100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evidence for a Designer... - part 2 | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 11/21/09 07:08 PM
|
|
Only respond to the second question if you accept that the physical (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is a product of the interactions of elements which actually contain mass. The second question is: Is there any part of the human physical form that is intrinsically non-physical? In this case intrinsic is a quality defined as an inseparable part of the physical being. Abra: Well first off, mass is in insignificant physical property. Mass is not the property that gives things their solidity. The solidity of particles come from electromagnetic forces, as well as the Pauli Exclusion Principle which is a very strange quantum effect. If you're attempting to reduce physicality down to some sort of actual billiard balls, or "physically tangible vibrating strings", I'm not sure how much "permanence" I would give to those fleeting concepts. I personally feel that Quantum Mechanics has indeed already shown us that those kinds of physical concepts are indeed quite fleeting and may not have the kind of 'physicality" that some people would like to believe they have. Abra – do you think the energy that holds matter together is the product of some consciousness? In other words if energy is the designer you had in mind, is it holding the universe together just as it is for the purpose of creating a stage for other energy in which to experience a static, orderly, and patterned physical form? Seems like a long way to go to experience the physical, especially considering that the designer could comprehend the idea of something so foreign to its own make-up that it would even create tiny body parts from which to see, smell, taste and so on. How would the designer know enough to do that if it had never experienced a physical nature? Just asking! Who knows you might have thought about that already. ALSO – from your response I gather that you are considering the idea that anything that is physical is purely transient and can become non-physical. Makes me wonder – why do we go to such great lengths to grow old and die when we can simply dissociate from all physical properties? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Redykeulous
on
Sat 11/21/09 07:10 PM
|
|
Di wrote:
That is about the extent to which they align in philosophies. This is my personal observation, it may be incorrect. So I invite Abra, Sky, and JB to confirm or deny the observation which states: "humans are no more than a transient vehicle through which a non-physical entity experiences a physical realm" JB responded: This is how I would reword the above: The human form (body) is a manifestation and expression of a non-physical conscious entity who experiences and operates in the physical universe. <Speculation> (Just as your mind reflects and manifests a dream body when you dream, so does your higher mind manifest a physical body in the physical world. Birth in the physical world takes place through a physical body because the density of this world prevents us from just forming a body out of thin air.) </speculation> Ok, this tells me that he body is manifested by a non-physical conscious entity that cannot simply manifest our of nothing – it must first have the elements arranged for it. Sorry, not trying to be mean, but something Abra said in an earlier post comes to mind – “Who provided the dirt” In other words if these physical manifestations require a starter kit, where did the starter kid come from? THIS IS JUST RHETORICAL, no answer required – It’s just what I thought at the moment. It’s kind of like asking for proof of God – it can’t be done. So I wouldn’t ask. The next question Di asked was Only respond to the second question if you accept that the physical (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is a product of the interactions of elements which actually contain mass. The second question is: Is there any part of the human physical form that is intrinsically non-physical? In this case intrinsic is a quality defined as an inseparable part of the physical being. JB responded: Answer: I don't know. And I don't know if I "accept that the physical is a product of the interactions of elements which actually contain mass, so I don't know if I even should have answered the question. Mm – I questioned why you balked in responding until I re-read your response to my first question. You have accepted the word reality to define our existence in this universe, but I see that you have not defined reality as the product of known elements coming together to create it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Di asked:
Do you believe this physical reality (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is an illusion? Whether you define that as holographic or some other form of mental projection is irrelevant to this particular question. Abra: That's a difficult question to answer since the very definition of an 'illusion' is ill-defined. Even a hologram is created by interference patterns of light. I personally give physical 'reality' merit in terms of physical 'Laws", yet those laws are themselves rather illusive as you'll see in your next question: Sky: Hmmmm. . . That’s a difficult question to answer the way it’s phrased. Since my purpose in answering would be to provide information that would assist you in your understanding of my philosophy, my answer is dependent on what you mean by “illusion. So let me ask the same question with another object, and you can take however you would answer mine as the answer I would give to yours. “Do you believe the picture on a movie screen (i.e. the image and all that we attribute visual properties to) is an illusion?” Both of you, Abra and Sky, had trouble with the word illusion. Let me try to restate the question without the word illusion. Do you believe this physical reality (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is a false premise? In other words, would the universe continue to exist, as it is, without the presence of any physical life forms to observe or interact with it? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 11/21/09 09:03 PM
|
|
Di said:
Ok, this tells me that he body is manifested by a non-physical conscious entity that cannot simply manifest out of nothing – it must first have the elements arranged for it. Sorry, not trying to be mean, but something Abra said in an earlier post comes to mind – “Who provided the dirt” Why would you apologize for "being mean?" Its a perfectly legitimate question. I might have thought less of you if you had not asked. In other words if these physical manifestations require a starter kit, where did the starter kid come from? THIS IS JUST RHETORICAL, no answer required – It’s just what I thought at the moment. It’s kind of like asking for proof of God – it can’t be done. So I wouldn’t ask. You don't seem to be asking for "proof" of where the starter kit came from. If you are, then I cannot provide that. But I can give you a logical answer, given the premise. IF a non-physical conscious entity needed to manifest or build a body to occupy while in the physical universe, that entity (or others with the same intentions) would design the "starter kit." (That would be the physical body itself.) And it would have the ability to replicate itself. (Give birth) I am not even saying that it is impossible to manifest a physical body from out of the ether, (thin air) it probably is, but it would take a tremendous amount of energy to do so, and to maintain that body (or bodies)in the physical universe would take too much energy, especially in quantity, because the vibrations here are so course. So material is created that has the information and programing to manifest the body. Example: Lets say our human scientists wanted to create a body that would operate under water so they could build a city under the ocean. Lets say they took what they already know about cloning and gene splicing and DNA and created material (egg and altered sperm) that would grow into a sea creature or humanoid that had gills and could breath. Maybe all they would need to do is to change a bit of DNA. This process of course takes into consideration that you can leave your body and inhabit another body. (Soul transfer or incarnation) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Only respond to the second question if you accept that the physical (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is a product of the interactions of elements which actually contain mass. The second question is: Is there any part of the human physical form that is intrinsically non-physical? In this case intrinsic is a quality defined as an inseparable part of the physical being. Abra: Well first off, mass is in insignificant physical property. Mass is not the property that gives things their solidity. The solidity of particles come from electromagnetic forces, as well as the Pauli Exclusion Principle which is a very strange quantum effect. If you're attempting to reduce physicality down to some sort of actual billiard balls, or "physically tangible vibrating strings", I'm not sure how much "permanence" I would give to those fleeting concepts. I personally feel that Quantum Mechanics has indeed already shown us that those kinds of physical concepts are indeed quite fleeting and may not have the kind of 'physicality" that some people would like to believe they have. Abra – do you think the energy that holds matter together is the product of some consciousness? In other words if energy is the designer you had in mind, is it holding the universe together just as it is for the purpose of creating a stage for other energy in which to experience a static, orderly, and patterned physical form? Seems like a long way to go to experience the physical, especially considering that the designer could comprehend the idea of something so foreign to its own make-up that it would even create tiny body parts from which to see, smell, taste and so on. How would the designer know enough to do that if it had never experienced a physical nature? Just asking! Who knows you might have thought about that already. ALSO – from your response I gather that you are considering the idea that anything that is physical is purely transient and can become non-physical. Makes me wonder – why do we go to such great lengths to grow old and die when we can simply dissociate from all physical properties? When it comes to 'physicality' Di, we don't truly even have a really good definition of what constitutes the 'physical' I'm not certain that spirit doesn't have some sort of 'physicality' in it's own right. Maybe it does. Maybe it simply has a different kind of 'physicality' than what we see around us. Or maybe the physicality that we see around us is indeed very much a part of the actual essence of the spiritual "entity". I have no clue what's going on. All I know is that neither does science! Science is great! It's lots of fun, and it produces results that we can turn into technology and that's great too. But when it comes to explaning the true nature of reality, we aren't a whole lot further ahead than we were when we were cavemen. The only thing we know is that the 'universe' is far greater than any caveman could have possibly imagined in his wildest dreams. That's truly about all we really know. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your responces JB and Abra, appreciate your considerations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Sat 11/21/09 10:45 PM
|
|
Excellent video, I agree with Matt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n93JtADdZP8&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div What would design the "starter kit." (That would be the physical body itself.) And it would have the ability to replicate itself. (Give birth) I am not even saying that it is impossible to manifest a physical body from out of the ether, (thin air) it probably is, but it would take a tremendous amount of energy pre existent, physical, interacting energy right? to do so, and to maintain that body (or bodies)in the physical universe would take (too much energy Compared to what? , especially in quantity, because the vibrations here are so course. Compared to what? So material is created that has the information and programing to manifest the body. In saying that some preexistant information was just out there that formed these fundamentals does nothing to add to our understanding, it just pushes the question back another step. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Sat 11/21/09 10:36 PM
|
|
Di asked: No. Do you believe this physical reality (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is an illusion? Whether you define that as holographic or some other form of mental projection is irrelevant to this particular question. ... Sky: Hmmmm. . . That’s a difficult question to answer the way it’s phrased. Since my purpose in answering would be to provide information that would assist you in your understanding of my philosophy, my answer is dependent on what you mean by “illusion. So let me ask the same question with another object, and you can take however you would answer mine as the answer I would give to yours. “Do you believe the picture on a movie screen (i.e. the image and all that we attribute visual properties to) is an illusion?” Both of you, Abra and Sky, had trouble with the word illusion. Let me try to restate the question without the word illusion. Do you believe this physical reality (ie. universe and all that we attribute physical properties to) is a false premise? In other words, would the universe continue to exist, as it is, without the presence of any physical life forms to observe or interact with it? I guess so. Just as superhighways would continue to exist, as they are, without the presence of cars to drive on them. (But they’d be pretty useless and the drivers would probably want some new cars to drive on them.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Di wrote: That is about the extent to which they align in philosophies. This is my personal observation, it may be incorrect. So I invite Abra, Sky, and JB to confirm or deny the observation which states: "humans are no more than a transient vehicle through which a non-physical entity experiences a physical realm" Abra responded: I would have to say yes, but at the same time object to your phrasing of the question. Perhaps if you simply change "humans" to "human bodies" that might be sufficient. Because it's actually the non-physical entity that is experiencing the physical realm that is the "human" in that case. If you catch my drift. Yes, correction understood. Sky responded: Without going into “a whole philosophy”, I’ll say that is accurate as far as it goes, with a small addition that is more of a caveat than a correction – the physical body is itself part of that physical realm experienced by the non-physical entity. I think you and Abra are saying the same thing – that I needed to differentiate between humans and human bodies, suggesting that mind is separate from the body. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the broken up posts thing isn't working so well JB. I'm getting replied to less even though it should be easier for people to do so. Well I think it has to do with what you are saying not how you are posting it. Take this remark for example: I'm more on the note of "does our body have airbags or do our astral selves smash their (important part) open as it comes to a sudden halt and maybe snap their (connective section) in half as they recoil from it?" Does the body have airbags for the soul? I have no idea what you are talking about and I have read all three books by Robert Monroe about out of body travel. If you want to know about the astral world and the astral body try reading his three books. That post is me saying "we have traffic laws so we don't die horribly while driving" with that being a pretty significant issue for the whole spirit-body relationship he has described so far. It's obviously not a concern with the way you've dealt with the body question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the broken up posts thing isn't working so well JB. I'm getting replied to less even though it should be easier for people to do so. So BRAVO! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the broken up posts thing isn't working so well JB. I'm getting replied to less even though it should be easier for people to do so. So BRAVO! Yeh its good to have some fresh meat in the forums. LOL  Bushi and Creative tend to loose it from time to time dealing with such abstract ideas. They get frustrated. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to note that Bohm's ideas about The Holographic Universe also points to a concept that what we consider "reality" (i.e. "physical") has an underlying "non-pysical" nature. The Matrix?? LOL As it doesn't say anything about individuals we're not precluded from having many others in the same situation. Exactly. So it fits solipsism perfectly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This leaves the interesting question of what reason there could be to behave morally if our bodies are not even a part of us so much as something we're using. Again, the car/driver analogy works fairly well here. What reason is there for abiding by the “rules of the road”, if our cars are not a part of us but something we’re using? Because there are other drivers using cars and we’re all using the same roads, so we have (i.e. make up) rules that allow everyone the opportunity to use their cars to get where they want to go with minimal conflict.  Does the body have airbags for the soul? Do the characters have airbags or do the players smash their (important part) open as it comes to a sudden halt and maybe snap their (connective part) in half as they recoil from it? Does a character in a game have airbags for the player? The questions don’t really apply. Though there is a well known game existence where characters in the game having airbags for the player makes sense: the Matrix. I can understand why you would steer clear of that but I can also understand why to steer clear of the whole notion of what you're proposing but it hasn't stopped you~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the broken up posts thing isn't working so well JB. I'm getting replied to less even though it should be easier for people to do so. Naw, I think your just wearing them out, good on you! When it was just me and creative we tend to get wore out first. So BRAVO! Is that what this is all about? "Wearing them down?" If so, what is the purpose or end result of doing so? My purpose in answering all the questions is to provide information that will allow a better understanding of my views. What is the purpose in asking them? I keep my goals a little more clouded though as it keeps things from turning into endless retaliation spirals. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the broken up posts thing isn't working so well JB. I'm getting replied to less even though it should be easier for people to do so. Naw, I think your just wearing them out, good on you! When it was just me and creative we tend to get wore out first. So BRAVO! Is that what this is all about? "Wearing them down?" If so, what is the purpose or end result of doing so? My purpose in answering all the questions is to provide information that will allow a better understanding of my views. What is the purpose in asking them? That remark is evidence that they don't give a rats *** about our views, they just want to push their own upon us. So why should we share them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the broken up posts thing isn't working so well JB. I'm getting replied to less even though it should be easier for people to do so. Naw, I think your just wearing them out, good on you! When it was just me and creative we tend to get wore out first. So BRAVO! Is that what this is all about? "Wearing them down?" If so, what is the purpose or end result of doing so? My purpose in answering all the questions is to provide information that will allow a better understanding of my views. What is the purpose in asking them? Well, for whatever it's worth, I have genuinely enjoyed reading your posts Sky. I have found much of what you have posted to be quite interesting and enlightening. You have helped me to gain some deeper insights into the various possibilities of the true essence of reality. People will praise you if you make them think they are thinking but abhor you if you actually make them think~ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JB wrote: That remark is evidence that they don't give a rats *** about our views, they just want to push their own upon us. So why should we share them? I was well aware of this months ago.  It appears that their argument takes the form of: "Science cannot be used to support any type of spiritual idea and we will yell and scream and throw temper tantrums if anyone suggests otherwise!" Yet, where is the scientific theory that science denies all possibly spiritual views?  I've never heard of any such scientific theory and I've been involved in science my entire life. Is this a new theory? I think it's extremly ironic that they often try to pretend that I'm the one who is misrepresenting science when in fact they are the one's who misrepresent science. There is no scientific theory or rule that states that science is incompatible with any and all ideas of spirit. So where do they come up with this idea? It's not from science, I can assure everyone of this. Unless it's a brand new theory that I've never heard about. Well, hint isn't a strong enough word but it's what I think you like to think you're doing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just wanted to note that Bohm's ideas about The Holographic Universe also points to a concept that what we consider "reality" (i.e. "physical") has an underlying "non-pysical" nature. The Matrix?? LOLAs it doesn't say anything about individuals we're not precluded from having many others in the same situation. Exactly. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shoku,
Kant's assessment on the nature of judgment in Critique of Pure Reason describes many of the arguments given in this forum along with their evidence very well. There is a pattern of applying evidence which only belongs to specific concepts and/or categories of knowledge to that which the evidence does not apply, cannot apply. Add to that the attempt to refute logic, while using it to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
