On 27 May, 20:15, 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. >
I think it would be very hard to state firmly that Spirit or Mind is, in essence, nothing. As nothing is nothing. You can't, logically, equate nothing with something and both spirit and/or Mind is something. We've found nothing in this universe that isn't some form of energy, what makes you think that energy isn't also the substance of Spirit? I propose that it is, although a form that is not tangible, simply because it doesn't exist in our 4-D space-time. It emanates via a physical interface and it is that physical interface that we CAN detect. But I will definitely agree 100% that Spirit is the driving force behind this universe and that it both governs this universe and that our individual spirits will be 'reclaimed' by the One. But, as energy is neither created nor destroyed, it then can also be described as eternal and uncreated. Rather than 'nothing', energy in 'pure spiritual' form was the form that existed prior to any 'original', physical creation. > > > 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 »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
