How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[Dontaskme]

Please explain to me exactly what I've said in coherent detail,

Look, you came out with something that made sense, the fact that you probably stumbled upon it inadvertently is something that need not be brought to anyone's attention, just pretend you understood what you were saying and accept the misplaced credit for it.

No Harbal, I do not want you to pretend you understood what I said, I want you to give me real, not pretend your version of my understanding so I can see if you are correct in making such a confident assertion.

[thedoc]

Doc..no ''thing'' never heard a sound, sound is known by the only knowing there is and that is consciousness. Sound is an auditory illusion of consciousness which is unknowable... yet here it is ..appearing as sound heard.
.

So you are claiming that the vibrations must be perceived to be a sound, and I claim that the vibrations themselves are a sound. It Seems that there is no way to agree on what a sound is. Also sound is not an illusion and the mechanics of sound are quite knowable, but you continue to wallow in your metaphysical quagmire.

[Harbal]

No Harbal, I do not want you to pretend you understood what I said,

Okay, if you're not even prepared to pretend you understood what you said then I agree, why should I make the effort?

[Dontaskme]

Doc..no ''thing'' never heard a sound, sound is known by the only knowing there is and that is consciousness. Sound is an auditory illusion of consciousness which is unknowable... yet here it is ..appearing as sound heard.
.

So you are claiming that the vibrations must be perceived to be a sound, and I claim that the vibrations themselves are a sound. It Seems that there is no way to agree on what a sound is. Also sound is not an illusion and the mechanics of sound are quite knowable, but you continue to wallow in your metaphysical quagmire.

You cannot know what you've just said without conscious knowledge of such. You are the consciousness that knows everything you know, you are not the knowledge known. Knowledge is an illusory appearance of who you already are which is knowing consciousness that cannot be known twice.

It is not a quagmire, all you are stating here is nothing more than knowledge known by the only knowing there is which is consciousness. The very act of perceiving means the perceiver cannot be the perceived. That which is known is inseparable from the knower, which is inconceivable. Which means what is perceived is an illusion...only appearing real ..as it is known instantaneously by the perceiver as it arises within it.

And yes, this is pure metaphysics and not many people understand it clearly.

.

[Dontaskme]

No Harbal, I do not want you to pretend you understood what I said,

Okay, if you're not even prepared to pretend you understood what you said then I agree, why should I make the effort?

I always make the effort, you on the other hand don't make any effort, and that makes you lazy, in that you'd rather have the answer served to you on a plate, rather than make your own meal out of it.

[Dontaskme]

So you are claiming that the vibrations must be perceived to be a sound, and I claim that the vibrations themselves are a sound. It Seems that there is no way to agree on what a sound is. Also sound is not an illusion and the mechanics of sound are quite knowable, but you continue to wallow in your metaphysical quagmire.

A Compact Disk is thought to contain music and speech,in fact, it contains just electromagnetic signals. The speaker transmits magnified, electromagnetic signals which the mind hears as music and speech. When man speaks or sings, he utters sound waves which again are electromagnetic. The mind nevertheless hears them as words. The human mouth emits electromagnetic signals, which the mind converts to words, songs and music. The word and music is an auditory illusion of a range of sound waves - a play of sound. The play of consciousness.

Similarly, A DVD contains just electromagnetic signals. The mind, however, thinks of this range of electromagnetic signals as real life scenarios.Even the screen on which a DVD is screened is light as everything that exists in the world is energy.The DVD camera and player too is light. Science is yet to discover how the mind is able to think a range of visible light as daily life and believe it sees it too.

What man thinks he sees in life are thoughts about a range of light that mysteriously appears as the world and daily life. The world and any object that appears real to man is in fact an optical illusion of visible light.

.

[Harbal]

The human mouth emits electromagnetic signals,

You must have got magnetic teeth, Dontask, you should ask your dentist what he did the last time you visited.

[ken]

DNA double helix. The four bases found in DNA are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).

So the 'only one form of life' has much more to do with than just the human body and plant life, right?

Incoherent - grammatically.

thedoc wrote; "Science knows of only one form of life and is somewhat prejudiced toward that form of life..."
I just asked the doc to clarify "What is that 'only one form of life' exactly?"
You responded to this with "DNA double helix. The four bases found in DNA are adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T).
I wrote what I did. Why is it incoherent to you? What part do you not understand?

I was just saying that the 'one form of life' that thedoc was talking has much more to with just the human body and plant life. Usually when the letters dna are written most people relate that to only the human body and/or plants. I was asking you is it right that the four bases found in dna are in more than just the human body and plants?

By the way since thedoc is the one who expressed the term 'only one form of life, it might be more helpful to wait till thedoc's clarification of what 'it' is exactly.

In fact, DNA on all accounts will be found in what I have proposed already. But this will just have to be waited upon and seen. If I am correct, then there is really only One form of Life, which was seen and understood when Life, Itself, came into full Consciousness.

OK. So what is your point?

Since you replied to My question about what is the 'one form of life' My point is dna will be found in every physical thing, and if this is correct then ALL physical things are related to each other, and together We are One. Every thing is of the same family of Everything and/or in the same family as 'All of us'. The 'one form of life' IS Life, Itself, seen by the evolving, changing and forming of physical things all the time as One. When one thing interacts with another thing, then this influences and/or creates some thing else. In a way every thing is reacting with every thing else, and thus creating Everything. This One living Being working together as One that is the 'one form of life', which is the created and the Creator, together as One. This Creator IS creating always, and being eternal It could create in all ways also.

'Full Consciousness' by the way is when Life, Itself, comes into being a fully Self-aware Being. When human beings are able to answer the question Who am 'I' correctly, then this is when what I am proposing here can be seen and understood much better.

[ken]

First of all, since no-one can determine what happened before the Big Bang, it is reasonable to assume that there were universe's that existed before this one and there is no reason to think that if many previous universes existed, those universes might have each had slightly different conditions, and this one just happened to be right for life to develop.

Why is it reasonable to assume that there were universe's? If you are not sure of some thing, then I would suggest it is unreasonable to assume some thing. I would suggest, though, what is reasonable is to think about some things and imagine what could have been, or could be. But to assume some thing is true without evidence nor proof does not seem very reasonable at all...

Those are all good points, ken.

How are you defining 'universe' here?

If 'Universe' means 'All there is', then I do not see how there could be any thing more. It would be impossible to be more than one 'ALL there is'.

The word “universe” does not necessarily mean the “ALL-THAT-IS,” and should (IMO) be viewed more as a bubble-like entity, like one of these...



...of which there could be a near infinite number.

Now that (to me) seems more plausible as representing the “ALL-THAT-IS,” beyond which there is only nothingness.

To quote something I posted in an alternate thread:

“...astrophysicists John Gribbin and Martin Rees stated from a materialistic perspective in their book COSMIC COINCIDENCES - Dark Matter, Mankind, and Anthropic Cosmology...

Quantum cosmology allows the possibility of creating not just one universe but an infinite number of universes out of nothing at all. The universes may be inter-connected in some complex way, as new universes are born within, but then pinch off from, the vacuum of old universes, producing a complex multidimensional foam. Our universe may simply be a region of space-time that has pinched off from another bubble.

(Bolding/underlining mine)...”

To see my own perspective on what the “complex multidimensional foam” entails (and why I highlighted “born within” in the above quote), then take a look at a series of drawings I created to demonstrate, not only how all of the universes are literally alive, but also what our ultimate purpose may possibly be – click here: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm

_______

Yes you are right in that the word 'Universe' does not necessarily mean 'ALL-THAT-IS'. I never said it did. I was just asking thedoc to clarify how they are defining 'Universe' here. But if human beings are going to say the word 'universe' is not 'ALL-THAT-IS' and propose It how you are proposing It here with a "beginning", happening within something much bigger, then 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?

I do not see any complexity in any thing, "multidimensional" or not, so I am not necessarily wanting to see others perspectives on simple matters like this. If I did, then I would not be able to spend as much time here learning how to communicate more efficiently.

When you say, "... what our ultimate purpose may possibly be" what is the 'our' you are referring, and in relation, to exactly?

If 'our' is in relation to human beings, then human beings really need to stop thinking that Life revolves around them. They are only a part of Life. They are not the 'only one form of life' and they are certainly not more, nor less, special than any thing else. They just have a particular part to play, which they are.

What the purpose is for every (individual) thing, and Everything together as One, is also really simple and easy to understand.

Are you able to write in one or two sentences what the 'our' is and what 'our' purpose is here? I am curious and it just saves Me reading lots of stuff somewhere else.

[ken]

"If a tree falls in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

If you are very narrow-minded you would say that without a conscious being to hear, there is no sound. But if you are more open-minded you would agree that sound is just vibrations in the air and to be a sound doesn't need a conscious being to hear it.

In reply to the above question I ask why do human beings not just put a video camera and recorder in the forest to find out once and for all.

[ken]

If 'Universe' means 'All there is', then I do not see how there could be any thing more. It would be impossible to be more than one 'ALL there is'

The word “universe” does not necessarily mean the “ALL-THAT-IS,” and should (IMO) be viewed more as a bubble-like entity, like one of these...


...of which there could be a near infinite number.

Dear seeds...the last time we engaged in discussion, I do recall it ended rather abruptly due to a lack of comprehension on my part to fathom your great vision. Which I admire immensely by the way. But, I particularly struggled to understand the part where you talked about how each individual offshoot of God (human beings) can also graduate to Godlike status.

This could be interesting. I have not heard another human being propose this this way previously, but I have mentioned very similar things to this already in this forum.

I could not comprehend that notion, so I dismissed the idea totally.

The reason you could not comprehend that notion is because of the beliefs that were already being held. On most occasions the reason why human beings can not comprehend things is tied up also in the reason why their own ideas 'run their course and meet walls and dead ends', the answer lies within your last five words here. If a person believes one thing already, then they will dismiss any and all opposing ideas totally, including even new ideas inside of one's own head. Dismissing an idea totally literally closes a person off completely to any thing new or more.

Then you were absent from the forum for awhile, and it was during that time that I realised how much I missed your posts, even though I was having some difficulty with comprehending them.. however, and this happens to me a lot, I've had a change of mind and heart, a kind of shift in perspective, in fact I find myself being drawn more and more toward your ideas than ever before. When you were absent for awhile I was tempted to PM you to ask you to return, but then you decided to return anyway, and I'm so pleased you have. I want to support your ideas because I find them fascinating and stimulating and very much worth delving into.

I've been in a rut lately where all my ideas seem to have run their course and had met a wall...so reading your stuff helps to push through the wall. I understand that where you go with your ideas seeds, is where most people fear to tread for fear of ridicule, but I strongly believe that if you can imagine something, then it can exist somewhere somehow, and is why I like your ideas, they push through the limited boundaries of the human mind.

For a long time I personally believed that Life had no purpose other than to just be for no reason whatsoever. But I always keep having a change of mind, rather than close my mind, I am compelled to keep it open, and then I figured that what if the whole purpose of life was to have real absolute purpose, and that to me is an amazing and beautiful idea.

Lets discover together..

The purpose of life, and the purpose of individual human beings and the purpose of human beings on a whole fits in perfectly with how the purpose of Life does have 'real absolute purpose', as you put it, and all this can be very easily understood, if you are open to the idea.

The purpose of Life, It's Self, is so that the 'I' can see the beauty of what 'I' am always creating, and what 'I' create IS truly amazing and beautiful. The purpose of ALL human beings is to learn, and teach, and ALL human beings as a whole like just one individual human being, in that they learn and grow. Human beings can watch one individual human being grow but it is a fraction harder to see how one collective human being grows. Human beings on a whole grow with knowledge and evolve into Consciousness, which is more Godlike. Once they have gained knowing and understanding, themselves, and they are working together as One and creating what they all want and desire anyway, then they are being more Godlike all the time. Discovering who and what 'I' am leads to seeing, understanding, and thus knowing how 'I' am thee Creator of Everything.

Also, I agree with your idea that to assume a universe as ALL-THAT-IS ..does not mean ''all there is''...

To make a claim that there is only ''ALL THAT IS'' does in fact imply completion. And yet I don't think that is possible, can infinity ever complete? the plain answer is No.

If you thought deeply about what is that plain answer of "No" actually based upon? Could it be possible that you come to that absolute answer solely because you have not yet discovered if infinity can ever complete yet?

This dismissing of ideas totally and believing in things again, which may not even be true, is what causes you, human beings, not to see and understand more and newer things.

Why not just wait to see IF infinity can be complete before jumping to the conclusion that it can not? Also, why not wait instead of believing that that conclusion is so true, right, and correct?

I can easily see and understand how infinity can be and is complete. But of course this is also depended upon your definition of the word 'complete' and probably the word 'infinite' also.

By the way, to Me, seeds did not say that the word 'Universe' does not mean 'ALL there is', (and seeds also did not imply that any one was assuming that too). Seeds just showed the obvious, and that is that the word Universe does not necessarily mean the “ALL-THAT-IS,” and seeds said that the word 'Universe', to them, should be viewed more as some thing else. If you also think/believe the word 'Universe' should be viewed as some thing other than 'ALL-THAT-IS', then what do you propose should be the word given for ALL-THAT-IS?

To explain how the Universe actually works is hard enough, without having to deal with all the unnecessary changing of words and changing of their meanings and definitions. Some words already have multiple meanings and definitions, with some words like 'existence' for example having roughly about seven different definitions and meanings, and then different human beings seeing and giving different meanings and definitions to the exact same words causing more confusion, which can come in very quickly with communication, even within one's own head confusion can prevail. What is even more confusing is some words even have completely opposing definitions and meanings to that exact same word, so trying to communicate and convey what is truly meant to human beings is hard enough for Me already without the literal constant change of words and their meanings and definitions. If I want to explain, for example, how ALL physical things interact, which is how the [install name] can and does Create, Itself, then what word would you, human beings, like Me to use here and now? What word do you like to use for 'ALL-THAT-IS'? I prefer Universe, but obviously some people do not. I do not care one bit what word we choose and what definition and meaning we choose, just as long as we agree and accept it for the whole duration of the discussion.
.

Thanks for being here seeds.

And don't ever give up your dreams/vision...for fear of what other people think. It doesn't matter, just have the courage to dream your own dream, and leave others to dream theirs what ever theirs maybe.



.

From the very early stages of Me being here in this forum I said to you that I could understand what you were trying to say but that you were coming across very confusingly, and I also understood how others could not understand you at all. I offered some assistance if you would like it. If I recall correctly you felt offended in some way and did not want any, so I left you alone.

You were also saying that some things could never be known nor explained, which I totally disagreed and tried to explain how and why. But you believed your ideas, views, and beliefs were true, right and correct, so again I left you alone.

I know that ALL things can be known, and that the answers that most adult human beings are looking are easily discovered and known, once you know how to do it. But you believed that this is impossible so I left you to believe your beliefs.

Your advice about 'not ever giving up your dreams/vision...for fear of what other people think' is great, I do not even consider giving that up by the way, and your advice that 'it does not matter, just have the courage to dream your own dream, and leave others to dream theirs what ever theirs maybe' is good advice to. I tend to leave those people with beliefs of what might not be true alone also. I tend to not reach out to believers of what might or might not be true, right, and/or correct, but do you have any advice about how can I express that I can see a complete infinite, and how easy ALL-THAT-IS is to see, to those who believe that that is impossible. I can see how ALL-THAT-IS IS One and how this completeness leads to a truly peaceful life for everyone, but how can I get people to just want to want to see It, especially if they believe the opposite is true?

[ken]

Again, I am not demanding that you accept any of the theories, but please try to make a modicum of effort to apprehend their premises.
_______

I do understand the point and I've heard it before, I just don't think it's correct.

You claim that the purpose of all the other stars in the universe is for the benefit of consciousness, so far humans are the only one that science knows of, so what is the purpose of any star other than the Sun?

Like every individual child as it grows it expands it's horizons. A baby human being begins to crawl around one room, then begins to walk and open doors furthering its horizons, then grows more and plays in the backyard, to keep growing more and more till it leaves the home and explore on its own more and more. Collectively human beings on a whole are no different. If there were not other stars, planets et cetera to explore, then human beings would be just stuck here on earth, and considering how much damage human beings have done to this home in just a few hundred short years it does not take to much to work out how quickly human beings would wipe themselves out completely. The Universe is human beings 'backyard' and when human beings on a whole grow up enough to get along with each other and work together, then they can enjoy playing together in their infinitely large backyard.

All things work accordingly and human beings just need to grow up and learn how to stop killing each other and to just get along with each other, as well as learn how to stop polluting and killing this, for the moment, one and only home they have before they have any "right" or "privilege" to explore what is there for the "taking", the whole Universe.

As human beings evolve, so to does Consciousness evolve into Being, which is just another word for God, then the stars are like signposts or lights to travel by. Without light things obviously can not be seen. If there were no other stars, besides the sun, then there would be complete darkness beyond the earth and a relatively very few other objects close by, like the moon. Without other stars then there would be nowhere to go nor see other than just here on earth and the moon.

BTW, what happens at the quantum scale does not translate up to the larger scales so the presence or absence of an observer doesn't mean anything except at quantum scales.

But what does happen at the quantum scale does translate perfectly up to the larger scales. Can you provide any examples of where you think this does not happen so we can take a look at it together, and discuss. This will shine some more light on the subject.

[ken]

Imagine the DVD player is still going and still hooked up to the speakers and TV but neither you nor anyone else is in the house or close enough to the house to hear the DVD playing. Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes.

What is it that hears the DVD playing?...it is not the ear that hears, for the ear is only the instrument for hearing, remove the instrument for hearing and there is no sound. Sound is known, by consciousness only, no ear ever heard a sound.

The notion that the DVD is still producing sound in the absence of the instrument for sound is just a memory arising within consciousness itself as (knowledge known)

Consciousness has to be present at all times, everywhere, otherwise the statement ( '' Is it still producing sound? I would say, Yes.'' )could not have been possible....the statement was a re-cognition or a memory of knowing consciousness...that is never absent.

.

Consciousness, which comes from the one Mind that is always open, is everywhere at all times. With the open Mind human beings are able to imagine any thing, and it is through this ability how they can "see"/know about things of which the actual body is not there and present. The open Mind besides be able to see into the future and the past and imagine absolutely any thing has also allowed human beings to dream up, invent and create just about absolutely any thing. All of the things that human beings have got for and by themselves comes from this truly amazing creative power. The Mind, which is always open, is the Creator. The brain, however, which can be closed (from beliefs) can be the exact opposite and destroyer.

The brain within the human body is truly amazing in its ability to gather and store information, and to recall back that stored knowledge, and from that its ability to learn, understand, and reason absolutely anything is also absolutely amazing, but the brains biggest downfall was and is with its ability to learn absolutely anything because it can then believe (in) things that may not actually be true, right, and correct.

For example some human beings even believe that human beings need money to live, and based on this belief they will do what supports their belief. People do not go against what they believe (in). The (open) Mind KNOWS what is true, right, and correct and thus It is the all-knowing, et cetera, whereas, the (closed) brain just THINKS it knows what is true, right, and correct.

[thedoc]

The speaker transmits magnified, electromagnetic signals which the mind hears as music and speech. When man speaks or sings, he utters sound waves which again are electromagnetic. The mind nevertheless hears them as words. The human mouth emits electromagnetic signals, which the mind converts to words, songs and music. The word and music is an auditory illusion of a range of sound waves - a play of sound. The play of consciousness.

No, the sounds from a speaker or a person are mechanical vibrations of the air, the sounds form the speakers and the sounds from a person have an electromagnetic component but that is only a part of the sound. Claiming that they are electromagnetic in nature is nonsense, please refrain from using science fiction to back up your statements.

[thedoc]

Yes you are right in that the word 'Universe' does not necessarily mean 'ALL-THAT-IS'. I never said it did. I was just asking thedoc to clarify how they are defining 'Universe' here. But if human beings are going to say the word 'universe' is not 'ALL-THAT-IS' and propose It how you are proposing It here with a "beginning", happening within something much bigger, then 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 universe would include all that we can know about or infer from what we can see but only in the physical sense, the spiritual realm is outside the scope of the universe. If someone discovers a means of observing other universes then whatever else we can observe must be included.