.


This is NOT a cult. This is a philosophical (scientific pending) view of reality. That was a delusion based on nothing substantial, not even philosophy. My claims are based on philosophy and experience which are substantial. This is not something that I tell people and they believe what I say. This is something that anyone can look within themselves and know w/o having ever heard about it anywhere else. In fact, this is exactly how it is learned.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


And still the fact remains that because you don't get it and you think it's absurd, does not mean it is not true. If you don't believe me, and you want to post on my thread, then you need to prove it untrue. Don't come on here giving me negative opinions because they are just opinions. If you give me some facts that disprove it, I'll listen to what you got to say.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
This is NOT a cult. This is a philosophical (scientific pending) view of reality. That was a delusion based on nothing substantial, not even philosophy. My claims are based on philosophy and experience which are substantial. This is not something that I tell people and they believe what I say. This is something that anyone can look within themselves and know w/o having ever heard about it anywhere else. In fact, this is exactly how it is learned.


If you expect a rational person to believe all of your claims, you have to prove the existence of, for example, some place or some thing that exists "outside of space and time", "higher vibrational states", "god" and the definition you gave, etc.

Plenty of people may already believe in such things, though without good reason to do so. The title of your post indicates you'll convey some understanding, though there's so much unexplained, unsupported stuff in your explanation that I don't think you've accomplished your goal.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by sprocket2cog
 


I haven't sat in the throne room of god, but i do know of the experience that you speak of. I understand what you mean by taking the fall again and creating your heaven. I may have misunderstood your original statement but i fully agree with everything you just said.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
And still the fact remains that because you don't get it and you think it's absurd, does not mean it is not true.


Correct, and I haven't said it's not true.


If you don't believe me, and you want to post on my thread, then you need to prove it untrue.


Wrong. You made the claim so you need to establish the truth of it. If I tell you that pixies live in my sink we don't assume it's true until you disprove it.


Don't come on here giving me negative opinions because they are just opinions. If you give me some facts that disprove it, I'll listen to what you got to say.


You should listen to what I say because I've asked that you clarify a bunch of stuff that is unsupported and nonsensical. I even listed it all for you. Explaining your premises better only helps your case, right?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by traditionaldrummer
 


Philosophy- the academic discipline concerned with making explicit the nature and significance of ordinary and scientific beliefs and investigating the intelligibility of concepts by means of rational argument concerning their PRESUPPOSITIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND INTERRELATIONSHIPS.

This is why I choose the philosophy and metaphysics forum. My knowledge is gained by observing the interrelationships of concepts and their implications. This allows my knowledge to be my knowledge before someone ever conducts a scientific experiment and PROVES it to me with physical evidence.

By posting in this forum I don't have to prove anything. When I come across evidence for a philosophical perspective, I'll be sure to post it in the science and technology forum, but until then, everything you read here by me will always be presuppostions based on the implications of the interrelationships of my conceptual knowledge.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
By posting in this forum I don't have to prove anything.


Correct. You certainly don't. But if you make a bunch of claims that are unsupported or nonsensical, you may be asked to support or clarify them, particularly if your claims are directly contrary to observation and knowledge. Your post contains many such claims and you'd be wise to tie up all those loose ends.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb

Also, I'm sorry if I am confusing you with the jumbledness of my thoughts.


That's okay. The basic premise doesn't require that you make any sense, so relax.

That said, I do have a few questions.

  • If this is what creation was (is) all about, then at what point did it (does it) all initiate?
  • How did it (does it) initiate?
  • What was (is) there that was (is) lacking what it was (is) that initiated, forcing that initiation to occur?
  • Can we see your homework on this discovery? You know, the details of how this is proven by either obvious linkage to what we already know to be true, or the clear and compelling extrapolations between this idea and the basics of logical requirement that everything else adheres to so doggedly.

Nothing just is. Not if it's real anyway.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Do you remember being a baby? When was your first memory? Where did that memory come from and how did it get there?



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Do you remember being a baby? When was your first memory? Where did that memory come from and how did it get there?


That's perception. As information, it's not even fact. All perception is good for is establishing Identity.

Therefore, your analogy fails.

You exist as a physical manifestation, and whether you agree to that fact or not, it's still a fact. Since you are a physical manifestation, the obvious implication is that physical existence is not a myth of perception. In fact, in order to impact what exists as either perceived or as real, the active affecting agent must share physical state with what it is affecting. So, if you are a bit of god, and affecting other bits of god, then there is a shared physical state that is allowing you to achieve that effect. The direct implication is that regardless of what you believe to be true, you exist as physical, and with that established, your premise that you are god requires that god is physical, and that requires that your god have a physical genesis of some sort.

In fact, your premise works off the concept of required contextual juxtaposition as being the impetus for this god thing's self-fragmentation. So, tacitly, you're agreeing with what I'm stating here that this god serves the existential requirements of a physical state of being in its effort to experience relative context, and does not dominate them. The direct implication of your admission is that your god is not the whole of all that is - and beyond the confines of raw existential imperatives and requirements. That established, the requirement for share physical state - in this god's effort to experience relative juxtaposition with itself (even if only in an artificial sense of true contextual juxtaposition) - will necessarily be primordial, and certainly not something that this god of your can sidestep.

Then, you have to deal with the fact that the being state (relative versus absolute) is so foundational to the existential identity of whatever it is that exists, that no matter what it is it can't switch from relative (physical) to absolute (conceptual) at will, regardless of what the bible claims. Sure, it's easy to claim that this god thingy can do this, but even that god of yours knows better than to think it can. Hell, if what you say is true, then the damn thing literally exploded itself just to experience contextual juxtaposition. That doesn't sound like something that can command the existential state of being. Not if it has to fragment itself just to experience relative association.

There are a ton of other issues with your premise, but this is the one that is the easiest to detail. It's the buzzsaw in the doorway, and good luck getting through it without just tossing out the faith canard and bailing on the issue altogether.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Just following along here, offering ideas along with everyone else.


Originally posted by NorEaster
That said, I do have a few questions.

  • If this is what creation was (is) all about, then at what point did it (does it) all initiate?


There is no evidence that time is a universal constant. In fact, Einstein's theory of relativity seems to refute the idea pretty explicitly, in that it shows that the flow of time as perceived by an individual, is dependent upon that individual's velocity. Then you get to things like entanglement, which demonstrate an exchange of "information" or whatever you'd like to call it, that appears, from the best measurements so far, to occur at least 10,000x the speed of light, if not instantly...


To get around this, Gisin and colleagues performed their experiment many times over a 12-hour period. The rotation of the Earth throughout this time means that the researchers could put a limit on the duration of the time gap for any reference frame. They found that even for a reference frame that would produce the biggest gap — one moving relative to the Earth at close to the speed of light — the signal itself would have to travel more than 10 times the speed of light. For more realistic reference frames — say, one moving at a thousandth the speed of light relative to Earth — the signal would have to travel even faster, at more than 10,000 times the speed of light (Nature 454 861)


physicsworld.com...


What all this amounts to, is that even time is arbitrary and the appearance of time depends on variables.

At what point does it "all" initiate? To answer your question, there is obviously no way to answer that scientifically since even the "big bang" is a theory and is pretty lacking even at that. But what you would probably be looking for, is a frame of reference in which every other space-time that exists, is equi-distant, like the center of a circle from which all points along the circumference are at an equal distance. The fact that this center-point is a center-point, is what would seem to lend it a special quality of being central to all other space-times in existence, though the idea of "beginning" or "ending" may seem meaningless at that point since time itself is not constant or necessarily even linear.


  • How did it (does it) initiate?


  • This is another question of time, so it ties in to what I said above. Time is not universally constant, so any question about when it "all" started is going to result in an arbitrary answer.


  • What was (is) there that was (is) lacking what it was (is) that initiated, forcing that initiation to occur?


  • This is also dependent upon time, so you would get different answers depending on different frames of reference. It's like asking "how far away is the Eiffel Tower?" It depends on who you're asking. There is no single definitive answer to such a question.



    posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:57 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by bsbray11
    Just following along here, offering ideas along with everyone else.


    Originally posted by NorEaster
    That said, I do have a few questions.

    • If this is what creation was (is) all about, then at what point did it (does it) all initiate?


    There is no evidence that time is a universal constant. In fact, Einstein's theory of relativity seems to refute the idea pretty explicitly, in that it shows that the flow of time as perceived by an individual, is dependent upon that individual's velocity.


    "...as perceived by an individual" is the key phrase in that statement. This doesn't declare that time is malleable. It declares the perception of time to be malleable.

    In fact, there is overwhelming evidence - and all around us - that time is a universal constant. The fact that you experience a constant stasis between yourself (a hyper-dynamic changing event trajectory) and everything else around you that exists in the same being state as you do (stuff like chairs and the floor) is slam-dunk proof that time is a universal constant. This indicates that the event chain emerges from the realm of potential at a rate that is definitely universal. If not, then the issue of existential incompatibility would be overwhelmingly pervasive - and the truth is that its not.



    Then you get to things like entanglement, which demonstrate an exchange of "information" or whatever you'd like to call it, that appears, from the best measurements so far, to occur at least 10,000x the speed of light, if not instantly...


    I see. 10,000x the speed of light...... And this is measured...how? I think it's safe to assume that whoever came up with that estimate wasn't worried that anyone would require him to prove it. Regardless. That factoid (or whatever it is) has nothing to do with the reality of a universal time constant. Not relevant at all.



    To get around this, Gisin and colleagues performed their experiment many times over a 12-hour period. The rotation of the Earth throughout this time means that the researchers could put a limit on the duration of the time gap for any reference frame. They found that even for a reference frame that would produce the biggest gap — one moving relative to the Earth at close to the speed of light — the signal itself would have to travel more than 10 times the speed of light. For more realistic reference frames — say, one moving at a thousandth the speed of light relative to Earth — the signal would have to travel even faster, at more than 10,000 times the speed of light (Nature 454 861)


    physicsworld.com...


    What all this amounts to, is that even time is arbitrary and the appearance of time depends on variables.


    This is voodoo physics at its worst. Too much crazy talk is being tossed out by both sides of the divide, and worse yet, determinations are being made without anything other than their own assertions to build those determinations on.

    Besides, what has any of that got to do with a basic event/change rate of emergence (better known as time). Nothing. I don't respect the fact that these folks suggest that they can debunk the entire structural stability of emergent existence with one experiment that (if we're dealing with time intervals of 10,000x the speed of light) likely could use another 40 years of technological advancement, but what I really don't get is how that one experiment's hard-to-apply indication affects the fact that the linear and redundant event trajectory - within this contextual environment that you and I share - is intractably stable and consistent. Every split instant, you morph and reconfigure in perfect sync with everything that is morphing and reconfiguring right next to you. One experiment that offers vague indications that the researchers can't even place within a workable reality context isn't enough to debunk what's going on literally everywhere.


    At what point does it "all" initiate? To answer your question, there is obviously no way to answer that scientifically since even the "big bang" is a theory and is pretty lacking even at that. But what you would probably be looking for, is a frame of reference in which every other space-time that exists, is equi-distant, like the center of a circle from which all points along the circumference are at an equal distance. The fact that this center-point is a center-point, is what would seem to lend it a special quality of being central to all other space-times in existence, though the idea of "beginning" or "ending" may seem meaningless at that point since time itself is not constant or necessarily even linear.


    Time is the rate of emergent change. That rate of change is constant, and the fact that physical existence is stable enough to develop the levels of coordinated sophistication that obviously exist is solid evidence of that consistency.

    As far as the instant of physical genesis - if something exists in a relative state of being (or physical) it has to come into physical existence, and there aren't any options for the physical thing. The universe is just a tiny bit of the contextual environment, so I don't even bother with how it emerged. Its arrival was way down the development chain. I deal with the existential development chain in more of a macro sense than to bother with one minor aspect of it as a whole. Physical existence is not confined to matter. In fact, the particle's solidity is due only to the perception of the observer, who is just as lacking in dependable constancy as that particle. Both the particle and the observer are matrixed event wholes, so of course the observer sees the particle as solid.



  • How did it (does it) initiate?


  • This is another question of time, so it ties in to what I said above. Time is not universally constant, so any question about when it "all" started is going to result in an arbitrary answer.


    And yet, I've proven that what you believe is not true. It takes more than a post on tis board, but I did prove it and published the proof. I realize that there are theoretical physicists that have suggested that time is not a universal constant, but if they knew what would result if time wasn't the universal constant that it is, they'd think twice about their assertions. Then again, event physics and the science of contextual ramification is not the field of study that these characters focus on, so I can understand their ignorance when it comes to time. To them, time is the pain-in-the-ass that relentlessly debunks most of their most cherished breakthrough theories. Of course, they're going to declare time to be irrelevant.



  • What was (is) there that was (is) lacking what it was (is) that initiated, forcing that initiation to occur?


  • This is also dependent upon time, so you would get different answers depending on different frames of reference. It's like asking "how far away is the Eiffel Tower?" It depends on who you're asking. There is no single definitive answer to such a question.


    Take a moment to really open your mind to the progressive ramifications of a true lack of consistent event/change emergence within a hyper-dynamic event-dominated realm. The potential implications make the stomach swim. Isolating your view when taking on the subject of metaphysics will always cause you to walk down blind corridors. It's a subject that requires an extremely broad view of highly detailed focus.on very tiny implications. Lose track and the ramifications pile up quickly.

    We should probably just agree to disagree.



    posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:11 PM
    link   
    reply to post by NorEaster
     


    I am not making an analogy i was just asking you those questions.




    You exist as a physical manifestation, and whether you agree to that fact or not, it's still a fact. Since you are a physical manifestation, the obvious implication is that physical existence is not a myth of perception. In fact, in order to impact what exists as either perceived or as real, the active affecting agent must share physical state with what it is affecting. So, if you are a bit of god, and affecting other bits of god, then there is a shared physical state that is allowing you to achieve that effect. The direct implication is that regardless of what you believe to be true, you exist as physical, and with that established, your premise that you are god requires that god is physical, and that requires that your god have a physical genesis of some sort.


    I am not hypothesizing a fragmented god as you have implied with your response. Which by the way i don't know how you got all of this from a few simple questions in which you didn't answer. Curiously enough i think that "god", and i don't mean as have been defined by the bible, but defined by own experience in the absolute physical plane you describe. I define god as the all in everything, which is not fragmented. The all in everything meaning that everything from the seeds on the ground, to the birds in the air contains the all.


    edit on 8-6-2011 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



    new topics

    top topics



     
    6
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join