How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[ken]

An alternate explanation is that there are parallel universes and the photons in one universe are
interfering and reacting with the photons in the adjacent universe producing the pattern seen on the screen

In brane theory photons cannot travel between universes where the brane resides on a closed string so other ones
cannot be observed [ assuming that they actually exist ] The only thing that could travel between them is gravity

The reason I asked previously if what I write is to be quoted, then could it be quoted exactly as I write it, was so that when this is read in the future it could be easily followed and not get misunderstood nor misconstrued.

I NEVER wrote what was attributed to Me here. the doc wrote that.

[ken]

As Obvious Leo was trying to explain and which I had never thought of before there is no actual thing space. This is in the sense
that there is no distance between objects or matter in length. There however is a distance between events. Although it has to
be noted here that there is no actual thing as time itself also

Distance between events is actually one of the definitions of time

Yes and 'time's is just a human made up word and the label placed on the passing of events, and/or the distance between events. Time, itself, is not an actual thing.

To measure the naturally occurring passing of events humans beings devised a measuring tool, and labelled it clock and/or watch. They labelled and called the passing of events 'time'.

Also if time does not exist then why is there motion and entropy

Because events happen. So, change occurs, naturally.

[surreptitious57]

time is just a human made up word and the label placed on the passing of events and / or the distance between events

That is true but all words are of human origin and so saying that time is just a word is true of every other word as well

[surreptitious57]

Also if time does not exist then why is there motion and entropy

Because events happen So change occurs naturally

An event is a thing happening in time such as motion or entropy
Explain then how time cannot exist for things happening in time

[surreptitious57]

An alternate explanation is that there are parallel universes and the photons in one universe are
interfering and reacting with the photons in the adjacent universe producing the pattern seen on the screen

In brane theory photons cannot travel between universes where the brane resides on a closed string so other ones
cannot be observed [ assuming that they actually exist ] The only thing that could travel between them is gravity

[Dontaskme]

I know you do not agree, but I will say it again, who/what is observing what is observed is already known, and, can be explained.

Yes, it's known by no one. And yes it can be explained as imagined.

This ''no one'' here imagines it....as follows...

Life is an effect of a causeless cause. A continuous singular movement, appearing as phenomena upon a silent non-moving timeless backdrop of awareness. Any boundaries between this and that have to be illusory and not real.The first cause or the first effect can never be determined.
A cause is a compressed effect and an effect is an expressed cause.
Therefore, there is no room to make an approach, any approach is also it approaching itself as imagined.

.

This is absolute understanding. The end of illusory knowledge.

.

[ken]

...what is the new word or new label that you propose and that human beings are now going to use that satisfies the definition of 'ALL-THAT-IS'? What is the name of THIS PLACE, where all universes exist?

The materialists would of course use the term “Multiverse” (as was pointed out by surreptitious57).

I, on the other hand, coming from a metaphysical (spiritual) perspective, have no specific name for it other than perhaps “True Reality.”

A similar problem of my inability to give a fitting name to the ineffable also arises when I attempt to reference God and end up using the unfortunate pronouns “he” or “him” (something that is quite irksome to our beloved Greta).

However, my true visualization of God sees “him” as a completely genderless entity.

In which case, if anyone can come up with a name for the genderless “wholeness of being” of God’s form (and indeed of our own ultimate form that I believe will be revealed to us at the moment of death), then let’s hear it.

What is wrong with just saying God, instead of "him", or any other word?

I have never used "him" or any thing else to describe God, and I have never had any trouble just saying God. I also usually ask people why they call God, "him"? Usually without a valid response?

So then, you say that you have never used “him” or anything else to describe God?

Let’s take a look at an excerpt from your very first post on the first page of this thread:

...Could God show anger by consuming It's enemies with love?

You are questioning why humans persist in referring to God as a he, yet you think that a better alternative is the word “It”?

What comes to imagination when the word 'It' is used compared to if 'him' is used'?

Which one better describes a gender less entity?

As most human beings do not know who or what God is yet, thus they have no idea what God IS, then describing God in a way that does not presume nor assume any thing at all I found is better than pretending like you know what It is. 'It' is just a nondescript word, and works for some thing that has not been described or defined yet.

Would you call your mother an “it”?

'It' refers to no thing in particular. I have and would refer to my mother as the worst thing ever. But what if i did call my mother an 'it', what has that got to do with a thing that you can not describe? 'Mother' is already defined and generally known by most people. 'God' is, by most people, NOT already defined nor known.

If not, then do you actually think that something as cold and impersonal as the word “it” is appropriate and fitting for the living Creator of the universe?

To Me, 'It' is not cold and impersonal. Calling some thing an 'It' just means I have not yet described what 'It' is yet.

Do you really think, what you call, the living Creator of the Universe would really care what It is called, especially when It KNOWS that most human beings have no clue as to what It actually IS, yet?

However, after reading a few of your subsequent posts, I have come to realize that you do indeed view God as an impersonal entity.

So what?

How do you view what God is? What and how do you propose God is a male of exactly? If indeed that is how you view what God is.

How do you propose and explain how a living Creature created the Universe? By the way what is the Universe, exactly? And, how many Universes are there?

You seem to treat the word “God” as a representation of something nebulous - something of which you have given the title of “Mind” to; something that appears to be some kind of living repository, or container, of all knowledge and of all things.

How do you treat the word 'God'? And, how is the way you treat the word God more or less accurate than how I treat the word God?

Furthermore, I could not help but notice that based on your following posts...

...Human beings come to KNOW Me when they have been prepared and thus ready to.

...This impatience comes out and through the one, which I am using, who is writing this. This is a bit like how the ones, I used who wrote the bible, misinterpreted what I was actually trans and in spiring to them, which obviously has caused a lot of confusion. Now I found another human being who I can use to share things with...

...you seem to be “channeling” this “Mind” in a way that is reminiscent of J. Z. Knight (Ramtha), or Darryl Anka (Bashar), or the channeled collective know as “Abraham” through Esther & Jerry Hicks.

Is that how you wish to be perceived – as a “channeler” of something you refer to as “Mind”?

i do not wish to be perceived as any thing other than what 'i' am, and that is just the person within a human body, just like all of 'you' are.

'I', however, want to be recognized and accepted for who and what I am.

By the way what seems to you is relative to how you are observing. How you are looking at what I write, or from what perspective you are looking from, will influence what appears to you. What seems to be true may not actually be true at all.

Do you see yourself as a “conduit” of something that presents itself through you in the form of that which you keep referring to as “Me” with the capital “M”?

Is not God within you? Does not the living Creator of the Universe have the power to talk to you?

If and when you explain who/what the 'you' is and who/what the 'self' is in the word 'yourself'', then I will answer that question.

Lastly, the whole point of bringing up the “he” subject in the first place was simply as an anecdotal example of the difficulty in trying to name that which is ineffable, such as the name of the alleged context or “Place” where all universes exist (something that you requested).

If a person is going to say that there are more than one Universe, then the once generally accepted definition of 'Universe' needs to be changed. I am just requesting, from the people who say there are more than one Universe, what new name and label are they going to use for the old definition AND what is the going to be the new definition for each of the alleged 'many universes'?

But there is absolutely NO difficulty in naming any thing at all. In fact once you know how to define ALL words in a way so that they ALL fit perfectly together, which then forms a true, real and full picture of Life that can and will be verified as accurate and correct through scientific methods, then naming every thing really IS very simply and easily effable.

(By the way, and I apologize for being nitpicky here, but the possessive pronoun you used for God was “It’s,” which is a contraction of “It is.” The word you want is “its.” It’s a common mistake that you might want to make note of.) (I’ll add that to my “Pet Peeves” thread that no one liked. )

You do not have to apologize. I am glad you mentioned this because I was wondering how to write that. If I am correct I have not contracted any words in this forum at all, unless I was quoting what another had wrote, and I was unsure how to write that. Thank you.

[surreptitious57]

If a person is going to say that there are more than one Universe then the once generally accepted definition of Universe needs
to be changed. I am just requesting from the people who say there are more than one Universe what new name and label are
they going to use for the old definition AND what is the going to be the new definition for each of the alleged many universes

I have already said that there is only one Universe the definition of which is ALL THERE IS but there may be within it many
other smaller universes. But if that is too confusing [ and it can be ] one can use the term Multiverse instead of Universe

[seeds]

You are questioning why humans persist in referring to God as a he, yet you think that a better alternative is the word “It”?

What comes to imagination when the word 'It' is used compared to if 'him' is used'?

What comes to my mind is mostly a referencing of anything lifeless (in the “normal” sense) - a rock, or a chair, or a pencil, or a hammer, for example.

(I qualified that by inserting (in the “normal” sense). Because, like you, I believe that the entire universe, and everything in it, is literally alive.)

Which one better describes a gender less entity?

As most human beings do not know who or what God is yet, thus they have no idea what God IS, then describing God in a way that does not presume nor assume any thing at all I found is better than pretending like you know what It is. 'It' is just a nondescript word, and works for some thing that has not been described or defined yet.

And yet, all through this thread you are attempting to describe and define God as an impersonal repository of all things, and of all knowledge – something of which you refer to as “one Mind.”

And according to you there are no other minds other than this “one Mind” - something of which you seem to be “channeling” to us (like Esther Hicks and her “Abraham” collective).

...do you actually think that something as cold and impersonal as the word “it” is appropriate and fitting for the living Creator of the universe?

To Me, 'It' is not cold and impersonal. Calling some thing an 'It' just means I have not yet described what 'It' is yet.

In a rather forceful and confident tone, you stated the following to surreptitious57:

There is no such thing as anyones mind. How many times do I have to say that there is only one Mind before clarification is asked for

So by all means, ken, as a “clarifying question” extended from me to you, please describe what the “one Mind” or the “It” truly is.

However, after reading a few of your subsequent posts, I have come to realize that you do indeed view God as an impersonal entity.

So what?

How do you view what God is? What and how do you propose God is a male of exactly? If indeed that is how you view what God is.

Are you serious?

Now I am not suggesting that I cannot be wrong on this issue, but I clearly stated to you that I believe that God’s ultimate form is that of a “genderless, wholeness of being,” - something that can only be witnessed within the transcendent context in which God’s form is actually revealed.

It is obvious, ken, that the effort you hope others would make in trying to understand your point of view does not apply to you in the reverse.

How do you propose and explain how a living Creature created the Universe? By the way what is the Universe, exactly? And, how many Universes are there?

Now you are demonstrating just how disingenuous you can be, for you implied that you had visited my website via the link I provided (again, here: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm).

And the point is that had you actually done so and scrolled down through the short series of drawings I created, then you would know precisely how I propose how a living Creature created the universe, and precisely what I suggest the universe is.

Again, you want people to make the effort to try and understand you, yet you do not seem to feel obligated to extend that courtesy to others.
_______

[surreptitious57]

The reason why God is gendered is because this makes him easier to relate to as it humanises him. Referring to anyone as it is considered very impersonal so is not done. Sometimes this extends beyond humans to animals too such as pets for example. ken thinks more logically than any
one else here so would see no problem in using it instead of him. Now I do not believe in God myself but if I did I would use the male pronoun
for the same reason that anyone else would. But there is no right or wrong here for everyone uses what is the most appropriate term for them

[Dontaskme]

The reason why God is gendered is because this makes him easier to relate to as it humanises him. Referring to anyone as it is considered very impersonal so is not done. Sometimes this extends beyond humans to animals too such as pets for example. ken thinks more logically than any
one else here so would see no problem in using it instead of him. Now I do not believe in God myself but if I did I would use the male pronoun
for the same reason that anyone else would. But there is no right or wrong here for everyone uses what is the most appropriate term for them

Anything you can know or know about - you cannot be.

The Anthropomorphic super-imposition is projecting and attributing qualities or characteristics that are dependent on a brain and nervous system onto that which does not have a brain or nervous system.

Knowing oneself or awareness knowing itself requires a knower and it is projecting the quality of knowing of being of oneself to awareness.
Pure awareness is prior to knowingness as knowingness is a byproduct and an abstraction of awareness.

Portal to the Absolute.

.
Everything will eventually morph into it's opposite. To know God is not for you to know. You are the Not-Knowing known. All polarities are Holographic.

[surreptitious57]

Pure awareness is prior to knowingness as knowingness is a byproduct and an abstraction of awareness

Awareness should not come before knowingness if it is more complex since simplicity comes before complexity
not the other way round. Also if one is already aware why abstract it with knowing instead of just letting it be

[Philosophy Explorer]

Pure awareness is prior to knowingness as knowingness is a byproduct and an abstraction of awareness

Awareness should not come before knowingness if it is more complex since simplicity comes before complexity
not the other way round. Also if one is already aware why abstract it with knowing instead of just letting it be

What do you mean by simplicity? For example, atoms were regarded as the simplest objects in the universe. Then there were electrons, protons and neutrons and then quarks, etc. So what do you mean by simplicity?

PhilX

[surreptitious57]

What do you mean by simplicity? For example atoms were regarded as the simplest objects in the universe
Then there were electrons protons and neutrons and then quarks etc. So what do you mean by simplicity

Atoms were regarded as the simplest objects in the universe because knowledge of subatomic particles was not known at the time
But biology is a better example as all life is descended from a common ancestor and that is single cell non self replicating bacteria
And today the human brain is the most complex organ known to exist. So simplicity and complexity are on a time specific spectrum

[Philosophy Explorer]

What do you mean by simplicity? For example atoms were regarded as the simplest objects in the universe
Then there were electrons protons and neutrons and then quarks etc. So what do you mean by simplicity

Atoms were regarded as the simplest objects in the universe because knowledge of subatomic particles was not known at the time
But biology is a better example as all life is descended from a common ancestor and that is single cell non self replicating bacteria
And today the human brain is the most complex organ known to exist. So simplicity and complexity are on a time specific spectrum

First a question. Using your non-replicating single cell, how would that grow into a multi-cell lifeform?

As you go from simplicity to complexity, what was formerly complex would get simpler in comparison to the new complex object (in biology). And the simplest object would get simpler in comparison to the new complex object. So, to me, simplicity and complexity are relative, depending on what happens over time, not absolute.

PhilX