Universe - Life - Purpose - Existence?
- Thread starter aphexcoil
- Start date
"Those guys" were fighting a war of independence from the thinking of the British Monarchy who didn't allow freedom of worship at the time the Puritans came to America. America was initially settled by those who sought freedom to practice their religion the way they saw fit.
Whether or not someone's idea of a creator is "nothing", a bolt of lightning, or a supreme deity, the authors of the Declaration of Independence felt it was important to use the word creator, and allow Americans to define their own personal concept about the nature of that creator.
Thanks for the history lesson but I don't see what you are saying other that you agree with my point and by the way, it was the Catholic Church which didn't allow freedom of religion. The Anglican Church was reforming in Britain at the time. The problem was many people saw the break with Catholicism and the replacing of the Pope with a king as just more of the same corruption.The Pilgrims were separatists, they epitomized the inevitable outcome of the ongoing Reformation as a faster spreading, growing interpretation of the Bible came about. Some of them were of Puritan belief which was/is a declared religious authority set in Scripture, if anything, a strict interpretation which would lean toward non-secular State, hardly what the Founding Fathers thought to be desirable. So they wisely decided to leave the creator open to interpretation and not use the word God as expressed in the Bible !
That we go unconscious for some period, to return to a conscious state in which our external world remains as it was prior to unconsciousness, gives rise to the conclusion of external reality being supported fact and not illusion.
Doesn't that same world hold the constants that can be used in prediction and measured before unconsciousness, of an altered world to a repeatable definite accuracy, so that when you wake up you are lead to your same conclusions. Constants expressed in science which assist cognition of supportable fact against illusion
But, is that a proof of external reality as a continuum that exists when someone is asleep? No. Just an accepted theory. I accept that theory personally, but do I know with certainty that the world exists while I am asleep? How could I possible "know" that as a fact, not as an intellectual conclusion?
Then you cannot know your God exists when you are asleep either. The constant measured predictable real science used to give acceptable reality to the things you do conclude as external reality, would be indifferent about the fact that your God existed in reality, it would be excited to find the reality. So far there is no other reality I know of that states this God exists, other than as an illusion.
So, after some period in which there is nothing, upon waking, the perceptions return. Is that proof of reality? Or is it proof of consciousness? If it is proof of consciousness, not reality, than who is to say which state of consciousness is the most valid state?
The most valid state known to humanity is the conscious one surely. If it isn't then it is guesswork to assume there is anything more like reality in unconsciousness. What about the unborn. Do we accept as a concluded reality or as an assumption that there is or could be a consciousness that exists in humans or animals that are not yet born. How far away from a reality of one kind or another do we go before it is illusion. But if it all is or could all be illusion, then the same applies to your God.
Whether or not someone's idea of a creator is "nothing", a bolt of lightning, or a supreme deity, the authors of the Declaration of Independence felt it was important to use the word creator, and allow Americans to define their own personal concept about the nature of that creator.
Thanks for the history lesson but I don't see what you are saying other that you agree with my point and by the way, it was the Catholic Church which didn't allow freedom of religion. The Anglican Church was reforming in Britain at the time. The problem was many people saw the break with Catholicism and the replacing of the Pope with a king as just more of the same corruption.The Pilgrims were separatists, they epitomized the inevitable outcome of the ongoing Reformation as a faster spreading, growing interpretation of the Bible came about. Some of them were of Puritan belief which was/is a declared religious authority set in Scripture, if anything, a strict interpretation which would lean toward non-secular State, hardly what the Founding Fathers thought to be desirable. So they wisely decided to leave the creator open to interpretation and not use the word God as expressed in the Bible !
That we go unconscious for some period, to return to a conscious state in which our external world remains as it was prior to unconsciousness, gives rise to the conclusion of external reality being supported fact and not illusion.
Doesn't that same world hold the constants that can be used in prediction and measured before unconsciousness, of an altered world to a repeatable definite accuracy, so that when you wake up you are lead to your same conclusions. Constants expressed in science which assist cognition of supportable fact against illusion
But, is that a proof of external reality as a continuum that exists when someone is asleep? No. Just an accepted theory. I accept that theory personally, but do I know with certainty that the world exists while I am asleep? How could I possible "know" that as a fact, not as an intellectual conclusion?
Then you cannot know your God exists when you are asleep either. The constant measured predictable real science used to give acceptable reality to the things you do conclude as external reality, would be indifferent about the fact that your God existed in reality, it would be excited to find the reality. So far there is no other reality I know of that states this God exists, other than as an illusion.
So, after some period in which there is nothing, upon waking, the perceptions return. Is that proof of reality? Or is it proof of consciousness? If it is proof of consciousness, not reality, than who is to say which state of consciousness is the most valid state?
The most valid state known to humanity is the conscious one surely. If it isn't then it is guesswork to assume there is anything more like reality in unconsciousness. What about the unborn. Do we accept as a concluded reality or as an assumption that there is or could be a consciousness that exists in humans or animals that are not yet born. How far away from a reality of one kind or another do we go before it is illusion. But if it all is or could all be illusion, then the same applies to your God.
Hahahaha stu isn't this the greatest paradox of all:
singularity 'the infinite energy in an infinitely-small point.
daniel_m here's something for you:
Rene Descartes wanted to base his philosophy on something 100% certain and the brightest thing that came to his mind was "I think, therefore I am" - which is a tautology.
So, we'll not only end with paradox or tautology, but also begin with...
singularity 'the infinite energy in an infinitely-small point.
daniel_m here's something for you:
Rene Descartes wanted to base his philosophy on something 100% certain and the brightest thing that came to his mind was "I think, therefore I am" - which is a tautology.
So, we'll not only end with paradox or tautology, but also begin with...
Thanks for the history lesson but I don't see what you are saying other that you agree with my point and by the way, it was the Catholic Church which didn't allow freedom of religion. The Anglican Church was reforming in Britain at the time. The problem was many people saw the break with Catholicism and the replacing of the Pope with a king as just more of the same corruption.The Pilgrims were separatists, they epitomized the inevitable outcome of the ongoing Reformation as a faster spreading, growing interpretation of the Bible came about. Some of them were of Puritan belief which was/is a declared religious authority set in Scripture, if anything, a strict interpretation which would lean toward non-secular State, hardly what the Founding Fathers thought to be desirable. So they wisely decided to leave the creator open to interpretation and not use the word God as expressed in the Bible !
The founding fathers were wise to use the word Creator, and accept that there is a Creator. They were political to use the phrase that was going to be accepted by all of the representatives of the 13 colonies.
Doesn't that same world hold the constants that can be used in prediction and measured before unconsciousness, of an altered world to a repeatable definite accuracy, so that when you wake up you are lead to your same conclusions. Constants expressed in science which assist cognition of supportable fact against illusion
I am not questioning that the waking state works, and works very well. However, that is still not proof that the waking state is more valid than the dream state, or is "the ultimate" reality. If we spent more time in a dream state, that would be considered the norm, and waking state a dream. It is relative, not absolute.
As long as the possibility exists, and cannot be proven to be impossible that we are just dreaming at any given moment, there is no fact, just acceptance of a standard. Hardly proof.
Then you cannot know your God exists when you are asleep either. The constant measured predictable real science used to give acceptable reality to the things you do conclude as external reality, would be indifferent about the fact that your God existed in reality, it would be excited to find the reality. So far there is no other reality I know of that states this God exists, other than as an illusion.
Here we get into "definition" games again. You define knowing God as a result of a perceptual process that only occurs in the waking state as a result of physical perceptions. I don't agree with your definition. You continue to assume and assert that your reality, is "the reality" which I respond by saying, "prove it!" Prove that you are not in a dream state right now?
The most valid state known to humanity is the conscious one surely. If it isn't then it is guesswork to assume there is anything more like reality in unconsciousness. What about the unborn. Do we accept as a concluded reality or as an assumption that there is or could be a consciousness that exists in humans or animals that are not yet born. How far away from a reality of one kind or another do we go before it is illusion. But if it all is or could all be illusion, then the same applies to your God.
The most valid theory for thousands of years, the reality of perception was for the sun to rise in the east and set in the west. Validity, obviously, is not determined by consensus opinion or perception, is it?
Yes, God could be an illusion. Until we can know with absolute certainty what is an illusion, and what is not, how could I answer that question.
I would define ultimate reality, as that which never changes.
Since neither one of us experiences that, we can only speculate if such a state of ultimate reality exists. Is it possible to have a state of consciousness which is eternal and unchanging, absolute?
And, if a state of consciousness were available, in which God was present and experienced 24 hours a day, every day of the year, for eternity, during all three commonly known states of consciousness, that state of eternal unchanging state consciousness would be a reality worth having, at least from my perspective.....that would be my ultimate reality.
Throughout history there are those who say it is available, and can be obtained by anyone through the practice of faith.
If that goal doesn't interest someone, if they don't want to check it out, if they are satisfied with their current reality, fine by me. I can only speak for myself, but I desire more than waking, dreaming, and sleeping within the boundaries of time and space. And since there is an absolute proof one way or another, we will all just have to reach our own conclusions as to the meaning of life, our purpose and the nature of reality.
The founding fathers were wise to use the word Creator, and accept that there is a Creator. They were political to use the phrase that was going to be accepted by all of the representatives of the 13 colonies.
Doesn't that same world hold the constants that can be used in prediction and measured before unconsciousness, of an altered world to a repeatable definite accuracy, so that when you wake up you are lead to your same conclusions. Constants expressed in science which assist cognition of supportable fact against illusion
I am not questioning that the waking state works, and works very well. However, that is still not proof that the waking state is more valid than the dream state, or is "the ultimate" reality. If we spent more time in a dream state, that would be considered the norm, and waking state a dream. It is relative, not absolute.
As long as the possibility exists, and cannot be proven to be impossible that we are just dreaming at any given moment, there is no fact, just acceptance of a standard. Hardly proof.
Then you cannot know your God exists when you are asleep either. The constant measured predictable real science used to give acceptable reality to the things you do conclude as external reality, would be indifferent about the fact that your God existed in reality, it would be excited to find the reality. So far there is no other reality I know of that states this God exists, other than as an illusion.
Here we get into "definition" games again. You define knowing God as a result of a perceptual process that only occurs in the waking state as a result of physical perceptions. I don't agree with your definition. You continue to assume and assert that your reality, is "the reality" which I respond by saying, "prove it!" Prove that you are not in a dream state right now?
The most valid state known to humanity is the conscious one surely. If it isn't then it is guesswork to assume there is anything more like reality in unconsciousness. What about the unborn. Do we accept as a concluded reality or as an assumption that there is or could be a consciousness that exists in humans or animals that are not yet born. How far away from a reality of one kind or another do we go before it is illusion. But if it all is or could all be illusion, then the same applies to your God.
The most valid theory for thousands of years, the reality of perception was for the sun to rise in the east and set in the west. Validity, obviously, is not determined by consensus opinion or perception, is it?
Yes, God could be an illusion. Until we can know with absolute certainty what is an illusion, and what is not, how could I answer that question.
I would define ultimate reality, as that which never changes.
Since neither one of us experiences that, we can only speculate if such a state of ultimate reality exists. Is it possible to have a state of consciousness which is eternal and unchanging, absolute?
And, if a state of consciousness were available, in which God was present and experienced 24 hours a day, every day of the year, for eternity, during all three commonly known states of consciousness, that state of eternal unchanging state consciousness would be a reality worth having, at least from my perspective.....that would be my ultimate reality.
Throughout history there are those who say it is available, and can be obtained by anyone through the practice of faith.
If that goal doesn't interest someone, if they don't want to check it out, if they are satisfied with their current reality, fine by me. I can only speak for myself, but I desire more than waking, dreaming, and sleeping within the boundaries of time and space. And since there is an absolute proof one way or another, we will all just have to reach our own conclusions as to the meaning of life, our purpose and the nature of reality.
================================
Hey Gordon G ;
Darkhorse got some good points by quoting you on'' truth'' Good discussion. The founding fathers also were AGAINST an overweight micro managing government. Gordon i wrote that to the late great SEC chairman. He should have listened !
=======Another repeating pattern concerns Einstein.''Science without religion [redemption] is lame. Religion [redemption] without science is blind.
Life is for living.
Alphexcoil,
Thank you for your post. First time trying this BOLD feature, lets hope it works
You raise some great points. However, I don't feel that I can truly embrace an unbiased standpoint when it comes to religion. I often feel that there is "more" than this reality, yet I have no way of knowing or proving that.
Direct perception is an accepted way of acquiring knowledge. (I am not saying that oneâs subjective direct perception will be proof for another.) If we (Not just humans, but all sentient beings) are an INDIVIDUAL spirit souls, subjective evolution of consciousness would be the process. We all have to fly our own plane.
God has not gone out of his way to make himself known. You cannot use the Bible as an example since it was written by man. God did not pen the bible himself.
Well, it would probably not be a good idea for me to use the Bible as an example for I have never actually read it. Whether or not it was inspired by divine revelation and later tweaked around by cheaters is a completely different topic.
We can first state two separate premises:
a) The universe does not have a creator
b) The universe does have a creator
With that type of reductionism approach we can only state one premise:
a) Anything material that exists must have an efficient cause
However, since the universe obviously exists, there had to be some creation event to bring it to the state that it is in now. The argument that the universe is infinite in time is flawed since it has already been proven by Einstein, Hawkins, et al. that time and space were created together during the first moments of the universe.
Let us clarify this from the start so we do not build upon an incomplete model. âHowever, since the universe obviously existsâ⦠and is directly perceived in two different aspects, the sentient and the non-sentient.
Nowhere in the Eastern spiritual traditions does it state that matter is eternal let alone this material universe. And yes, according to the Vedas there, are âBillions and Billionsâ of material universes. It constantly amazes me that a modern speculative scientist can postulate a theory and then call it his own original work when its conclusions have been penned down 5000 years ago. (Donât worry about if it was penned by man or God, no one seems to worry if the scientist used intuition or revelation to come up with his theory.)
Matter by its very nature is temporary. However spirit/life is not temporary in nature. These two exist in this universe as two separate energies. Denial of this fact is simply a form of ignorance.
In other words, asking the question, "what happened 2 seconds before the big bang" is an incorrect way of viewing time and the creation event called the "big bang." Asking that question is tantamount to asking, "Where does a circle begin?"
Without the proper question one will not get the proper answer. "Where does a circle begin?" Donât you mean where does a sphere begin? â¦.. At its center.
Them monkeys who penned the Vedic literature 1000âs of years ago in the most sophisticated language, and origin of all Latin derived languages, Sanskrit, and who conceived of expanding and contracting material universes amongst thousands of other understandings which are only now being re-discovered by modern science must have been pretty smart monkeys.
So if we assume that, in fact, there is a creation event for the universe (which science has already proven), then we can entertain the idea that there is some creator for the universe that spawned the creation event called the "big bang."
Science has not proven that there is a creation event, it has simply acknowledged that matter which is temporary in nature must have had a beginning. That is all. There is a difference between the mass acknowledgement and the proving of a fact. (Otherwise science would have to accept religion)
A sincere scientist/seeker will not simply entertain the idea to search out the efficient (Spirit) cause of the mechanism(Big Bang), he will be forced to search it out, for that is the nature of a true scientist/seeker.
Now, this leaves us with some other possibilities:
Assuming there is a creator, what can we tell about this creator based on our own external reality?
a) The creator has created a reality which he (ignore the sexism) himself resides in.
b) The creator has created a reality outside his own reality.
c) The creator is reality.
d) The creator is beyond all reality.
e) All of the above
Asking these questions requires us to define "reality." For this purpose, I will define reality as "all that which man perceives with his senses that is shared and verifiable by other men." In other words, we are merely stating that in order for something to be called reality, it must be shared among many people and all can verify the "constant" nature of reality.
However, this itself poses a problem because when we have a realistic dream, it seems to be real. This could be reality. However, it must be a reality that can be verified by others. Well, in the instance of a dream, the others are those within our own dream -- so they may easily verify that the wall we are touching in our own dream is in fact a wall which they can also touch.
Again go watch the movie âThe Matrixâ. The detailing of matterâs nature is just another diversion of the matrix. If that process leads the scientist/seeker to conclude that the matrix is reality and all that exists then the matrix has succeeded in its task laid out for it by the Supreme Efficient. Alphie, comprehending the above sentence, as fast as you can, make that phone call and get out of the dream. Donât wait for the matrix to re-adjust on you. It is the ultimate adaptive software having been written by the Supreme designer Himself.
So, is there some other way we can define reality with more exactness to be able to exclude dreams? If you were having a "very real" dream, there may never be a way to prove within that dream that you are, in fact, dreaming at the time.
The required definitionS are temporary material reality (principle dream state) and the very different spiritual reality.
Can you prove that you aren't dreaming right now? If you re-read this post and it is the same post, chances are that you are awake.
Would the definition of âdreamâ then be an over identification of that which is false or temporary in nature? Perhapsâ¦â¦ lets sayâ¦â¦â¦. MATTER!?
So, getting back to the creator -- is this creator inside this reality? Well, since nobody can verify the creator's existence within this reality, I think we can conclude that the creator exists outside this reality. This leaves us with the possibility that he is outside our reality in another reality -- the creator's reality ... OR, the creator is synonymous with reality itself. In other words, the act of sentience is through the power of the creator -- or sentience IS the creator.
The fact that YOU may not be able to verify one thing does not mean that the opposite thing is a fact. At present science cannot verify the efficient cause of the big bang therefore with your logic we are to conclude that there is no efficient cause? This brings it all back around to the fact that you, me, science will always need to seek out the efficient cause/Life. That is unless we quit our search and make our goal of life the gratification of our senses. I am sure that is what Toyata, Nissan, BMW, Gulfstream and Walmart(for you poor traders) wants us do choose.
Since it appears that:
a) The universe did have a creation event
*and*
b) The creator cannot exist within this reality
Since it appears that;
a) The MATERIAL universe did have a creation event
b) The creator exists within this reality in the form of both His external temporary material energy (which is sometimes manifest and sometimes not) and His internal spiritual/life energy which is of the absolute non-temporal nature.
[b}It is safe to assume that science will fail in searching for a god and that the only leap across the reality-bridge is through faith. This much I have gotten out of philosophy but it is still hard to understand why there is so much pain and suffering in this world.[/b]
Newtonâs 3rd law explains your pain and suffering issue.
However, I do know that there is one thing that seems to bring universal happiness to everyone and everything -- and that is the power to "create." Once you create something, whether it be art, music, science project, program, etc -- in essence, you are participating in the very thing that has propelled everything in this universe. There seems to be a constant cycle of creation and destruction events in the universe. There appears to be a cycle of things that run around and around.
EGO baby! We all like playing God. And thatâs why we are in the Matrix/material universe in the first place. We think we are the creator but that is a dream.
Again, Alphie thanks for you post.
Thank you for your post. First time trying this BOLD feature, lets hope it works
You raise some great points. However, I don't feel that I can truly embrace an unbiased standpoint when it comes to religion. I often feel that there is "more" than this reality, yet I have no way of knowing or proving that.
Direct perception is an accepted way of acquiring knowledge. (I am not saying that oneâs subjective direct perception will be proof for another.) If we (Not just humans, but all sentient beings) are an INDIVIDUAL spirit souls, subjective evolution of consciousness would be the process. We all have to fly our own plane.
God has not gone out of his way to make himself known. You cannot use the Bible as an example since it was written by man. God did not pen the bible himself.
Well, it would probably not be a good idea for me to use the Bible as an example for I have never actually read it. Whether or not it was inspired by divine revelation and later tweaked around by cheaters is a completely different topic.
We can first state two separate premises:
a) The universe does not have a creator
b) The universe does have a creator
With that type of reductionism approach we can only state one premise:
a) Anything material that exists must have an efficient cause
However, since the universe obviously exists, there had to be some creation event to bring it to the state that it is in now. The argument that the universe is infinite in time is flawed since it has already been proven by Einstein, Hawkins, et al. that time and space were created together during the first moments of the universe.
Let us clarify this from the start so we do not build upon an incomplete model. âHowever, since the universe obviously existsâ⦠and is directly perceived in two different aspects, the sentient and the non-sentient.
Nowhere in the Eastern spiritual traditions does it state that matter is eternal let alone this material universe. And yes, according to the Vedas there, are âBillions and Billionsâ of material universes. It constantly amazes me that a modern speculative scientist can postulate a theory and then call it his own original work when its conclusions have been penned down 5000 years ago. (Donât worry about if it was penned by man or God, no one seems to worry if the scientist used intuition or revelation to come up with his theory.)
Matter by its very nature is temporary. However spirit/life is not temporary in nature. These two exist in this universe as two separate energies. Denial of this fact is simply a form of ignorance.
In other words, asking the question, "what happened 2 seconds before the big bang" is an incorrect way of viewing time and the creation event called the "big bang." Asking that question is tantamount to asking, "Where does a circle begin?"
Without the proper question one will not get the proper answer. "Where does a circle begin?" Donât you mean where does a sphere begin? â¦.. At its center.
Them monkeys who penned the Vedic literature 1000âs of years ago in the most sophisticated language, and origin of all Latin derived languages, Sanskrit, and who conceived of expanding and contracting material universes amongst thousands of other understandings which are only now being re-discovered by modern science must have been pretty smart monkeys.
So if we assume that, in fact, there is a creation event for the universe (which science has already proven), then we can entertain the idea that there is some creator for the universe that spawned the creation event called the "big bang."
Science has not proven that there is a creation event, it has simply acknowledged that matter which is temporary in nature must have had a beginning. That is all. There is a difference between the mass acknowledgement and the proving of a fact. (Otherwise science would have to accept religion)
A sincere scientist/seeker will not simply entertain the idea to search out the efficient (Spirit) cause of the mechanism(Big Bang), he will be forced to search it out, for that is the nature of a true scientist/seeker.
Now, this leaves us with some other possibilities:
Assuming there is a creator, what can we tell about this creator based on our own external reality?
a) The creator has created a reality which he (ignore the sexism) himself resides in.
b) The creator has created a reality outside his own reality.
c) The creator is reality.
d) The creator is beyond all reality.
e) All of the above
Asking these questions requires us to define "reality." For this purpose, I will define reality as "all that which man perceives with his senses that is shared and verifiable by other men." In other words, we are merely stating that in order for something to be called reality, it must be shared among many people and all can verify the "constant" nature of reality.
However, this itself poses a problem because when we have a realistic dream, it seems to be real. This could be reality. However, it must be a reality that can be verified by others. Well, in the instance of a dream, the others are those within our own dream -- so they may easily verify that the wall we are touching in our own dream is in fact a wall which they can also touch.
Again go watch the movie âThe Matrixâ. The detailing of matterâs nature is just another diversion of the matrix. If that process leads the scientist/seeker to conclude that the matrix is reality and all that exists then the matrix has succeeded in its task laid out for it by the Supreme Efficient. Alphie, comprehending the above sentence, as fast as you can, make that phone call and get out of the dream. Donât wait for the matrix to re-adjust on you. It is the ultimate adaptive software having been written by the Supreme designer Himself.
So, is there some other way we can define reality with more exactness to be able to exclude dreams? If you were having a "very real" dream, there may never be a way to prove within that dream that you are, in fact, dreaming at the time.
The required definitionS are temporary material reality (principle dream state) and the very different spiritual reality.
Can you prove that you aren't dreaming right now? If you re-read this post and it is the same post, chances are that you are awake.
Would the definition of âdreamâ then be an over identification of that which is false or temporary in nature? Perhapsâ¦â¦ lets sayâ¦â¦â¦. MATTER!?
So, getting back to the creator -- is this creator inside this reality? Well, since nobody can verify the creator's existence within this reality, I think we can conclude that the creator exists outside this reality. This leaves us with the possibility that he is outside our reality in another reality -- the creator's reality ... OR, the creator is synonymous with reality itself. In other words, the act of sentience is through the power of the creator -- or sentience IS the creator.
The fact that YOU may not be able to verify one thing does not mean that the opposite thing is a fact. At present science cannot verify the efficient cause of the big bang therefore with your logic we are to conclude that there is no efficient cause? This brings it all back around to the fact that you, me, science will always need to seek out the efficient cause/Life. That is unless we quit our search and make our goal of life the gratification of our senses. I am sure that is what Toyata, Nissan, BMW, Gulfstream and Walmart(for you poor traders) wants us do choose.
Since it appears that:
a) The universe did have a creation event
*and*
b) The creator cannot exist within this reality
Since it appears that;
a) The MATERIAL universe did have a creation event
b) The creator exists within this reality in the form of both His external temporary material energy (which is sometimes manifest and sometimes not) and His internal spiritual/life energy which is of the absolute non-temporal nature.
[b}It is safe to assume that science will fail in searching for a god and that the only leap across the reality-bridge is through faith. This much I have gotten out of philosophy but it is still hard to understand why there is so much pain and suffering in this world.[/b]
Newtonâs 3rd law explains your pain and suffering issue.
However, I do know that there is one thing that seems to bring universal happiness to everyone and everything -- and that is the power to "create." Once you create something, whether it be art, music, science project, program, etc -- in essence, you are participating in the very thing that has propelled everything in this universe. There seems to be a constant cycle of creation and destruction events in the universe. There appears to be a cycle of things that run around and around.
EGO baby! We all like playing God. And thatâs why we are in the Matrix/material universe in the first place. We think we are the creator but that is a dream.
Again, Alphie thanks for you post.
No beginning, no end, never created, never destroyed, never came into being, exists eternally.
GG
I was wondering where in the brain you thought consciousness originates from?
Do you accept any type of body having a brain as being
sentient/conscious or just humans?
I assume you do not accept anything not having a brain as being sentient or having consciousness. If this is correct, I will accept it is not within your capacity of understanding to understand that plant "life" does fall in to the category of non-sentient.
If my assumption is incorrect, I was hoping you could point out where I would find a plants brain, let alone what part of that plant's brain consciousness stems from.
Thank you for bringing this angle of vision up.
I was wondering where in the brain you thought consciousness originates from?
Do you accept any type of body having a brain as being
sentient/conscious or just humans?
I assume you do not accept anything not having a brain as being sentient or having consciousness. If this is correct, I will accept it is not within your capacity of understanding to understand that plant "life" does fall in to the category of non-sentient.
If my assumption is incorrect, I was hoping you could point out where I would find a plants brain, let alone what part of that plant's brain consciousness stems from.
Thank you for bringing this angle of vision up.