That is not true the beginning can be pretty much pinpointed .. as for parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing to support the other than it sounds good. There is more evidence supporting the spiritual realm than parallel universes Allan
Matrix ** th3 beginning light On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh" <[email protected]> wrote: > In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is beginning and > end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in parallel and > continuously many universes are being born and many are dying , but > Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time , just like > the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The difference is > that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is non-dual. > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hello Andrew, > > > > Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are not true. I > > distinguish between two things, matter and spirit. Mattter is all that > is > > physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also energy. To me there > is > > no paradox of who created the creator. Before the begining there was > only > > God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of the spirt of God. > > That is all matter comes from spirit. > > > > On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: > >> > >> Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy component to it > >> because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion in them. But I > could > >> also envision pure motion without involving any atoms...like a > vibration in > >> the fabric of space, > >> > >> On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee Douglas wrote: > >>> > >>> Heh except of course that when it comes right down to it.energy is > matter > >>> and matter is energy. > >>> On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The paradoxical dilemma of who created the creator can be > >>>> circumnavigated by the possibility that the original creator was not > matter, > >>>> but energy. Just like thinking of anything is much faster and much > easier > >>>> than building it, it becomes conceivable that energy patterns could > have > >>>> evolved in a random chance way and finely tuned by selective > processes to > >>>> reach intelligence similar to how most scientists believe that > patterns of > >>>> atoms and molecules evolved to form intelligent life. > >>>> > >>>> Energy patterns could have evolved to a point that they manipulated > >>>> atoms to desired patterns and forms to code the information required > for > >>>> life and to allow them to evolve on their own to complex intelligent > beings > >>>> able to wonder at and eventually to solve the riddle of where they > came > >>>> from, where they are going and why they are alive. Meaning and > purpose could > >>>> then be given to our fleeting moment of existence. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:55:05 PM UTC+1, archytas wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> ....... All we have in respect of this is to posit > >>>>> creation, begging the question of what created that in an infinite > >>>>> regress. .....We might get to an intelligent state in which creation > >>>>> myths are replaced by something more plausible and Truth comes > closer. > >>>>> > >>>>> On 29 Nov, 01:41, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > Neil , even after re-transposition how long could the brain live > >>>>> > --1000 years , 10000years or maybe as long as the universe ,but > >>>>> > ultimately it will die or be destroyed at the end - time of the > >>>>> > universe. What survives is the Truth behind life and nothing else. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:33 AM, archytas <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > > What survives is the gene - subject to mutations etc. We are > >>>>> > > already > >>>>> > > 'Borg' in the sense of mass assimilation. One's mind could be > >>>>> > > transposed to another substrate (nearish future) - our bodies are > >>>>> > > currently replaced every 5 years or so- and the new substrate > could > >>>>> > > have nanobots that would allow minds to outlive Lee's 'hope'. > Such > >>>>> > > substrated minds might link in super-intelligence and be able to > >>>>> > > re- > >>>>> > > transfer into more human-like bodies they learned to make. This > >>>>> > > would > >>>>> > > be a time beyond singularity. We don't know what such > intelligence > >>>>> > > might invent or even discover - perhaps such intelligence would > >>>>> > > discover we are not as alone as we think. Being human or human > >>>>> > > being > >>>>> > > might be as irrelevant as a mitochondria wanting to live free > >>>>> > > again. > >>>>> > > We might be free of the tiny machines (genes) so much part of our > >>>>> > > behaviour now. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > On 28 Nov, 14:40, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr > >>>>> > >> Allan > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light > >>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> > Ah! That's the extended version of 'possibly maybe' then (my > >>>>> > >> > grammar and > >>>>> > >> > spelling checker suggests 10 instead of 'then' though)! :) > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> > 2012/11/28 James <[email protected]> > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> >> I am an aspect of what was, is, and will be, coextensively. > >>>>> > >> >> Maybe. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> >> On 11/27/2012 2:28 AM, RP Singh wrote: > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> >>> Attachment to life is the cause of the desire for > immortality > >>>>> > >> >>> and the > >>>>> > >> >>> readiness to believe in an after-life or re-birth. It is an > >>>>> > >> >>> off-shoot of > >>>>> > >> >>> the instinct for survival. > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> >>> -- > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> >> -- > >>>>> > > >>>>> > >> > -- > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > -- > > > > -- > > > > > > > > -- > > > > --
