Heh the same can be said about any and all concepts of God. On Tuesday, 4 December 2012 16:07:03 UTC, Allan Heretic wrote:
> 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] <javascript:>> > 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]<javascript:>> > 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] <javascript:>> > 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]<javascript:>> > > >>> 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. > --
