How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[attofishpi]

Human beings labeled some thing as quantum scale and propose some thing happens at that scale.

Isn't it amazing that there is the ability for a pile of atoms - and their subatomic components to provide sensory perception at all?

The very fact that I can t.ouch c smell h.ear taste amazes me.

[surreptitious57]

However classical ( non quantum ) physics describes perfectly the process of navigating between the bodies in the solar system
without invoking quantum physics at all. According to quantum physics the flight of a spacecraft would be random and the
craft would only probably reach its target with classical physics there is much less doubt about the outcome

By the way if based on your logic that if I make a claim then it is up to Me to provide examples what happens if the
claim that I made was in direct relation to the claim that you made first? Do you not also have to provide examples

He has provided an example as you can see but you did not provide one with your claim and did not clarify the incompatibility between
GR and QM that exists between them. They are two entirely separate domains and so your claim of transferability is therefore false. As
what happens at the quantum level does not happen at the classical level and vice versa so there is no smooth transition between them

[surreptitious57]

Touch is actually an illusion since nothing in the observable universe can touch anything else
And so what you feel when you touch something is not the thing itself but electron repulsion

[attofishpi]

Touch is actually an illusion since nothing in the observable universe can touch anything else
And so what you feel when you touch something is not the thing itself but electron repulsion

Well done.

[seeds]

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.

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 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.

The point is, if you do not like the term “ALL-THAT-IS” as a reference to the speculatively imagined context that encompasses literally everything that exists on the opposite side of absolute and utter nothingness, then I guess I'm just not certain of what a proper replacement for it would be.

(Continued in next post)
_______

[seeds]

_______

(Continued from prior post)

I do not see any complexity in any thing, "multidimensional" or not...

Yes, and I am certain that an amoeba or a fly sees no complexity in anything either. However, is that due to the actual nonexistence of complexity, or more to their lower level of consciousness and awareness?

...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.

Setting aside the shameless presumptuousness of your last few statements, what exactly is it that you are attempting to communicate?

Now admittedly, I have not read all of your posts on this forum, however, from what I have read, I have yet to see anything of a revelatory nature.

Therefore, if you have some important insight for us, ken, then lay it out in a clear and concise manner (preferably, in one or two sentences – see below).

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

...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.

The link I provided earlier (again, here: http://www.theultimateseeds.com/murmurings.htm) does not have a lot of reading in it, but is more of a pictorial guide to what our ultimate purpose may “possibly” be. If you check it out, you will then have a better understanding of where I am coming from.
_______

[ken]

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.

DNA is only found in living organisms but the same form of DNA is found in everything so all live is related but non-living objects do not have DNA.

You just wrote that the same form of dna is found in everything but some things, like non-living things, do not have dna. What is the difference between the form of dna and dna itself? And, what objects do you suggest are non-living, dna free things?

[surreptitious57]

The fundamental structure of DNA is the same in all organisms but the order or sequence and complexity
of DNA in them does vary. Anything non biological is DNA free and so that would be all inanimate objects

[thedoc]

You just wrote that the same form of dna is found in everything but some things, like non-living things, do not have dna. What is the difference between the form of dna and dna itself? And, what objects do you suggest are non-living, dna free things?

Rocks don't have DNA.

All DNA has a form that determines the form of the living organism.

[Dontaskme]

Touch is actually an illusion since nothing in the observable universe can touch anything else
And so what you feel when you touch something is not the thing itself but electron repulsion

Never the twain shall meet.

If you see the Buddha on the road kill him.

That which cannot be felt feels.




____________

Never call yourself a Christian either- religious denominations are only interested in counting money.

.

.

[Dontaskme]

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 about the Wittgenstein ''River Bed Analogy''?

Wittgenstein asserts that claims like “here is a hand” or “the world has existed for more than five minutes” have the form of empirical propositions but that in fact they have more in common with logical propositions.

That is, these sorts of propositions may seem to say something factual about the world, and hence be open to doubt, but really the function they serve in language is to serve as a kind of framework within which empirical propositions can make sense.

In other words, we take such propositions for granted so that we can speak about the hand or about things in the world—these propositions aren’t meant to be subjected to skeptical scrutiny.

At one point, Wittgenstein compares these sorts of propositions to a riverbed, which must remain in place for the river of language to flow smoothly.

The river-bed is only relatively stable with respect to the water flowing over it, because it is worn away with time, and shifts its course, sometimes the silt that is settled at the bottom of the river bed may be disturbed and become part of the river.''

https://ontic-philosophy.com/Thread-Wit ... ed-Analogy


The analogy actually holds for anything you can think of. A human being appears to be a static entity, as long as you only think of an instant of time. But if you picture the life of a person in rapid time-lapse from conception to 200 years past the death of the body, then you can see that what we call an entity is just a flow of energy - energy which existed even before conception, coalesced into form for while, then dissipated again.

[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

The word is multiverse but universe still means all there is although it usually only applies to this universe
Which is wrong given the actual definition but the popularity of the word over rides this obvious confusion

Are you saying here that even though some human beings are aware of how some of their confusion is caused they still continue on with doing that what causes them to be confused in the first place?

If the, or "this", Universe was looked at fully, then if other verses exist or not will be seen and known.

[ken]

I know that ALL things can be known and that the answers that most adult human beings are looking are easily discovered and known

What about things that cannot be known and are answers that can be known really easy to discover as you apparently think they are

What things do you propose can not be known?

Yes meaningful answers can very easily be discovered, especially once you have the know-HOW of how to discover them.

Obviously discovering answers to some physical questions can be very hard, especially if you can not see the physical thing.

[Dontaskme]

Touch is actually an illusion since nothing in the observable universe can touch anything else
And so what you feel when you touch something is not the thing itself but electron repulsion

Nothing can touch this.

It is not approachable because it's all there is. This is it.

You cannot touch or see yourself. There is nothing behind the image in the mirror. You are the image of the imageless.

Some call this God. It's irrefutable.

Why call it God you say...?
Answer is simple:...Why call your Mother a Mother? ..when you look at your mother, the real absolute truth of the matter is, you have no idea what you are looking at.

But, the looking is the only one looking..irrefutably without doubt or error, it's actual fact.

.

[surreptitious57]

What things do you propose cannot be known

Things that be beyond human knowledge and imagination
Things coming into existence only after human extinction