the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

[Pincho Paxton]

Instead of understanding the nature of the totality, let's flap the mind uselessly on non-existent questions.

Aren't you just saying that you don't care where all things originated? I don't care what Prince Charles does with his life, but some people do. Isn't is best that everybody shares their knowledge of all things like a human internet? Isn't the totality all knowledge? The question isn't non-existent, in fact the whole sentence that you wrote is a paradox. You can't have a non-existent question.

[David Quinn]

Instead of understanding the nature of the totality, let's flap the mind uselessly on non-existent questions.

Aren't you just saying that you don't care where all things originated?

If it were possible for the totality to originate, then I would care.

-

[Pincho Paxton]

Instead of understanding the nature of the totality, let's flap the mind uselessly on non-existent questions.

Aren't you just saying that you don't care where all things originated?

If it were possible for the totality to originate, then I would care.

-

Oh I see, yes there always has to be something in the universe. You can't start with zero.

[Iolaus]

Pincho,

I think that sentience is a substance of some sort. Like a plasma. I think that it is a part of the aether that controlls nature. I see how a photon chooses an electron to strike, and it works exactly like our brain, but it is just working around particles.

I see. Plausible enough. And if so, it seems that sentience is not actually the primal reality, but subsequent. Altho, words like subsequent may not be applicable after all. It may be that the one thing is always divided into several absolutely necessary components.

1/ Basically I belive that existence started as just 3 things. Positive/Negative forces in opposition, and the forces had sentience. That's all you need to start a universe.

Three is always a number that comes up in theories of origins...I have a particular fascination with it...and again no particular argument against your system, except to say that where did the positive and negative forces arise from?

What is it???

2/ The same thing, but it didn't happen here, it happened in Heaven. Then we were put here later. Making this place just a copy of Heaven.

Mmm, but now we are dividing reality up a little too much for me. That is to say, even if we are, like Plato thot, just a facsimile of the sharper and realer reality, made on the same pattern, it is still one reality, and the origin of the pattern is what I'm after.

Are you religious? What are your spiritual beliefs?

David,

Iolaus: Actually, it may be that existence exists precisely because there is no such option as nothingness, which cannot exist. But as for God, of course God is not nothingness, since the definition of God is somethingness.


These are empty words, given your most recent comments. You don't really understand them with your blood.

No, this is the flash of insight that I get when I contemplate nothingness as a possibility. As for God not being nothingness, that seems obvious.

Emotionally, you are still attached to the idea of the totality being a dualistic object which needs explaining.

The word 'attached' does not apply. Seeing things nondualistically does not come natural, you know, and it's an outlook acquired through persistent struggle. But you'll forgive me if I suspect the insults come from the fact that you cannot explain the nature of the Totality, or God.

I know that the Totality must be timeless, and that time must therefore be within it. Thinking in terms of time is thus a hindrance in trying to imagine how it is we have existence, albeit it is almost impossible to avoid, (at least for me). Perhaps time is indeed my problem. Nonetheless, saying the question is without meaning is a lot like when people ask "What preceded the big bang?" and are told that it is a nonquestion. It's not!

The question is completely unlike this. The big bang is an event within the totality and needs explaining. The totality itself doesn't.

But those who answer that way about the Big Bang do not talk in terms of it being an event within a greater totality. They think it is the origin of the one universe, that the universe may die out forever with a heat or cold death, and that questions about what could cause a big bang and a universe to arise are without meaning. And of course I suspect they have a similar irritation to you - the question is annoying because while obvious, they have no answer, are unlikely to get an answer, esp. in light of the fact they'd rather not go there, because it might lead to God. Or at least to them coming face to face with their ignorance.

For the record, I don't believe Big Bang theory, but it doesn't matter for this discussion.

Instead of understanding the nature of the totality, let's flap the mind uselessly on non-existent questions.

It's as though you have made it your life's purpose to not understand, so as to keep indulging in the emotions of it all.

Again, you'll forgive me for suspecting that you find this qustion annoying, and while having no answer, you insult me for wanting one.

I waste much spiritual energy upon it! I am asking, pounding upon the door, wresting to the ground- What are you? What are you?!

And I am perpelxed that people do not come to this question as to the real nature of God. What other question is there, really?

If it were possible for the totality to originate, then I would care.

It is the fact that the totality cannot have an origination that makes it an interesting question, the question of questions.

'Not caring' is an admission of defeat.

And I'm not sure I believe you.

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho,

Three is always a number that comes up in theories of origins...I have a particular fascination with it...and again no particular argument against your system, except to say that where did the positive and negative forces arise from?

Are you religious? What are your spiritual beliefs?

If it were possible for the totality to originate, then I would care.

It is the fact that the totality cannot have an origination that makes it an interesting question, the question of questions.

'Not caring' is an admission of defeat.

And I'm not sure I believe you.

The positive, and Negative energies do not have to come from anywhere. You will always end up with something that is eternal, no matter what belief you have. It is impossible for zero to do anything other than be zero infinately. If zero can become something, then zero was already something to begin with. Zero had to become aware that it was a zero, which doesn't make sense. So Positive, and Negative energy is the smallest denomination you can get, and must always be sentient as well.

I'm not religious, my spiritual beliefs are that mankind can live for many millions of years, and therefore would advance to a position where they could stop ageing, and create virtual worlds of solid matter. They would then use some of these virtual worlds as correction facilities. They would then send people into these worlds, and teach them how to live with other people in harmony. This would require a Bible, and some early forms of entertainment. Mainly the first PC technology, and the first movies in colour. Being as that is exactly what I have lived through in my lifetime I believe that this is one of those virtual worlds. The chance of me living this timeline for real is 1 in 1. Whereas the chance of you being in a virtual world where this timeline can be created over, and over again is infinate. So 1 in 1 compared to infinate means that infinate wins the vote.

[David Quinn]

DQ: Emotionally, you are still attached to the idea of the totality being a dualistic object which needs explaining.

The word 'attached' does not apply. Seeing things nondualistically does not come natural, you know, and it's an outlook acquired through persistent struggle. But you'll forgive me if I suspect the insults come from the fact that you cannot explain the nature of the Totality, or God.

Again, this very statement shows that you are still treating the totality as a dualistic object which needs explaining.

I'm not insulting you, nor am I acting out of frustration for not being able to resolve a non-existent question. I'm simply describing what I see in your behaviour - namely, a person who continues to ask non-existent questions because she is unable or unwilling to fully comprehend the nature of the totality.

Understanding the nature of the totality should be your number one priority. "First the Kingdom of God", as Jesus used to say. Life is too short to be wasted on dreaming up imaginary solutions to imaginary problems.

DQ: If it were possible for the totality to originate, then I would care.

It is the fact that the totality cannot have an origination that makes it an interesting question, the question of questions.

'Not caring' is an admission of defeat.

And I'm not sure I believe you.

It is like asking, "How do married bachelors originate?" It is a non-existent question based on ignorance and misunderstanding.

For a person to not care about solving such an issue, it is a sign that his mind his clear and his understanding is undistorted. He realizes that the "problem" is purely imaginary to begin with. And with that realization, the issue is completely and utterly resolved. He is ready to move on.

Getting stuck in an imaginary problem isn't healthy and indicates that unresolved emotional attachments are at play.

-

[Jamesh]

For a person to not care about solving such an issue, it is a sign that his mind his clear and his understanding is undistorted. He realizes that the "problem" is purely imaginary to begin with. And with that realization, the issue is completely and utterly resolved. He is ready to move on.

I reckon this is rubbish. Anyone who suddenly became born again would think the same thing.
To me it is just a sign of "giving up, because it seems too hard to conceptualise". It is no wonder you constantly refer to the totality as god, it is because you view the totality in the same manner.

We will work out how the totality works. It remains a problem for humanity because we need it to destroy false religious beliefs - The meme "God must be the first cause" lures to many people into a postmodernist view about reality, and religion uses this to spread gfalse beliefs.

[Carl G]

Jamesh wrote:

We will work out how the totality works.

Do you also believe individual cells dream of figuring out how a body works?

[David Quinn]

For a person to not care about solving such an issue, it is a sign that his mind his clear and his understanding is undistorted. He realizes that the "problem" is purely imaginary to begin with. And with that realization, the issue is completely and utterly resolved. He is ready to move on.

I reckon this is rubbish. Anyone who suddenly became born again would think the same thing.
To me it is just a sign of "giving up, because it seems too hard to conceptualise".

That's true. I also find it too hard to conceptualize married bachelors. So I've given up on that one too.

-

[Jamesh]

I also find it too hard to conceptualize married bachelors.

It is not hard to imagine. Just look at two gay people, who marry in a non-approved wedding.
To themselves they may be married but to others they are still bachelors, still men "who have never been married".

[David Quinn]

But neither to themselves or to others are they married bachelors. They are either married men or bachelors, depending on your point of view.

-