From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Thu Oct 16 2003 - 02:39:22 MDT
Alexander Vavrek
> Sent: 16 October 2003 0918
> who says that the existance of god has to be attached to some
reasonable
> consequence? perhaps i am misinterpreting, but by reasonable
consequence,
> i
> infer that you mean, say, karma, or that when one "sins" there are
> repercussions.
>
> well, that is only true if god cares to interfere with what is already
> going
> on. i'm not argueing that the judeo-christian god exists, nor that
god is
> benevolent, nor that god is intelligent, nor omniscient, nor that god
> gives
> a shit what we do....
>
> just that an entity beyond our comprehension, existing outside time
and
> all
> other dimensions we understand, exists.
>
> something cannot come from nothing. this is fact. therefore, as we
> exist,
> this proves that at one point in time (or feesably at the end of or
before
> time) a god existed. it might not have been a sentient entity, but
there
> at
> one time was a "god".
>
> if energy never goes away, that means that on a cosmic scale, nothing
ever
> truly dies, it just transmutes. our bodies and consciousnesses may
fall
> away and rot back to their original building blocks, but this doesn't
mean
> it goes away. just that it undergoes radical change.
>
> next, envision what reality would be like outside of space and time.
> remove
> all the empty space from between the nucleaus and the electron cloud,
from
> inbetween atoms, etc, and what is left is a matrix of energy.
reinsert
> space/time, and that same entity exists, but has come to experiance
all of
> its individual aspects subjectively for more perspective.
>
> my actual theory is that god fractalized itself for the purpose of
> learning
> greater understanding. that god as a localized phenomenon doesn't
happen,
> and if it ever should, would mean the end of reality as we comprehend
it.
>
> well, i understand that this is an anthropomorphised view, but as a
human
> entity i cannot conscieve of things in a fashion outside what i am
capable
> of comprehending.
[Blunderov]
If I understand you correctly, you are saying there must have been a
'first cause'?
Perhaps you have not given enough weight to the fact that 'something
cannot come from nothing'?
To me this implies that there can have been no first cause at all. (The
Big Bang itself cannot have come from nothing.)
<q>
Parmenides [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
Parmenides (b. 510 BCE.)
Parmenides goes on to consider in the light of this principle the
consequences of saying that anything is.
In the first place, it cannot have come into being. If it had, it must
have arisen from nothing or from something.
It cannot have arisen from nothing; for there is no nothing.
It cannot have arisen from something; for here is nothing else than what
is.
Nor can anything else besides itself come into being; for there can be
no empty space in which it could do so.
Is it or is it not? If it is, then it is now, all at once. In this way
Parmenides refutes all accounts of the origin of the world. Ex nihilo
nihil fit.
</q>
Best Regards
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 16 2003 - 02:39:48 MDT