I see what you mean Pat; anyhow I don't expect it to be perfect, but any improvement to the present religious beliefs is good enough for me. In my case with my religious writings if I just make an improvement of 0.01 to the present situation I would be happy about myself. What is most important here is that people should keep looking outside the box, so to speak; because that is the only way to improve? Manfraco
On Mar 2, 11:17 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mar 2, 7:04 am, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi to everybody of "Minds Eye"group, I would like to say that looking > > at what is being written in this thread just about everyone of us > > believes in his/her own God, which may well be a bit different from > > anybody else. At this point of time I see that there are at least > > three players and three different Gods or beliefs that we are trying > > to explain here: one is Clayton, one is Pat and one is myself, of > > course there are also the others, but this is what I have noted here. > > I have seen what Clayton is trying to explain in his theory and there > > are some good points to it, but I cannot accept all his God theory as > > it is just because I have my own theory about God of the Universe, and > > this theory is somewhat a bit different from his theory. > > I am still waiting for Pat theory to be published, so that then I can > > see what he has to show us. > > So am I!! I'm working on it!! All in all, it's coming together quite > nicely. > > >I expect Pat theory to be a very good > > theory and I hope he does not disappoint us. > > Well, it will, invariably, disappoint some. I do not, in any way, > shape or form believe that I will convince everyone and, if the truth > be known, I understand the world well enough that that could never > happen. I expect the world to be rocked by it, but not to the point > of violent revolt or to the point of lulling it to sleep. Somewhere > in between would be best. > > > > > Then I have my own theory, which I am still working on and part of it > > can be found at these web addresses: > > https://sites.google.com/site/prayersofreconciliation/http://manfraco... > > This is a blog called,Religious Reconciliation Doc > > Please note that in this blog at the bottom of posts there is a Hub > > Pages link under the name of Frank Menchise this is my theory which I > > have already written in Hub Pages. You are all invited to check it > > out, if you can spare the time. > > All the best to you all, > > May God bless you! > > Manfraco > > > On Mar 2, 6:20 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Also, for reference, purposes, you may follow some of the links on > > > this blog for that which may be epmirically > > > proven.http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=62023 > > > > On Mar 1, 2:35 pm, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > There is much to say about this but I will try to condense my > > > > commentary (as I often do)but be thorough for clarity's sake. First, > > > > "nothing" simply cannot exist outside of a comparative(as compared > > > > to"something") concept. > > > > Throughout the wisdom traditions there are similar stories about > > > > creation ie; Gen. 1; "1 In the beginning God created the heavens and > > > > the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over > > > > the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the > > > > waters." > > > > Nowhere in this passage does there say "nothing" but, rather, > > > > formless and empty. Now let's take into account zero point energy and > > > > th zero point energy feild. Also, take note of the entire second verse > > > > of Gen; 1. Oh yes, and lets take helium (2He) as a perfect example of > > > > the water and hydrogen as being a representation of God (it is the > > > > most abundant element in the universe after all). We will also take > > > > into account what we know of Pat's revolutionary theory (still not > > > > published). We "know" that the material or physical universe (our > > > > measurable one) exists only in our space time continuum. Quantum > > > > physics, however, allows for multiple dimensions of universe (be it 11 > > > > or 26) and, perhaps even a multiverse. > > > > Ok, let's go back to the helium and hydrogen. Let's say; God > > > > (hydrogen) hovered above (perhaps in Calabi-yau space) the waters > > > > (helium) but at ZPE and in wave form. We'll shall also consider, as > > > > Clayton suggests, that, at this point God has sentience. As God's > > > > intent is suggests, "let there be light" implies there is interation > > > > between said waters of the deep and God. So, at a pressure of 1 > > > > atmosphere nothing happens to helium at ZPE but increase the pressure > > > > to 25 atmospheres it freezes and solifies. That's all I have for now. > > > > > On Mar 1, 12:30 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. > > > > > > Please do so. I do. Neologisms are more and more common. > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
