As a human I am part of the ecosystem I am living in, but I am not the 
creator of the ecosystem. That's my understanding of us. 

On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 11:43:43 PM UTC+1, andrew vecsey wrote:
>
> Dear Gabby. Your problem of accepting "man-made" concepts or thoughts is 
> puzzling for me. Are you not human? What else is there???? 
>
> On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 6:38:22 PM UTC+1, gabbydott wrote:
>>
>> The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find the God 
>> concept much more to the point. :)
>>
>> I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then matter - 
>> though. This sounds very man-made to me. ;)
>>
>> As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much more vivid 
>> than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's true. But the 
>> children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is really good.
>>
>> Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about?
>>
>>
>> 2012/12/4 Allan H <[email protected]>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

-- 



Reply via email to