The universe came out of nothing. But what is that nothing? It is the Spirit, the Mind, and it is not made of any substance or energy; it does not occupy any space and has no attribute except that it is the soul from which the whole universe emanates , is governed and reclaimed. It is eternal and uncreate.
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 25 May, 18:30, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have written > > > something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic alternative. > > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an effect with > > > no cause. > > > > But that's your presumption, Pat, about atheist belief or non - > > belief ! Whoever said it is without cause. The scientific view would > > be that both cause and effect are the same, only differentiated by > > time. It's One, and it's nature. The same that is both cause and > > effect. > > > > The standard scientific view is that the Big Bang sprang forth from > 'nothing'. I.e., no cause. Something from nothing. That is, simply > put, absurd. And there is no evidence that anything can come from > nothing. Rather, it is far more likely that 'everything' would, at > some point, appear to be nothing, given a particular geometric > configuration. Science purporting that cause and effect are the same > is bordering on theology. Science (with respect to the Standard Model > and/or Quantum Dynamics) does NOT purport Oneness, so, please, refrain > from stating that it does. > > > > There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any > > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. With > > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by atheistic > > > viewpoint). > > > > The only purpose is anthropomorphic, as we humans can fathom. And that > > should be perfectly acceptable, compared to anything delusional you > > may be convinced of ! > > > > LOL!! More animosity. Response: yes, perhaps the purpose for US > would be anthropomorphic, but, for any creature, it would be > creaturomorphic, if you can get your head around that. If you think > that delusional rather than objective and egalitarian to all species, > then, I can live with that. > > > > Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is > > > it 'without purpose'? > > > > Yes. Much of it, that is ! > > > > Actually, there is nothing done in this universe without purpose. > Every effect is the purpose of the cause. And, if, as you state > above, both cause and effect are the same, then there could be NO > differentiation as your 'much of it' implies. Rather, it's an all or > nothing. Simple logic without the emotional content. > > > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential outcomes to > > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every action > > > there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you have > > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. However, I'm > > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how > > > ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and no > > > reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? > > > > What has the Newton's Third Law do with your delusional talk, Pat ? > > Why are you bringing it up ? > > > > The third law of motion is for 'bodies in motion'. Newton did NOT > state that those bodies had to be 'physical' and, as he was an > alchemist, I seriously doubt that he really believed that his laws > were bound to the physical; however, of course, a carefully couched > statement as "a body in motion..." covers himself and allows the > reader to make false inferences. And why do you insist that what I > say is delusional? Disprove me! Or are you going to hide behind the > "I don't have to back up my negative statement" argument that is, so > often bandied about by those who have no argument? > > > Yes, the Law works in Newtonian mechanical universe, but perhaps not > > in photonic dimensions, in EM environment ! But, so what ? > > > > Uh, I think you'll find that a photon in motion will react in > accordance with Newton's laws of reaction to other bodies. And, of > course, you won't find a photon at rest. What are'photonic > dimensions', BTW? Or are you obfuscating on purpose? > > > Stop beating about the bush, Pat ! Just state what do you know, as is > > evident. Also, state what you believe, as against know. It's important > > for you to segregate the two to eliminate the delusional effects > > heavily settled upon you. > > > > I'm not deluded. Prove that I am! Just state what you know and > believe...all of it. In 3 lines. LOL!! No, of course I won't hold > you to that, it would be grossly unfair. So why do you insist on > being unfair to me? Rationality? More likely you fear your paradigm > being shifted. Good. Many people will. Others will welcome it. I > expect a spectrum of reactions and yours are well within tolerance. > You have now asked me to 'state what I believe'. Do you really think > I have time to do that? Not even my book will cover all of what I > believe as most of what I believe ( for example, what my sister thinks > about her nephews) is completely irrelevant to what you are enquiring > about. It's important for you that I fit into a compartment for you > so that you can discriminate according to your preconceived > notions...that's one thing that I now believe. I also believe that > you believe that I'm deluded. I'm not. Prove otherwise. You've made > the positive statement that I'm deluded. Back it up. And, by the > way, use as much time and effort as you like. However, if I were in > your position, I wouldn't waste a single moment on it because ANY > amount of time spent on trying to prove me deluded will be, by your > own view, wasted time. > > > > > > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. > Why > > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to > enjoy > > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying > to > > > > > > kiss god's ass? > > > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said. > > > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. How would > you > > > > > know? > > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained > phenomena > > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man > made "God > > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the > world > > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often > find > > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as > empirical > > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this > is mass > > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of > the > > > > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these > > > > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you hooked on > your lack > > > > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very same thing > that > > > > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your are bound > in > > > > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have the > believing > > > > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It comes down > to > > > > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control and > greed for > > > > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, spoke of > "the > > > > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being worshiped. It is > not the > > > > > > > true "God" as I understand God. Far be it from me to try to > convince > > > > > > > you of anything as it is beyond my capacity but I am certain > that God > > > > > > > shall do his own work with you. > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:22 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say still > evokes > > > > > > > > the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what IS > just IS > > > > > > > > can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my > window. You > > > > > > > > have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. When > looking at > > > > > > > > the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which essentially > is a human > > > > > > > > construct stemming from the need to address the unknown. > > > > > > > > We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a sort of > macro- > > > > > > > > religion which defines everything in terms of what we see and > > > > > > > > experience with our physical senses while the natural world > leaves > > > > > > > > open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is the > point at > > > > > > > > which the constructs begin to take form because there is no > proof > > > > > > > > otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without scientific > proof > > > > > > > > anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and create > "Myth". > > > > > > > > Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods and > sacrificial > > > > > > > > human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason we > have yet to > > > > > > > > let go of the main theme of religious belief. > > > > > > > > Religion's foundation is completely based on explanation of > the > > > > > > > > unknown and the unseen, the perceptions of good and evil and > the need > > > > > > > > to explore afterlife. These perceptions/constructs lead to a > oneness, > > > > > > > > a central being, a deity and in some cultures a multiplicity, > a > > > > > > > > composite of deities assigned to elements of the universe > such as the > > > > > > > > ocean and the sun. Tack on the egocentric nature of humanity > and what > > > > > > > > you get is man's idea that he is an appendage of the oneness, > an > > > > > > > > extension of the almighty. Now we have gods with an uncanny > > > > > > > > resemblance to humans; why am I not surprised. Religions are > > > > > > > > worshiping "Humanity". Jesus = the only begotten son of god. > Why? > > > > > > > > We are the children of god. Really? Say's who? This > tendency is > > > > > > > > unrealistic for me and no one has ever throughout history > shown in > > > > > > > > anyway a proof concerning religious dogma. It all remains to > this day > > > > > > > > simple "Myths" from which to launch holy wars, commit > unspeakable > > > > > > > > atrocities, build huge organizations that collect tithing and > instill > > > > > > > > guilt and fear for living a natural and normal life. > > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 6:51 am, Pat <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 16 May, 15:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > The ball of elaboration is in your court, this is your > thread. You > > > > > > > > > > are making broad statements without saying much. > > > > > > > > > > > > You see agnostics as having a "problem" because you have > anchored > > > > > > > > > > yourself within your personal set of beliefs that you > consider > > > > > > > > > > truths. > > > > > > > > > > > > While issues can be linked to each other they can also be > explored > > > > > > > > > > individually. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't see the thread going anywhere other than reaching > levels of > > > > > > > > > > redundancy without resolution. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm with Albert Einstein below. > > > > > > > > > > > > Borrowed FROM: > > > > > > > > > > Molly Brogan Thread May 26, 2008 > > > > > > > > > > > > According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects > illuminated > > > > > > > > > > by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends > them, and > > > > > > > > > > functions intelligently; but when it turns to the > twilight world of > > > > > > > > > > change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision > is confused > > > > > > > > > > and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack > intelligence. (Plato, > > > > > > > > > > Republic) > > > > > > > > > > > > To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a > rationally > > > > > > > > > > ordered system that is God. > > > > > > > > > > > > To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated > > > > > > > > > > system in which everything is contained. > > > > > > > > > > > > To Einstein, “the truth of > > > > > > > > > > the Universe is human truth.” > > > > > > > > > > > While I usually support Einstein, here we differ a tad. > Einstein went > > > > > > > > > in search of truth and discovered 'relativity'. This > discovery > > > > > > > > > flavoured his view of truth, as he discovered the > importance of the > > > > > > > > > 'reference point' from within the system. But what if > one's reference > > > > > > > > > point is outside the system? The Qur'an states (22:6) 'God > is the > > > > > > > > > Reality/Absolute Truth.' The Arabic is "Allah Al-Haqq". > It's a > > > > > > > > > statement that is perfectly congruent with the physics I > propose and, > > > > > > > > > within it, still allows for the 'Special Relativity' that > we > > > > > > > > > experience. The viewpoint is whether or not one is outside > or inside > > > > > > > > > the box. Einstein was IN the box whereas Allah IS the box. > > > > > > > > > > > > Read More @ > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/8531f4e... > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 6:37 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> > wrote:> Thank You! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand it all very well and did not discredit > anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I simply recognized a multi-faceted post which needs > clarification on > > > > > > > > > > > > some specifics. > > > > > ... > > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - >
