Hahah I'll drink tothat, and indeed fish to it too.
On Mar 2, 2:35 pm, Clayton Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > Well, with what I've said and what others have said. I feel that it is best > to just give thanks that were here. It is obvious that there is infinite > complexity in some way or another. God could come down tomorrow and say that > he created everything, but who created God and so on and so forth. I think > I'm just going to say to hell with it and BBQ and go catfishing for the > rest of my life. Oh yeah, and build a model for self sustainability that I > plan to share with the world so others can free themselves from unnecessary > stress and meaningless work and actually enjoy life. > > On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:03 PM, [email protected] < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > Also go get any book by that nutcase William Grey, if you want to read > > more on the qabblah. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Gray > > > Umm Clayton that was addressed to > > > On Mar 2, 1:32 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mar 1, 2:46 pm, Clayton Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I wish I had a more advanced language to work with. I use words like > > > > conscience and energy but these words just don't cut it. Perhaps I > > should > > > > create my own words and define them. > > > > Clayton, I was thinking more about this last night and I think I've > > > come up with a neologism for you. You describe a 'limitless nothing' > > > from which everything came. Taking a recent neologism and tweaking it > > > a bit for your intention, why not call it "Cypherspace"--derived from > > > tweaking 'Cyberspace' and conflating it with the nothingness intended > > > by the term 'cypher'? It's very catchy, well, at least I thought it > > > was...but I could be a bit biased at my own creation. ;-) > > > > Also, this concept of a 'limitless nothing' is not a new concept. In > > > fact, it's millenia old. It's a functional aspect of Kabbalah--Jewish > > > mysticism. Their term for it is "Ain Soph" (the 'ai' in Ain is > > > pronounced like 'eye' the 'Soph' is pronounced exactly like sofa > > > without the final 'a'; alternatively, it's spelled "Ein Sof", which > > > appeals better to those who speak German, as it leads to the proper > > > pronunciation.) Ain, literally, means 'nothing' and 'Soph' means > > > 'limitless'. In the Kabbalah, the Creation of the universe is > > > symbolised by the Tree of Life with its 10 emanations; however, there > > > are 3 pre-emanations that precede the 'substantial' emanations. They > > > are > > > 0) Ain = Nothing > > > 00) Ain Soph = Limitless nothing > > > 000) Ain Soph Aur = Limitless light > > > > Here's a link that you might find interesting, as it will give more > > > information on both the Ain Soph and the Tree of Life in general: > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_sof > > > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Clayton Taylor < > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > I have a hard time believing that energy cant be created. In my > > theory, new > > > > > energy is always constantly created where there is nothing. > > > > > > On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Pat <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > >> On Mar 1, 2:00 pm, "[email protected]" < > > [email protected]> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > Hey Pat, > > > > > >> > I did wonder when you would put in an apperance. > > > > > >> Out of the past 59 days, I've had about 42 of them with migraines. > > > > >> I've had loads of time off and, thus, haven't had access to the > > > > >> internet. > > > > > >> > Yep I had the same thought you know. When we talk of human > > > > >> > conciousness we are talking basicly an electrical impulse, can the > > > > >> > same be said of a bodyless God? What then is meant by the > > > > >> > conciousness of God? > > > > > >> A different 'form' of energy (spiritual energy). In my theory, its > > > > >> the form that appears in 3 out of the 6 Calabi-Yau dimensions. > > > > > >> > Myself I sometimes use this word (conciousness) when talking about > > > > >> > Gods 'essance' or 'spirit'. In order to show that whatever it is, > > it > > > > >> > needs to be understood that it does not consit of matter, and when > > I > > > > >> > say matter I also mean energy, that is nothing that was not > > present > > > > >> > before the creation. > > > > > >> Exactly! Whilst matter is a form of energy, so, too, is spirit. > > But > > > > >> it's not found in this 4-D world. Although, because the spirito- > > > > >> physical interface (our nervous system) is so good, we tend to think > > > > >> we see it whem in reality, what we are seeing is only the physical > > > > >> aspect of the interface. Remember, when it comes to energy, > > > > >> 'potential energy' has no appearance whatsoever. It doesn't look > > like > > > > >> anything, yet it has complete potential FOR everything. And THAT is > > > > >> the key to solving the conundrum. All energy was, at some point, > > > > >> purely potential. At that point, the only thing it COULD do was to > > > > >> try to reach that potential and the show began. > > > > > >> > Again personaly speaking I have no problems seeing God as the > > original > > > > >> > cause. To ask what then caused God is meaningless, to my mind. > > > > > >> Especially when science is clearly happy that energy is neither > > > > >> created nor destroyed!! > > > > > >> > On Mar 1, 1:32 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > On Mar 1, 11:27 am, "[email protected]" < > > [email protected] > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > >> > > > Have you ever read the 'Conversations with God' Books? > > > > > >> > > > It's auother suggests much the same and gives a reason fro the > > > > >> > > > creation. Thusly: > > > > > >> > > > Gods knowledge is perfect but what is knowledge without > > experiance, > > > > >> > > > and so 'let there be light' and the creation was created. For > > God > > > > >> to > > > > >> > > > experiance. > > > > > >> > > While, in principle, I agree, the proposition states no > > methodology-- > > > > >> > > no mechanism--for getting from point A (nothing) to point B > > > > >> > > (something). There needs to be a mechanism, even for a God, to > > get > > > > >> > > something from nothing. Alternatively, Clayton's proposition is > > > > >> > > slightly better in that it doesn't propose that there WAS a > > nothing, > > > > >> > > per se, rather , that the nothing was, in fact, a something. > > > > >> > > Nevertheless, what is lacking THERE is what IS this something > > that was > > > > >> > > nothing? I already know the answer myself, but I thought I'd > > throw > > > > >> > > out the questions to help eke it out of Clayton. Consciousness > > is a > > > > >> > > great fall back, but of what does it consist? What is the > > underlying > > > > >> > > 'substance'? Again, I already know the answer, but would like > > Clayton > > > > >> > > to give it some thought. > > > > > >> > > > On Feb 27, 9:51 pm, Clayton <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > Before there was anything in our universe there was nothing, > > but > > > > >> how > > > > >> > > > > could something come to exist from nothing. Nothing must be > > > > >> something > > > > >> > > > > right? > > > > > >> > > > > Not in my theory. > > > > > >> > > > > My theory is that there is always an infinite amount of > > nothing > > > > >> > > > > outside of something and that something is continually > > produced > > > > >> > > > > wherever there is nothing. What that something is, is the > > > > >> conscience > > > > >> > > > > of an unborn universe, and these consciences are also > > continually > > > > >> > > > > being produced. Our universe was at one time one of those > > unborn > > > > >> > > > > universes, but something happened. Just as it does for all > > unborn > > > > >> > > > > universes. It’s conscience began to think, but what would > > the > > > > >> > > > > conscience of nothing think about? It would think about what > > it > > > > >> is, > > > > >> > > > > because it wouldn't know, and this thought would continually > > build > > > > >> up > > > > >> > > > > in the conscience until it was so compressed that the > > pressure > > > > >> would > > > > >> > > > > cause the conscience to explode into a big bang. What I am > > saying > > > > >> is > > > > >> > > > > that thought is the first form of energy that has ever > > existed, > > > > >> and > > > > >> > > > > that everything in our universe is just another form of this > > > > >> energy. > > > > > >> > > > > I believe that the energy, that is everything in our > > Universe is > > > > >> the > > > > >> > > > > God of our universe, and that God has always known > > everything > > > > >> there is > > > > >> > > > > to know about the universe. In the beginning God’s knowledge > > was > > > > >> very > > > > >> > > > > limited, but now it is very complex because everything that > > has > > > > >> been > > > > >> > > > > created from that original thought energy is an extension of > > Gods > > > > >> > > > > consciousness, even ourselves. However, I believe that all > > things > > > > >> that > > > > >> > > > > exists also have their own conscience. Everything, from the > > > > >> smallest > > > > >> > > > > particle on up to the entire universe. It’s just a matter of > > how > > > > >> > > > > closely you look. I’ll use a rock as an example, because I > > came up > > > > >> > > > > with my theory while I was in the woods on my land enjoying > > nature > > > > >> and > > > > >> > > > > there was this huge beautiful rock, and it was almost as if > > I > > > > >> could > > > > >> > > > > see into it and see its conscience. It was like me and the > > rock > > > > >> were > > > > >> > > > > interacting. Now, when I stepped away from the rock and went > > up to > > > > >> my > > > > >> > > > > car that was parked at the top of my land I could see my > > entire > > > > >> piece > > > > >> > > > > of land and I could see that it was all working together as > > one > > > > >> > > > > conscience. I see it on an even larger scale when I look at > > the > > > > >> night > > > > >> > > > > sky. After this experience I came to the conclusion that > > > > >> everything is > > > > >> > > > > very much alive. I also came to the conclusion that man, > > though > > > > >> he, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
