We are made in the image of The Creator - The Creator is NOT The Destroyer (A New Philosophy Creativ

reply to post by ImaFungi


Yeah so I suppose time is the ultimate mitigating factor of a destructive act in altering matter. But how can entropy be incorporated? Its a tricky one...

reply to post by DocHolidaze


The creation of a thought is only possible because of the multitude of destructive acts which enable the thought (for example, if you hadn't consumed food and broken down water molecules for a month you would be dead and unable to think)...plus the fact it is also the consequence of the thought which is implicit in its potential for construction or destruction. All thoughts (conscious or subconscious) have a role to play in the formation of the path our reality takes.

reply to post by jimmyx


are you kidding...you managed to add things to your house because you broke down and reconstructed materials. Your glass for windows was sand, your tiles slate, your timber trees etc. All the building materials (mortar etc.) was destructively created (catch 22!).

You lost 40lbs because your body effectively destroyed the excess by burning calories through physical exertion.

I can't believe I have to repeat this!

reply to post by ashleygwsmart


time is entropy....... the inevitability that structure will break down..... over time.

reply to post by ImaFungi

transfer of energy

that what life is all about, so eating of food and drinking of water is not destroying anything at all, but a transfer of energy, not destruction of energy, this being the case a thought by someone destroys nothing, just a product of transferring energy

reply to post by ashleygwsmart


So just because you don't like something, that automatically gives you the right to destroy it?

This is why we are in this problem.

reply to post by arpgme


Few peeps myself included have basicly asked you how something can be created from nothing, our argument essentially being that entropy must increase.

"Entropy is the thermodynamic property toward equilibrium/average/homogenization/dissipation: hotter, more dynamic areas of a system lose heat/energy while cooler areas (e.g., space) get warmer / gain energy; molecules of a solvent or gas tend to evenly distribute; material objects wear out; organisms die; the universe is cooling down. In the observable universe, entropy - like time - runs in one direction only (it is not a reversible process). One can measure the entropy of a system to determine the energy not available for work in a thermodynamic process, such as energy conversion, engines, or machines. Such processes and devices can only be driven by convertible energy, and have a theoretical maximum efficiency when converting energy to work. During this work, entropy accumulates in the system, which then dissipates in the form of waste heat."

So i humbly ask you again, how can something come from nothing?

reply to post by ImaFungi


So if we are to take the view that entropy increases disorder, if every molecule in the universe is moving away from each other over time (because the universe is expanding), will things ever return to an ordered state unless there is a 'big crunch'. Are both time and space expanding or is one expanding into the other?

reply to post by ashleygwsmart


quoted from u ,,"you would be dead and unable to think",,,,and your evidence for this would be??

reply to post by arpgme


No but I will act in accordance with my moral code, and you with yours, which does give me the right to destroy if it is in alignment with my moral intuition. You are stating that creativity permits you to claim any act is a virtuous one, of some moral worth. Creating weapons is in my opinion wrong, but if that weapon were to be used to destroy an 'evil' person to appease repression, then the destruction becomes a positive thing. Hence my prior post stating that in many ways creation and destruction are one and the same. Creation arises out of destruction (or rather, deconstruction).

Originally posted by ashleygwsmart
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

So if we are to take the view that entropy increases disorder, if every molecule in the universe is moving away from each other over time (because the universe is expanding), will things ever return to an ordered state unless there is a 'big crunch'. Are both time and space expanding or is one expanding into the other?

I dont think every molecule in the universe is moving away from each other ( I could be wrong but I thought that idea was reserved for the macro structures of galaxies moving away from each other)

things for the past millions of years ( these large structures,,, right down to planets and life) have been pretty ordered and stable,,,, but i guess life may be an example of this,,,, for we start out on the smallest level,,,, simple and ordered,, a few cells...... and then we grow,,,,, out bodies are very complex,, yet still ordered,,,,, we require the input of energy for the output of work and the inner maintenance and growth of our bodies,,, and over time the matter we are made of cannot last forever,,,, so it wares and eventually gives up,,,, to become recycled as it has recycled energy throughout its experience,.,.,...

big crunch and stuff i dont know much about,,,,, I wouldnt worry about it since its so far away.,,... but I guess eventually eventually it is predicted if the universe did have a begging and there is finite energy,,, the energy will not be able to maintain it self infinitely,,, so it will be used and used ,, and become more diffuse and diffuse,,,, yet there is the axiom energy cannot be created or destroyed only transferred,,,,,, so i dont know if that implies that the energy that exists right now has always existed in some form,,,,, and even after its diffused throughout the expansed universe,,, it will be the same amount of potential energy at any point in the time of the universe.....

as for your space and time question,,, physicists view space and time as a united manifold, which i cannot explain well enough soo check out these videos.....

www.youtube.com...


p.s. What does the GW stand for in your name?

reply to post by ImaFungi



My head hurts! It's my middle names Graham William. Why?

reply to post by ashleygwsmart


ahh just wondering,,,, I thought it might have been something else..

reply to post by ImaFungi


It's one and the same to people whose philosophy accepts violence. Creating something that will help with the INTENTION of destroying is bad - this is the same thing that happened with the Satanic Energy, possessing more people and getting them to accept more Hatred and Violence little by little...

reply to post by arpgme


is you destroying a cows child for a hamburger bad for the cow?

is it good for you?


is america bombing Iraq bad for the iraqi citizens who die and for the family of the deceased..?

but good for america since they do it?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by arpgme

 

is you destroying a cows child for a hamburger bad for the cow?

is it good for you

Yes, destroying is bad. They say that eating a fruit or vegetable is still killing, but it is not the same. Taking the fruit from the tree or a vegetable which grew from a root, is not the same as destroying a full being that can not easily regenerate. When you kill a baby cow, the whole thing dies, when you eat a regenerating fruit or vegetable, you take that part of and it grows back. Its consciousness is mainly in the root/seed. By the way, because they [the cows] are afraid of dying, they release Toxins in their body which is bad for the consumer.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by arpgme

 

is america bombing Iraq bad for the iraqi citizens who die and for the family of the deceased..?

but good for america since they do it?

It is not good for either side. By destroying things, you are destroying yourself since everything is connected. Humans are choosing to destroy humanity for whatever reason...

Generally speaking, by destroying things, people can get addicted to the 'controlling' of other people, which is bad because when people show them reality that they can not just 'control' everything, they will retaliate with destruction.

reply to post by BobAthome


Fair enough, but let's keep it real. We currently have no tangible empirical evidence for an afterlife (with reproducable effects) so it is safe to say if I am lying dead on the ground, and you come up and take a crap on my chest, I do not have the capacity to think about stopping you. Even if I can think or it is acknowledged by the collective consciousness we may all be individual expressions of, my personal self is as good as gone.

reply to post by arpgme


Ok so if you believe in Satanic energy, you believe in God. If you are a proponent of the Abrahamic God (you must be to believe in Satan), then you accept that God is the ULTIMATE destroyer, and he created Satan. THEREFORE EVEN THE BIBLE AGREES (sorry I can't do italics) that creation and destruction are not mutually exclusive concepts.

reply to post by arpgme


And destroying is not always bad. You're not one of those who would sooner die than kill an animal to survive are you? That is destroying. Or a die-hard (excuse the pun) pacifist who would sooner die than stab their assailant in the face? Get real. Unfortunately violence is needed...but only for defence.

Originally posted by ashleygwsmart
reply to post by arpgme

 

Ok so if you believe in Satanic energy, you believe in God. If you are a proponent of the Abrahamic God (you must be to believe in Satan), then you accept that God is the ULTIMATE destroyer, and he created Satan. THEREFORE EVEN THE BIBLE AGREES (sorry I can't do italics) that creation and destruction are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Why would a belief in Satan mean that you have to believe in God? It doesn't, certain Satanists do not even believe in God or The Bible yet they believe in Satan.

Also, I never said I believed in Satan. I was just using the word "Satanic" to describe its quality - cruel, evil, destructive.

Originally posted by ashleygwsmart
reply to post by arpgme

 

And destroying is not always bad. You're not one of those who would sooner die than kill an animal to survive are you? That is destroying. Or a die-hard (excuse the pun) pacifist who would sooner die than stab their assailant in the face? Get real. Unfortunately violence is needed...but only for defence.

Unfortunately, in this word where Satanic energy is controlling things (for now), people make fun of the good. It is sad that a person would make fun of another just for not wanting to cause suffering through violence.