Yes, consciousness does act as a precursor upon force, in which case it makes greater sense to say that energy is not spirit itself, but more so the medium which exists between spirit and matter, and therefore contains elements of both.Originally posted by BoulderHead
For the same reason as already touched on; the conflicting claims that everything must have a foundation, then excluding energy from this claim.
You are doing it yet again; interchanging energy and spirit !
I believe there is a difference between a force and a consciousness, do you?
In which case we have three things involved: 1) the intent or motive = "spiritual design" 2) the force or medium = the release of energy, and 3) the outcome or effect = the material world.
Thus I think it's possible to have both a spiritual world (that which is immaterial) and a material world, seperated by an invisible energy barrier, which serves as the go-between or medium between both cause (spirit) and effect (matter).
No, because the outcroppings of spirit are most often conveyed in terms of energy.I don’t think the case has been made strongly enough for me to simply go along with accepting spirit as a given. Also, even if I did accept this, why should I feel confident that energy must be the key? Is it simply, to use your own words, because I can’t conceive of anything more basic than energy?
The kind of logic that might facillitate an answer.What kind of logic would that be?
And yet there does seem to be a message behind it all now doesn't there?Does the universe limit itself to match my mental capabilities?!
Not every movie which comes out of Hollywood is run-of-the-mill. And this I think is one of those exceptions.Just questioning obsessions people often have with creations coming out of Hollywood, that is all. Just because a viewer is presented with something that has a meaning for them doesn’t mean that the universe has to act accordingly.
Mine is a perfectly valid assessment ... If in fact we do have a spirit, which is conscious, then what happens to that spirit when we die? I don't see how you can construe anything other than this from what I've said?But now you are putting the emphasis on imaginings that take place during the sleeping hours and holding that they are more credible than the imaginings which take place during the waking hours. On what possible grounds, I ask, do you hold this to be true, and even more to the point; why should I ?