How do you explain a ordered universe without a Creator?

[rightwinger]

Your god would also have to violate one of your basic laws of physics......matter cannot be created or destroyed

Which seems to illustrate your problem in communication here. You think a spiritual entity is physical matter. I don't believe in a spiritual physical God.

I agree that in physics, matter can't be created or destroyed... which begs the question, how did it originate? Obviously, it can't create itself without defying itself.... so it's a hopeless paradox. Yet we know... or at least, according to Newton and others... the physical universe did begin at some point. That's either a truth or you have faith in an "eternal universe" which is ostensibly faith in God.

So your answer is "magic"

 

[Boss]

So your answer is "magic"

Nope... Let us be clear... that's YOUR answer.

MY answer is Spiritual Nature. There is nothing magical about it. YOUR answer relies on magic.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

MY answer is Spiritual Nature.

.
spiritual nature without a physical presence by definition could not create a physical universe ... and is an unreasonable and unnecessary restriction for the creation that not even the cave dwellers failed to comprehend.
.

 

[Boss]

spiritual nature without a physical presence by definition could not create a physical universe ... and is an unreasonable and unnecessary restriction for the creation that not even the cave dwellers failed to comprehend.

spiritual nature without a physical presence by definition could not create a physical universe

Where is your evidence for that?

 

[BreezeWood]

spiritual nature without a physical presence by definition could not create a physical universe ... and is an unreasonable and unnecessary restriction for the creation that not even the cave dwellers failed to comprehend.

spiritual nature without a physical presence by definition could not create a physical universe

Where is your evidence for that?

.

You think a spiritual entity is physical matter. I don't believe in a spiritual physical God.

it's only logical for there to be a (physical) creation the creator would be theirselves systemic with the properties they create, having both a spiritual and physical transformability in the creation of the object.

.

 

[Boss]

it's only logical for there to be a (physical) creation the creator would be theirselves systemic with the properties they create, having both a spiritual and physical transformability in the creation of the object.

Again... where is your evidence for this?

If I create a painting it doesn't mean I am the oil and canvas. There is no logic in that.

I understand you have this opinion. I am not questioning your opinion as an opinion. But opinions are merely testaments of faith in a belief. They have no explanatory value in science.

My point was much more scientific. Physics can't create physics, it's paradoxical. Without a Spiritual explanation... what else do we have? I realize this is not a scientific evidence for Spiritual Nature but we don't have to call it Spiritual Nature... we can use any term we please... Metaphysical Nature... Extracosmic Energy... Mercurial Spirit... God... Flying Spaghetti Monster... doesn't matter... Something had to logically create physical nature because it cannot create itself.

 

[BreezeWood]

it's only logical for there to be a (physical) creation the creator would be theirselves systemic with the properties they create, having both a spiritual and physical transformability in the creation of the object.

Again... where is your evidence for this?

If I create a painting it doesn't mean I am the oil and canvas. There is no logic in that.

I understand you have this opinion. I am not questioning your opinion as an opinion. But opinions are merely testaments of faith in a belief. They have no explanatory value in science.

My point was much more scientific. Physics can't create physics, it's paradoxical. Without a Spiritual explanation... what else do we have? I realize this is not a scientific evidence for Spiritual Nature but we don't have to call it Spiritual Nature... we can use any term we please... Metaphysical Nature... Extracosmic Energy... Mercurial Spirit... God... Flying Spaghetti Monster... doesn't matter... Something had to logically create physical nature because it cannot create itself.

.

If I create a painting it doesn't mean I am the oil and canvas. There is no logic in that.

without interaction there is no painting - looking at the canvas does not create the image ...

if the deceased are unable to materialize as there is no record of such an event how can they create a physical object.

.

 

[Boss]

without interaction there is no painting - looking at the canvas does not create the image ...

if the deceased are unable to materialize as there is no record of such an event how can they create a physical object.

The "deceased" are physical mortals who have died. That's not Spiritual Nature.

Looking at the canvas doesn't create the image but it doesn't follow that you must become the canvas. Does the Spiritual interact with the Physical? Well... yeah... I think that's the whole point! We can't prove it physically with physical sciences because physical sciences are inadequate to measure spiritual things.

 

[BreezeWood]

without interaction there is no painting - looking at the canvas does not create the image ...

if the deceased are unable to materialize as there is no record of such an event how can they create a physical object.

The "deceased" are physical mortals who have died. That's not Spiritual Nature.

Looking at the canvas doesn't create the image but it doesn't follow that you must become the canvas. Does the Spiritual interact with the Physical? Well... yeah... I think that's the whole point! We can't prove it physically with physical sciences because physical sciences are inadequate to measure spiritual things.

.

Does the Spiritual interact with the Physical? Well... yeah... I think that's the whole point!

- that's what I have been saying from the beginning ...

We can't prove it physically with physical sciences because physical sciences are inadequate to measure spiritual things.

you just have no interest bossy .

. without a CNS to investigate you simply chose a higher ground (for yourself) that does not exist.

The "deceased" are physical mortals who have died. That's not Spiritual Nature.

.

freeing the Spirit before the physiology expires is not a mortal ... * Hint.

.

 

[Boss]

you just have no interest bossy .

. without a CNS to investigate you simply chose a higher ground (for yourself) that does not exist.

I have all kinds of interest... if you could offer me some scientific evidence supporting spiritual nature, I am certainly interested in looking at it. But, physical sciences are dependent on math and physics which (by definition) cannot measure that which is not physical.

 

[BreezeWood]

you just have no interest bossy .

. without a CNS to investigate you simply chose a higher ground (for yourself) that does not exist.

I have all kinds of interest... if you could offer me some scientific evidence supporting spiritual nature, I am certainly interested in looking at it. But, physical sciences are dependent on math and physics which (by definition) cannot measure that which is not physical.

.

But, physical sciences are dependent on math and physics which (by definition) cannot measure that which is not physical.

oh, what is a light beam


But, physical sciences are dependent on math and physics ...

they are only limited by your assertion not their capabilities and new tools are a part of the workshop.

I've just stated the Spiritual is not the CNS (central nervous system) and use Flora as an example if you believe the connection can not be deciphered is a judgement that is not the same though as your assertion the sentience does not exist.

.

 

[Boss]

oh, what is a light beam


But, physical sciences are dependent on math and physics ...

they are only limited by your assertion not their capabilities and new tools are a part of the workshop.

I've just stated the Spiritual is not the CNS (central nervous system) and use Flora as an example if you believe the connection can not be deciphered is a judgement that is not the same though as your assertion the sentience does not exist.

Okay... I am stating that "spiritual" things cannot be measured by physics and mathematics (physical parameters) and you are interpreting my statement as "connection can not be deciphered." My statement is not what you've interpreted. I keep trying to explain that to you but you keep misinterpreting me. I don't know how we overcome that breakdown in understanding because you're going to need to try and not misinterpret things I say, which you don't seem to be able to do for some reason. I can choose to keep trying to explain things and you can keep misinterpreting them, but we get nowhere in terms of resolve.

This symbol represents the Spiritual and Physical nature which comprise our reality in an objective universe. Science and Philosophy are the disciplines of comprehension and understanding for these two parts. Science and Philosophy can relate, in fact, Science itself, IS a philosophy. It is through Philosophy that we have Science-- it is not through Science we have Philosophy. Just as we have physiology through spirituality and not spirituality through physiology.

 

[BreezeWood]

oh, what is a light beam


But, physical sciences are dependent on math and physics ...

they are only limited by your assertion not their capabilities and new tools are a part of the workshop.

I've just stated the Spiritual is not the CNS (central nervous system) and use Flora as an example if you believe the connection can not be deciphered is a judgement that is not the same though as your assertion the sentience does not exist.

Okay... I am stating that "spiritual" things cannot be measured by physics and mathematics (physical parameters) and you are interpreting my statement as "connection can not be deciphered." My statement is not what you've interpreted. I keep trying to explain that to you but you keep misinterpreting me. I don't know how we overcome that breakdown in understanding because you're going to need to try and not misinterpret things I say, which you don't seem to be able to do for some reason. I can choose to keep trying to explain things and you can keep misinterpreting them, but we get nowhere in terms of resolve.

This symbol represents the Spiritual and Physical nature which comprise our reality in an objective universe. Science and Philosophy are the disciplines of comprehension and understanding for these two parts. Science and Philosophy can relate, in fact, Science itself, IS a philosophy. It is through Philosophy that we have Science-- it is not through Science we have Philosophy. Just as we have physiology through spirituality and not spirituality through physiology.

.
it has been a very long time since that symbol was discredited (the interpretation that there is always a struggle with no end is my vague recollection), emblematic of your thought process where you believe nothing can be known -

as I have stated before the goal is to reach the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other is the goal, not your symbol where you live with both.

Okay... I am stating that "spiritual" things cannot be measured by physics and mathematics (physical parameters) and you are interpreting my statement as "connection can not be deciphered."

I've just stated the Spiritual is not the CNS (central nervous system) and use Flora as an example if you believe the connection can not be deciphered is a judgement that is not the same though as your assertion the sentience does not exist.

there are other realms to science than physics and mathematics, what is the Spirit might be the means of discovering them or those two may simply need a new dimensional interpretation not yet discovered. - understanding the Spirit generically is a possible goal that could answer may questions of our past but something to be very cognoscente of ....


that is not the same though as your assertion the sentience does not exist (for all beings) ...

that in a nut shell is the difference between you and I.

.

 

[Boss]

it has been a very long time since that symbol was discredited (the interpretation that there is always a struggle with no end is my vague recollection), emblematic of your thought process where you believe nothing can be known -

as I have stated before the goal is to reach the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other is the goal, not your symbol where you live with both.

Discredited? It's a PHILOSOPHY! How do you discredit someone's philosophy?

What you mean is, you don't subscribe to their philosophy... that doesn't discredit it.

And all you hot air about reaching the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil... You are not going to KNOW that until you fucking DIE!

None of us can ever KNOW... all we can do is THINK we know. We're all mortal humans trapped by a physical reality. We don't even have perception of the present until after it happens. Look at yourself in the mirror... that's not you in the present... you think it is... but it's actually a perception of you from a nanosecond ago... light had to reflect off you and travel to your eye, your brain had to process the image and this took time passing... physics had to happen. You have faith that you KNOW that's what you look like in the present... but you can never KNOW.

 

[BreezeWood]

it has been a very long time since that symbol was discredited (the interpretation that there is always a struggle with no end is my vague recollection), emblematic of your thought process where you believe nothing can be known -

as I have stated before the goal is to reach the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other is the goal, not your symbol where you live with both.

Discredited? It's a PHILOSOPHY! How do you discredit someone's philosophy?

What you mean is, you don't subscribe to their philosophy... that doesn't discredit it.

And all you hot air about reaching the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil... You are not going to KNOW that until you fucking DIE!

None of us can ever KNOW... all we can do is THINK we know. We're all mortal humans trapped by a physical reality. We don't even have perception of the present until after it happens. Look at yourself in the mirror... that's not you in the present... you think it is... but it's actually a perception of you from a nanosecond ago... light had to reflect off you and travel to your eye, your brain had to process the image and this took time passing... physics had to happen. You have faith that you KNOW that's what you look like in the present... but you can never KNOW.

... but you can never KNOW.

Take a Memo:

None of us can ever KNOW... all we can do is THINK we know.

.

.

 

[Kristian]

The Devil or Allah or Lord are our creater in 2 collections in space.

 

[Boss]

it has been a very long time since that symbol was discredited (the interpretation that there is always a struggle with no end is my vague recollection), emblematic of your thought process where you believe nothing can be known -

as I have stated before the goal is to reach the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other is the goal, not your symbol where you live with both.

Discredited? It's a PHILOSOPHY! How do you discredit someone's philosophy?

What you mean is, you don't subscribe to their philosophy... that doesn't discredit it.

And all you hot air about reaching the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil... You are not going to KNOW that until you fucking DIE!

None of us can ever KNOW... all we can do is THINK we know. We're all mortal humans trapped by a physical reality. We don't even have perception of the present until after it happens. Look at yourself in the mirror... that's not you in the present... you think it is... but it's actually a perception of you from a nanosecond ago... light had to reflect off you and travel to your eye, your brain had to process the image and this took time passing... physics had to happen. You have faith that you KNOW that's what you look like in the present... but you can never KNOW.

... but you can never KNOW.

Take a Memo:

None of us can ever KNOW... all we can do is THINK we know.

.

.

I really don't know why you think that is me digging myself a hole.... unless it is to bury your dead argument.

 

[BreezeWood]

it has been a very long time since that symbol was discredited (the interpretation that there is always a struggle with no end is my vague recollection), emblematic of your thought process where you believe nothing can be known -

as I have stated before the goal is to reach the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil - one or the other is the goal, not your symbol where you live with both.

Discredited? It's a PHILOSOPHY! How do you discredit someone's philosophy?

What you mean is, you don't subscribe to their philosophy... that doesn't discredit it.

And all you hot air about reaching the Apex of Knowledge as the minimum for Acceptance to the Everlasting, the Triumph of Good vs Evil... You are not going to KNOW that until you fucking DIE!

None of us can ever KNOW... all we can do is THINK we know. We're all mortal humans trapped by a physical reality. We don't even have perception of the present until after it happens. Look at yourself in the mirror... that's not you in the present... you think it is... but it's actually a perception of you from a nanosecond ago... light had to reflect off you and travel to your eye, your brain had to process the image and this took time passing... physics had to happen. You have faith that you KNOW that's what you look like in the present... but you can never KNOW.

... but you can never KNOW.

Take a Memo:

None of us can ever KNOW... all we can do is THINK we know.

.

.

I really don't know why you think that is me digging myself a hole.... unless it is to bury your dead argument.

.

I really don't know why you think that is me digging myself a hole.... unless it is to bury your dead argument.

does Newtons apple (ever) reach the ground, with your derailment the answer would be no but that is not the case there is no faith that intervenes the apple rests on the surface.

.

 

[zaangalewa]

The Devil or Allah or Lord are our creater in 2 collections in space.

In the last few days I had to think a lot about the "prästabilierte Harmonie" (=~prestabalized harmony) the philosopher Leibniz spoke about. What you say here is not far from this. In former times I thought it is crazy to think so - but Leibniz was the most intelligent man I've ever heard from. The prestabalized harmony could perhaps give an intuition how to explain the behavior of Verschränkung (~entanaglement) in physics. An impulse is limited from the lightsspeed - an information not. So it looks like the whole universe of energy is the same time only existing in a single point of information. So this could explain why there's a difference in the way of energy but not a difference in the way of information - if entanglement is a kind of pure information, what I don't know. Nevertheless the devil is creation and not creator - and "God", "Allah" or "The Lord" are only three different words for the same entity.

 

[Boss]

does Newtons apple (ever) reach the ground, with your derailment the answer would be no but that is not the case there is no faith that intervenes the apple rests on the surface.

We don't even know if there was an apple or a Newton. These are perceptions of a reality we experience in the past. We assume they are true. This is why Einstein said, "Reality is an illusion, albeit a persistent one."