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" <1234rp@gmail.com> 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 <leerevdouglas@gmail.com> 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 <123...@gmail.com> 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 <nwte...@gmail.com> 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 <allanh1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> > >> T9 grrrrrrr
>>>>> > >> Allan
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light
>>>>> > >> On Nov 28, 2012 11:38 AM, "gabbydott" <gabbyd...@gmail.com> 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 <ashkas...@gmail.com>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >> >> 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.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >> >>> --
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >> >> --
>>>>> >
>>>>> > >> > --
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > --
>
> --
>
>
>
--
0 comments:
Post a Comment