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.
Originally posted by NorEaster
"...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.
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?
We should probably just agree to disagree.
Originally posted by onequestion
First off, time can only be measured on a cosmic scale relative to your position of observation.
Einstein was an idiot. The information that is ever so popular to talk about is self contained. This means that if you have 1 bit of information, all of the information that you have is relative to that.
Originally posted by NorEaster
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.
Originally posted by AusiAnarchist
Originally posted by NorEaster
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.
Your ignoring the possibility of intelligent energy. I'm sure you would agree energy behaves strangely particularly at a sub atomic level.
Also if you consider this universe in which physical matter, as we know it, is a relatively small percentage of the total mass and then combine that with the idea that there may be multiple universes, it seems to me there is scope for the idea that god exploded part of itself.
Originally posted by Tayesin
I get a great laugh from those who flex their mental muscles and apply the process of logical argument to attempt a debunk of something that presently can only be experienced as a bigger-picture reality on an individual basis.
The sceptics cannot see the limitation of such argument because they as yet have no point of reference... other than that learned by rote. Which is to say they come from a limited perceptional background to begin with, hence the use of such argument to over-ride the offering of those who may have direct experience of their own.
Perhaps when science matures a little bit more from it's current state of just starting to crawl before it can walk, then perhaps these logical argumentists may finally see the inherent limitations of their own Beliefs... and thus all Indoctrinated Belief.
Until then they will continue to fail in gaining any understanding outside of their own Limitations.
Their phrases make no sense when set next to one another, and certainly not when one compares them with what can be directly experienced by simply stretching out one's hand into the world that presses in from all directions.
And I know that it's because I'm "not enlightened" and because my ego is still alive (whatever that means), that I can't see the obvious truth here. Then again, that's pretty much the sort of thing a schizophrenic would tell me in defense of his/her delusions, so what am I supposed to do? Believe you people or my lying eyes, ears, nose, mouth, touch, and rational capacity for comparative logic?
There are only two choices. Either something is real or it's not real.
And as far as determining what's real by experience alone, the human mind is the only free thing that exists. It sits at the very top of the entire existential structure, and the only thing it can't insist upon is the true nature of the structure that supports it and brings it into existence.
Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by bsbray11
Its because nothing is actually moving.
Try this experiment, and its really easy.
Imagine all of the empty space in the universe collapsing, bringing all of the matter in space to the same location, completely connected. Now imagine all of those same pieces of matter existing within the same space. This is the reality of what you are. When you were born into your world, all of the matter spread apart into an observable format so that you could turn it into your version of heaven, or shambala, or whatever you want to call it.
Originally posted by ATC_GOD
So what I am getting from this entire thread is that I created all of you, control all of you and therefore I create all of this. Everything you do, I control and command. Lil ole me....imagine that.
GO ME!
You are all welcome by the way. With out me.......aww you get it..
Originally posted by onequestion
reply to post by smithjustinb
There is no 4th dimensional self. This is snake oil peddled by misguided minds. The only dimension that exists is self. You either already are, or you already aren't. There is no going to be, or was.
Originally posted by smithjustinb
I'm talking about physical dimensions. There is obviously length width and height that come together to make 3 dimensions. I agree. There is only self, but I am not you from a 3d perspective, I am you from a 4d perspective. Each dimension is an aspect of Self.