Proof that we exist on both the physical and the non-physical.

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:24 AM
link   
## Everything in life has its opposite. We can call this the Law of Opposites The opposite of something might not be readily recognizabe and discovering what it is can be enlightening. Opposites give life motion, make the seemingly impossible possible. Some think of it as duality but its much more than that. It is symmetrics, harmonics, balance.

You can't think of something as being of itself, completion, totality unless you include its opposite. What is the opposite of a human being? There is more than one answer. The sexual opposite of a female is a male. The opposite of a good person is a bad person. The opposite of a love filled person is a hate filled person. But what is the opposite of a physical human being? It has to be a non-physical human being, just as the opposite of gravity is non-gravity, and of matter anti-matter. To claim that there is no such thing as a non-physical human being is to deny the law of opposites and that can't be done. So what then is the non-physical aspect of a human? It has to be what we term Spirit, the ethereal quality that manifests us here on the physical. We must be as much of the one as of the other. Therefore we exist not only on the physical but also on the non-physical.

This raises an interesting question: What becomes of our non-physical body when the physical body decays? Or, put it the other way: If our non-physical body is adversely affected by an alien cosmic force what happens to our physical body?

What happens when we die? If the physical no longer exists then neither can the non-physical yet it is illogical to infer that they reduce to nothing if only for the obvious reason that they could not have arisen from out of nothing.

I'm not sure where science or evolution theory stand on this matter. Anyone know? I know I've been ridiculously brief.




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shema
This raises an interesting question: What becomes of our non-physical body when the physical body decays? Or, put it the other way: If our non-physical body is adversely affected by an alien cosmic force what happens to our physical body?


I like what Carl Sagan had to say about that.

"The cosmos is also within us
We're made of star stuff
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself

Across the sea of space
The stars are other suns
We have traveled this way before
And there is much to be learned"

Pretty profound and to the point.




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 


Hey, you could be right, but I have a little problem with your analogy. When you look for the opposite of a human I'm thinking a human is life. And, the opposite of life is death (or non-life). Not EVERYTHING can have an opposite, because what would be the opposite of rock? People might think that the opposite of light is darkness, but darkness is merely the absence of light - darkness is not a thing.

edit on 2/2/2013 by jiggerj because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Shema
 


Hey, you could be right, but I have a little problem with your analogy. When you look for the opposite of a human I'm thinking a human is life. And, the opposite of life is death (or non-life). Not EVERYTHING can have an opposite, because what would be the opposite of rock? People might think that the opposite of light is darkness, but darkness is merely that absence of light - darkness is not a thing.



Well a human lives, so too does a bird. I sing but I am not the song. To say a rock doesn't have an opposite is presumptive. Opposites are not always obvious. The opposite of light is not darkness regardless of what people might think. Just what is light's opposite is still a mystery and a very intriguing one. Darkness is not a thing, as you say. Anything that is energy has an opposite. A rock is formed of energized atoms.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:17 AM
link   
I have a couple of issues with your theory.

First of all I don't believe everything does have an opposite.

Secondly, life isn't a single thing and neither are humans, both are a result of many things working together. If the law of opposites existed, then surely it wouldn't apply to things grouped together, that wouldn't really make sense.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 


The opposite of an existing human being is a non-existing human being. That's one angle. The one I don't like much.


What happens when we die? If the physical no longer exists then neither can the non-physical;

I found that to be the most interesting part of your post.

It's not often you here someone talk about having a spirit body but then talk about non-existence after death.

That's a whopper of an idea really. Imagine science discovering definitively we have 'astral bodies' but we still die forever at bodily death



yet it is illogical to infer that they reduce to nothing if only for the obvious reason that they could not have arisen from out of nothing.

It does indeed seem illogical that 'something comes from nothing'. In fact that's an opposite to add..

What's the opposite of eternity? Something coming from nothing.

^ worded differently. Infinity vs finite.

So I don't have anything insightful to add. It's very much past bedtime.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Rearry?

The opposite of "physical" is non"physical"? Is the opposite of star, non star? Is the opposite of spider non spider? Is the opposite of bicycle non bicycle?

I think you're searching for validation of your hopes and dreams of another world when there is none, so you make stuff up.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shema

## Everything in life has its opposite. We can call this the Law of Opposites The opposite of something might not be readily recognizabe and discovering what it is can be enlightening.
There is no scientific foundation for such law. If you feel otherwise, cite scientific sources.

If you can't, you posted this topic in the wrong forum.

Even in a field where some people think it might apply, like electric charge, a negatively charged electron is not the opposite of a positively charged proton.

Proton-to-electron mass ratio
A proton is about 1836 times more massive than an electron.

Edit to add: Regarding anti-matter, it's hypothesized a lot existed after the big bang, but it's essentially all been destroyed. So most matter does not have anti-matter for an opposite, which pretty much disproves the "law of opposites".

www.exploratorium.edu...

All the theories of physics say that when the universe burst into existence some fifteen billion years ago with the Big Bang, matter and antimatter existed in equal amounts. Erupting from a celestial cauldron of unfathomable temperatures, matter and antimatter materialized and then annihilated repeatedly, finally disappearing back into energy, known as the cosmic background radiation. The laws of nature require that matter and antimatter be created in pairs. But within a millifraction of a second of the Big Bang, matter somehow outnumbered its particulate opposite by a hair, so that for every billion antiparticles, there were a billion and one particles. Within a second of the creation of the universe, all the antimatter was destroyed, leaving behind only matter.
edit on 2-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
It's not an either-or. It's not that either everything has an opposite or something doesn't.
It's a both-and.

edit on 2-2-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 

That's a good one. Here's another: St. Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God.
  • God is the most perfect being that can be imagined.

  • But if God is only imagined, then we can imagine something greater than God – the most perfect being that can be imagined, existing in reality.

  • Therefore the most perfect being is one that exists in reality as well as in the imagination.

  • Therefore God must exist.

Good, eh?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:04 AM
link   
People who believe in reincarnation and life "regression".....seeing people who can tell you what life you had before this one.....


Those people all pretty much come to the conclusion that you can be pulled from a physical body and put in another life form on any planet...in any solar system...in any galaxy. Some other higher power decides where we are and where we should be to learn or alter some event some place.

I'm not saying what they believe is right. But it may explain it. We're parasites to material life forms....we're multi-dimensional energy life forms.

You could be pulled from your physical life form right now and put into a white jellyfish like lifeform under the frozen ice on a moon of Jupiter....somebody else could get thrown into your physical body here.

Crazy bunch of people to talk to.....the only thing they can't get their heads around is how many people claim they were Adolph Hitler in a past life.......hundreds of thousands..........so it could all just be crazy people...LOL!



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 


What you are trying to say is not that everything "has" an opposite, as in opposite that is somehow described by a natural law, and can objectively be determined. I guess you are trying to say that we, humans, have the mental capablilty to come up with an opposite for about everything that makes sense in some way or another to at least some of us.

But I am not sure what this has to do with science.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Shema
 

That's a good one. Here's another: St. Anselm's ontological proof of the existence of God.
  • God is the most perfect being that can be imagined.

  • But if God is only imagined, then we can imagine something greater than God – the most perfect being that can be imagined, existing in reality.

  • Therefore the most perfect being is one that exists in reality as well as in the imagination.

  • Therefore God must exist.

Good, eh?



This argument makes no sense to me. You can as well write:

  • The devil is the most evil being that can be imagined.

  • But if the devil is only imagined, then we can imagine something more evil than the devil – the most evil being that can be imagined, existing in reality.

  • Therefore the most evil being is one that exists in reality as well as in the imagination.

  • Therefore the devil must exist.


You can basically fill in any property in there:

  • Smufs are the most smurfy beings that can be imagined.

  • But if the smurfs are only imagined, then we can imagine something more smurfy than smurfs – the most smurfy beings that can be imagined, existing in reality.

  • Therefore the most smurfy beings are the ones that exists in reality as well as in the imagination.

  • Therefore smurfts must exist.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Shema
 

What you're saying could just as well apply to every living thing.

I dislike it when only humans gain access to immortality (of any sort).

It's anthropocentric.

Equal access.

Think...

Every ant cell on earth, sextillions of them, all have non-material counterparts. Every mammal. Every sea creature. Every bacterium. Every fungi and single-celled organism.

And everything else out there that's living.

I don't believe any of this. But if I did, it would have equal access.
edit on 2-2-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:02 PM
link   
A physical human being implies a dense, solid one, while a non-physical human being would imply a light, hollow, airy one, ethereal, if you will. Just because something is non-physical as you say, does not negate it's existence as physicality is not dependent on this.

Your thoughts for example, are non-physical, they carry no weight, no solidity and yet you know they exist. You can manifest your non-physical ideas into the physical universe, such as an architect brings their three-dimensional structure into existence from a two-dimensional blueprint. On the other hand, say when a physical human being ceases to function, their physicality will be manifested into the non-physical, ethereal reality, or in other words, a more thought-based, feeling-based reality.

This is not to say it's one or the other as those are only two polarities of a spectrum. It can be everything in between these two extremes. Many of you exist more in an ethereal, thought-based reality, than you do in a solid, physical one and vice-versa.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by Shema
This raises an interesting question: What becomes of our non-physical body when the physical body decays? Or, put it the other way: If our non-physical body is adversely affected by an alien cosmic force what happens to our physical body?


I like what Carl Sagan had to say about that.

"The cosmos is also within us
We're made of star stuff
We are a way for the cosmos to know itself

Across the sea of space
The stars are other suns
We have traveled this way before
And there is much to be learned"

Pretty profound and to the point.



No, it is totally banal and only to the point for someone who wishes his scientific agnosticism/atheism to be confirmed. It contains a hidden message that debunks the notion of a higher intelligence or purpose to our universe. It is preaching pure materialism - the notion that human beings are just recycled stardust and NOTHING more. Yes, Sagan, we get your hidden message. It's what a high-school atheist would think having just read a book on astronomy. But, of course, it's words of wisdom only to the dumbed-down masses delivered by a high priest of popular science who preached that science has replaced religion and the paranormal.

Some of us have moved light years beyond our schooldays.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpearMint
I have a couple of issues with your theory.

First of all I don't believe everything does have an opposite.

Secondly, life isn't a single thing and neither are humans, both are a result of many things working together. If the law of opposites existed, then surely it wouldn't apply to things grouped together, that wouldn't really make sense.


I wouldn't argue about whether you believe it or not, its your choice but your second sentence makes no sense. If you were to provide an example of things grouped together maybe I could share in an understanding of what you are inferring.
But I never said life is a single thing, it is because everything has an opposite that everything works together, rather than everything existing in a state of chaos.
I guess you don't understand a word of my thread, you just didn't like it so you reacted negatively without knowing why. Going by several of the posts that followed yours you are not alone.
Talk about negatives grouped together......



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Rearry?

The opposite of "physical" is non"physical"? Is the opposite of star, non star? Is the opposite of spider non spider? Is the opposite of bicycle non bicycle?

I think you're searching for validation of your hopes and dreams of another world when there is none, so you make stuff up.


This is typical troll material. Go back to your hole in the ground.
edit on 2-2-2013 by Shema because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by -PLB-
reply to post by Shema
 


What you are trying to say is not that everything "has" an opposite, as in opposite that is somehow described by a natural law, and can objectively be determined. I guess you are trying to say that we, humans, have the mental capablilty to come up with an opposite for about everything that makes sense in some way or another to at least some of us.

But I am not sure what this has to do with science.


No, I'm not saying that at all. Are you saying opposites don't exist except in the imagination?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shema

## Everything in life has its opposite. We can call this the Law of Opposites


I would personally prefer to continue calling the concept what it has been called for centuries; "duality." It is an ancient concept, no need to reinvent the wheel!

It is certainly some interesting stuff, but using the word "proof" in this context would imply that you are able to quantify something which is non-physical. Inherently, there are some difficulties in that assertion. It is philosophy and not science. That doesnt automatically make it less valuable or valid, but it is a distinction.





 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join