₦airaland Forum

On the generality of the broad outlines of Western as opposed to Eastern Spiritual worldviews, I tend to see the Eastern as much more advanced.

What are your thoughts?

KingEbukasBlog:
Are you Igbo ?

No, but what's the relevance?

eshietIntrepid:
Strength in are diversities, but on a second thought all these ethnics groups in one country and u expect peace.

Honestly I think nigeria should be divided .

Into 371 Countries right?

plaetton:
Experience is the key thing, the key barometer.

Everything is an illusion, until it is consciously experienced.

Whilst I understand what you are trying to convey, you must perhaps be careful with words: for the sentence above is self contradictory. The Blue side of the statement cannot exist at all except within the red side of the statement thereby rendering the statement an incongruity in itself.

Experience leaves an imprint on consciousness.

Sure.

The universe, all things evolve by going through experiences.
Each experience adds something ' other' that was not previously there.

Absolutely.

A conscious being or mind cannot stand outside of time and space, for the simple reason that it would be devoid of experience.

Now, with this and in this we must halt at once and only proceed with tremulous caution: for this is a statement that we may not be qualified to make at all: existing as we do within the bounds of time and space we can have no claim to even faintly understand what an existence outside those bounds may be like: or what sort of consciousness may dwell therein: indeed in my view only the Godhead itself exists on such a plane: or perhaps it is better to say that the Godhead itself is such a plane: whichever the case may be no man may venture to conclude that no sort of consciousness may exist outside time and space: for it is clearly a matter well beyond any creature living in time and space to comment upon: and herein lies the absolute mystery of the ineffable God.

And without the flux of interactive information, there cannot be experience, and there cannot be consciousness.

As I said above: this is a presumptive statement: perhaps we must understand that God being an infinite and an absolute: can be and dwell in a consciousness that is the sum of all infinite experience at once: a single eternal moment of everything.

mkmyers45:
Won't the bolded require that the conscious subjects are somehow experiencing the illusionary world through a link from the real world?

Yes, absolutely: it could not but be so - for only a real and conscious being can experience anything. We are therefore tied to the real world always: in my perception, the temporary visor through which we perceive this world is the human body and it is stripped off at death: leaving the conscious being to stand in its evolved reality without the visor of the material plane.

If the individual in the simulated world is not linked to the real world but is rather ''lab rats in an experiment'' Does this make his self-awareness any less real? Does this make their awareness a quasi-conscious state?

It is impossible to have a simulation without a link to that environment causing the simulation.

mkmyers45:
I think it is important that we fully understand TIME and LIGHT as i believe these two will provide clues as to whether we live in a simulation or not

This is a most important point you have made I think.

Firstly, What is Time? Not the denominated fragment that man has structured to provide some sort of order in chaos. As far as present scientific advance is concerned we dont actually know what time is. When does time progress? Does time flow or does it morph instantaneously?

Time is indeed a great mystery: however I will offer what has been my own definition of time (and space), which I believe is reasonable and sufficient for the purpose of this discussion:

~ Time is the infinite continuum into which events are interpolated

In the same way, Space for me is -

~ The infinite field into which objects are interpolated

Is time an entity that can be harnessed and manipulated? If yes, then i think it will be a strong evidence we live in a simulation.

Going with the above definitions I do not think that real existential time is susceptible to manipulation, however the perception, observation or experience of it is highly subjective and indeed susceptible to manipulation. These are my thoughts only.

Is the expansion of space creating new time?

Real Space does not expand, as it is an infinite field already as I said. What seems to expand are the the positions of the objects within the infinite field that is called space.

is the multiverse theory the answer?

That a multiverse or even infinitverse exists, i take for granted, but this presents even more questions than any answer.

Are we living in a real world that is constantly branching out due to our choices?

In terms of the nature of our individual realities I think this is correct. Perhaps that every single choice leads you to live in a range of happenings on a different dimension of reality created by that choice.

Secondly, what gives light its characteristic speed? Will we ever develop good enough tech to observe the boundaries of our expanding universe (This will depend on us being able to manipulate light)?

This I do not know. . .
However I will say that there are several esoteric arts and sciences by which human beings already transcend and observe the worlds, dimensions, universes and realities. The orthodox sciences disdain these for the most part though, and this is something that will have to evolve and change before mankind grows into the next level of his experience in the universe.

flamingREED:
Then God must be the conscious observer, you think?
Like you rightly said,
Only a conscious observer establishes illusory events.

This is a very useful and nuanced question - if I may cast upon it the toga of a question, that is.

Indeed, only a conscious observer can begin to state that one event is real and another illusory. Indeed, there is a very fine line here: because one must wonder if at all anything can actually be said to be illusory. For all that we have are experiences: and to the extent that we experience something at all - can we ever call it an illusion? Is a dream at night an illusion? Is it not experienced?

(a) At the level of asking if our entire reality is an illusion, it is true that perhaps that ultimate author of teh said reality which we call God, is the only factor that may determine what is real at all: for it is the only factor that has a view of the entire program and can therefore know that which is inserted as a hallucination and that which actually happens.

Indeed, for as noted in the OP - "If all one perceived was the illusion, they would not be able to recognize it as such" - therefore being trapped in our reality as we are: we probably cannot ever tell if it is an illusion or not.

(b) But then again: is a hallucination itself not an event? Is it still not a "thing" that has "happened" or at least been experienced?
In that case we may well come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as illusion or hallucination but that everything is real to the conscious being experiencing the happening.

There rests a contradiction between (a) and (b) above which we must discuss to attempt to resolve.

I'll ask you, have you ever been unconscious?

Yes, I would say so - in deep dreamless sleep as well as a few times in the past when I have been well and truly done in by my dalliances with the bottle.

My people refer to it as 'self-forgetfulness',
which happens once a while.

Complete unconsciousness is quite different I think from the state you are trying to describe. The state you refer to is not unconscious at all: if anything it is super conscious. It is a state in which you exit the material and mortal self and sensibilities and stand outside of it completely. I have experienced such as this through a great many out of body experiences.

While I laid and faced up on a day, I, in a manner of speaking, forgot myself.
Suddenly, in that brief moment, my sight darted far into the cosmos overtaking the stars that dotted it's canopy.

If I had remained like that for long, I may have beheld the farthest realms and actual sizes of the cosmic constellations.

That is very much in tandem with having had an out of body experience or astral travel of a sort.

That's because I was unconscious.

No, you were super conscious.

But as soon as my consciousness returned I could see nothing beyond what every conscious mind beholds in space.

We're conscious creatures

You mean as soon as your material and mortal consciousness returned.

plaetton:
What is the difference between existential illusion and an economic or systemic one ?

If, from infancy , we are sold the first illusion that resources are scare and must be competed for, then that forms the foundations of our perceptions or worldview, and upon which other existential illusions are constructed.

From this illusion of scarcity, we compel our selves to spend almost 100℅ of our lives struggling to accumulate as much of the so-called scarce resources as possible.
Therefore, our consciousness, our conscious perceptions become limited, unable to expand beyond primitive accumulation.

Now , here is the funny part.
Because we spend so much our lives trying to accumulate, we develop a natural fear of death. We complain that life is too short.
We then create an after-life , eternal life illusion to assuage our fears.
In other words, we create an illusion of time, more time to do something other than primitive accumulation.

This is why heaven is sold as a paradise, with no work, no strife, no economic structure, no usury.

Whilst this is very interesting, it still has little to do with the core existential sort of illusion which I am discussing. I would say that what you have referred to is better described as living in a definite reality with false notions about its system and economy which then cause one to invent an imaginary future reality to assuage same.

This is quite different from the existential question of your entire life as it is already being an illusion: a dream of a sort - a simulation that is in fact not real at all but only appears so when viewed through the biochemical visor and transmitter that is the human body.

^^^ Fair enough. But this is not the sort of illusion being discussed here. I refer to an existential illusion rather than an economic or systemic one.

plaetton:
A million likes.

A herd of sheep will always attract a pack of wolves.

. . . I love that saying. Just like this one which I love so much:

In the Tribunal of Wolves, the hen is always found guilty.

I have been discussing the idea that we live in a simulated reality for some time: an illusion of sorts.

But, even if true, just how could we ever know such a thing?
There are a number of interesting takes I would like to discuss regarding this.

Let me however open with a quote I picked from another Forum:

"Koukl points out that in order to recognize something as an illusion, two things are required: (1) the presence of a conscious observer who is capable of perception, and (2) the ability to distinguish between what is real and what is illusion.

If there were no conscious observers who can perceive, then it is impossible to know there is an illusion because the non-conscious do not perceive or know anything. So if consciousness was not real there would be no way to perceive that consciousness was just an illusion. If consciousness is required to perceive an illusion, then consciousness cannot itself be an illusion. Similarly, one would have to be able to perceive both the real world and the illusory world in order to know there is a distinction between the two, and to subsequently identify the illusory world as illusory. If all one perceived was the illusion, they would not be able to recognize it as such."

Takers?

dalaman:
Why shouldn't there be? That's the scientific explanation. We have biblical explanation for the origin of humanity and language for example. What then is the biblical explanation for racial diversity?

If you insist on that you might end up asking for the biblical explanation of the sizes of peoples third legs as well.
Not needed.

dalaman:
What is the biblical explanation for the origin of the different races of humans that exist in the world?

CC: KingEbukasBlog, 4everGod.

Why should there be a biblical explanation?

Racial differences are a consequence of environment and weather: end of.

Teempakguy:
Finally, you and deepsight are the same. All you do is state your opinions as absolute and dismiss all rebuttals as inconsequential. No one can have a meaningful argument with you or him.

Certainly not anyone obsessed with the properties of nothingness.

I laid out your contradictions in stark detail and you simply glossed over them only to whine about being dissapointed. It is you who really are a waste of space. You did not address even one of the many stark absurdities i pointed out.

You simply repeat that everything can happen in nothingness which is simply an empty absurd nonsensical statement which contradicts itself.

You are the one who needs his senses restored sorry.

Till then, feed fat on nothingness.

Comedian.

Teempakguy:
I'm just seeing this, and I'm very disappointed. You simply repeat the same sentences over and over again in blind determination. That's annoying because the conversation is going around in circles.

When you return to your senses, I'll be over at my space, pondering the concept of nothing.

Oh yeah keep it up. Study very hard your nothingness. Process it and evaluate it as you said.

Comedian.

DoctorAlien:
If the building which the architect designed(accurately) collapses tomorrow, is the architect evil and horrible?

Edited.

The architect may be criminally negligent and in the case of a building that is actually designed to murder its occupants in the way that nature is designed to murder us all, or consume us all for food - the architect may be psychopathic.

DoctorAlien:
The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. The fact that you cannot determine whether things has always been this way proscribes labelling the Creator as not-benevolent on your part.

If you must call the Creator names, you must proof that He is really what you think. Or else you refrain from calling Him names.

Can you find out the moral standing and personality(the goodness or badness of the person) of an architect by studying the edifice he designed? If the building which the architect designed(accurately) collapses tomorrow, is the architect evil and horrible?

Edited.

This is a bad analogy. You have not shown that the living economy was ever anything different from what we all see. You then claim that it was different and then you ask us to prove that it was not! In this you then bring in "The absence of proof is not the proof of absence."

That is beyond odd my friend, and I will not engage you further unless I see anything tangible in whatever you say going forward. Otherwise consider this conversation over.

DoctorAlien:
This write-up assumes that the "living economy" has always existed i.e. things has always been so.

If the writer of this piece can prove that the "living economy" was the original intention, product and design of the Creator, only then would he have the right to label the Creator as cruel and not-benevolent.

Is there any evidence to the contrary?

Is the living economy not what we see and have always historically known?

If it was different in times past, does the onus not rest on you who claim so to prove that?

Do this living economy not also stretch to wild animals?

Did the creator intend lions to chew the cud?

truthislight:
Genesis 1:29,30
29 Then God said: “Here I have given to you every seed-bearing plant that is on the entire earth and every tree with seed-bearing fruit. Let them serve as food for you. 30 And to every wild animal of the earth and to every flying creature of the heavens and to everything moving on the earth in which there is life, I have given all green vegetation for food.”
.............................

From the above, Animal was not to be part of the food for living things.
The plants was to give more than enough food for a perfect man. no mention of Animal as forming part of the food chain.



Genesis 9:3,4

3 Every moving animal that is alive may serve as food for you. Just as I gave you the green vegetation, I give them all to you. 4 Only flesh with its life—its blood—you must not eat.
..........................................
The above was a new thing to man.

Gotcha. I had forgotten my verses, pardon me.

So, the plans change from the original concept.

But why?

What is the co-relation between the fall of man and consumption of meat?

I don't see the co-relation.

It appears that humans from an imperfect stage can't readily sustain themselves adequately from eating plants since they were now no longer perfect.

Being imperfect, concession was made for them to eat Animal meat to supplement their protein intake.

This is surely not true. There are life long vegetarians.

I once had a Hindu colleague who had never tasted meat in his life and he was middle aged.
This gentleman was the freshest, fittest, soundest looking of all of us always.

Surely this shows that it is not true to say that man cannot survive without meat.

Unfortunately, he had to let the initial plan pend to allow the contrary independent one run for all to see that his initial plans was the best.

The constant revision of the plans of a supposedly unchangeable God, a God who is the same yesterday, today and forever - is quite befuddling, wouldn't you say?

SirWere:
Fascinating.

However, to go by a Christian Design perspective, one can say that animals and plants do not have "souls", neither do they have the ability to praise God (which was what Man was created for)

How come the deduction that animals and plants do not have souls or the ability to praise the creator?

[s]Even though as I write this, a part of me is cringing and laughing at how riddiculous this is[/s].]/quote]

And it should.

[quote]Besides, nowhere was it written that Adam actually eat any animal or even a whole plant.
He was intially designed to eat fruits, perform descriptive Taxonomy
and praise God.


Ergo......

I can't recall any decree prohibiting man from eating animals at all, not that the biblical take will change anything being driven at in the OP.

I see what both you and Truthislight are averring to though: it says something of the sort in Genesis 9:3.
Nevertheless it takes nothing away from the point about hunger.

Indeed: not eating animals is less barbaric: but the point about hunger still remains very the same.

truthislight:
Ok, meanwhile, be for I say anything about your observation above, I wish you give and opinion about a scenario.

Thank you for your question.

Assuming that all humans has the good health to survive on fruits and herbs/plants alone, do you think satisfying the demand of the brain for energy will be a problem?

It is perfectly possible for humans to survive on a vegetarian diet alone: a lot of humans do this, particularly Hindus. In fact I understand that it is said to be particularly healthy, limits toxins in the body and also generally leads to greater longevity (I cannot confirm any of these). However I am personally favorably disposed to the idea as it is less barbaric than killing and consuming other conscious creatures such as animals and eating their corpses which is a somewhat hideous practice of ours in my estimation. (Moreso when we freeze the corpses to preserve them, then eat them again, while marinating the corpses which all manner of spices for our hideous enjoyment) - but I digress.

Since I am a creationists as stated in the Bible, am aware that the initial plan was for all to thrive on plants and herbs/fruits. No Animal meat.

Please can you guide me to where this is made clear within scripture?

The eating of meat as a command came after Adam failed. It was first given to Noah to eat Animal meat after the flood.

I am not sure that this is quite the case in scripture. Nevertheless please point it out to me within scripture please.

Hence my question, if plant products were to be the staple food for living creatures, would hunger have been an issue?

Well yes, there would still be an issue - although a less barbaric issue as I have described the eating of animal corpses above to be a most hideous practice of human beings.

The issue is because what is at play here is not just the question of what we eat but the fact that we must eat compulsively: thus we must work to gather such food compulsively and this inevitably leads to the evils mentioned in the OP: greed, selfishness, oppression, vicious competition for resources (which has always led to wars throughout history) etc. I mean just look at the slave plantations of the Americas - they were not harvesting meat, were they? They were dealing with plants and yet the labor was so great that men had to enslave other men in gruesome circumstances for centuries to assure that "living economy" could thrive.

The point therefore remains the same: what twisted mind would have conceived a world such as this, where underlying premises such as hunger, would eternally dictate sure and certain evil and barbarity for all time. . . ?

truthislight:
See my take above.

Your OP rekindled an observation I had about the monster in our heads.

Thank you. However I would have rather concentrated your thoughts on why the system is so wired in the first place. For it is, you must agree, a mercenary, crude, barbaric and savagely opportunistic "living economy" that has thus been set in place for all creatures on earth including humans.

Do you think that the author of this savagery is the primordial light itself which is God: or is more likely to be the simulation of intelligent beings within or outside this simulated universe: beings watching a savage game in play for the purposes of experiment or entertainment.

[quote author=truthislight post=52068861][/quote]@ Truthislight - how come you quote my post without writing anything of yours?

I have often paused to contemplate the spectre of physical hunger and what it implies for the nature of the world in which we live. A living creature cannot subsist in the world of matter without energizing itself through the consumption of food. This food, consists of other living creatures, other living things or their by products. In essence, in the great circle of nature, life must consume life to subsist.

This very reality sets the pace for the entire food chain: the global economy of all living things - the global ecosystem in which the activity of each creature has a ripple effect on the survival and activities of other creatures and thus sets up a complex economy of all creatures. For the purpose of this thread I will refer to this simply as the "living economy."

This Living economy has both positive and negative consequences, both beautiful and macabre aspects. Almost every predatory action in the wild serves a function within an ecosystem: while predators control the population of cattle and keep cattle fit, alert and agile, scavengers such as the vulture ensure a most thorough "clean up" work of the remains of carcasses: insects interact with plants in the process of pollination and in some weirder instances some creatures will actually take up residence inside other creatures and eat and survive within their hosts. Not in all cases are these parasites harmful: in some cases the host derives benefits from the activity of the parasite.

I say all of that to establish that the "living economy" does have its own sense, its own rhythm, its own beat, its own pulse and it would appear its own very purpose. If man for instance, had no need to eat in order to survive, the compulsion to work might not exist and absent that compulsion humanity would certainly degenerate very fast and lose most of its creative capacities.

Nonetheless having said all that, I write to draw attention to the more macabre aspect of the living economy: particularly that aspect which involves conscious creatures eating one another for food. There is something intrinsically barbaric about the act especially as one observes it in the wild, that one has a compulsion to feel that this "living economy" could not be the creation or design of any benevolent designer.

It is true when it is said that nature is very cruel: absolutely unforgiving and could be the harshest and most merciless parent any creature could hope for: it abhors the weak and dispatches them mercilessly either at the hands of the elements or at the hands of disease or other beasts. In many ways the natural instincts of many creatures betrays such a horrendous innate cruelty that one must recoil: in taking over a pride, lions will not only kill or exile the displaced male: they will ensure that they murder every single cub of that pride in order to establish and perpetuate themselves. Some creatures kills their partners whilst mating as standard fare, other creatures such as some frogs and some snakes consume one another live and whole. In many instances the creatures which are prey will suffer significant levels of torture or misery in the process: and this is not a consequence of any particular wrong which they have done: it is simply the "living economy".

So there is this acid that works within our stomachs and other more powerful acids that work within the stomachs of other creatures. If you do not eat, this acid will burn you. It will begin first to consume the very same stomach walls. Then your body will start feeding on its own self until you die a horrible death.

You are therefore compelled to eat by this acid: by the imperatives of your body and in so doing you will eat other living things and likely other creatures too. It is an absolute compulsion: and never doubt that if absolutely necessary - this acid will force you to eat your own fellow human beings as well if there were no other food for a sufficiently long period of time. History is replete with it: and it is horrible.

Thus, hunger, this requirement to eat: drives many nasty things in the world: it drives greed, it drives selfishness, it drives oppression, it drove slavery, it drives imperialism, it drives corruption, it drives crime of every nature as well. And when one really thinks about it, in the complexity of the "living economy", with the presence of hunger, you will always have these consequences in a material world.

I will stop here for now, but the thought just crossed my mind what a grave danger those stomach acids are to a peaceful world: and how unpleasant the deities who constructed this world are: who have thus given it over to be ruled by such a nasty and implacable force such as Hunger.

benzics:
Nature is no proof of God, so nature is too beautiful to have come by mistake? Is that what you are saying? The galaxies are just too great to have come by mistake? The human body is too complex to have no creator? Why don't you apply same logic to your god, he is too complex to have no creator too? Isn't it? Else... DOUBLE STANDARDS.

It is not only the fact of the complexity of these things (nature, the universe and man) that leads us to say this: it is also the fact that they evince purpose.

By the way, I don't know of anybody that says that God is Complex. God is more likely the most simple and fundamental founding principle of reality and as such I see no reason to state that God is complex.

PS: Your statement that nature is no proof of God is akin to your statement that science has nothing to do with logic.

benzics:
Nice one... Just how you know that god is self existent??

Oh its not that hard really, if you pause to reason absent prejudicial notions. My experience of the world however gives me to know that it is rare for an adamant adult to change their opinion on a doctrinal or philosophical matter no matter the evidence or logic presented. So don't worry, I am not even remotely surprised at you.

I have answered this question of yours before but you were far too deep in your rabid fundamentalism to see the answer or understand it. I will answer it again.

- The material universe had a beginning.
- It therefore had a cause.
- A thing cannot be its own cause.
- Thus, matter, being caused, could not have arisen from matter.
- Thus matter was caused by an immaterial element.
- That element necessarily transcends the universe and is thus transcendental.
- Thus the cause is a transcendental immaterial element.
- If the cause transcends time as we know it, this cause is also timeless and therefore eternal.
- We can thus deduce the existence of a transcendental, immaterial and eternal cause.
- An eternal thing has no beginning: it exists by default and is permanent.
- Such a thing is self existent.

As I have said before, examples of self existent things are eternity itself and infinite space.

I hope you grasp this, but I will not be clinging to that hope.

vizkiz:
[color=#000099][i][b][font=serif][size=10pt] Poverty mentality.

So it is okay for a millionaire, politician and a musician to have private jets but a pastor is subjected to suffering right?

I dont think not using a private jet is what you might call "suffering".

benzics:
Next time if you want to give a reason why there is a god, you don't tell us everything has a creator when you are not ready to present us with God's creator

The correct argument actually is not what you have written. The correct argument is not that everything has a creator. Please listen and learn: the correct argument is as follows:

- "That everything that begins to exist, must have a cause."

Please note that self existent things never "begin to exist".

Digest that. Thank you.

emssecca:
Also, we Africans have really forgotten our history. We have always been in existence. The white man is new in existence. Our traditional priests are original Scientists and Psychologists. For example, when the traditional priests apply white chalk to the left eye it is because the left eye is connected to the heart. The heart, with a focused but pure mind is directly connected to the Universe. The white chalk signifies "the unseen". We are and everything in existence is God. There is no beginning and there is no end. You can never know. Hence "energy is neither created nor destroyed". "Being" means "consciousness". We as traditional practitioners have one commandment, the original commandment "Do unto others as you like to be done unto you!" And we have our convenants to enforce this law. If I sleep with another man's wife, then definitely another man will sleep with my wife! We do not worry about "God this" or "God that" instead we use the knowledge of nature to apply it scientifically to better ourselves and our communities. We achieved a lot more together as Africans before the white man came to destabilise us but its all part of the universal plan. Man know thyself!!!

Super Post

emssecca:
Nigerians, you all are atheists, communists, xtians, hinduists, muslims, jews, deists etc. You quote from "classical" greece, vedic culture, "classical" romans etc but none of you have said anything so far, please correct me if I missed it, about your African Traditional Customs!!!

Do any of you really know about the history of Africa? Xtianity? Islam? Hindu? And all the so-called "classical" greece, roman and hindu era? Even the history of Nigeria? Do you all remember we were enslaved, colonised and are still under hegemonic control?

Let me give you a hint. The word "God" is a germanic word meaning "to invoke". It had nothing originally to do with the word "The Creator" before the english adopted it. The english language was created to confuse and contradict the non-initiate. Always research for the etymology of words in english before you use it.

Africans, specifically for this chat, Nigerians Know Thy Self!!!

Thank you. And I must say, irrespective you all are intelligent brilliant minds and I am happy that Africans are still standing tall and strong no matter the colonial influence. Peace and African Power!!!

Wonderful post. It really is important to remind people. I have greater respect for real and sound minded African Traditionalists than for those religionists who only blindly gulp the myths and legends of other peoples as sacred truth whilst considering their own myths and legends as meaningless folklore only.

KingEbukasBlog:
@ Dalaman @DeepSight

I For logical reasons , to assume that the creator is dead is not really logical . Why ? Because the creator serves as the infinite source of our existence .

I entirely agree. It is illogical to view the creator or initiator of all contingent reality as something that can die or cease to exist.

But there are two things to consider

1. Is the universe dependent on the existence of the creator?

2. Is the universe independent on the existence of a creator ?

Everything in existence is and must be dependent on the source of all energy for existence.

The only logical reverse would be to suppose a universe which -

1. Contains all its energy in and of itself without any external input or output (closed system) and

2. Is eternal in the past: showing that it never derived its energy from any external source.

We know that the universe is not eternal in the past as it started at a point and this shows that it must therefore have had an external trigger as the laws of motion dictate. This immediately invalidates (1) above and shows the universe to be an open system and as such dependent on its source.

II In Panendeism , the creator metamorphosed from a separate conscious being to an unresponsive universe . In that case , understanding the purpose of man's existence can be pretty difficult . Any ideas ?

This would be like suggesting that the creator is some sort of mortal being which died and that the universe or multiverses out there are simply the decomposition of its mortal remains. Considering how minute we are in the scheme of things its not that this is completely inconceivable, but there is no reason to advance it as a positive logical assumption.