God?

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I haven't got much time this morning, so just a quickie. I'll come back to this later.

This principle, which is at the heart of my Massive SpaceTime 3x3 Matrix theory, is indeed borne-out by the fact of Heisenberg Uncertainty.

Wow. And yet most scientists don't believe in God. Maybe they're just not as clever as you?

Given how often you seek to feed your ego with judgments of "right" from "wrong", I would say you have one hungry ego.

I attempt to determine the veracity of things to try to ensure that my beliefs are built on solid foundations, and that's a product of my egoism? And yet you claim to know (and I quote) "THE Truth", and this is, what, altruistic? Selfless? Humbling?

Good Lord, I don't claim that what I believe is necessarily true, I just claim that it's what seems most likely to me, given my perspective and what I have seen. You claim to be one of the few people in this world intelligent and enlightened enough to have aquired definitive proof of not only the existence of God, but the complete understanding of His nature. I think it's patently obvious which of us is on an ego trip.

If one wished to understand such massive energetic forms such as the Great Spot on Jupiter, or terrestrial hurricanes that form in the South Atlantic, do you not think that understanding the principles of rotation would be a highly significant aspect of such an understanding?

I didn't say that it was insignificant in all aspects of life. If you want to look at a subject which rotation was a key factor of, then it's significant.

In the same way if you were studying literature it would be significant to know the history of the Bronte sisters and why they had to write using pseudonyms. But I wouldn't call it significant in the greater scheme of things.

[...]for you have not asked to be enlightened.

Asking you for enlightenment is somewhat like asking the dog for all the use it is. You're not exactly forthcoming. See how many times I had to ask you what your opinion was with regards to observation and creation. Or how you've said that if I'd like to know more about the things that you talk about how I'd have to pay for it, because you're a teacher. See? Just for you, there's evidence that you're deliberately difficult and obtuse about such things.

I would like to see some solid evidence that what you say here is correct, now that I have provided evidence that it is incorrect.

See the chia pet example I gave at the time. OR, for further "evidence", here's a phrase you should have heard before - "GIGO". Or it's variation (which seems more appropriate here) - "GIGOL".

I would like to see evidence for this belief.

You'd like me to prove that something is possible? You admit that the universe being like it is is unlikely, so you know that it's not a statistical impossibility. I'm not claiming that the universe did come about as it is by accident, I'm claiming that it seems reasonable to me that it did. So, you already know that "proof" of this.

Yet you can see some evidence for potential "evolution" of this beast, because you see the similarity to calculators, adding machines, and the like.

Yes, because calculators are self-replicating with errors and mutations...

Please provide some sound evidence for why you believe this is the more credible belief.

Um, well, just off the top of my head for starters, we have vestigal tails, the appendix and all the other evidence that we evolved from lower beings.

You ignored it and claimed it was not evidence.

I ignored it and claimed it wasn't evidence? That's a good trick. What, did I claim it wasn't evidence by use of some secret code? Was it my subconsious (sorry, my soul) that made it evident to you without me consiously saying anything?

Since I have provided evidence on this subject that any control systems engineer would clearly find acceptable and correct[...]

So every systems engineer in the world believes as you do? If not, why don't you show them your evidence? You'd have a whole bunch of people proclaiming the proof of the existence of God. I mean, with all the systems engineers and all the scientists in the world in agreement with you the hearts and minds of the general public will surely follow. You could be the person responsible for allowing the human race to finally become enlightened, to know the truth and to go to our next stage of evolution. I suggest you write to both New Scientist and Nature right now. Go! Now! Before someone beats you to it!

I challenge you to provide me with solid evidence for your stance that energy, entropy, and information are "not at all related".

Have I said that? Can you give me the full quote in context, please?

[...]and you are so "right" in the fact that the link you provide is the ONLY "right" interpretation of the original Hebrew...

Again, I don't think I said that. You'll provide the full quote for me, won't you?

Here we see that your very own reference, that you seem to claim is the "final word" on Hebrew translation of Genesis, is hedging its translation!

Actually, that kind of helps to prove my point. If, as you agree, there are many possible interpretations of the original Hebrew, then why do you believe that the one in which God says something 10 times is the right one? Confirmation bias, perchance? Imagine that. You will, of course, have no problem at least detailing the passages which make reference to all 3 things that you claim.

Can you possibly see that this is why I will ignore the living hell out of you when you jump on your high-horse and pronounce your view as the ONLY "right" view?

I have never claimed to be presenting anything other than my opinion. As an amateur semiologist, I don't even believe there is such a thing as "the ONLY 'right' view". It is you who claims to hold the key to "THE Truth". I think you're projecting, here.

Gematria is not just "Numerology"[...]

That would be an opinion.

Which you seem to wish to dismiss as bunk and "wrong"[...]

I have claimed no such thing. I have not read the text and so cannot comment. I have merely said that what you have claimed it claims seems wrong to me from the evidence I have seen. For all I know you're getting everything it says arse-backwards and the book is completely right.

And for you to pompously dismiss it with words such as:[...]

I did not say that about that book. Wow, do you have to take quotes out of context and change their meaning to try to prove me wrong now? That's unbelieveably bad debating there, son.

The fact that a large number of great scholars from history have found great use and knowledge within this book is "evidence".

No it isn't.

I would ask OvrLrdLegion to once again post his list of names of people who have found pertinence in Kabbalah.

Why? Would you like me to come up with a list of people who haven't found pertinence in it? I'm sure we could have a lot of fun posting irrelevent names at each other, but it wouldn't prove one single thing.
 
Re: Cookbook for Creation

Yet along came Einstein and he showed where F=ma was "wrong" (to use your ego-centric word). But in actuality, Einstein did not show that the foundations of our mechanical world are "wrong", but rather that they are limited in the scope of where they can accurately predict experience.

Sorry. I'm only a secondary school student. May I ask why F=ma is "wrong", if you mean metaphorically because it is subjected.

Rainman, your posts are very intriguing and very interesting. But where does this intergration of science and religion come from? Did you formulate a theory or was it inspired. I'm not being sardonic here, but your theory is very interesting, although I do not seem to understand parts of it.
 
Re: Cookbook for Creation

Ok...I will let out a little secret of mine at this point.

"THE EARTH IS FLAT!" This is really what I believe.

Really, it is, completely and totally flat. Can you provide me with any scientific proof it isnt flat?
 
Though it seems that some of you don't have the intellectual capacity to understand in depth beyond the topological of the web site Ray had supplied...

Excuse me, but in MY opinion it's the other way around. It's a theory... it's not THE truth.


All of us who are intelligent will take the next step in the process of evaluation...

It's downright arrogant and stupid to think that someone's less intelligent because he or she doesn't share the same believes. Especially if you can't provide clear evidence.


The first documented evidence begins with a Gd, a garden, a first man and woman who established a learned language...

There's no evidence of that event besides the Bible, which is known to contain numerous errors and inconsistencies (even Genesis).


Roel, you cannot separate Time & Gd out of this equation and picture...

Give me one good reason. As much as you'd like me to, I do not acknowledge gods existence. Time will continue to exist, even if you take god out of the equation. Maybe if we do, we might make some progress /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Declaring that Genesis of creation is true, we can be reassured that Gd constantly oversees and sustains creation and continues to grant life to all living things...

My mother gave birth to me. God had absolutely nothing to do with that. Perhaps god should stop overseeing and start doing something about the world HE CREATED, but I don't think that will ever happen since he doesn't exist.

Roel
 
Re: Cookbook for Creation

Right, I've got some more time now.

I was calling you on how you obfuscate questions with poor language. For someone who normally writes with a high degree of clarity, it becomes all the more apparant when you purposefully try to make a question extremely vague and non-specific.

CAn you tell me what you find vague and non-specific about this statement, please? "So you'd actually say that God's observation of his work was not a seperate act of creation in and of itself, but was an aspect of the act of creation which is described as such? Or the latter of the two options I gave you, in other words." Seems perfectly simple to me.

Newton's Third Law (F=ma)[...]

That's Newton's 2nd Law.

Yet along came Einstein and he showed where F=ma was "wrong" (to use your ego-centric word).

I wouldn't say that at all.

But in actuality, Einstein did not show that the foundations of our mechanical world are "wrong", but rather that they are limited in the scope of where they can accurately predict experience.

That's how I'd have phrased it.

And to highlight the point of my comment that engendered this response from you, Einstein was actually seeking a higher level of integration of Mass, Time, and Space than Newton achieved.

And he did not do this by ignoring the veracity of the details, did he?

Can you now please provide me EVIDENCE for why this is insignificant?

Do you not know that it is impossible to prove a negative?

ENERGY (This is the integrated 0)
/ \
MATTER--MOTION (This is the dualistic 0<->1)
/ \
MASS--TIME---SPACE (This is the tripartate -1<->0<->+1)

Okay, can you explain why energy is equivalent to 0? And why matter is equivalent to 0? And motion to 1? Ditto for mass and -1, time and 0 and space and 1?

I would like to see some solid evidence that what you say here is correct, now that I have provided evidence that it is incorrect.

Well, I know I said it last post, but it bears repeating. As, yes, a control systems engineer, you must be aware of the concept of GIGOL, right? You have heard of this expression before, right? Is it not one of hte fundamental principals of your profession, as it is mine? Well, it's probably just GIGO in yours, but GIGOL is more relevent, I feel.

I would like to see evidence for this belief.

Okay, why don't I just quote what you have to say on the subject?

Being that the probabilities we are talking about are so miniscule[...]

There you go, from the horse's mouth. Evidence that it is possible for the universe being the way it is to have come about "by accident".

Please provide some sound evidence for why you believe this is the more credible belief.

Nice try at a Strawman, but I'm not going to bite. If you'll excuse the mixed metaphor.

If I am so "wrong" about Genesis and its Hebrew interpretation, and you are so "right" in the fact that the link you provide is the ONLY "right" interpretation of the original Hebrew... then how would you explain this very quote from that very website[...]

Again, this just bears repeating, really, and maybe I should clarify what I have already said somewhat. If you agree that there is no "ONLY 'right'" translation of the Hebrew text, then you must also agree that any interpretation which claims to be definitive must be questionable in that claim? So on what basis do you believe the interpretation that favours the figures you provided?

Can you please provide the name of the translation that you are favouring that features these terms, and what verses these terms appear in, please? I've not encountered one that disputes the facts as I have given them.

The Hebrew word used in Genesis for "created" is "bara". For "said" it's "amar". And for "saw" it's "raah". Are you claiming these words can be translated as each other? Are you claiming that there are variants of the original Hebrew texts in which these terms have been exchanged for each other? Can you tell me the history of this other variant, or any other information that you have, so I can research it, please?

Now, seeing as how *I* have been one to be criticized as "arrogant", at least I can state the liklihood that I have studied this important text much more deeply than you have. And for you to pompously dismiss it with words such as:

Again, I've already said this, but it needs reiterating. The quote you posted with this claim was not about that book at all. It was specifically about the arbitrary nature of the way that the site you linked placed the letters it chose to force them to fit the pattern that the author had already determined the letters should go into. A critiscism you have yet to address, instead deciding to take the quote and pretend that it was refering to something that it was not.

Not that you'd ever twist someone's words.

I would ask OvrLrdLegion to once again post his list of names of people who have found pertinence in Kabbalah.

One more addendum to my potential list of people who have either spoken against the Kabbalah or who simply haven't found it worth their consideration, if it is significant who has found pertinence in the text, then would you like to speak about convicted multiple rapist and child molestor Ivon Shearing, AKA the head honcho of the Kabalarian Philosphy and successor to the founder of the religion, Alfred J. Parker?
 
Actually, it is what a great many people know God to be.

It's what a great many people THINK they know. There are many people who think otherwise.

The very fact that science can, without compromising its science, validate mystical descriptions of God *does indeed* constitute a level of proof.

No! Science does not validate mystical descriptions of god. Science provides an explanation for things previously attributed to god. I'll stop denying it once you provide some solid proof. I respect your believes, but you're trying to force them upon me by claiming them as the truth.


It's like forming an opinion of whether you like mushrooms without ever seeing them or tasting them.

That's a very bad example. I can smell, taste, feel and see mushrooms and I can prove they exist in this world. There is no physical evidence of god and there is no way that you can prove his existence to me. Unless I find some way to get in touch with god myself, I can only hope you are telling the truth. Also, the god you might have experience, could just as well be a hallucination.


Given that your senses cannot directly perceive 98% of universal energy, it is actually more likely that it is NOT an illusion, but rather a manifestation that cannot be explained within our 2% perception.

First of all, the numbers 98% and 2% that you keep repeating over and over are merely an estimate and represent only a theory. A theory that I find plausible, I must add.

Furthermore, the 2% we supposedly perceive are part of the whole. So that means if 2% of the universal energy is "an illusion", what evidence can you provide that the other 98% is not? I could even turn it around and claim that if 98% of the universal energy is real, then the 2% we perceive is just as real.



Because it completely aligns with what has been described as God.

That's a very dangerous assumption. Let me give another example: Someone describes an object with flashing lights descending from the sky. It's very well possible that this object is an alien spaceship, while in fact it may just be an airplane.


Can you possibly find any OTHER description, which is based on established science, that even comes this close to equating to how traditions have described God?

Well, your description fails to point out evidence to the selfawareness of god. And that, Ray, is my main objection to your theory. The things that you label "god" are NOT capable of creation and it are NOT self aware.



And yet you are nothing but a clump of energy, and you ARE self aware.

So you're telling me that a rock is self aware? Did you read the paragraph I wrote about the one thing that makes us different from a rock? If you chop my finger off, it won't be such a self aware clump of energy anymore! I can think of many things that are "just a clump of energy" and yet not self aware.


Thus, the soul, while I agree that it is a process, is transferrable, and therefore has the potential to be eternal.

Oh I agree that it's transferrable. But without something to transfer it to there's nothing to "process" the information. You need a brain to process the information, without it a soul is just information hanging in midair (just like the CD example I provided).


Read above! 2% vs. 98%. If I run a lab experiment 100 times, and I get the exact same result 2 times, but I get much broader answers the other 98 times, which result is more likely to be "true"?

Since we KNOW what the 2% consists of and since we can only GUESS what the other 98% consists of, I'd say we'd get more accurate results from the 2%. Which doesn't mean we shouldn't be curious about the other 98%.


What I am saying is that the 2% world we perceive in Massive SpaceTime is the fantasyworld. Whereas integration of all Mass, with all Space, and all Time is, quite literally, the only absolute. It is also equal to energy.

For all we know the other 98% is a fantasyworld as well.


Still stuck in the mud, huh? One cannot ever prove something to someone who does not wish to receive it. A lawyer can never serve me with a subpoena to appear before a court if they can never find me. You get my point.

I wish to receive prove! Why else would I be having this discussion with you. I'm doing my best to show you why I think the evidence you have provided so far is insufficient. It seems as if you're stuck in the mud /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif You think you know it all and you won't even consider the possibility that you're wrong.


OK, I'm game. Give me something that you think is an absolute, that is obviously much more powerful than God.

Okay...

I exist.


So if you are made of energy, and you claim that energy is not self aware, then how do you count for your own self awareness? To what can you possibly attribute it to?

It still makes perfect sense to me. Energy in itself is not self aware. Our brains are nothing but a clump of energy configured in such a way that it's possible for us to be selfaware. A rock is also a clump of energy, but with a totally different and probably much less complex configuration.


You do realize that this is equivalent to saying "A = B" however "B <> A"?

If you take it out of context: yes.


Continue to disbelieve if you simply must... but you are much closer to seeing that evidence than you may have ever been before.

Mmh, I'm still hoping I can make you realize that what you believe is just as much a theory as what I believe. I don't claim to know the truth, but I will always try to seek it. Perhaps you should take that point of view instead of just accepting the doubtful evidence you've been providing /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Roel
 
Re: some Things to think about...

One can surmise that the "tolerance stackup" makes the probability of all this coming to pass (and remaining stable) "by accident" as so unlikely for it to be false.

One can surmise that. Or, alternatively, one cannot.

Certainly, anyone who has had to deal with such requirements and design a control system to meet them would say that it is terribly far from "reasonable" to assume that all this came about (and remains about) by accident. No, a control systems engineer would say "you would need to design the universe in such a way as to have multiple, self-regulating, closed-loop control systems...otherwise, entropy increase would tear it apart in a microsecond."

So, in fact, you do not claim that any control systems engineer would agree with your evidence, you claim that all control systems engineers believe in God? Can you back this claim up? It seems a bold claim to speak for everyone who shares your profession.
 
Re: some Things to think about...

No use in debating. Like I said earlier, WORKER ANTS!!! They are restricted to a limited point of view, or should I say, confused as Adam on mothers day!


Considering the sources, I refuse to get caught up in the debate! Its as recursive and mirrored as lucifers LOST and opposing argument!!!

Ray I thought your recent post about looped systems was Phenomenal, fantastic and very informative, it certainly applies!!! But of course once again, you have gone above and beyond expectation in sharing your knowledge... While Roel and Trollface have presented only one-sided uneducated, pond scum, narrow minded guesses and points of view. All the while contributing nothing except defending their own unfounded atheist point of views... Ray, I don't think that you should continue this conversation with such undeserving people. A wise saying teaches us, those who speak do not know and those who know do not speak...

Besides that, the evidence that you had supplied far out weighs their deism... I've been waiting all along for dumb and dumber to come up with some good theoretical atheist points of view that disprove Gd. But up until now, this discussion is delinquent in proving just that...
 
Re: Cookbook for Creation

Hi nicknack,

May I ask why F=ma is "wrong", if you mean metaphorically because it is subjected.

It does not take into account relativistic effects as the body approaches the speed of light. HERE is a brief description. It is still a very good approximation for most cases.

But where does this intergration of science and religion come from? Did you formulate a theory or was it inspired. I'm not being sardonic here, but your theory is very interesting, although I do not seem to understand parts of it.

My own personal slant on the theory comes from over 22 years of studying both science and the Tree Of Life. However, some of what I discuss is not only brought forth by myself. The theory of God and energy (per the Law of Conservation of Energy) is one that many scientists who believe in God have proposed. My own Massive SpaceTime theory first arose out of a consideration that if Space can be vectorized via orthogonal coordinates of displacements, that what we know of the charges of the basic atomic particles also tell us they are mutually orthogonal, and thus capable of being considered a vector. And if these two fundamental measures are vectors, then Time would be the "oddball out" if it were not also a 3-D orthogonal vector.

I do not claim that my theory has "all the answers". If they did I would already be time traveling. Yet I have found no evidence that would tell me that Massive SpaceTime is wrong. I am still working on it, and given it is a 3x3 symmetrical model, I tend to think that symmetry breaking will be one key to being able to use the Mass, Space, and Time integrated relationships to willfully warp any one of these dimensions.

RMT
 
Re: some Things to think about...

So, in fact, you do not claim that any control systems engineer would agree with your evidence, you claim that all control systems engineers believe in God? Can you back this claim up?

There you go again. (a) What you say is NOT fact. (b) YOU are the one trying (once again) to twist my words. (c) I made no such "claim" as you state. (d) Why should I ever attempt to back up any claim (and in this case was no claim of mine) when you continue to squirm out of providing any backing for your own claims?

Way to step-up to the challenge of this post, trollface. You completely ignored the entire basis of the point I was making....and ye, who obviously lives in a glass house, dares to cast stones at me for ignoring your nonsense?

I'm not done with you... but sleep calls, and then back to work. You still have not addressed your ego issue. But don't worry, I will highlight it when I have time to return.

RMT
 
Re: some Things to think about...

There you go again. (a) What you say is NOT fact.

*Looks at question mark on the end of his own sentences*

*Thinks "fact?"*

*Takes previously framed phrase off the wall*

(b) YOU are the one trying (once again) to twist my words.

*Hits Rainman repeatedly over the head with the phrase*

(c) I made no such "claim" as you state.

Certainly, anyone who has had to deal with such requirements and design a control system to meet them would say that it is terribly far from "reasonable" to assume that all this came about (and remains about) by accident. No, a control systems engineer would say "you would need to design the universe in such a way as to have multiple, self-regulating, closed-loop control systems...otherwise, entropy increase would tear it apart in a microsecond."

[...]

And thus, it should be obvious (and the most reasonable explanation) that we live in a universe whose tolerances for successful, continued operations are so tight, that it required an external, intelligent force (supersystem) to design an active control system that could continue to "keep it functioning" despite internal energetic tendencies towards increased entropy.

So what were you saying about control systems engineers, then? Either they agree with you or they're unreasonable? Or not good at their jobs? Surely if your theory is as based in science as you claim and any reasonable person with an understandiong of control systems engineering would believe as you do, then that is what you're saying? If not, can you clarify?

(d) Why should I ever attempt to back up any claim[...]

You claim to have scientific proof of the existence of God. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You completely ignored the entire basis of the point I was making[...]

I've told you before that I don't disagree with the science of a lot of what you're saying. Project what you want onto me, but it's you application and your conclusions I disagree with. If I disagree with your conclusions it does not mean that I'm disagreeing with the science.

Haven't I said that once or twice before?

[...]who obviously lives in a glass house, dares to cast stones at me for ignoring your nonsense?

I think if one were to make a tally, the "ignoring" would come out heavily biased towards you.
 
Re: some Things to think about...

I was hoping that Roel or Trollface, or anyone else for that matter, was going to reply to this posting, but instead you guys went directly after Rainman...so I am posting this again.

The following is a brief description of The Tree of Life. Some of the post is from another source other than myself, other parts are edited in and are my contribution. You will see that the Tree of Life is more than a religious formation, but can apply to one's life as well, regardless of the belief in God..or not!!!

The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life is considered a Grand Configuration, created to enable an individual ( from any tradition ) to utilize it, even if one does not believe in God.

The Tree of Life is about YOUR life.

The Tree in its most basic formation, is an empty coloring picture, or canvas, awaiting the individual to color the Tree with THEIR life

It works from a physical perspective, emotional, mathematical, energetic, light, force, expansion, contraction, creative, destructive, and an infinite number of ways to conform to different perspectives.

Each place on the Tree represents levels, energies, intelligences, situations, dreams, colors, sounds, images, nightmares, thoughts, forces, places, experiences, of the individual filling in the "pictures" of their life.

The Tree is the beginning of learning WHO we are and finding those cycles we have created and learning from them to " ascend " and overcome them.

As we grow( evolve ) from infancy, we have created "demons" that dwell within us. Lurking just below the "level" of our consciousness and slipping in to build habits and patterns. These " demons " within...lazyness, addiction, perversion, anger, spite, hate, etc..., they rise up and crush our potential for achieving the "best" of what we could do if free from these "demonic" influences.

Even if one does not believe in God, the Tree of Life is still an excellent method of ascending in life. A way of pushing evolution a little harder to step away from the pond scum and move into a more spiritual( thoughtful ) realm of existence.

As one ascends, an awareness builds, allowing one to sense the intricate patterns of science and apply those "discoveries" to any subject, including time travelling.

Any questions..or can we agree on this so far?
 
Re: Cookbook for Creation

And yes, I support the concept that all life evolved from "pond scum"... Give me one good reason why I shouldn't? There's plenty of evidence.

There was a second part after the pond scum portion.
 
Re: some Things to think about...

I was hoping that Roel or Trollface, or anyone else for that matter, was going to reply to this posting, but instead you guys went directly after Rainman...so I am posting this again.

I'm sorry, OvrLrd, but I really don't see anything to reply to in your post, as I can find nothing substansive there at all. I can't really reply, because I don't see that your post is actually saying anything at all.
 
Re: Cookbook for Creation

Okay, can you explain why energy is equivalent to 0? And why matter is equivalent to 0? And motion to 1? Ditto for mass and -1, time and 0 and space and 1?

I must diverge from agreement with Rainman on this point concerning 0 and 1. The following is my take on this as I understand it....

The 0 and 1 concept are as follows...
It is indivisible, it is incapable if multiplication; divide 1 by itself and it still is 1.
Multiply 1 by itself and you still only have 1. This number (1) has a twofold nature, a link between existence and non-existence. God is made up of non-existence and existence, a balance of opposing forces...God the "light" of existence, non-existence..again is nothing.

Viewed seperately, neither can be seen, only through the combination of both are you able to see anything. This combination, or the interaction between the two is emanating all that exists.
To create the anything beyond 1...this is what occurs..

How can we create a 2 with only 1? 1+0 = 1 1 x 0 = 0 Impossible to get 2 when there is only 1.
Since there is only 1 and 0(nothing) there is only 1 way to create the 2.
By reflecting of the 1. Now we have 1 + a reflected 1.

1,1

Even though 0 is undefinable, 1 is definable. And the effect of a definition is to form a duplicate, or image, of the defined. 1. Thus we obtain a duad composed of 1 and its reflection. Now we also have the commencement of a vibration established , for the number 1 vibrates alternately from changelessness to definition, and back to changelessness again.


Even though we have 2, it is only an aspect of 1. The original 1 represents the creator and is all things, yet indefinable since it has all that is possible contained contained within itself, 1. The 1 and "reflected" 1 are considered to be masculine active potency.

This can be related to A. Jesus B. Adam

With the creation of 2, there is still a problem. The number 2 is like two straight lines which never enclose a space, and therefore is powerless till the number 3 forms the triangle. Also with the number 3, balance and equilibrium are completed.

The 3 is considered to be passive feminine potency.

The 3 is 1 + (reflected 1) + ( reflected 1 ); 1+(r)1+(r)1; 3

This can be related to A. Holy Spirit B. Eve

1,1,1

Now we have a completed trinity. A triad.

This trinity creates a balance and equilibrium and is described in various ways...

Father, Son, Holy Spirit

or

God, Adam, Eve

or

All "aspects" of highest level of evolution, intelligence, wisdom

The next stage of creation is a reflection of this original trinity.


-----1-----
1---------1

1---------1
-----1-----

Still maintaining a balance and equilibrium. Yet, still only based on the original 1.

The 4, representing Mercy. Masculine , The 5, representing Strength.
The 6, representing Grace/Beauty ( Masculine, Feminine )

The 7, representing Victory ( Feminine ), The 8, representing Honor ( Masculine )
the 9, representing Foundation ( Masuline, Feminine )

And 10, is merely 1, and 0. The "reincarnation" of creation. The beginning of a new cycle.
This 10 also is a reflection of 1, but in an imperfect reflection. Copy of a copy..etc.

The lowest reflecting the highest. Micro reflecting the Macro.

the "emanations" also relate to virtues of life...

2. Wisdom
3. Understanding
4. Mercy
5. Strength
6. Grace/Beauty
7. Victory/Firmness
8. Honor
9. Foundation/Basis

This is a simplified version of the Tree of Life. It contains no room for debate. The terminology can be perceived differently, but the concept itself is in-muteable.
 
Re: Cookbook for Creation

My own personal slant on the theory comes from over 22 years of studying both science and the Tree Of Life. However, some of what I discuss is not only brought forth by myself. The theory of God and energy (per the Law of Conservation of Energy) is one that many scientists who believe in God have proposed. My own Massive SpaceTime theory first arose out of a consideration that if Space can be vectorized via orthogonal coordinates of displacements, that what we know of the charges of the basic atomic particles also tell us they are mutually orthogonal, and thus capable of being considered a vector. And if these two fundamental measures are vectors, then Time would be the "oddball out" if it were not also a 3-D orthogonal vector.

I do not claim that my theory has "all the answers". If they did I would already be time traveling. Yet I have found no evidence that would tell me that Massive SpaceTime is wrong. I am still working on it, and given it is a 3x3 symmetrical model, I tend to think that symmetry breaking will be one key to being able to use the Mass, Space, and Time integrated relationships to willfully warp any one of these dimensions.

So where exactly does the part of believing and faith step in? Is this totally cold hard science for people to read and wonder instead of having the faith they need? Indeed God is connected to all of space/time/dimension, simply because he created every single atom in this universe.
 
Edit note

Edit note; Please note in this thread that an alien supposedly has appeared.

The alien says, that God as they see him, to the humans is nothing more than a reflection of self.

What is totally being ignored here, is the possibility that God and the angelic hierarchies, were a system to procure a race to maturity and that God in some way, does exist.

The God would be certainly more that a self reaction to a concept, if one pays attention to the Andreasson Luca series of books.
 
Re: some Things to think about...

I'm sorry, OvrLrd, but I really don't see anything to reply to in your post, as I can find nothing substansive there at all. I can't really reply, because I don't see that your post is actually saying anything at all.

My fault perhaps. In the journey of life we develope patterns. Many people live their lives just drifting thorough, and do not achieve the best of their potential. The bus driver that could have been a pilot. The janitor that could have been a teacher...etc.
Myself as an example, I became a victim of my own patterns. Instead of having a structured "path" to follow, I let life dictate my direction. Addicted to alcohol and drugs, I wasted 10 years of my life, going no where.
The patterns, or habits I employed were sub-conscious concepts that I used to set myself up, ensuring I did not succeed at my endeavors. These patterns can be likened to "demons".
If specific circumstances developed, my sub-conscious reaction was to somehow destroy my success.
Fear of success, a deep rooted belief that I wasn't worth any suceess, guilt, spite, blaming others for my defeat. Getting a great job, and showing up drunk. Being admitted to a good college and attending parties instead of classes, etc.

The Tree of Life is a map of one's life. It allows one to view their lives in a visible way and to learn what those patterns are, and provides a way to "exorcise" the demons.
The Tree begins with ones environment. The elements as it were.

Instead of thinking as being outside existence, a loner, an island unto oneself, the study of this level of the Tree brings forth a revelation of ones part in the scheme of living on Earth.
The methods of meditation and a inherent image of the Tree aid in helping to understand that we do have the ability to "create" positive patterns, instead of negative ones.
Once we can "see" what our reactions are to specific circumstances, i.e. getting a good job, and monitoring our emotional "baggage" that attempts to slip in to destroy our success, we can apply the concepts of the Tree to stop those destructive patterns before they develope.

This is what I am implying in the post. We all have our "demons" within. As in your case, the responses to some posts indicates an irritation to what is stated. Directed personally towards you, yes, but your emotional reply sets you up for the information you want to get across being ignored, instead you are personally attacked again.

This is a very simplified example, but I am sure that you have had opportunites come your way that you did not take or somehow destroyed the chance because of some pattern that lies beneath your consciousness( awareness ). A very successful father in the scientific community, perhaps always being second best compared to him.

My father is like that, very successful at what he does, I never could become as successful in his eyes. I spent an enormous amount of energy to get an approval from him that I was just as successful as he was. Of which never materialized. Through the Tree of Life and it's methods of self-discovery, I learned that I didn't need his approval.

I am successful in my own right. I then could watch for negative patterns before they started, knowing what to watch for and impose my own positive patterns to counter act them.

The Tree of Life is about empowerment. Empowering you to "grow" into an Oak, instead of a weed in the garden of life.


2. Wisdom
3. Understanding
4. Mercy
5. Strength
6. Grace/Beauty
7. Victory/Firmness
8. Honor
9. Foundation/Basis

By appllying these "virtues" in our daily lives, life can be filled with success. But there has to be a balance, of which is essential in the construct of your own Tree.

Too much of any of the virutes result in an unbalanced construct, so by understanding what these "virtues" and how they can be applied in your life can be done through creating an empty version of the Tree and "coloring" in the levels of the Tree with your life and your experiences.

You get a clear picture of," hey, I am too strong in this area and don't show enough mercy". If this is the case, then you become a tyrant. Show too much mercy, and then you are considered to be soft and easily taken advantage of.

Once again, this is over simplified, but is an indication of what the Tree is all about. Itr is about you and your Life. A road map of who you are and what you "can" become, once free from negativity and infusing balance and equilibrium into your daily patterns of existence.
 
Re: some Things to think about...

Okay, I see what you're saying, OvrLrd, and I agree in a way. I think the Tree Of Life can, indeed, help people to sort their lives out, find a purpose and any number of positive things. I believe the same is true for any religious/spiritual system or belief, from Christianity to Asratu, from New Age beliefs to Muslim - as long as the right system is matched to the right person. Get the wrong system matched to the wrong person and you get extremism and fundamentalism which destroys other people (see Palestine/Israel or N. Ireland) or destroys the person (see Heaven's Gate).

Although I have no religious or spiritual beliefs, I do believe that they can be powerful forces for good both on a personal and group level. I have even found spiritual things uplifting in themselves. One of my favourite songs in the entire world is "I'll Fly Away" sung by Alison Krauss and Gillian Walsh, from the O Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack. The song is about looking forward to dying because then you'll be with god and no longer be a slave in the deep south. Not a single one of those things applys to me, but it's definately a song that gives my spirits a boost (to coin a phrase). I also believe they can be a powerful force for bad both on a personal and group level (I doubt many cite Torquemada as a hero in this day and age).

But that doesn't mean that I find any actual real meaning behind the spirituality. I found Dead Poets Society uplifting (in a miserable kind of way) when I first saw it in the cinema. I don't think it's true, though.

I'm glad that the Tree Of Life has given you something that you previously felt was lacking, and has been a positive influence in your life. But I don't think that makes it true and nor do I think that means it would be a positive influence on everybody's life.
 
Back
Top