What we fail to question is WHAT IS THE FUCKING UNIVERSE, we must answer this before we may consider any sort of creator, we must understand what the creation is. Forget all the stupid name labels we put on stars and matter and energy. This is OUR INTERPRETATION. What the universe consists of is information. It is a living mind in itself, when we consider God as an omni God, we must understand that nothing may be taken away or added to it. If the universe exists, or seems to exist, it must proceed in some way from THE ALL (going to refer to “God" as this since its most general)- it must be a creation of THE ALL. But as something can never come from nothing, from what could THE ALL have created it? You may say that THE ALL created the universe from ITSELF- that is, from the being and substance of THE ALL. But this will not do, for THE ALL cannot be subtracted from, nor divided, if this be so would not each particle in the universe be aware of its being THE ALL- THE ALL could not lose its knowledge of itself, nor actually BECOME an atom, or blind force or lowly living thing. So what is the universe if it be not THE ALL? Take example of man, how does he create? He may work with something out of outside materials, but THE ALL cannot since there is nothing outside of it, if it be THE ALL, nor pro-create since it cannot divide or multiply itself being THE ALL. How else does man create? HE CREATES MENTALLY! And in doing so he uses no outside materials, nor does he reproduce himself, and yet his Spirit pervades the Mental Creation. So we are justified in considering that THE ALL creates the universe MENTALLY. THE ALL can create in no other way except mentally, without either using material (and there is none to use) or else reproducing itself (which is also impossible). Just as you may create a universe of your own in your mentality, so does THE ALL create universe in its own mentality, but your universe is the mental creation of a finite mind, whereas that of THE ALL is the creation of an infinite. Similar in kind, but infinitely different in degree. THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL IT CONTAINS, IS A MENTAL CREATION OF THE ALL. INDEED, ALL IS MIND! “THE ALL creates in its infinite mind countless universes, which exist for eons of time- and yet, to THE ALL, the creation development, decline and death of a million universes is as the time of the twinkling of an eyeâ€- the Kybalion
You didn't answer your question, you just moved it back one degree on the scale. This is an argument from infinite regression and, like everyone else who invokes this "argument," you answer it with something that you randomly postulated that doesn't really solve the regression in any meaningful way. You were on the right track for a second talking about information. Information seems to evolve through a process of natural selection, regardless of the vehicle (meaning not only through genetics) and all kinds of forms of evolution that are not biologically-rooted are being explored by scientists. Natural selection is the one and only force that we have found thus far that is capable of combating entropy and building up complexity. Any being, whether collective or singular, that could create our universe must have necessarily been a product of a long process of natural selection that allowed it/them/whatever to get to such a level of complexity. So how does positing this being tell us anything useful, other than that elsewhere (in our universe or in others) natural selection may have gone much further than it has here? This does not lead us to an origin. It simply leads us to a more complicated question that is at least as unanswerable as the one we started with. It is the illusion of an answer, but it misses the point entirely.
I see you've found the Kybalion. lol edit: oh, didnt see that very last line haha. The physical creation is an illusion. It was not created nor condensed to a single point, has always existed, but was not in a corporeal state like it is until a certain point. When you raise the vibration of something, heat occurs. When something comes INTO creation out of Akasha, the highest of vibrations, the vibration of Spirit, the first state it reduces to is the principle of Fire, which is active and EXPANDING. I'll see if you can figure the rest out from here. to the post above me, you speak of natural selection as if The All is a finite thing, and there are other Infinite Eternal things that exist. The All is the sum of all intelligence/force, everything exists in it. We are never creating more intelligence/complex minds, we are merely harnessing intelligence. God/The All is the sum total of all knowledge/intelligence and power. There is a force driving every atom to behave the way it does, the Universe is a concious being. That underlying force is the consciousness of God, as God/The All is unmanifest, yet we see His mechanics in the workings of the manifested universe. Also, the All is Infinite and Eternal. If the multiverse theory is correct, the All is not our single multiverse, but the Infinite being CONTAINING all of these multiverse's. You cannot comprehend God/The All, because in order to understand something you must be able to place it outside of yourself. You cannot do this with the All, as you are a small part of it. You can only understand how the All works.
No. Trust me, I understand the concept. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that positing such a needlessly complex theory with absolutely no observable evidence is worth anyone's time. Why not go off of forces that we can actually see at work around us, and start building our worldview from there? No, it doesn't just hand us a complete answer in a tidy package. But at least it allows us to work towards an answer that has some logical basis, not just some long narrative that someone dreamed up. Theories that are too vague to be disproven are theories that don't tell us anything, in the long run.
About 14 billion years ago a couple young membranes met in a small cafe... she was an art major, he was an aspiring politician. They went out on a few dates... there was some chemistry... After the 42nd date, the two young membranes collided in a passionate display of sensual lust... scientists refer to this as the "Big Bang." The relationship didn't work out... he was more of an introvert, but she still wanted him around so we could get to know him one day. He is what's known as "dark energy." She decided to raise the Universe herself and operates under the guise of "gravity" because she doesn't want to be seen as overbearing or manipulative... this gave her plenty of time to express her artistic creativity... forming nebula, mountains and various other pretty stuff. There is hope that the two will be reunited in what maybe called the "Theory of Everything." But many modern scientists and philosophers are not so sure this is possible. Some believe that the two membranes were never separated and that the Universe is the infinite expression of their unwavering love... but they are widely regarded to be insane.
maybe because this is the 'spirituality and philosophy' section..... and not the 'science' section....
What was posted is hardly enough to come to a complete understanding. If you were to read the numerous articles of information necessary, it makes more logical sense than 'everything came from nothing from a cause we'll never discover", and goes hand in hand with science, corresponding exactly to sciences explanation of the physical, but going beyond it as well. I was going to say a bit more, and how there is a way one can absolutely know how the universe came to be, but it would not be worth the time as you are a materialist it would seem. The Universe works according to laws, these laws were known 10,000 years ago, and even further back. For one to think that science has "discovered" these things recently, frankly, is absolutely wrong.
The universe is nothingness in motion To explain a bit, the sum of energy in the universe is exactly zero. Some event created an imbalance of the static zero-state, resulting in an oscillation where the peaks at either end result in zero, and will eventually again reach a static level of zero.
What's funny is that our universe only exists while were alive, so therefore the entire universe is perceived by our brains. Anything that we know of this universe, and interact with is contained and perceived in our brains. Our complete knowledge of the known universe is inside our brains. My complete knowledge of our universe is inside my brain. When I die, the knowledge of the universe, therefore my entire universe, is destroyed. How fragile does that show that a universe can be? It can be completely destroyed in a second. If I can't perceive the universe, then it doesn't exist for me. Without a brain, I can't perceive OUR universe, the livings universe. So what universe do I perceive, or do I perceive nothingness? It's a scary thought.
Yeah, science used to be known known as natural philosophy... but some people don't like what they see.
You cannot perceive nothingness, as there can be no such thing as nothingness. The mind cannot imagine nothing, the closest thing to nothing you can imagine is the vacuum of space, which is still filled with Akasha, as light and matter are able to move through it. The common thing people do is assume that since they cannot remember anything from a past life, that nobody can. It's similar to thinking since you cannot imagine great works of music in your mind that nobody else can either. There are people who have lived in multiple cultures who report memory of the astral rest between lives, and strangely enough they all report almost exactly the same thing. You have more senses than just your physical body, you simply have not developed them, or come into an awakened state to be able to remember the time before you were born. You do not enter the body until the very first breathe is taken. Here is a bit of an allegorical explanation for you. If a team of reporters is sent to a city to write articles on the city, they will all undoubtedly have their differences in styles of writing due to the different perspectives of the reporters. Does this mean the city does not exist? Of course not, but by reading all of the articles you will be able to put together a more complete idea of what the city is like, and they will all have similarities despite the different perceptions due to the city being the same with only the people differing in their views of it. Also the astral is not the same as our physical world, forms do not exist in a concrete form but change, though always having features that describe the true characteristics of the place/being. It's a matter of being able to read those features in their different forms and you will be able to tell the characteristics of what you see, despite it's multiple forms. A being will take on different forms that are more readily understood by the persons cultural perspective. Example of say an angel to a christian, an animal to a native american, a dragon to an eastern religion, etc.
No kidding? No its not a science, it is a logistical aide at best. And logic isn't exactly science, its physics. More on the mathematical concepts side. edit: man that seems jumbling
damn im 18 and the kybalion (edit: what i read from treismegeistus's post) seems to piece together all of the beliefs that iv come up with so far in my short life which is that some way shape or form the sum of us (everything+the entire universe) is equal to the creator (i believe there must be one) or something that adds up to the creator and thought seems to be the only force we could possibly have came from. 1=creator 1/2= universe Thought Is The Only Thing That Can Be Created From Nothing
Unknowable. .you're not separate. A mind will write a story tailored by imagination and turned into an experience viewed either as a fact, theory, or fiction, based around concepts; Even the concept of I am that the personality/mind uses to identify with. No way to really know anything at all, but that doesn't stop the experience of it from happening
I think I would actually disagree with you on this for once. I strongly believe that science should be restricted to matters pertaining to how. And philosophy can deal with the why. Hows have to be falsifiable at all times. The whys are rather subjective. Though it does seem that the two merge together quite often.