₦airaland Forum

nuclearboy:
@DeepSight:

Yor 1st attempt above at a reply is hilarious - everyone here knows my style. I am addicted to fun (in the cleanest sense of it) and thus attempt to be imaginative and lively in conversing. But it is tiring to answer the same questions over and over especially when they come from the same person. You seem to go about doing one of two - [a] looking for ways to stand against the "carpenter" [2] offering an alternative "infinity". No wahala, bro, bring it on.

But when you do so, be honest. I notice you refused to comment on my earlier reply (just following MyJoe's post) - it did not allow you continue your agenda so you ignored it and asked the same question AND deduced your own conclusion all by yourself. Sadly, rather than just Judge, Jury and Executioner, you also took on the role of Defendant and so its your own funeral, Sir!

The Bible refers to the Holy Spirit in Aramaic, Greek and English as "HE". All commentaries regard HIM as an individual, superhuman, a distinct personality. BUT you of course, ignore these and insist based on a portion (rather than totality) that He is a force. And then you complain about the word "shallow" which sincerely wasn't intended as an insult.

Did you start University at 400 level OR jump from high school to graduate law school and get your degree thus? When you can answer yes to that, you'll get the point about shallowness in taking a portion rather than the totality.

Let's focus.

Did you note the last four of the quotes from MyjOE which I dusted up again above.

Notice how in contect the scriptures refer to baptism in the Holy Spirit and Fire

And also refers to being steeped in the Holy Spirit and Power.

What do you make of these?

Enigma:
@ Deepsight

Please point to where I have referred to you in derisive terms --- a link will do. What I know is that indeed I have deliberately ignored your posts even on occasions when you insulted me directly. I can find the links if you want.

Finally, what I wrote in my two earlier posts is what I genuinely believe about the discussions of certain topics on this forum ---- particularly in recent times.

No matter, and no bother. I just feel that if you have something to say, do say it upfront, and address issues and not people.

By the way I cannot recall insulting you: I do not make a practice of that: though I am often to be seen with the harshest words for what I perceive to be odd dogma. If I did insult you in anyway, accept my most sincere apologies.

nuclearboy:
EDITED

@DeepSight:

I now see where this is going - its another attempt to ridicule the "1 showing as 3" concept! The repetitions are back again, ehn?

I am sure you would not believe me when I tell you that the Trinity angle did not even occur to me when I opened this thread. But it emerges as a significant implication.

Anyways, Christ said and I quote (NIV) - "The Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept Him, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him, for He lives with you and will be in you" - John 14: 17.

I think the use of the word "he" in that verse is not sufficent to conclude that -

1. It is the Holy Spirit being referred to

2. The Holy Spirit is a personal being

Because -

It states that the Spirit of Truth will live in each person. . . can this really be said of a personal being. . .it is rather the essence of truth that lives in each person as referred to in that verse, or what do you think?

Secondly you must realise that the fact that you refer to the "HE" can only lend credence to the Muhammadist claim to be that "he" - since it is supposed to be a person referred to - and not the all pervading spirit described in teh Bible which is NEVER seen by anyone or articulated as talking directly to anyone or appearing to anyone.

So now we've see the HS as a "HE", whats your next port of call? Repetition perharps?

Did you really read MyJoe's post? I don't think you stopped to carefullt digest each verse he quoted.

Consider carefully again these in particular -


Hebrews 6:4 (New International Version)
4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,

Matthew 3:11 (New International Version)
11"I baptize you with[a] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Luke 1:35 (New International Version)
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.

Acts 10:38 (New International Version)
38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

^^^Oga, when o when will you speak straight to my face. Its so tiring, this attitide of "some people here are idoits but I am too exalted to mention their names, as such I never respond to their posts." I cannot count the amount of times you have referred to me in most derisive terms without addressing at all anything I have said, and remaining careful not to mention my name.

Its truly unfortunate that Nuclear has come to see every discourse on christian theology as an attack on his faith, merely because we do not agree on interpretations.

Then such words as "nonsense" "shallow" "ignorant" sudenly appear: even when I have proffered no such. I really wearies me.

justcool:
The physical body is completely separate from the Spirit, they belong to different species of creation. Yes the spirit and the physical body have different mechanism of expression.

Before I proceed, lets define what we mean "thoughts": By "thoughts" we mean that which is produced during brain activity. I know the word "thought" can mean different things; Here is exactly what I mean by "thoughts"  According to dictionary:

1.the product of mental activity; that which one thinks: a body of thought.
2.a single act or product of thinking; idea or notion: to collect ones thoughts.
3.the act or process of thinking; mental activity: Thought as well as action wearies us.
11.the intellectual activity or the ideas, opinions, etc., characteristic of a particular place, class, or time: Greek thought.

Thus by thinking I mean mental activity, or that which is generated through brain activity. By "Brain" I mean the physical organ in our heads though which we think.

We seem to have a fundamentally different conception of what thoughts are. I suppose that is the thrust of this thread anyway: to iron that difference out if possible.

I am afraid that the definitions you set out above are altogether insufficient for the purpose of this discussion for a number of reasons.

In the first place let me say very carefully that – existence itself is a consolidation of infinite ideas, conceptions, realities and possibilities. The apprehension of any idea, the conception of anything is what I would refer to as a thought. For me it would be useless semantics to quibble over the source of such thoughts – for I am well convinced that non-physical beings may also have ideas and conceptions: - may apprehend ideas and may conceive things - and it is certain that having ideas and conceptions are analogous to having thoughts.

1. It is a given that God itself has ideas which it conceives. Such ideas manifest as creation and acts of will of the transcendental God. It would be nothing but a wasteful focus on semantics to claim that such ideas are cannot be described as the thoughts of God.

2. God does not have a physical brain.

3. As God does not have a physical brain and yet is capable of ideas and conceptions it is manifest to me that in spiritual matters a physical brain is not required for possession of ideas and conceptions which is what thoughts are.

Yes the brain is a tool, even the whole physical body is a tool that is animated by the soul with its spiritual core. But this does not mean that everything that body does is directly controlled by the spiritual core. The physical body is a living tool and not just a dead tool like hammer. An airplane is a tool which man uses for transportation, but this does not mean that every movement of the airplane is contriled by man. The pilot can fall asleep in mid air or he can even leave the controls, the airplane will not stop on that account, it will continue moving. Only that it may now head towards distruction. The airplane represents the physical body; the movement of the airplane represents the intellect(thoughts production); while the pilot represents the spirit. Without the pilot the airplane cannot start moving by itself. But when the pilots fuels it and turns on the engine and accelerates, he gives the airplane the power to move. He has too keep alert and steer the airplane to the desired direction. But if he falls asleep the airplane will continue moving. Thus the human spirit which wears the body can fall asleep or become too indolent to control the intellect which will not stop producing thoughts on that account.

This is a good analogy regarding the relationship of the spirit and the body but does nothing to describe the nature of a thought. We are agreed that the physical is a tool of expression. We are also agreed that it is a living tool which is animated by the spirit/ soul. The question is – what is the nature of thoughts which the living man has?

1. We are agreed that the thoughts cannot be physical matter: physical matter has definite physical properties which thoughts clearly do not possess. In this we can find safe landing with the scientific definition of matter which I am aware you are very much at home with: without further ado it is obvious that that definition may never be applied to an immaterial thing such as a thought.

2. Ethereal matter. What is ethereal matter? I would like to believe that it is a reference to substance in the ethereal plane which is not animate.

Now in this it seems to me that you are confusing the physical brain itself for the living ideas and conceptions that are transmitted through it.

Let us take a quick example. A man is able to receive revelations or transmissions from the spiritual realm. In coming to apprehend what is transmitted and in articulating it, the man uses his physical brain. That does not mean that that which was transmitted was matter: for such must lead us to the absurdity of suggesting that God sends matter down to people as revelations.

I will give another example, Imagine a ancient soldier riding a chariot which is pulled by a house. The horse is the soldiers tool. The soldier makes an impression on the house letting it know which direction to go; then the horse carries out the order by moving towards the direction. If the house is not well trained, it becomes a bad tool which will refuse to carry out the soldier's orders.  Here the horse represents the physical body while the soldier represents the spirit.

Good, so between Horse, Soldier and Chariot, where are the thoughts?

1. The Soldier is the spirit

2. The Horse is the Body

3. Would you say that the thoughts are –

a. From the Soldier or

b. From the Horse

Clearly the thoughts are from the Soldier and the Horse is merely a tool in that regard. Thus in the same way the thoughts of a sentient being cannot be the product of gross matter. That is a contradiction in terms. That amounts to suggesting that physical things are what give life to spiritual things instead of the other way round.

The spirit's volition makes an impression on the animisct, this impression of this voltion is sent to the brain through the ethereal body and astral. The back brain picks up this impression and sends it to the frontal brain(intelect) which is left to think out a way to bring about this volition in the physical ream.

Given that this is correct still does nothing to indicate that the thoughts produced by the brain are physical things. Clearly they are not physical things for they do not have the properties of physical matter. Nor can they be classed as ethereal matter for they are live fluid ideas and conceptions which grow and change.

A human spirit gets filled with the volition help sick people; this volition arises inside the spirit and makes and impression on the back brain via the subtler cloaks, like I already explained. Once this impression reaches the frontal brain, it is left to the frontal brain(intelect) to decide how to implement this volition in the physical world. Thus this man may decide to go to school and become a doctor. He learns biology, calculus and etc; he becomes a doctor and starts to help sick people.

When he passes on(When the physical falls away--Death), he leaves everything he learnt(Calculus and etc) with his brain. All the intelectual learnings(Calculus and etc) will disintegrate along with his brian because they are gross material knowledge; intelect and thoughts, although refined still belong to gross matter. However this volition to help people is still in the spirit and has developed even more, due to this man working with sick people the spirit has learnt kindness and love. By having implented this volition in the physical realm, the spirit has sown seed which will grow, rippen and drops fruits on the spirit. By struggling to implement this volition, the volition grow strong in the spirit and bore many fuits. Thus what the spirit gained from being a doctor is love, kindness, patience and compassion for the sick. These are the impressions that can find thier way to the spirit not calculus and biology.

I agree with this analogy entirely, but yet again this does nothing to show that the thoughts derived from the brain are material things.

I think you are confusing the thoughts with the brain itself.

Is the brain a thought?

Or does it process thoughts?

I would think the latter.

[b]Now this is the argument I will put to you: namely that it is not apt to describe something as being material, matter, or physical simply because it is processed by or through the physical brain and you must note the following very carefully –

1. The brain processes emotions – does this mean that happiness, jealousy, anger – are all physical, material things that have the properties of physical matter? I ask you: is happiness matter? Is anger physical matter? ? ?

2. The brain processes a consciousness of self – does this mean that your consciousness of self is itself a material thing? Is your consciousness of self physical matter? Does that consciousness have the properties of matter? Can you touch it? Is it not entirely immaterial, notwithstanding that it is processed through the material brain?

3. Finally – and this is the clincher – the brain actually handles the entire existenceand sojourn of the spirit in the material world: in that it articulates the world around it, stores its memories, processes its self consciousness, its thoughts and its feelings, communicates with the world around it and with other beings within the world: all of these the brain does as a tool for the spirit which we agree on: does the fact that the brain virtually processes the spirits physical sojourn, RENDER THE SPIRIT A MATERIAL THING? DOES THAT RENDER IT A PHYSICAL THING? ? OR EVEN ETHEREAL MATTER? NO! NO! ! NO! ! !

Accordingly I need to make the point clear: that something is processed by or through the brain is no reason to term it matter or material or physical: otherwise the spirit itself will be termed matter, and every emotion will be termed matter and we will find canon for the strange notion that living fluid thoughts are matter.[/b]

Dear deepsight, this is very easy to understand, just pay attention to your thoughts. You will hear your senses speaking through your intellect, and at the same time your will perceive your spirit speaking to you through your conscience.

Very good. This will help elucidate the point I am making. Here you have stated that two things may speak to one’s thoughts – the senses and the spirit.

The mistake I believe you are making is that you are equating the senses with thoughts – whereas it is rather obvious that thoughts are the living and fluid ideas which emanate from the man – either from his spirit, senses, or whatever. The spirit is NOT the thought, just as surely as the senses are NOT the thought.

The thought is a living fluid idea or conception. You seem to articulate things in such a fashion that amounts to suggesting that the physical brain is itself thought. No, it processes thoughts.

The intelect is given to man so that man will be able to anchor his volition in the physical world. Success of a kind can only be achieved by the same kind. Thus the spirit cannot achieve success on the physical world directly, because spirit and physical are different species. The spirit needs the brain which is physical to achieve physical success.

Thus as I stated the brain processes the spirit’s self-awareness, consciousness and activity in the physical world.

Does that make the spirit gross or ethereal matter? Certainly not.

You have to keep in mind that your physical body is alive, although animated by the power of your spirit. As a living thing it responds to stimulus from the outside, and it also receives stimulus from the soul. When you are hungry, automatically thoughts of food will fill your head; it is not your spirit that is hungry and the thoughts are induced by your hunger not by the impression of your spirit.

Fine, but you are still missing the point. The point is the nature of the thoughts. Are the thoughts a physical thing? No. The thoughts ARE NOT your brain and the thoughts ARE NOT the food. The thoughts are the living idea. That is not a physical thing.

The spirit is always right; the intuitive perception can never be wrong, the spirit knows the will of God because the spirit is actually a part bearer of this will. If all the thoughts that our brain produce are from the prompting of our spirits, then men will never make any mistake. Mistake only arise when (1)There is distortion(overcutivation of the intellect-- the frontal brain no longer receives impressions from the spirit because of the deformity of the co-operation of the two brains), (2) Indolence of the spirit (The spirit is too lazy to make its volition known, and the intelect dominates). (3) Propensity(the spirit indulging in a particular vibration too much, has become a slave to the vibration)

Do you suggest to me that a disembodied spirit may never have a negative volition aside from that which the physical brain contrives? If that were the case then all spirit beings would never have any dark or negative volitions or propensities – since they do not have physical brains? Is this what you put forward?

If by thoughts" we mean the intelect, or the activity of the physical brain, then it is impossible for spirits without physical bodies to have thoughts as much as it is impossible for God to have thoughts.

I have already explained that that is a limited definition which is not apt for this discourse.

If by "thoughts" you mean the ability to decide, to analyse and to perceive impressions from the outside, then disembodied spirits have "thoughts" But it is wrong to call these "thoughts," by thoughts we mean here is activity of the physical brain.

I see no reason to make such a hair-splitting distinction. Why is it wrong to call such thoughts?

If the spirit is not wearing a physical body then thought forms(phantoms) will not arise; only the forms of volition would arise.

I see here that you make a distinction between the nature of thought-forms and the nature of volition-forms.

1. Would the nature of a thought-form of love be different from the nature of a volition-form of love AND MORE CRITICALLY APT TO THE DISCOURSE –

2. WOULD EITHER FORM BE A MATERIAL THING?

Thought forms can also arise without the promting of the spiritual core. The brain can generate thoughts due to outside stimulation and the senses. Thought forms are magnetic, they can influence an idle brain to generate thoughts of like nature.

The question is if those thought-forms are matter.

Just as I will not call the organs of the spirit the name "brain," I will not ascribe "thinking" to what the spirit does. Such labelling will cause confusion

Frankly, I understand this: and I am in step with it: unfortunately it misses the question. The question is whether thoughts are matter.

Why did we allow laziness to prevent us from progressing this exciting discussion? ? ?

For the Trinitarians - once it can be shown that the Holy Spirit is conceived in scripture as a force and not a person. . .the entire trinitarian construct instantly collapses and must be and remain dead on arrival.

enitan2002:
when you personally think you an idea of a subject, why asking a question about it again Cos i'm very sure any explanation different from your own definition wont be acceptable by you.

I know you believe the Holy Spirit is Parsifal: who was incarnated as the authour of the Grail Message, Mr. Abdrushin.

I am sorry, but that only appears like another latter day attempt to claim divinity for thr founder of another movement: Islam has also since tried valiantly to claim that Muhammad is the "Comforter" that Christ referred to. I don't know what sort of comforter comes bearing a sword though.

It is also disconcerting that your belief that the Holy Spirit is Parsifal who was radiated to earth in the form of Abdrushin ties in with your belief in the Trinity. This summarily means that you regard Mr. Abd Ru Shin, the authour of the Grail Message, to be God incarnated on Earth.

I find that unfortunate: nevertheless it is a regular motif of many religious movements: the founders are usually asserted to be God, OR Divine in one way or the other. At least the Islamists stopped short of claiming that Muhammad was God.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=490515.msg6504882#msg6504882 date=1280859736]Sir,

Can you please show us one or two of these "descriptions" you're referring to??

I've heard about this idea about the Holy Spirit but keep wondering why anyone would ever come to that conclusion about him

Now I have the chance to learn about it firsthand from an expert [/quote]

noetic16:
I am not aware of any scripture that suggests the aforementioned? please explain . . ,

nuclearboy:
[1] Petres_James-Bond
[2] Noetic (takes no nonsense)
[3] nuclear (the NL BOY)

@DeepSight:

Waiting for your theses

I think that the following from MyJoe addresses my reference and provides firm and exhaustive scriptural basis for the view that the Holy Spirit is not a personal sentient being but more like the will or force of God in action

MyJoe:
Acts 11:24 (New International Version)
24He was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and faith, and a great number of people were brought to the Lord.

Acts 7:55-56 (New International Version)
55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

Acts 8:15 (New International Version)
15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit,

Acts 9:17 (New International Version)
17Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit."

Jude 1:20 (New International Version)
20But you, dear friends, build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the Holy Spirit.

Hebrews 6:4 (New International Version)
4It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit,

Acts 13:19 (New International Version)
19he overthrew seven nations in Canaan and gave their land to his people as their inheritance.

Matthew 3:11 (New International Version)
11"I baptize you with[a] water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Luke 1:35 (New International Version)
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God.

Acts 10:38 (New International Version)
38how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

Want more?

-

Given that the foregoing has been p[rovided in support of that view, might I ask you (Noetic/ Nuclear/ Petres/ Max) if there is anything in scripture that identifies the Holy Spirit as a personal individual sentient being? We have exhaustive personal reference to the Father, Jesus came as a personal individual: but there is no such indication about the Holy Spirit. So the ball is in your court, lady/ gents.

If anything in today's world apparently the generality belong to religious theistic groups so that certainly looks like the wide gate to me.

MyJoe:
Davidylan: Preparing for his wedding in the USA.
JeSoul: Preparing for her wedding in the USA _{not that she is marrying Davido!}
Viaro: From the horse’s (nuclearboy) mouth, he has gone to another planet to bless them.
Mad_Max: Still very much around. Will post on any topic that tickles her.
Krayola: A bit complicated. He finished university, so his folks stopped giving him money as they used to. And he had to, well, start making his. As y’all know, making money is a full time job. I heard he is close to bringing down his first million.
Jagunlabi: Not sure. Probably died and dissolved to join the elements. Rumours of his reincarnation unsubstantiated.
M_Nwankwo: He is reading this. He is selective of topics, but he has certainly been posting less than he used to lately.
Noetic: Very very busy. That’s all you are allowed to know. We can't risk his anonymity!
Huxley: Around. Prefers running his own threads which he opens at the rate of 12 an hour.

You are a very frightening guy indeed.

MyJoe:
Viaro: From the horse’s (nuclearboy) mouth, he has gone to another planet to bless them.

Please I hope nothing happened to him?

Jenwitemi:
Jagunlabi has been banned from posting on NL. Ask me not how i know or why he was banned.

This finally confirms that you are Jagun.

nuclearboy:
. . .though I suspect it to be a pointless exercise.

Naaaa. . .its not that bad, big bro.

Maybe its high-time you downloaded e-sword. The translations therein will explain the problem you have in this. E-sword describes your "sons" to include and are NOT limited to - a son (as a builder of the family name), in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson, subject, nation, quality or condition, etc., (like H1, H251, etc.): - + afflicted, age, [Ahoh-] [Ammon-] [Hachmon-] [Lev-]ite, [anoint-]ed one, appointed to, (+) arrow, [Assyr-] [Babylon-] [Egypt-] [Grec-]ian, one born, bough, branch, breed, + (young) bullock, + (young) calf, X came up in, child, colt, X common, X corn, daughter, X of first, + firstborn, foal, + very fruitful, + postage, X in, + kid, + lamb, (+) man, meet, + mighty, + nephew, old, (+) people, + rebel, + robber, X servant born, X soldier, son, + spark, + steward, + stranger, X surely, them of, + tumultuous one, + valiant[-est], whelp, worthy, young (one), youth.

So DeepSight, considering the word also refers to foals, arrows, boughs etc, what say you of the term "foals of God" or "rebel of God" or "robber of God"? We both know the english language is one of the most limited languages - acultural, bland and lacking imagination. Thus we find that the word translated as "sons" in the phrase "sons of God" is used only in the widest sense.

On the other hand, the word "Son" as used in describing Christ from the same source translates thus - a primary word; a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: - child, foal, son.

Your argument is legalistic and is similar to saying "men are animals" means "animals are men".

Au contraire sir, you are most definitely being legalistic: for you set to me definitions of words whereas I do no such thing here: I observe in all simplicity that certain beings were different enough from the generality of mankind to be sepcifically and separately referred to as "the sons of God" - and described in very precise terms. I contrast this with the precept of Christ as monogenes - the only begotten son of God - whereas it forcefully emerges that this could not be correct because within scripture I can show you several who were in that same very special and unique sense referred to as sons of God.

Internal inconsistence (?) 2 - The issue of not always striving with man

Your question is a rehash of many in the past and again basically requires that I again go into the issue of a bridge being required between God and mankind. Allow us both preserve respect for each other rather than waste time on this. At the time (Gen 6) written/inview, the time for the bridge/peace/reconciliation was not yet, so strife it was that continued. The expected end (which came to pass on the cross) was that peace should come again between God and man.

This is not at home with the Biblical teaching that the lamb had already been slain from the foundation of the world.

Internal inconsistency (?) 3 Repentance of God

The word repent is translated thus - properly to sigh, that is, breathe strongly; by implication to be sorry, that is, (in a favorable sense) to pity, console or (reflexively) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): - comfort (self), ease [one’s self], repent (-er, -ing, self).

To the above, I add "to shake head at". I think you'll understand that easily because I know your thought processes make you to "wonder" at us just as we "shake head at you". A man given choices who chooses the worst possible which is readily transparent to you would likely make you wonder. Exchange "A man" with "humankind" and "you" with "God" and you'll get my point. I think the problem is something in you rues the idea that there is an Almighty seeing whatever things you think are so "funny" you've done so you'd prefer a "distracted" or more "impersonal" God. I doubt you're alone in this though and in fact make bold to claim that the day you come across any professing Christian who hasn't gone past that position, tell him this chap says he's not a true christian. Sh.it happened to us all and we were ashamed to see the man in the mirror.

Fair enough but still falls far short of a Deity said to be the Alpha and Omega and transcendent in eternity.

One last thing - Omnisience and omnipotence are inconsistent terms which cannot be justified. An all-knowing God and all-powerful God must be so powerful that He can do anything. That would include asking a question He himself cannot answer. That kills the all-knower. The all-knower would know things then that He cannot do also killing the all-powerful. The Bible is open for anyone to see - God gives Himself rules and does not go against His own Word. Once He says something, He is bound by it. That kills your omnisience argument. BTW, where do you get such arrant rubbish as Christian belief?

Recently you have been feeding me pleasant morsels of surprise. I am deeply delighted at the above. Reminds me of the Nuclearboy, who, when I first read a post from him, I said quietly to myself: we have been gifted with a great mind and a great soul in this poster.

I expect the ferris-wheel upstairs to be going faster than light now, spinning to bring up attempts at rebutal of the last. Slow down though and think through that last paragraph again. There's something hidden there thats easy to miss if over-speeding.

Nope. . .I am at peace with that submission of yours. It is rational, balanced and sensible. It is my perspective as well. You may however be aware that many religious theists have an absolutist view of the precepts of omniscience and omnipotence.

While I am pleased at your submission, I must note that even in the absence of such attributes, a transcendental being to whom the creation of all that exists is attributed must certainly be slightly more choate and settled than that which is presented within the OT.

MyJoe:
I doubt there would be cross-sexuality between dimensions.

Note very carefully the distinctions within that which is put forth.

Note most carefully that the very act of human birth is possibly a sexual act that has introduced a sentient being from another realm into this realm.

In that regard there is conceivably already a manifest link bewtween se.xuality and spirituality. I may also discuss many other very apparent links.

Viewed in this context the possibilities are staggering: there is no reason to presume self-existent and natural forces such as positivity and negativity to be restricted to any one realm: they needs must pervade all that exist given their self existent nature: and given that all that exists is necessarily intertwined i cannot see any reason to deny that such influences may operate across realms and dimensions.

This is altogether different from stating that an immaterial spirit being may copulate in the physical.

As described in scripture, I have the impression that its more of a Force. Like God's will in action.

^^^ Nevertheless that is a story which contains stark internal inconsistencies that must trouble the objective and rational reader.

Here Goes.

Genesis Chapter 6.

1. And it came to pass when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them

2. That the sons of God saw the daughters of men - that they were fair, and they took them wives as they chose

Q: SONS OF GOD? ? ? DO MY EYES DECEIVE ME? WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT CHRIST'S SUPPOSED UNIQUE HYPOSTASIS? HOW DOES THIS SQUARE WITH THE TERM "MONOGENES"? ? ?

3. And the Lord God said: My spirit shall not always strive with man: for that he also is flesh - yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Q: Interprete what the Lord God is driving at here.

5: And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth: and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually

6: And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the Earth and it grieved him at his heart.

Q: Is it really conceivable for a perfect God, an unchangeable God, to "repent" of his actions? How does this square with his supposed omniscience? That he was omniscient supposes that he knew that things would turn out as such, and knew that he would grieve, and repent of making man - and yet went ahead - and then began to repent of his actions? This is an absurdity.

This shows that the construct of God derived from the OT is incongruous.

P.S: Please I am tired of your accusations. I ask these questions in sincerity as it does not make sense to me. Please do not revert accusing me of any particular prejudices or any particular "agenda."

^^^

1. It is no secret that sexual urges account for 99.9% of reincarnation

2. THE POSITIVE SOMETHINGNESS (Male/ Light) AND THE NEGATIVE NOTHINGNESS (Feminine/ Darkness) ARE THE PRIMORDIAL INFLUENCES THAT DICTATE SEXUALITY AND AS SUCH THERE IS A NOTION OF SUCH INFLUENCES IN EVERY REALM OF EXISTENCE THOUGH EXPRESSED IN DIFFERING FORMS.

3. As such it is deducible that the GOD THAT IS may be positive in form, but is an eternal protrusion of the God that IS NOT: Mother of all existence is thus the negative nothingness.

mrmayor:
If indeed the Universe had a cause, then the creator ( Cause) must have a cause or trigger.

How, When and Where did (Cause/Trigger) Creator/God/Allah/ Yahweh etc come into existence?

Let's not derail this thread too far. There is a thread titled "the definition of God" currently ongoing and the cosmological argument on the existence of God is being addressed there. Please refer to it.

But very briefly note that only things which have a beginning require a trigger or cause. Self-existent things such as time do not require such a trigger or cause as they do not begin at any point. They are.

precap2:
Lucretius won't accept that your spiritual, neither would Democritus. Now it is difficult to prove the spiritual with physical laws. How can you prove what is neither palpable nor perceptible by the senses? When you sense something, you think about it, but when you intuit something, you feel about it:
SENSING = THINKING
INTUITION = FEELING.
These 2 operate from different dimensions with one always muddled and subject to confusion and the other easily perceived and described. You've got to prove spirit here bro. I'm a christian but we're looking at physical laws viz-a-viz spirit (which is contrary but not contradictory in natures).

I am surprised that you say this. Might I ask you what you make of the term "logic"? Logic is that which rationally and consistently follows through - like a pattern, you might say.

When you think about it properly you might see that one thing causes another - one thing follows from another, and as such it is utterly impossible for anything to be illogical.

A pure illogicallity, therefore, cannot exist. - And this holds true in terms of any form of existence.

It is for this reason that logic is a strong tool for understanding all that exists - beacuse everything is predicated on cause and effect, or for self-existent things, on rationale: therefore on logic. Thus an understanding in the physical world that 1 + 1 = 2 is and remains an excellent platform to form and build accurate spiritual understandings as well.

I thus comprehensively disagree with the worldviews which seek to exclude logic as perceived in this world from spiritual things. At the end of teh day, all things are ONE thing and the same guiding principles affect all things.

Let me give you a few examples of things which are excellent physical examples but have direct corresponding spiritual applications -

1. Magnetism.

2. Sowing and Reaping - this is physical agriculture but is also a pointer to spiritual truth in terms of Karma.

3. Ascent - requires energy.

4. Descent - is a free fall.

There are many possible examples and parallels which show that the physical is a mirror of the spiritual and the same laws govern both: if you are able to discern any physical law: you are but a short step away from also understanding how such a law would manifest in the spiritual.

ONE energy is difficult enough in physical terms but one source is impossble unless you describe to me what you mean by source. The sun produce energy, and some energies are derived from the soil. The nature and source of both are not the same (in physical terms) but one can easily act like - or almost like -  the other.

I did say something earlier about all the energy in the universe being densely concentrated in a single point before the initial expansion which is called the big bang. You must per force agree that all the energy in teh universe is one energy.

What does that mean? Dimensions of reality

Dimension?

1. Are your thoughts real?

2. Are your thoughts physical things?

3. Do they occupy the same physical space as your legs, hands, car and house do?

4. Why are they not visible?

5. Would you thus say that they exist on the same plane and operate in the same physical environment as your car moves, or as your laptop sits?

6. If not, then in what dimension do they have their reality?

precap2:
Again, you mentioned that God is non material, can you describe how non meterial "being[?]" produce material being? These questions are actually not specifically directed to Deep Sight. Anyone could help clarify some of the ambiguities.

Holla!

1. Anything that begins to exist must have a trigger - a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. The universe had a cause.

If the cause brought matter into existence, then logically it could not itself be matter: hence it is rational to posit that the cause is immaterial.

@ Idehn -

What is the core essence of a thing? It simply means its most intrinsic nature.

What is the core essence of time?


<------------------------------INFINITY--------------------------->

In this we can see

--------------------------->

and

<---------------------------


So anything that is eternal or infinite must perforce be both -----> and <--------- simultaenously.

I really dont see the contradiction or difficulty.

Thus God, which is eternal and infinite, must perforce have as its core essence (intrinsic nature) both centrifugal and centripetal magnetism.

Analissa:
Ah deepsight we meet again
Forgive my first statement as it is entirely my definition. Fear no that i misconstrued your definition and the affectionate term that i gave was not meant to offend, pardon me if it did.

No problemo, Monalisa!

On with it, I am well aware of what the singularity is. scientists dont know that the singularity definitely predated the big bang (if indeed the big bang theory is correct) it is simply speculation. Now even if the singularity predated the big bang it isn't a cause. Instead of getting into quantum physics and cosmology i'll direct you to an article that explains the gravitational theory: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html

You might want to review this. I am at pains to see that it has even the remotest connection with the discussion of an uncaused cause - for I did not state that the singularity was a cause - I rather pointed to the fact that the big bang was NOT a cause given that something pre-existed it. It therefore could not conceivably the the cause of that which pre-existed it or the cause of ALL existence - since it certainly did not cause the singularity, did it?

What caused the singularity to be?

I say God. You can tell me it was magic.

Cosmological argument

I have had many discussions about this argument and will now repeat what i always say.

1. Self-contradictory, if everything as you say needs to be caused, what caused God?

The cosmological argument does not assert that everything needs to be caused. It asserts that "whatever begins to exist has a cause."

Now this is only perfectly rational and logical, for if something begins to exist at a point, then there must have been a trigger for that event: otherwise the event would not happen. God is not said to begin to exist, and as such does not require a cause. There are other things that are eternal in nature, do not begin to exist, but rather have always existed: such things do not require a cause as they are self-existent. Examples of such things are time (eternity), and numbers. These do not begin to exist at any point and as such they do not require a trigger to exist as they are self-existent.

However anything that begins to exist at a point is clearly not eternal or self-existent. Such things rationally require a trigger to kick-start their existence, since they begin.

The universe has not always existed. The fact of its expansion shows us that it is growing from a point, which is what is referred to as the Big Bang. Accordingly once we can see that the universe had a beginning we can deduce that that beginning was triggered by something - a cause - otherwise the expansion would not have happened.

2. Usually the response given by whoever is that God is the exception. What i ask is why does the exception have to be God? why can't it be the big bang or the chinese idea of the universe springing out of a pod.

As explained above, God is a self-existent entity such as time. Self-existent things exist in and of themselves. They have no beginning. The cosmological argument deals with things that have a beginning. Such things rationally require a trigger, or cause.

3. The series of cause and effect has to end at some point even when people say it extends to infinity so why cant it regress in a similar way?

It does end. It ends with an uncaused cause - a self-existent entity/ reality which is eternal in nature and as such does not have a beginning, and having no beginning, requires no trigger. That entity is GOD.

nope i deal with fact and science.

Is there anything unscientific about the concept of infinity? Science even has a symbol for it - ∞.

Analissa:
This is complete BS

Smile.

but i'll give you points for delivery.

Merci, madame.

1. don't you mean the unity of willful ignorance and hope?

With respect, madam, I do not see how wilfull ignorance and hope enter this discussion; or anything that I laid out.

I had stated that God is the unity of all infinite reality.

If you agree that -

1. Reality is reality (or more simply put: that things exist) - a self affirming statement -

2. That there may be no limit on existence - thus that reality is infinite

Then you could NOT conceivably arrive at the conclusion that that definition of God is, as you so elegantly misconceived it - "BS."

2. that definition also applies to the big bang, please be specific

I am both amused and alarmed at this mistatement, especially coming from you.

I stated that God is the uncaused cause of all existence. You have tragically remarked that that may also be said of the big bang. That is a tragic statement because -

1. There existed something before the Big Bang. Scientists call it a singularity. The Big Bang is not said to be an expansion from nothing: it is said to be an expansion from the point of a singularity. There you have it: so a singularity predated the Big Bang - so the Big Bang could NOT be the cause of that singularity, capisce?

What you should ask yourself is what that singularity is: and how and why it existed. It is clear that the big bang does not explain that: nor is it a cause for that: as teh singularity predated the expansion which is referred to as the Big Bang. It would be nice if you would take a moment to reflect before hurling vulgar language, ok?

2. You have no evidence whatsoever to assert to me that the Big Bang was "uncaused." Indeed the Cosmological argument for the existence of God refined by Thomas Aquinas states reasonably and succintly the principle that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Given that the Big Bang expansion began - then it is a given that it had a cause.

So there, madam, it is altogether misfooted to describe the Big Bang as the uncaused cause of all existence.

3. doesn't make sense at all. something can't be both centrifugal and centripetal they are opposites but i suppose you'll start giving some poetic description how he is both going from the centre and moving toward the centre.

When the thing being described is said to encapsulate ALL EXISTENCE, then it surely encapsulates all that exists; yes - including Light and Darkness, positive and negative, up and down, plus and minus. . . et all. . .

Analissa:
4. lightening is a discharge of electricity

Don't make me laugh. Next you will attempt to tell me what the gypsies i refferred to are: or what the passion-steamed cave I referred to is.

Clearly suggested meaning and poetry cannot be your strongest suit.

Someone hinted above at the quality of wonder at the reality about us. . .go figure.

Idehn:
@Deepsight
I read that post and I still do not know what you mean by "spirit" much less how it it relates to the physical world. You just asserted spiritual energy exist(along with mental energy) and that it is just another "type" of energy such as light but you have not given definition of what this type IS. What is understood as "physical" energy within the realm of science is All types of energy that exist in the universe. A type of energy that is not physical cannot be discussed in any sense much less in the realm of science because in that sense it is NOT energy.This is just what I was talking about in my post about the definition of God. With out a logically coherent definition anything we say about spirit is meaningless because we have no idea what it is we are even talking about. All you have said is that has given us any idea about a spirit is that it gives off(i assume you mean transforms) into heat but how can non-physical energy transform into a physical one. Physical energies can transform into other physical energies (kinetic energy to electromagnetic waves). What you are essentially saying is that spiritual energy is exactly like physical energy but at the same time is not physical energy which is logically incoherent (like saying A=A and A=/=A at at the same time). You need a coherent definition of what a spirit or spiritual energy IS. Otherwise physics has nothing to say about it.

PS. I really hope I do not come off as rude because I am really not trying be.

No Idehn! You do not come off as rude in the least! You come off as honest, practical and sincere.

I will revert to you later as I have to be off now for my nightly dose of Guiness Stout.

P.S: My response to M_Nwankwo above may shed some light on what I perceive energy to be.

@M_Nwankwo, your questions as usual, go to the root of the matter. Ehen! You have the yam and you also have the knife.

The answers I am going to give are answers I would have hoped would develop gradually and naturally out of the discourse, but as you have pushed my hand, I will set them out. In doing this I will no doubt commit what amounts to heresy in the eyes of the materialist, but given that I respond specifically to your eminence, here goes.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=485617.msg6458313#msg6458313 date=1280240853]@Deepsight,

How are you? Your thread is very interesting. Hopefully, I will offer my perception as the thread develops. In the meantime, the following questions may be helpful to you as you articulate your perceptions
1. What is matter?[/quote]Matter are the result of the original energy of God which has cooled off to take form as elements of physical mass.

In much the same way as steam when cooled must form water, and when further cooled must form the rock solid ice. An admittedly  imperfect physical example of how the intangible energy of God may cryslalize as matter.

2. What is Energy?

Energy for me, is the pulse of all existence. This is why I do not subscribe to the limitation of energy as a physical thing only. Physical energies are for me but one manifestation of the ONE energy which permeates all things.

3. Is energy contained in matter?

Following from the definition above - Yes.

4. Can there be matter without energy?

Following from the definition above - No.

5. Can energy exist without matter?

Following from the definition above, YES. God itself embodies the sum of all eternal energy and this may not be said to be material energy or matter.

6. When it is said that energy is transformed from one form to the other, what is it that constitutes these forms?

This is an extra-ordinarily deep question. Addressing it may require the writing of several books, and I mean that. I can by no means address it in toto here: nor am I qualified to do so. But let me just say very briefly and very carefully that everything that exists or transforms has a quality of "being" in one form or the other.

7. What is counsciousness?

The awareness of being.

8. What is the relationship between energy and gravity?

I do not know if you are after the scientific answer to this question - and if that is the case we may well refer to the science of gravity vis-a-vis the nature of the space-time continuum. However I feel that that as an answer would be overly limited as it would refer to phenomena which may not directly address the philosophical aspect of your question. I do not know if it is the scientific or philosophical aspect that interests you, but what I do wish to offer is my philosophical take on it.

As I said before I view energy as the pulse of existence, or the pulse of all reality. Gravity manifests as a pull. In science, it may be argued that gravity is not in fact magnetic in nature, but in philosophical terms this would qualify as magnetism or attraction of some sort.

In this context magnetism is the energy that excercises a pull: an attraction or repulsion.

I would thus feel that spiritually and philosophically, the precepts of energy and gravity and magnetism are inseperable - and in fact form the core nature of reality around which the eternal laws of God are woven.

9. Is the Sun counscious or is there a Counsciousness that uses the Sun as its cloack?

I have no way of knowing this. Maybe its just a star, maybe its Baal, maybe its a god - whatever it may be - it does possess the quality of being - as it does exist as an entity and it posesses energy in this regard. Whether it is conscious or not, I am not qualified to say.

But I must inform you that I regard the earth as a living thing.

10. Are there counsciousness in a rock, a brain cell, a tree or a spematozoa? Are there energy in a rock, a brain cell, a tree or a spermatoza?
Stay blessed.

There is energy in all these things. I do not feel that there is consciousness in a rock, a braincell or spermatozoa. As for trees, I would like to be silent on that.

I sense the point you wish to make with this question is that there may be energy in somethings but not consciousness - thus that consciousness is a different, unique and separate factor which does not necessarily come once an object has energy. I agree with this.

justcool:
@ Deepsight and all

thehommer has a point, scientifically speaking both pictures have the same amount of energy, only transformed or at different phases. However, I do get your point. There is definitely something in the first picture which is not in the second picture-- the life force, soul or etc. But we have to be very careful in labelling things. The life force is not, scientifically speaking, energy; it is not the type of energy that science deals with. Neither is the soul, life force, and etc, made of the same matter that science deals with.

Agreed. Nevertheless do you agree/ disagree with the surmise in Post No. 22 above – to wit – that all energies are really ONE energy.

wirenet made a good point. One has to understand that science only deals with physical matter and energy inherent in physical matter. The soul is not physical matter and therefore it's energy is not the same energy inherent in physical matter.

Again – do you not perceive that there is but ONE source of all energies: not different energies but different manifestations of ONE AND THE SAME universal cosmic energy for all things. . .

Wherever there is matter, there is energy; and vice-verse. Hence wherever there is physical matter, there is physical energy. Since all the physical particles of that rat are still present, even while the rat is dead, all the energy in them are still there. None is lost. Keep in mind that here we are dealing with the energy inherent in physical matter, which is the only thing that science deals with.

In future science would venture deeper and deeper into the non-physical. Its inevitable, ultimately.

Since science deals with only physical matter and its energy; one can never, based on science, explain the non-physical phenomena -- soul, life force and etc.

The quest for knowledge can never end. Science will redefine itself in the far future. I am convinced of that.

While I sense what you mean, the wording you used is not correct, because scientifically speaking no energy has been lost between the two pictures. All the energy inherent in the physical body of the rat is still present, only that it is transforming; decomposition itself is a type of energy transformation.

If it were possible to measure the energy content of the living rat; and then measure the energy content of the carcass: and ascribe an exact value to each measurement, do you suppose that the values measured would turn out to be exactly and precisely the same?

If not, why do you suppose that would be?

The definition of energy that teachers teach at elementry level gives one the wrong impression of what energy is. This erroneous definition of energy makes one think that where something dead, that energy is lost. I remember in secondary school they told me that "Energy is the ability to do work" but this definition is not very correct.

The ability to do work is a characteristic or property of energy and not energy itself. As one grows in science, one learns that energy can reside, be used, exchanged, or transformed, whitout doing any work or without any work being involved.

That depends on what you describe as work, really. Like you said, degeneration itself is energy in action and that could be referred to as work, no? Even a stationary and inanimate thing such as a stone does have energy: and that potential energy may manifest as movement when kicked, or pressure beneath it. All these things may still be viewed as “work.”

Nevertheless I do not want to dwell at all of these for as you know these are not my chief concern at all: my chief concern is to demonstrate that there is an element in the picture of the first rat which does not exist in the picture of the second rat: and that that element –

1. Is energy

2. Is not the variant of energy which manifests as physical energy

3. But is nonetheless tied to physical energy in its live manifestation as all energies are ONE AND THE SAME energy.

Energy is one of those things that science finds it very difficult to define. Energy is simply matter; and matter is simply energy.

I agree and disagree.

I agree to the extent that I had tried to state that energy in fact is existence.

I disagree to the extent that matter = energy = matter. For the simple reason that I believe in non-material variants of energy. The source of all energy, ultimately is God – and God cannot in any terms be described as material, or matter.

Here is a better argument to make:
Since no energy(scientific energy), and no matter(physical matter) is lost between the two pictures,

Let us be slightly careful here. We do agree and understand that energy is neither created nor destroyed – nevertheless this does not mean energy may not be dispersed in different directions – and continue to exist in different dimensions of reality thereby.

I urge you to again the review the question above regarding ascription of values to the energy which may be inherent in both pictures of the rat as shown in the OP.

Do you think the values would be precisely the same?

And –

If they are not precisely the same would it be that –

1. All the difference in value would be accounted for by such quantum of energy as may have for example deteriorated and formed a compost or –

2. The deterioration would not account for all the difference in value and there would be a quantum of energy that would still be missing on account of the fact that that quantum has been dispersed to another dimension.

The grim truth however is that it may not be possible to measure such accurately as the energy expresses itself in variegated forms – heat, degeneration, and others which are not measurable. So this may remain a riddle.

therefore that which made the rat in the first picture alive(the living force) did not originate from physical matter. Hence there is a soul(non physical matter) in living things which is independent of physical matter.

.

Notwithstanding my questions on the preceding part of this quote above, I entirely agree with this and I feel that your construct of this is brilliant.

I also agree with this -

The fact that both the dead and the living body, have the same amount of matter and energy; that which animates the living is definitely not physical matter, otherwise its absence will result in the reduction of physical matter in the body.

- - - save that I would like to be careful regarding the exactitude of equality of energy in that regard. . .I feel that it is possible for the energy balance to actually remain perfectly balanced whereat none of the energy is destroyed but the energy does disperse in different directions. . . and some may disperse to a different dimension of existence altogether. . .such a dimension I call the spiritual. Needless to say, such component of energy as disperses to that dimension must correspond to that dimension in its nature and manifestation.

An analogy might suffice: If two cars have the same amount of matter and energy; and one car is moving while the other is not. One can logically conclude that that which makes the moving car move is not as a result the  matter and energy of car, rather it is an independent entity that drives the car.

Since a car by itself cannot move around; matter by itself cannot become mobile or alive.

There is definitely something in mobile living things, something non-physical; the soul.
[/b]

Brilliant again. I agree with this.

^^^ I would be more circumspect in reaching that conclusion. Because it is an age-old perception that the physical mirrors the spiritual. Thus it is entirely plausible to use physical reasoning and physical examples in expounding spiritual things.

I would also urge you to review post No. 22 above where I explained why all energy is one energy, physical or not.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=485617.msg6458205#msg6458205 date=1280239857]Heat is continually being produced and expelled from the body. Therz an exchange of heat between body and environment. According to you as I'm walking on the street right now in this wicked summer heat spirits are flying off my skin in form of heat? [/quote]I need to make clear that that was not my statement: it was rather an inference i drew from your statement - which i believed to be wrong and contradictory: I certainly made it clear that physical heat for me is not the actuating element of life - and as such the scenario you draw above cannot be traced to my statements.

I have simply stated that the "life-force" that departs at death is clearly imbued with heat, energy and life. This, I call a spirit, not physical heat.

If the dead rat cells are somehow artificially  stimulated to work again, they'll still produce heat! 
the heat is not ''imbubed'' with life rather its a consequence of life.

Do you recognise the mighty implication of this statement?

How you equate loss of kinetic energy as a result of death to spirit is beyond me.

We will see as we go along. Gotta go use some kinetic energy now!

@ Justcool, that was a brilliant post, I will return later to discuss, cheers.

_{I have not forgotten I am owing you some reversions on the thread about thought forms being matter.}

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=485617.msg6458070#msg6458070 date=1280239003]^^
What the hell is ''spiritual energy'', ''mental energy''??[/quote]Reconsider in light of -

Deep Sight:
Because that which it does for me is show inescapably that the heat that departs at death must perforce be heat that is imbued with life - otherwise its departure would not cause a cessation of life: and if intangible heat imbued with life is not the description and definition of a spirit - I do not know what else is!

And -

Deep Sight:
What this means is that physical energy cannot cxonceivably exist outside the existence of all other elements of existence as a whole - and as such is tied therewith and one therewith.

The inevitable conclusion being that all energies are of the same compound which defines all existence - only that they are expressed or manifest in different forms.

Analissa:
the gravitational potential energy changes automatically when it is lost it doesn't hang around or get 'recycled' into the universe

A good argument may be made that there is no difference between "changing automatically" and "recycled into the universe."

They mean exactly the same thing, do not think of the universe as being "out there" - every part of this earth and its physical processes is part of the universe, no?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=485617.msg6453636#msg6453636 date=1280177138]A question mark at the end of your title would be more appropriate. As it is, your title suggests in no uncertain terms thermodynamics as evidence for ''spitit''.[/quote]I have taken note and adjusted the title in terms of your suggestion.

Nevertheless as we proceed I hope to achieve exactly that.

Thanks.

Therez a difference in temperature between the living and dead rat, could the so-called ''life force'' not be given off as heat?

Excellent. Now let us take a close look at this.

If the "so called life force" is "given off as heat" - this would suggest that that physical heat by itself is the actuating element for the existence of the rat as a living form. This is ineluctable: at death you suggest that the "so called life force" is "given off as heat": in reversing this process you thereby suggest to me that what is now missing from the rat - what has departed from it - is that physical heat - and thus it is that physical heat that is actaually what made the rat alive.

Do you think you can sustain the inference you have thereby made: namely that the element that makes things alive as conscious creatures, complete with awareness, is physical heat? Because if that were the case then physical heat by itself would posess attributes of life - given that you suggest that it is the element that departs which renders a body dead, no?

Your surmise is therefore not suffiently deep. It dwells only upon the exchange of energy which is observable in ecosystems but does not probe the core question being asked. As I have shown above, it is actually contradictory and internally inconsistent.

Because that which it does for me is show inescapably that the heat that departs at death must perforce be heat that is imbued with life - otherwise its departure would not cause a cessation of life: and if intangible heat imbued with life is not the description and definition of a spirit - I do not know what else is!

@ Analissa/ thehomer -

Analissa:
^^^as matter is anything that has mass and occupies a space it can be destroyed but then it is turned into energy (like what happens in nuclear explosions) which cannot be destroyed. You seem to misunderstand the concept of energy in that you take it to be a 'spirit'. energy comes in different forms and instead of being destroyed, it gets converted into another form. Your example of the rat dying: when the rat dies, the heat, sound etc energy is turned into other forms like chemical if the rat has been left to decay. if it is in soil, this energy helps plants grow which in turn could be turned into another type of energy. Energy isnt a 'force' that roams about in the style of spirits and entities, it gets converted automatically.

thehomer:
You're conflating the use of the word "energy" in physics with that of the same word in esotericism.
According to physics and the total energy is still the same in both pictures for a while.
But in esotericism, there are a lot of other alternatives for this "energy".

Fair enough.

Nevertheless that which I want to pitch to you today is this - 

That the Universe; nay; all existence perforce radiates with energy. I am almosty tempted in this regard to state outrightly that all existence is energy: but I will at this point refrain from stating so until I have developed a further thought construct which I may articulate later in this thread.

For the initial purpose, let me simply state that all existence radiates with energy - and that this energy is one, inseparable and the same - but only manifests in different forms throughout the universe and indeed throughout all existence.

This is the cardinal and first premise on which I wish to make a thought progression in this regard: if you do disagree with it, please do let me know so that we do not end up mis-footed or misunderstanding one another.

The logic on which I may press this oneness of all energy is as follows.

1. In physical terms - The initial expansion from the point of a singularity which is referred to as the Big Bang presupposes that all the energy existing in the Universe was at that initial point densely concentrated in a single point. In this it is clear that all the energy is really ONE energy and that all the physical matter and energy that has expanded therefrom is an expansion of the SAME ONE energy. Thus all the various forms and manifestations on that energy are simply different forms and manifestations, but still the same ONE energy that was initially densely concentrated at a single point which may be referred to as a singularity.

2. In non-physical terms the same reasoning follows - not because there is any relation to the physical expansion called the big bang but because it is consistent with reason to see that everything in existence is interconnected in one fashion or the other: nothing is able to exist in a void of its own - rather everything exists within a set of other things or within a system of one sort or the other. It can thus be gleaned from this that there is compound nature of things which are interconnected and thus refer to ONE compound existence and not individual existences in silos.

3. Following from the foregoing (No. 2) we can rationally conclude the physical energy (as discussed in No. 1 above) does not exist in a silo - i.e: it does not exist as an element that does not derive from other things in existence: that it is part of a set, or system and accordingly forms ONE compound with all other things in existence and discussed in No. 2 above.

What this means is that physical energy cannot cxonceivably exist outside the existence of all other elements of existence as a whole - and as such is tied therewith and one therewith.

The inevitable conclusion being that all energies are of the same compound which defines all existence - only that they are expressed or manifest in different forms.

This is why I would insist that spiritual energy, physical energy, mental energies, and indeed all sorts of energy are really all simply different manifestations of the SAME ONE compound energy that is existence.

With reference to the rat, what this would mean is that its active existence as a life form is an expression of this same compound energy that I speak about: thus that it could not have any physical energy save within the broader context of all existent energies.

This is going to be an interesting discussion and there are several advanced levels to it that I would like us to address one at a time as they are very subtle points: but before we do so we must perforce reach some sort of common understanding on the foregoing otherwise it would be futile.