The Debate of God.

[Tiberius]

Since you are 100% ncorporated into the universe, anything that can be said about you is also being said about it. The idea that some of your characteristics are not part of the universe is merely an illusion. There is nothing that you can do, or say, or be, that is never not part of the universe, since it is a uni-verse.

Anything I can say about myself can also be said about the universe?

I did not exist as an individual prior to 1979.

Can that be said about the universe? yes or no?

I have the characteristic of being 33 years old. Is this an illusion?

You are idealistic. You need to be realistic.

 

[godnotgod]

Anything I can say about myself can also be said about the universe?

No, not 'also', as there is no 'Duo-verse'. Whatever is said about you IS being said about the universe.

I did not exist as an individual prior to 1979.

Can that be said about the universe? yes or no?

You don't exist as an 'individual' now. That you do is an illusion. But the stuff you're made of came out of the universe in 1979, stuff that was part of the universe then, as it is now. Furthermore, there was no such things as '1979'. The universe is timeless, and '1979' is merely a conceptual overlay.

I have the characteristic of being 33 years old. Is this an illusion?

Who is it that is making the claim?

'Thou hast nor youth nor age, but, as it were, an after-dinner sleep, dreaming on both'
TS Elliot

You are idealistic. You need to be realistic.

The ideal IS the reality. Otherwise, it would cease to be the ideal, and what you call 'reality' is always in the process of becoming, but never quite arriving. So how can it be called 'reality'? The ideal is already complete and fully present, only we fail to realize it as such, because we have one eye on the goal, and one eye on the path, rather than both eyes on the path.

 

[Tiberius]

No, not 'also', as there is no 'Duo-verse'. Whatever is said about you IS being said about the universe.

Then could you explain how the statement "I am 33 years old" works as a factual statement about the universe?

You don't exist as an 'individual' now. That you do is an illusion. But the stuff you're made of came out of the universe in 1979, stuff that was part of the universe then, as it is now. Furthermore, there was no such things as '1979'. The universe is timeless, and '1979' is merely a conceptual overlay.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of "time" as a dimension in our universe.

The ideal IS the reality. Otherwise, it would cease to be the ideal, and what you call 'reality' is always in the process of becoming, but never quite arriving. So how can it be called 'reality'? The ideal is already complete and fully present, only we fail to realize it as such, because we have one eye on the goal, and one eye on the path, rather than both eyes on the path.

[/QUOTE]

Your entire post seems filled with buzzwords that mean nothing. Technobabble, nothing more.

I challenge you to give a specific example of what you are saying.

 

[godnotgod]

Then could you explain how the statement "I am 33 years old" works as a factual statement about the universe?

The statement is being made in reference to 33 orbits of the Earth around the Sun.

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concept of "time" as a dimension in our universe.

It is a CONCEPT; not a reality, just as Space, and Causation are concepts. Remove these conceptual overlays, and you will see the universe as it is, not as these concepts tell you it is.

Your entire post seems filled with buzzwords that mean nothing. Technobabble, nothing more.

I challenge you to give a specific example of what you are saying.

I cannot be any more clear.

You say you were 'born' in 1979, but what is that but an arbitrary delineation. In reality, it has no meaning whatsoever. You claim to be '33' years old. But again, that is a completely arbitrary set of demarcations based on the orbits of the planet around the Sun. You could just as easily say you are 'One Long Day' old, as the Sun is always shining.

All that you are emerged from the universe. That you entertain thoughts of being a separate ego apart from the universe is just so much fluff. The fact is that you are totally dependent upon the universe for your mere existence. You exchange gases, nutrients, liquids, light, etc. wtih your universe. You cannot exist apart from it, try as you may.

Can you show me exactly where you begin and the universe leaves off, as your existence as a separate individual seems to be the point you are trying to make?

 

[Tiberius]

The statement is being made in reference to 33 orbits of the Earth around the Sun.

So? The statement can only apply to a limited set of things in the universe. Can you show me how the statement applies to the universe itself?

It is a CONCEPT; not a reality, just as Space, and Causation are concepts. Remove these conceptual overlays, and you will see the universe as it is, not as these concepts tell you it is.

Science disagrees with you.

I cannot be any more clear.

You say you were 'born' in 1979, but what is that but an arbitrary delineation. In reality, it has no meaning whatsoever. You claim to be '33' years old. But again, that is a completely arbitrary set of demarcations based on the orbits of the planet around the Sun. You could just as easily say you are 'One Long Day' old, as the Sun is always shining.

All that you are emerged from the universe. That you entertain thoughts of being a separate ego apart from the universe is just so much fluff. The fact is that you are totally dependent upon the universe for your mere existence. You exchange gases, nutrients, liquids, light, etc. wtih your universe. You cannot exist apart from it, try as you may.

Can you show me exactly where you begin and the universe leaves off, as your existence as a separate individual seems to be the point you are trying to make?

How can you not get what I am trying to say?

I NEVER said I am a completely separate entity to the universe! It is very rude of you to put words into my mouth, particularly when I stated this very clearly in post 854. I am saying that I am a subset of the universe with qualities that are not shared by the universe as a whole.

Perhaps an example...

There is a set of things I can watch on a TV. They include DVDs, Blu-rays, digital free-to-air television, pay TV etc. Each one of those categories is a SUBSET of the set "Things I watch on TV". Each one of those subsets has qualities that are not always shared by the others. For example, there is only one subset that has both the categories "Is stored on a physical, optically read disc" and "Contains high definition visual information", and that is the Blu-ray subset. Not all the subsets fit this category. Only Blu-ray has BOTH of these categories.

Likewise, even though I am a subset of the universe, there are qualities held by me and a limited number of other things in the universe. I am in the subsets "Biological entity", "Alive", "On Earth" and "Homo Sapiens". Jupiter does not fit into any of these subsets.

So I can make a statement about myself which defines one or more of the subsets I am in, and this statement does not - CAN NOT - apply to things which are not also in the subsets mentioned in my statement.

Do you get it now?

 

[godnotgod]

So? The statement can only apply to a limited set of things in the universe. Can you show me how the statement applies to the universe itself?

The point is that your statement refers to things that are interconnected to the rest of the universe. Just because you cannot say the universe is 33 years old, does not make some things apart from the universe. Nothing is apart from the universe. If they were, there would no longer be a uni-verse.

Science disagrees with you.

Science looks at things in a very narrow, structured manner, which includes certain conceptual ideas, such as Time. Time is not an inherent quality of the universe, but we have come to think of it as something real in and of itself. It is merely an overlay.

How can you not get what I am trying to say?

I NEVER said I am a completely separate entity to the universe! It is very rude of you to put words into my mouth, particularly when I stated this very clearly in post 854. I am saying that I am a subset of the universe with qualities that are not shared by the universe as a whole.

Perhaps an example...

There is a set of things I can watch on a TV. They include DVDs, Blu-rays, digital free-to-air television, pay TV etc. Each one of those categories is a SUBSET of the set "Things I watch on TV". Each one of those subsets has qualities that are not always shared by the others. For example, there is only one subset that has both the categories "Is stored on a physical, optically read disc" and "Contains high definition visual information", and that is the Blu-ray subset. Not all the subsets fit this category. Only Blu-ray has BOTH of these categories.

Likewise, even though I am a subset of the universe, there are qualities held by me and a limited number of other things in the universe. I am in the subsets "Biological entity", "Alive", "On Earth" and "Homo Sapiens". Jupiter does not fit into any of these subsets.

So I can make a statement about myself which defines one or more of the subsets I am in, and this statement does not - CAN NOT - apply to things which are not also in the subsets mentioned in my statement.

Do you get it now?

Any blu ray dvd you own is also fully contained within the universe, as all things are, whether they are in 'subsets' (which are arbitrary compartmentalizations) or not. You do not have the control over what you call subsets that you think. Those things are also in other subsets, such as "thieves who steal blu ray dvd's', or 'unplanned house fires', etc. The problem we are having is one of seeing reality as composed of 'things' in the universe. In reality, and at its root, no such 'things' actually exist. All 'things' are events that are part of all other events, all of which together comprise the entire universe.

What you are referring to when you say that characteristics of some things cannot apply to others has to do with form. What does apply to all things universally is that all forms are composed of atoms, just as all waves on the sea, though each slightly different from all other waves, are all composed of water, as is the formless sea from which they all emerged.

 

[LioneDea]

I am simply going to use this thread as a means to discuss the existence of God with anyone. I am constantly discussing this with people, and feel I should have a main thread to post on.

If anyone wishes to argue that god (or whatever deity you believe in) is true, I have questions ready. Thank you.

Lione D' ea: Are you ready to ask a question also?




(end.)

 

[Tiberius]

The point is that your statement refers to things that are interconnected to the rest of the universe. Just because you cannot say the universe is 33 years old, does not make some things apart from the universe. Nothing is apart from the universe. If they were, there would no longer be a uni-verse.

And where oh where did I ever say that I am separate from the universe?

Science looks at things in a very narrow, structured manner, which includes certain conceptual ideas, such as Time. Time is not an inherent quality of the universe, but we have come to think of it as something real in and of itself. It is merely an overlay.

You are wrong. Time is very real.

Any blu ray dvd you own is also fully contained within the universe, as all things are, whether they are in 'subsets' (which are arbitrary compartmentalizations) or not. You do not have the control over what you call subsets that you think. Those things are also in other subsets, such as "thieves who steal blu ray dvd's', or 'unplanned house fires', etc. The problem we are having is one of seeing reality as composed of 'things' in the universe. In reality, and at its root, no such 'things' actually exist. All 'things' are events that are part of all other events, all of which together comprise the entire universe.

What you are referring to when you say that characteristics of some things cannot apply to others has to do with form. What does apply to all things universally is that all forms are composed of atoms, just as all waves on the sea, though each slightly different from all other waves, are all composed of water, as is the formless sea from which they all emerged.

You seem to be incapable of grasping the concept of "analogy".

 

[PolyHedral]

Science looks at things in a very narrow, structured manner, which includes certain conceptual ideas, such as Time. Time is not an inherent quality of the universe, but we have come to think of it as something real in and of itself. It is merely an overlay.

Well, yes. An overlay of the wibbly-wobbly almost-time that actually underlies the universe.

When you strip away all the concepts and all the shortcuts humans use to understand the universe, you actually get something that looks very strange, but you can still see the ghost of what we used to think of as that linear progression of cause to effect.

 

[godnotgod]

And where oh where did I ever say that I am separate from the universe?

I previously said this:

Originally Posted by godnotgod
You cannot be separate from the universe, even though you have 'differences'. Those differences are only superficial. There is a common energy that runs through everything, with variation. At root, everything is of the same essence. To talk about the universe as if it were an object apart from you is an illusion of the mind. It would be like a wave thinking itself separate somehow from the sea from which it both emerges and to which it must return. Any difference from the sea is only temporal and superficial. In reality, it is the sea itself. Both are made of water....

...to which you replied:


"Unless you are talking about string theory or something similar, I fear what you are saying is just psychobabble.'

You are wrong. Time is very real.

The measurement we call Time is real, but there is no such thing as Time. We are creatures of the clock, and via of a long period of social conditioning and indoctrination, have come to mistake the description of reality for reality itself. We think that a second, minute, and hour are real things, but in reality are only arbitrary demarcations superimposed over reality. There is no such thing as the past or the future. There is only now, and now is timeless and therefore without history. However, most of us do not live in the present moment; we live in the dead past or some concept of the non-existent future. Because of our concept of time, we think the present moment is gone before it can be realized. That is our illusion. The present moment is always here. Always has been, always will be.

Contrary to what we have all been taught, that the past creates the present, it is the present which creates the past. The wake does not produce the ship; the ship creates the wake.

You seem to be incapable of grasping the concept of "analogy".

I understand perfectly.

 

[Tiberius]

I previously said this:

Originally Posted by godnotgod
You cannot be separate from the universe, even though you have 'differences'. Those differences are only superficial. There is a common energy that runs through everything, with variation. At root, everything is of the same essence. To talk about the universe as if it were an object apart from you is an illusion of the mind. It would be like a wave thinking itself separate somehow from the sea from which it both emerges and to which it must return. Any difference from the sea is only temporal and superficial. In reality, it is the sea itself. Both are made of water....

...to which you replied:


"Unless you are talking about string theory or something similar, I fear what you are saying is just psychobabble.'

I was referring to your claim that there is some energy running through all of us that connects us all together.

The measurement we call Time is real, but there is no such thing as Time. We are creatures of the clock, and via of a long period of social conditioning and indoctrination, have come to mistake the description of reality for reality itself. We think that a second, minute, and hour are real things, but in reality are only arbitrary demarcations superimposed over reality. There is no such thing as the past or the future. There is only now, and now is timeless and therefore without history. However, most of us do not live in the present moment; we live in the dead past or some concept of the non-existent future. Because of our concept of time, we think the present moment is gone before it can be realized. That is our illusion. The present moment is always here. Always has been, always will be.

Then you are disagreeing with modern understanding of quantum mechanics and physics, and you'll have to give me some pretty strong evidence to make me go with you instead of science. So put up or shut up.

BTW, if you think time doesn't exist, why can't we travel through time?

Contrary to what we have all been taught, that the past creates the present, it is the present which creates the past. The wake does not produce the ship; the ship creates the wake.

Care to explain this with an example from the real world? This is another example of your metaphysical claptrap.

I understand perfectly.

I doubt it.

 

[godnotgod]

I was referring to your claim that there is some energy running through all of us that connects us all together.

Are we all, in fact, interconnected?

Please see here; http://books.google.com/books?id=vWWdrF8xkikC&pg=PA40&lpg=PA40&dq=universal+energy+in+universe+einstein&source=bl&ots=_1CBvVvweU&sig=fXGumM_HjPKbxtxZ4pCBGqMhrhc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IM9dT_GiIYSsiQLLufWaCw&sqi=2&ved=0CGEQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=universal%20energy%20in%20universe%20einstein&f=false

Then you are disagreeing with modern understanding of quantum mechanics and physics, and you'll have to give me some pretty strong evidence to make me go with you instead of science. So put up or shut up.

Let us look at how you are seeing this. Can you provide a brief working definition of Time as science is using the term, without getting too technical?

Also, can you be specific and show me that my argument of Time being merely a measurement rather than an embedded reality is incorrect?

Please understand that I am not employing a scientific approach, but an intuitive one. For one thing, I do not regard science as the Holy Grail of Absolute Truth. I see it as a means of gathering factual knowledge about the phenomenal world, but it fails to provide an understanding regarding its nature.

BTW, if you think time doesn't exist, why can't we travel through time?

Do you mean why can't we travel, for example, back to the time of ancient Egypt?

Care to explain this with an example from the real world? This is another example of your metaphysical claptrap.

The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan were live events which left behind a wake of destruction, which we now see as 'the past', which are actually Outcomes, but even these outcomes exist in the present day. Those who died are no longer in the process of dying; their deaths are no longer current events because the tsunami is no longer a current event. But what we call the past are merely memories, or traces, of past current events. Nothing occurs in the past (ie: 'memory'), and so the past has no power to create any present event. That particular tsunami has no more power to create present events, as it is expended/transformed energy, that no longer exists in that energy-form.


The present creates the past....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4j6cUwCRmI

I doubt it.

Why? You're not so difficult to understand, are you?

 

[Daviso452]

The recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan were live events which left behind a wake of destruction, which we now see as 'the past', which are actually Outcomes, but even these outcomes exist in the present day. Those who died are no longer in the process of dying; their deaths are no longer current events because the tsunami is no longer a current event. But what we call the past are merely memories, or traces, of past current events. Nothing occurs in the past (ie: 'memory'), and so the past has no power to create any present event. That particular tsunami has no more power to create present events, as it is expended/transformed energy, that no longer exists in that energy-form.

But the destruction would never have come about if not for the tsunami. The egg came before the chicken. That is evolutionary fact.

 

[garrydons]

If 6 billion people believed in a lie would that make it the truth?

What do you think is the truth?

 

[garrydons]

Daviso452:"The egg came before the chicken. that is evolutionary fact."

if the egg came before the chicken, where did the egg came from?

 

[Prophet]

Daviso452:"The egg came before the chicken. that is evolutionary fact."

if the egg came before the chicken, where did the egg came from?

I would guess it was laid by a maternal ancestor of the chicken.

 

[PolyHedral]

Daviso452:"The egg came before the chicken. that is evolutionary fact."

if the egg came before the chicken, where did the egg came from?

He never specified a chicken egg.

 

[godnotgod]

But the destruction would never have come about if not for the tsunami. The egg came before the chicken. That is evolutionary fact.

You are looking at the situation flat and linearly, in terms of cause and effect. The real situation is that it is a part of the larger singular event of the universe unfolding, which is without cause: tsunamidestructionuniverseunfolding. There is no real delineation between the two. Therefore we can say that the tsunami is an action of the universe in the same way as a sunspot flare is an action of the Sun.

 

[PolyHedral]

You are looking at the situation flat and linearly, in terms of cause and effect. The real situation is that it is a part of the larger singular event of the universe unfolding, which is without cause: tsunamidestructionuniverseunfolding. There is no real delineation between the two. Therefore we can say that the tsunami is an action of the universe in the same way as a sunspot flare is an action of the Sun.

Q: Name two causes of World War 1
A: 1) The laws of physics, 2) the boundary conditions of the universe.

Although that answer is technically true, it is not helpful. Similarly, looking at all of time as a singular event is also not helpful.

 

[godnotgod]

Q: Name two causes of World War 1
A: 1) The laws of physics, 2) the boundary conditions of the universe.

Although that answer is technically true, it is not helpful. Similarly, looking at all of time as a singular event is also not helpful.

We are talking about two different things here, which spring from different sources. Tsunamis are natural events. Knowing that is helpful in understanding the impersonal nature of such disasters. Otherwise, you might tend to blame a merciless god.

Wars are man-made events, which come about when the path of cause and effect is pursued. We call this path of cause and effect being karma-driven.

Would it be helpful to you if I told you that war is caused by ignorance, greed, and stupidity?