a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no supporting evidence.. Allan
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not that of > Creation with its series of universes. > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >> >>> -- >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >> >> -- >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >> > -- >>> >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > > -- >>> > >>> > -- >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> >> >> > > -- > > > -- ( ) |_D Allan Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living. I am a Natural Airgunner - Full of Hot Air & Ready To Expel It Quickly. --
