Last word.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from I am...:
Before this universe,
there was no such thing as choice or decision.
With choice/decision came uncertainty.
With uncertainty came random chance.
I'd be inclined to replace 'this Universe' with 'free will' but maybe our free will is based on some fundamental principle of randomness in this Universe.
Quote from dr. fill:
I'd be inclined to replace 'this Universe' with 'free will' but maybe our free will is based on some fundamental principle of randomness in this Universe.
This universe is the opposite of heaven.
This says we were free before.
What I mean by 'no choice' is...
Choice is relative to limits.
There are no limits about heaven.
Choice implies you can't have it all.
But heaven is all about having it all.
That's our Father's Will.
And our will is the same as His.
We would not be happy with less than everything.
It's our Father's Will that we be happy.
So it is ours also.
This universe is the idea that we can have another will.
It's not our Father's Will.
But it's really not our will either.
It's another will, in addition to our own.
Thus, it represents an attempt to have it all, plus some more!.
This is clearly impossible, but hey, it makes a fun game.
Another will can't want everything, otherwise it would be the same will.
What fun is that?
Therefore, another will must want nothing.
So it takes literally nothing, and, through some ingenious trickery, makes something out of nothing!
Just like magic!
The mind does this by deciding that there is another will.
This is a 'judgement': a tool in a fun new game.
Before this, there was no such thing as judgment.
It was a rather harsh judgment because it implies separation from God.
That's not true. But since when does this 'new' will care about truth?
The new little will is given a personality, so-to-speak, and becomes an alter ego.
It's really just a wish, like when a child makes a wish before blowing the candles out on the cake he wants.
The lights go out.
And with that wish, the concepts of birth and death were born.
The ego goes to work, busy as a beaver, deciding what's what.
It's literally a machine.
The ego decides what, out of nothing, is something.
It then decides what, about something, is different, what has value, what it likes, what it does not like.
It starts with nothing, and calls it "energy".
It takes energy and makes forms out of it.
Whatever it does, it is the opposite of what God is.
The ego "does", God is.
The ego is about action, God is about rest.
The ego thinks, God knows.
The ego analyzes, selects, grades, chooses, rejects, projects.
God extends and embraces all.
The ego gets, because it feels deprived.
God gives because He feels full.
The ego makes temporary forms. God creates eternal Spirit.
The ego changes. God never changes.
The ego is about beginnings and endings. There is no beginning or ending in God.
...You get the point.
Choice, decision, judgement...these are all similar.
Each implies that it's possible to lose, depending on if the choice is 'right' or 'wrong'.
This conjures up the concept of fear.
Fear arises as the mind goes back and forth between what is true and what is false.
Fear is the shifting of allegiance between true and false.
Both cannot be held in mind simultaneously,
so the mind goes back and forth as it attempts to hold both.
This causes a conflict which causes the mind to "fall" because...
"A house divided against itself cannot stand".
Energy is the oscillating vibration of fear.
And out of energy the ego builds it's entire anti-creation.
It literally builds it out of a consciousness of fear and guilt.
This leads to attack, leading to an angry explosion (Big Bang(s)),
leading to a world where everything is divided/fragmented,
where everything is attacking everything,
and where everything has a beginning, and eveything has an end.
This all results in a state of mind in which will is 'lost' and 'imprisoned'.
It's all very logical and step by step.
Our real will is free.
So our false will must be a slave.
Yet, only the Son of God has power to imprison himself.
Should he overcome the ego, he can free himself.
The question is, can he overcome the ego?
I proved that it's possible to overcome the ego, and therefore overcome the world.
The idea which led to the making of the ego came by random chance.
It came as a tiny mad idea wandering about through heaven, quite by chance.
As it was begotten, so the ego begets.
Begotten out of the idea of separation, the ego makes everything by separating everything.
Begotten out of random chance, it includes chance within the slavery known as 'fate'.
The secret to freedom is to stop choosing.
This is what is really meant by the 'last judgement'.
Judge not.
Not because you should not. But because you cannot and remain your Self.
God does not judge. Neither does the Son.
Judge, and an illusion of Self must substitute itself for who you are.
That is the ego.
'Know thyself' instead.
Jesus
Quote from Turok:
OPINION ALERT!!!!
>However, if this is the only universe, some major
>scientists say it is absurd to say our universe formed
>the way it did by chance.
JB
If I had not cited the scientists and professors on this thread your argument would be intelligent.
Since you know that I have cited top professors and scientists on this thread your remark manifests as callous indifference to the truth.
Quote from smilingsynic:
Scientists SAY: this is an appeal to authority, and in terms of evidence means nothing.
The opinions of scientists mean nothing without the backing of scientific evidence. When it comes to matter of faith, scientists have no advantage compared to the rest of us.
you clearly do not understand when to bring an appeal to authority critique.
When the authority is an authority on the subject matter - to whom else would you appeal.
In our case the argument was once made that there is no "scientific evidence" of design.
A response citing nobel prize winners and co - creators of string theory is appropriate.
Would you prefer I cite some clown (2cents excluded because he may be a scientist with some gravitas for all I know) from these threads who manifests poor or purposely misleading logic?
The evidence in this matter is not something readily understood by lay people.
Quote from jem:
you clearly do not understand when to bring an appeal to authority critique.
When the authority is an authority on the subject matter - to whom else would you appeal.
In our case the argument was once made that there is no "scientific evidence" of design.
A response citing nobel prize winners and co - creators of string theory is appropriate.
Would you prefer I cite some clown (2cents excluded because he may be a scientist with some gravitas for all I know) from these threads who manifests poor or purposely misleading logic?
The evidence in this matter is not something readily understood by lay people.
Gee, digging up stuff from, what, three weeks ago? You must have oodles of time on your hands. I am envious.
When it comes to empirical matters, EVIDENCE, not authority, takes preeminence.
An opinion without supporting data, even if that opinion is from a scientist, means nothing.
Although six hundred plus pages have now been devoted to the subject, there is no clear scientific evidence of a designer. Some scientists may believe that there is a designer, but that is not a scientific opinion.
Quote from jem:
If I had not cited the scientists and professors on this thread your argument would be intelligent.
Since you know that I have cited top professors and scientists on this thread your remark manifests as callous indifference to the truth.
Not so. The "alert" was related to the fact that what you gave was only the *opinions* of said scientists and professors. Presenting evidence is one thing -- when you only present their opinions, well -- everyone has one.
Trust me -- *your* opinion isn't worth the effort of an alert.
JB
let me see we have nobel prize winners, inventors or string theory and some of the most respected minds in science. They provide you with math - well beyond your understanding - and you guys come back and call it opinion or an appeal to an authority.
And what evidence do you bring to the table.
And what evidence do you bring to the table.
The post for which the "opinion alert" was issued,
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1734251#post1734251
contains no math at all, let alone "math beyond my understanding". What it does contain, is a clear statement of opinion by "some major scientists".
The written record is the evidence I bring to the table.
JB
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1734251#post1734251
contains no math at all, let alone "math beyond my understanding". What it does contain, is a clear statement of opinion by "some major scientists".
The written record is the evidence I bring to the table.
JB
Quote from jem:
let me see we have nobel prize winners, inventors or string theory and some of the most respected minds in science. They provide you with math - well beyond your understanding - and you guys come back and call it opinion or an appeal to an authority.
And what evidence do you bring to the table.