On 1 June, 11:13, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > We cannot make something out of nothing but God is the wonder who makes > everything out of nothing. >
Or...He makes everything out of Himself. And, as there is nothing ELSE, He has little choice in that regard. ;-) > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 29 May, 05:07, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > God is not made of any substance or energy, rather he is the creator of > > > energy. He is pure spirit , untouched by anything and the source of > > > everything. > > > Whilst I've heard that said many times, if God is not made of any > > substance but 'pure Spirit', what, then, is pure spirit made of? I > > can only find one thing that exists in this universe...energy. But, > > of course, that 'form' of energy is unlike any other and I can easily > > see why you may not understand it AS energy. Yet there is nothing > > ELSE that exists. IF you believe that energy is 'sourced' from > > spirit, then energy itself must be another form of 'Spirit'. If that > > is the case, then energy and spirit are still interchangable like > > energy and mass. > > > > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
