Think!


by heusdens
Tags: None
Ejderha
Ejderha is offline
#19
Jul20-03, 10:54 AM
P: 16
Hello to all...

The idea of god does not require 'thinking' Because the general definition/concept based on "he is anything an intelligent mortal can think of or can't think of" There is no before or after... Or any turning points.
Besides Big Bang is not a fully proved hypothesis. But it is not a mystery, why it turned out to be the most modern religion. *BANNG!* and there was the light!? [g)]

Ejderha
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#20
Jul27-03, 12:28 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by Royce
heusdens,
You are trapped in you materialistic paradigm and your temporal thinking. Out side of spacetime there exists the reality of what we call the spiritual world or plane. It is and God is and knows that he is God. Has he not said and still says to all of us; "I am." God is the ultimate reality. This physical world is the illusion. It is real and real to us yet it is not as real as God.
God cannot be made to fit wholly in the material world as we know it because it is just the other way around the material world is wholly of God. We can put a foot into a sock but we cannot put the sock int a foot.
To better know God and the spiritual world we have to let go the limits of the material and temporal world. If we don't its like trying to comprehend a multidimentional world when we live in and know only one. It won't work. We simply can't twist our mind around to get ahold of a multidimentional shape.
Outside of matter, time and space, nothing does and can exist.

You know that, don't you?

All there is, ever was and ever will be, is infinite matter in eternal motion. That is what IS, and nothing else.
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#21
Jul27-03, 12:30 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by Ejderha
Hello to all...

The idea of god does not require 'thinking' Because the general definition/concept based on "he is anything an intelligent mortal can think of or can't think of" There is no before or after... Or any turning points.
Besides Big Bang is not a fully proved hypothesis. But it is not a mystery, why it turned out to be the most modern religion. *BANNG!* and there was the light!? [g)]

Ejderha
For sure God requires thinking, because without us thinking in concepts and such, God would not even exist.

Big Bang is a fully proved scientific theory, although it is not what people think it is: the begin of time itself.
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#22
Jul27-03, 12:34 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by Iacchus32
What is reality without the life (or soul) to animate it?
What is consciousness, if we would not be consciouss?

But reality exists, independend of our consciousness.

There were no humans at the time the solar system formated.


Without an inner-world (the life within), there would be no "evolution" of the outer-world. It would be fixated or "dead."
Yeah, wnd who says that atoms or protons are hollow, and don't have an inner reality? Who?

An electron or proton is as inexhaustable as the universe itself.
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#23
Jul27-03, 01:27 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Originally posted by heusdens
What is consciousness, if we would not be consciouss?

But reality exists, independend of our consciousness.

There were no humans at the time the solar system formated.
And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?


Yeah, and who says that atoms or protons are hollow, and don't have an inner reality? Who?

An electron or proton is as inexhaustable as the universe itself.
Well I guess I'm referring to those things which are living and grow from within, organically ... essentially what we mean by evolution.
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#24
Jul27-03, 04:42 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet without consciousness there would be no witness, and we wouldn't be here speaking about it. And why is it that we've been given the capacity to know? It's quite an honor don't you think? Perhaps it's so we can come to know the source of All-Knowing, which is the Creator?


We can not state anything about a creator, but we can state that we have brains, so it is probably the case that we have to find out for ourselves, using our brains. Wether or not the creator exists, is absolutely irrelevant to this.



Well I guess I'm referring to those things which are living and grow from within, organically ... essentially what we mean by evolution.
Ok.
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#25
Jul27-03, 08:40 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Originally posted by heusdens
We can not state anything about a creator, but we can state that we have brains, so it is probably the case that we have to find out for ourselves, using our brains. Wether or not the creator exists, is absolutely irrelevant to this.
Do you believe that there's a source of all-knowing? Why not? ... It seems like "something" is there to tell us how the Universe is structured and put together. And yet it's certainly not us now is it? [;)]
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#26
Jul29-03, 06:54 AM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you believe that there's a source of all-knowing? Why not? ... It seems like "something" is there to tell us how the Universe is structured and put together. And yet it's certainly not us now is it? [;)]
The source of our knowledge is the existence of the objective material world.
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#27
Jul29-03, 05:23 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Originally posted by heusdens
The source of our knowledge is the existence of the objective material world.
And yet how do we recognize that knowledge, without the "intrinsic ability" to do so?

And how about the marvel of the mind's ability to conceptualize, and to draw truths from its conceptualizations?
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#28
Jul29-03, 06:16 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Originally posted by Iacchus32
And yet how do we recognize that knowledge, without the "intrinsic ability" to do so?

And how about the marvel of the mind's ability to conceptualize, and to draw truths from its conceptualizations?

This "intrinsic ability" has been developed in a process that lasted aprox. 3.2 billion years and is called "evolution".
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#29
Jul29-03, 11:10 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Originally posted by heusdens
This "intrinsic ability" has been developed in a process that lasted aprox. 3.2 billion years and is called "evolution".
It's sure an interesting medium ... consciousness ... is it not? With all these little "abstract processes" firing off in everybodies brains, in our attempt to take over the whole process of what we once deemed "natural."

Would you say that natural selection is involved now? Or, have we pretty much tossed that out the window as well? Looks to me like natural selection has pretty much provided a means by which to destroy itself. And no, you can't blame it on a freak accident such as a meteorite or an asteroid -- or, that which is entirely out of its control.

Hence it would seem the evolutionary process has been thrown off kilter, ever since the advent of modern man about 10,000 years ago. Could it be, because as the Bible says, that man is a fallen creature? Indeed that would be quite a prediction -- in reference to the current world today -- for having been made such a long time ago!
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#30
Jul30-03, 01:14 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
We have the means, it is just that we don't do it, and that has to do that we inhereted from the process of evolution the feauture of self-care. If we hadn't been caring for our existence, we would not have got here.
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#31
Jul30-03, 05:44 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Originally posted by heusdens
We have the means, it is just that we don't do it, and that has to do that we inhereted from the process of evolution the feauture of self-care. If we hadn't been caring for our existence, we would not have got here.
But don't you think it would be in our "best interest" to care for the environment?

And here's an idea. What do you think about the possibility of science and religion getting together and starting some sort of grass roots organization?

If you're interested, please check out the thread The Center of Existence.
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#32
Jul30-03, 09:07 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
What do you think of materialism and science staying close together, and religious people convert themselves to that new outlook on reality, and drop the ancient one.
Iacchus32
Iacchus32 is offline
#33
Jul30-03, 11:15 PM
Iacchus32's Avatar
P: 2,216
Originally posted by heusdens
What do you think of materialism and science staying close together, and religious people convert themselves to that new outlook on reality, and drop the ancient one.
No, because science represents the mind and religion represents the heart, and you really can't have a whole human being unless you have both.

Anyway the trend is pretty much going this way already, and yet I think if science were to adopt one or two tenets about religion, then maybe the religious people could align themselves more with science and be more pragmatic about their stay here on earth, and then maybe we could put "our hearts" where only our mind is right now (about cleaning up the planet).
heusdens
heusdens is offline
#34
Jul31-03, 06:15 PM
heusdens's Avatar
P: 1,620
Iachus32:

My heart is with science, not with religion.
megashawn
megashawn is offline
#35
Jul31-03, 06:47 PM
Sci Advisor
P: 506
Nah, I say the AI companys need to focus on a robot to clean up the envrioment for us.

Atleast, there is more of a chance of that happening.


Register to reply