Nice RP...few here address emanationism.
On May 27, 12:15 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more »
