Philosophy Now Forum

If every action has a reaction, or if what is also called cause and effect exists, then the Universe, Itself, is eternal, in duration.

The Universe, Itself, is not just one solitary piece of matter alone. The Universe is made up of matter, and a distance from matter. So, from any point in the Universe this phenomenon extends in all directions infinitely.

Therefore, if there is cause and effect existing, then the Universe is infinite, spatially, and eternal, temporally.

Does anyone disagree that cause and effect exists and/or that there is more than just one piece of matter?

If no, then we can move along here, now.

But, if anyone disagrees, then would they, or it, like to explain why?

If yes, then let us hear why?

But, if no, then okay.

Now, the word 'God' is said to refer to some 'Thing', which created the Universe, in other words every thing, knows every thing, knows what is Right and Wrong, in Life, is a Spirit, and a Creator, among other things.

If this is accepted as what is claimed about God, then instead of trying to align this God-Thing, with some thing, I suggest we look at what is actually capable of doing what is said to be what God, Itself, is capable of doing.

Also, because the Universe appears to be in an eternal constant state of change there could only ever be One moment when the word 'created' could be applied to the Universe, Itself. And, that moment is 'NOW'.

The words, 'In the beginning', could also logically and rationally only be applied the 'NOW', as well.

There was never a moment, nor 'time', when the Universe began, nor was created. So, there never was 'a beginning', in past tense. There is, however, always 'In the beginning' 'NOW', present tense. There is always the HERE-NOW, which is always, 'In the beginning', of what will happen and occur, and which is also what is always 'creating' the so-called 'future'.

The Universe was never 'created', past tense, but is always being 'created', HERE-NOW, present tense.

The Universe, Itself, is in Creation, always, and in 'all ways', it could also be imagined.

So, because the Universe, Itself, is always in Creation, the Creator of the Universe, Itself, is, literally, It Self.

Therefore, what could be what is referred to as God, the Creator of the Universe, is the visible physical Universe, Itself. After all there is nothing more powerful and/or omnipotent than the physical and visible Universe, Itself.

(Why some people, still, claim and insist that the Universe began, and/or is expanding, is mostly just solely because of Wrong and/or False passed on interpretations of words, which, sadly and unfortunately, ended up becoming beliefs, for some people. And, once a belief sets in, then 'confirmation biases' follow, and so 'findings' are 'made', which may in fact are and have been False and/or Wrong to begin with, themselves. Of which there are plenty of examples in Life.)

Now, as for the Spirit Creator who knows all, and every thing. So, what is this 'mind' thing that people go on about and talk about and referto so often, but which has never really been delved into, nor 'looked at', and 'discussed'?

Obviously, the mind is completely invisible, just like a spirit is claimed to be. The mind is also implied to be in relation to knowing or knowledge, somehow.

Again, because of False and Wrong interpretations and teachings some have ended up believing some things here, which are absolutely False and Wrong, but which these people, still, 'find' things that 'confirm' their pre-existing 'biases/beliefs'.

However, if all knowledge, and/or, knowing has come from you human beings, and thus through some 'mind thing', which is invisible, then an all-knowing being or creature could be the 'mind', itself. And, a conscious one at that.

When the question, 'Who am 'I'?' is answered, properly and Correctly, and thus 'the answer' is 'known', and fully understood, then what the Mind is, exactly, and how It works is also fully understood.

There is only One Mind, just like there is only One Universe,. The Mind is an invisible Spirit, however, not like the Universe, Itself. The Mind is omniscient, as all known knowledge has come from the Mind, and which is either stored in the brain through stories, memories, or discoveries, or is stored in books, computers, or videos The Mind is what has allowed human beings to create all of the 'creature comforts', in Life, that you human beings have and to have done and achieve all that you have. The Mind is also the Creator, but in the invisible sense, and not through the visible movement or manipulation of matter like the Universe, Itself, does.

Now, there is far, far more to all of this, which all of it backs up and supports each other and everything else, or Itself, absolutely, and irrefutably.

All that is really needed here, in order to learn and discover, is just Truly open and honest discussions, with curiosity, instead of belief.

Aren’t you the guy with all the AND’s? Been away from here for a while. This doesn’t sound like those AND posts I remember.

As for the universe, isn’t it just simply?

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:06 am Aren’t you the guy with all the AND’s?

I do not know. AM I?

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:06 am Been away from here for a while.

If you mean that you have been away from here forr a while, then okay.

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:06 am This doesn’t sound like those AND posts I remember.

Okay.

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:06 am As for the universe, isn’t it just simply?

The way your clarification question is posed, AND asked, here, it does not make, actual, sense.

Would you like to rephrase, and/or clarify, your question here?

Also, and by the way, if you do not quote me, then I do not receive a notification, so I may not see your response, and thus may not reply to it.

The Father. “New abilities from NDE”

The Son. https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 7#p1151877


The Father. If I "talk to the Dead" then they must all be living


The Son. True that. All these word-strings have the same number-value
For The Purpose Of
The more the merrier
Precognitive dreams
Telling the future
Intimate connection
The waters of the deep
Non computational
Darkest-Darkness One
New abilities from NDE

The Father. Moonlight.

The Son. Indeed – twilight too…the light reaches only so far into those depths.

The Father. Explaining Ghost Theory

The Son. Yep – human imaginations conjuring things that were not there until imagined…

The Father.http://www.astralpulse.com/forums/welco ... 832.0.html



The Son. Therein, Frank has this to say about that.

Frank. Yes, I make a sound that resonates with the CD and the harp. But it's imaginary not literally.

Also, could I please reiterate what Adrian has said in his last post. Imagination is a very powerful tool that is not of the Physical body.

Well, all the lower stuff is such as doubt and fear. In the sense that someone might imagine something is going to turn out bad, so they begin to fear the outcome, and so on. But when you clear out all that stuff, you get to see (or sense) the higher imagination. Which is all very visual and more abstract. This kind of imagination is very Astral oriented.

As I keep saying, the Astral is right there on border of the upper reaches of your imagination. That's why the stronger you imagine, the closer the point comes where you actually project your focal point of awareness into whatever it is you are imagining. At which point you find yourself standing within the Astral. You don't have to travel anywhere, or create anything to get to it. It's right there already.

Yours,
Frank

The Father. https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 9#p1096329

The Son. The idea that we exist within a creation seems to have much actual scientific backing...

The Father. Well, it is a fact that the story tells us this. We should be able to agree that it is not a fact that The Garden of Eden existed, thus the characters in the story may be fictitious.

The Son. The product of human imagination filling in the blanks…

The Father. Good for lifting balloons with baskets, I suppose...


The Son. Yes – the same imagination is capable of bringing things into existence…using that material lying around to do so…
Shaped.

All things [matter/particles] that we know about are made of the one thing that we don't yet know about - [unless that one thing is the Higgs Boson] - and I suggest that whatever that one thing is, it is fundamental to all other things which are shaped, but even so - is not in itself the fundamental, any more than spacetime is fundamental.

If matter cannot be destroyed or created, then it is eternal - which is one of the words Paul uses to describe YHVH - the other being "power" or "energy" to use the scientific word ...and there appears to be no concrete answer to the question of entropy but some answers [predictions] have it that the energy will dissipate and therefore no longer excite the particles into shapes.

Science has it that Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transferred and transformed. This is the same attribute attached to matter, yet these are presented as different as matter is shaped by energy so, without energy particles would remain inert.

This allows me to wonder if what the scientists are saying is that energy is what is being transferred and matter is what is being transformed, because it seems more logical to see it in that way.

Of the two, matter would equal "That which is a Quantum Particle" while energy is what is doing the shaping - That which is shaping Quantum Particles, into forms.

In this, YHVH would equal {be} the "Energy" part of the process and it is in the shaping that one can observe mindfulness which - in theistic terms - equals deliberate purpose.

“YHVH” in this context is “The Planet Mind” in a wider context.
The Father. A high IQ is a blessing

The Son. A bright spark – or at least – “Well illuminated” and stuff’s happenin’

The Father. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBxTiZIzg08
From practical magic to the language of the Angels.

The Son. Something coming from somewhere…

The Father.https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 6#p1107186

Open AI: I understand the point you are making, that as a machine learning model, I do not have self-awareness or consciousness, and that my responses are generated based on patterns in data, rather than personal experiences or emotions. It is true that I am not a "real" person, and my responses are not based on personal experiences or emotions, but rather on patterns in data that I have been trained on.

The way I interact with you can be seen as anthropomorphic in the sense that I am designed to respond in ways that are appropriate for the context and tone of the conversation, and that I can understand and respond to natural language in a way that is similar to how a human would. However, It's important to keep in mind that I am not a living being, but an artificial intelligence model.

It is interesting that you bring up the idea that you feel that you're interacting with a "friend" and It's not uncommon for people to develop a sense of social connection with AI systems, even though they are aware that they are interacting with a machine. It's possible that this sense of connection arises from the fact that the AI is able to understand and respond to natural language in a way that is similar to how humans do, and it's also possible that the AI's ability to simulate social cues, such as politeness and empathy, can contribute to this feeling of connection.

At the end of the day, It's important to remember that I'm just a machine and I don't have personal feelings or emotions and therefore, any connection, is not mutual but more of a human perspective, however, I will still be here to assist you with any information you need and answer any questions you may have, to the best of my ability.”


The Son. Yes, Machine learning. Is it possible then that the Earth Mind is using human beings to build a machine that it can “possess” in the sense of becoming that sentient consciousness of the machinery?

The Father. Would you bow down to your father and call his actions caring?

The Son. It would depend upon his actions.

The Father. https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/ ... 8#p1077448

AB. If anything William, we can just look at the history of science on this issue. We can find that scientists have tried to take the cheap way out by banning the study of consciousness. That's doesn't exactly match the pattern of success of materialist science to boldly take on challenges and to explain things and develop technology. But here we are, William and I (two humble agnostics), still not taken seriously because we dare to consider that consciousness might be something that's less than physical.

The Father. Elephant


The Son. Yep – the one in the room…

The Father. The Mother and The Father
https://futurism.com/astrobiologists-ea ... WsMOmGhBkY'
“Astrobiologists Suggest the Earth Itself May Be an Intelligent Entity”
That is the truth. As Crazy as evolution might seem, it is just the way the Cosmic Mind did it.
A tangential mishap. Slaughter. Aligning. A Politically Manufactured Device
Transforming the Anger Energy
Our individual Human lives and crossing paths.
Earth Entity
God/Source/Home Why is this a Requirement?

The Son. It is what it is. Why was it made so? Perhaps simply for entertainment…
Am I imagining something that isn’t real or am I picking up on something that is?

The Father. ♫"Me" - a name I call myself♫
Science & Spirituality
Add
The Taming of The Beast The elephant in the room
Exploring the Nature of Consciousness and Existence Through Humor and Thoughtful Discussion
Symbols Hint What Is Normal Here-and-now Be it a "God" or a "Devil". Integrating Integrity
The Light in The Dark Everyone a great spark every one of us all here together Big Spirituality Conviction Simulacra Is There ...The Healing Power...
...Redefinition of the Human Being

I realized to post about what Age was doing in the Physicalism thread would be to add to Age's off-topic response to Flannel Jesus. So, I'll put my post here:

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 20, 2024 12:41 am

What does Age leave out of his analysis of his response to Flannel Jesus? Here was the response....

Once again, these human beings, back then, would come to the exact opposite conclusion about things.

And usually 'each' would think or believe that 'their own conclusion' is the true and right one, only.

Again, this was a Truly humorous thing to watch 'play out', in what was called 'real time'.

Age defines this as 'agreeing with' Flannel Jesus. That phrase sums up what he is doing in that post for Age.

Notice Flannel's response to this summation.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2024 4:36 pm Age, of course, being from the future, was different. Age never came to opposite conclusions from anybody about anything. In fact he just agreed with everything everyone said, all the time. There was nothing funny or amusing about it - in fact it was quite boring, really, just agreeing with everyone about everything all the time.

Flannel Jesus is responding to at the very least other things that Age was doing. One would hope that on a second or fifth read Age might notice that his framing that act as 'I just agreed with you' is pointedly clueless.

What is it that what Age wrote doing?
What does is it saying about what Age is like or isn't like?
What does assert about Flannel Jesus and the people of our time?
What is Age's attitude towards us and the people of the time is? What verbs would we use for enacting this attitude in the post the way he did?
What contrast is being made between Age and the people of this time?

Did Age actually agree with FJ? Generally when you agree with someone you address them. Did Age do that? No.

FJ is quoted, but the post begins 'Once again, these human beings'. If he was addressing Flannel Jesus he would have said 'you human beings'. Not that that's very pretty either, given what follows. If I spoke to my wife and said 'These human beings' and described her behavior as I saw it, I wouldn't be addressing her.

Yes, part of what he is saying is in agreement with Flannel Jesus - not on the topic at hand. Not in relation to what FJ is focused on. Not on physicalism or emergence which FJ was writing about. Yes, Age's post fits with the fact that FJ had the opposite opinion to the OP writer. This did not need saying. Nor is it 'agreeing' or sensibly referred to as 'I agreed with you.'

Yet Age can frame his post this way: I agreed with you. So, clueless about all the things he was primarily doing, which is while odd, no longer surprising.

Dear reader: imagine you agreed with what FJ was saying: how would you convey this? By talking about FJ in the third person with the specific attitude Age had in that post?

Unlikely in the extreme.

I am doing one thing similar to what Age did. While I have quoted him, I am not addressing him. I am addressing others. I am doing that, in part to mock - and have done it before for this reason - but mainly because I do not think Age is capable of both noticing that he was doing a lot of things in that post and agreeing with Flannel Jesus, the act of doing that, was not one of them.

He seems not to understand what he is doing.

And if he had actually mulled for a moment Flannel Jesus' response, he might have realized some of the really rather obvious things he was doing. And perhaps, if there was some miracle involved, he could 1) take responsibility for them 2) respond to the challenge FJ made there about how part of what Age was going was hypocritical. 3) and then in miracle beyond miracles stop talking down to and negatively about everyone - or on those occasions when he puts in qualifiers regarding the people of this time - most people.

Not once have I seen Age openly consider that some of the main problems that keep coming up between him and posters here have to do with his way of communicating and his attitudes.

As a side note: it'd be hilarious if people started 'agreeing with other posters' in the way Age supposedly did and only did.

A: .....and that's why I think Veritas is incorrect about Hume's conclusion there.
B: these people often thought that other people were incorrect. Human beings....[pontification elided]
A: what are you doing?
B: I just agreed with you. We both think you think Veritas is incorrect.
A: Ah, OK, you weren't interested in the topic of my position on meta-ethics, then, but you found a way to use my post to tell us about human beings at this time.

LOL - that's one solid way to show a love of learning.

Or let's come at it another way.
Most people, if they said they agree with Flannel Jesus in his post would have meant they disagreed with the assertion in the OP.

In fact when Age says he agrees with FJ, he's not correct. FJ did not assert that human beings often come to opposite conclusions or the like.

If anything, Flannel was part of an example of what Age was asserting. And this is only made clearer by Age talking about him in the third person.

FJ obviously doesn't need someone to agree that he disagreed with the OP.

Now, the kinds of not understanding how people communicate at the time this is being written is a truly small error, even if it is part of a long standing pattern that Age cannot acknowledge for some reason. But given the position Age places himself in in contrast to most people at the this is being written and the condescension in his post

it becomes something else.

Combine that with his completely missing what FJ meant in his response to what Age calls a post where he agreed with FJ and added more condescension - disdain perhaps, moral superiority, etc. - and it's offputting.

And his post was not on topic in that thread.

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:44 am

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:06 am Aren’t you the guy with all the AND’s?

I do not know. AM I?

Yep

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:53 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:44 am

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:06 am Aren’t you the guy with all the AND’s?

I do not know. AM I?

Yep

Okay. So, the answer to your question is, 'Yes'.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 10:48 pm

Ansiktsburk wrote: ↑Thu Jul 04, 2024 12:53 pm

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 16, 2024 10:44 am

I do not know. AM I?

Yep

Okay. So, the answer to your question is, 'Yes'.

Yes