It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NewAgeMan
Billions of people live their whole lives without perceiving God once. That's a lot of evidence.
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by grainofsand
Not my "belief" but my experience, and the thing that makes me laugh out loud in regards to the entrenched position of the materialist monist, which in light of the ... humor of understanding, reveals it's absurdity. Who then is the who who can stand apart from one's self and be aware of the movements of the self's mind and even be aware of the awareness of self and who can apply any number of models by which to evaluate both self and the world at large, who is free to do that if not the free self who transcends the machinations of automatic reaction/responses?
Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by grainofsand
Fair enough to each his own but I'll hate to lose you as a potential friend because this life is just the blink of an eye and then according to you, all is forgotten ie: that the experience of life is framed by two oblivions, another amuzing hypothesis when you really think it through all the way since I thought death was just part of life and not the other way around!
I'm not denying circular objects, only perfect circles. I can see how pixelated that particular circle is from here. If that's your idea of perfection I would say you should raise your standards a little.
Actually, that's not too bad. I enjoyed it. I remain unconvinced that a circle is in anyway divine, but that shouldn't take anything away from what you wrote.
If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.
If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.
[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."
Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."
I don't understand what you mean by beginning and end. You can hold a frisbee in two hands. Circles have an edge, a diameter. If you were to trace a circle, the circle would begin where you put your pencil down and end where you picked the pencil up.
If something was able to trace a circle infinitely, I would have to laugh at it because it would be doing something that was infinitely pointless.
Nonetheless your ideas here parallel Plato and his forms. Check out the Republic if you haven't already (I think book 5 if I remember correctly). He might add more arguments to your arsenal.
If it is pointless, that is not fact. That is a choice of perspective. It reveals more about how you feel in regards to your world than anything else.
In explaining this relationship, the CTMU shows that reality possesses a complex property akin to self-awareness. That is, just as the mind is real, reality is in some respects like a mind. But when we attempt to answer the obvious question "whose mind?", the answer turns out to be a mathematical and scientific definition of God. This implies that we all exist in what can be called "the Mind of God", and that our individual minds are parts of God's Mind. They are not as powerful as God's Mind, for they are only parts thereof; yet, they are directly connected to the greatest source of knowledge and power that exists. This connection of our minds to the Mind of God, which is like the connection of parts to a whole, is what we sometimes call the soul or spirit, and it is the most crucial and essential part of being human.
Why set your sights so short? Why is adding a 'cause' unnecessary? Is it really enough to know that something works, and of absolutely no benefit to us to discern why something works? A stagnant intellectual is no more useful than a simple machine. Curiosity and thirst for knowledge is a human's life-force. Personally, knowing that evolution exists is not enough. I want to know why it exists, and the argument that "discovering the answer to that question is tough" is not a good enough deterrent for me.
But what do I know?