God?

[RainmanTime]

There's your proof. You can proof there's "an inside" by going INTO the building and you can proof there's "an outside" by stepping OUT OF the building. It's that simple. That's the same proof I'm asking for, but which you are unable to provide me with.

Actually, this is quite comical, Roel. Because what you are describing is sheer FAITH, not proof.

The fact that you could sense the outside before you went into the building does not amount to proof that it still exists when you are inside the building. It is barely even proof that it exists when you are outside experiencing it, because your senses can be deceived (ever heard of an illusion?).

So, while sitting in the building, you are referring back to your past experience that told you there was something outside. Since you can no longer directly experience that outside while you are sitting inside, you are drawing on sheer, unadulterated, 100%, homogenized FAITH that someone or something did not completely remove the outside scene you experienced, and replace it with the fire and brimstone of a hellish scene.

The same holds true for the sun rising tomorrow. You have duped your mind into believing that, because you watched the sun rise yesterday, that is PROOF that it will rise again tomorrow. Unfortunately, I am quite sorry to tell you that you are incorrect in this belief. As brokerage firms are forced to say in their commercials in this country "Past performance is not a guarantee of future profits".

Welcome to the club, Roel. You have just "proven" to us that even you, the ultimate non-believer, must rely on faith...every single day of your life. As much as you may feel comfortable in your physical world, you cannot escape faith. Can you give me factual proof that you will be alive tomorrow? By your very own descriptions in this thread, if you cannot perceive it, there is no factual proof that it exists. This obviously has to apply as time marches on, otherwise you would be subject to faith.

RMT

 

[KerrTexas]

You had a perfectly good reason to believe that there was an outside and you even found proof for it:

There's your proof. You can proof there's "an inside" by going INTO the building and you can proof there's "an outside" by stepping OUT OF the building. It's that simple. That's the same proof I'm asking for, but which you are unable to provide me with.

Not proof at all, Roel. When inside the building, you assume the outside is there without any absolute proof. At the moment you are inside, your faith is all you got as to the outside.. Unless you actually are experiencing the outside, there is no proof. Your senses are not providing you one iota of any type of validation of the outside. It is ironic you mention the senses when the experience of God is a result of enhanced senses. That is the whole point of meditation and ritual..to break the veils of this world / society and quiet the mind, to be able to experience the subtle truths buried underneath complexity and prejudices.

What I was simply asking for is something besides..."God doesn't exist". In your responses in this thread, I am pleased to see you have expanded on your thoughts. I know I can not nor will not "make' you believe in God.


Basically, the only reason I pursue this line of reason is too be able to move on. How can one discuss time travel principles when scientific information or inquiry is presented because it is sourced from a religious text or has God mentioned within it it is tossed to the way side with.."Well, I don't believe in God, so everything that the text contains is false'!

The base of creation being formatted on 0 and 1, as mentioned in the Kabbalah is consice, easy to understand, and can not be rendered as false. If you can not except this premise, how can you advance to the next step in pursuit of a time travelling formula? Just because this truth was contained within a religious text does not discount it's value.



As a side note: Roel, you are a dead ringer to a good friend of mine, Danny Brown! I know you are not him, but the similarites are uncanny. Everytime I see your picture, I have to look twice to confirm you aren't Danny. I know this doesnt realy matter to you, but, damn if I dont like you! He is a good man, good sense of humor, and interestingly enough, he is a graphic web designer in Florida.

 

[creedo299]

Overl' This entire thread is B.S. as both you and Rainman had ignore what is indicated here.

If God did for a time exist here on Earth, in an office of sorts, the other input, would not be human and consist of zeros and ones.

The input would hail from a sort of electron cloud, which is not zero and one based, however from a unilateral cloud.

Input may be in the one thousands, or more, all at once?

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Godess?

You can choose to deny it, but Quabalah is also a religion and that's an indisputable fact.

:D ROTFLMAO! Roel, my friend, I am afraid you have left me no recourse on this one but to use your very own methods on you:

I would like for you to provide me some factual proof of what you have just stated as an indisputable fact. CAUTION: You are about to tread into waters which you have already exhibited scant knowledge of. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

All right, buddy....pull your ass over to the next oort cloud!

I've been following you for the last 10 parsecs, and I'm afraid it is terribly obvious that you have been deeply dipping into the tromithian ale.

By the power vested in me by the sector 19 Milky Way Peace Officer Corps, I am going to have to ask you for your license.... and while you are at it, you had better pony-up some PROOF that you are a real, live, human being!

/ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Honestly, creedo, have you ever had your DNA sequenced? I think you might be missing a "stop transcription" codon!

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Rainman' not to be ignorant, but you don't seem to understand what either God is, or can be.

You don't even understand the necessarily of a god's union which exist here on Earth.

The Quabalah is just another belief system, that explains something that you can cope with the universe, in your particular understanding of it.

The closest thing that I can come up with, that would be like God, as he is said to exist here on Earth, is the beginning holograph scenes from Spy-kids One, when the kids find themselves in the holograph room.

You can believe in God, and he would exist for you, but the publicized mistake in the book The Andreasson Affair series of books, the wrong man abducted, seems to tell that for man as we know him in this era, and how he relates to God is over.

There will be new eras in the future, but for now, God is on hiatus, of favoring any religious group.

Again, God put man together in some respects, like an automobile, with the body made by these beings over there, the genetics engineering over there still by those beings, but the soul, by the God Angelic hierarchies.

In the real, this is the way creation exist for man.

Someone told you to come here and try to conquer.

But what they did not tell you, is that the truth of the situation would conquer you.

I have had my DNA sequenced twice.

The first time was by accident, the second was by others that I have not been able to uncover.

 

[KerrTexas]

I am not intending to ignore your postings, I am still trying to figure out what you said. I apologize if I seem blunt, but I am blunt.

I responded to what I could fathom and that was regarding the 0, 1 theory.

You just plain out can not escape it. Anything that contains multiple anything has got to begin with 1 or contain 1. You can not have 4 without 1, nor 3, nor 2....if you have 4...then that is 4 of 1+1+1+1.

 

[Rhudey]

Who ever said there is a point to our existence? People somehow think that there must be a reason why we are alive.

Have you ever heard the saying "without hope you cannot start the day". What I was trying to say is that most people need to believe that there is a point to their existence, if there wasn't they would see no point in continuing with living. To answer your question, religion has told us that there is a point to our existence, it is up to the individual to believe whether or not this is true. I am not saying whether they are right or wrong, just that it is an essential element in the lives of most of the population.

Rainman Time, I am beginning to put myself in the same category as yourself I think. I have long ago turned by back on organized religion, they try to control our lives as much as possible under the claims that they are enlightened by God. On the other hand I am becoming more "spiritual" as each day passes by. I have reached a point in my life that as I look back, every setback and disappointment has directed me to where I am now, and I wouldn't trade "now" for anything in the world. Is it luck or was I guided? Sometimes things appear to be too "coincidental" to be chance.

Many of you have voted against a religion section to the forum, but I have enjoyed this thread alot more than most.

 

[creedo299]

Overl' all I have to ask you, from your viewpoint, who is doing the primary input?

Is it you, or another entity?

If it is another entity, then ones and o's do not apply, as all input exist at once, within the electron cloud/

You can't fathom what I'm saying as you're human.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Actually, this is quite comical, Roel. Because what you are describing is sheer FAITH, not proof.

I was dead serious, but I'm kinda hoping that you're joking right now /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The fact that you could sense the outside before you went into the building does not amount to proof that it still exists when you are inside the building. It is barely even proof that it exists when you are outside experiencing it, because your senses can be deceived (ever heard of an illusion?).

I know you like to think that everything is an illusion Ray, but what you are saying here is definitely not true. It seems as if you're applying the Schrödinger Cat Paradox to almost each and every situation. With all due respect, but that's plain silly. "Inside" and "outside" are manmade definitions. Walking into a building proofs that there is an inside. Walking out of it proofs that there is an outside. You can't possibly deny that.

So, while sitting in the building, you are referring back to your past experience that told you there was something outside. Since you can no longer directly experience that outside while you are sitting inside, you are drawing on sheer, unadulterated, 100%, homogenized FAITH that someone or something did not completely remove the outside scene you experienced, and replace it with the fire and brimstone of a hellish scene.

That makes no sense at all. Please read what you've written and ask yourself if there is any indication whatsoever that something like that could ever happen. Besides, you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph. First you say that I'm referring back to my past experience, next you claim that it's pure faith!

The same holds true for the sun rising tomorrow. You have duped your mind into believing that, because you watched the sun rise yesterday, that is PROOF that it will rise again tomorrow.

I'm not the one duping my mind into anything here. Tell me, do you think there's proof for anything? Do you think there are things that can be proven, or is everything just a big illusion?

Welcome to the club, Roel. You have just "proven" to us that even you, the ultimate non-believer, must rely on faith...every single day of your life.

Sorry, I'd like to cancel my subscription. Perhaps even I have to rely on faith sometimes, but the things you have just described have nothing to do with faith.

Can you give me factual proof that you will be alive tomorrow? By your very own descriptions in this thread, if you cannot perceive it, there is no factual proof that it exists.

No I can't. I have no reason to believe that I'm going to die tomorrow, but it could happen. This is a perfect example of faith, UNLIKE the other two examples!

I'll bet you a dollar that the sun will rise tomorrow. Hell, I'll even bet you a million dollars!

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Basically, the only reason I pursue this line of reason is too be able to move on. How can one discuss time travel principles when scientific information or inquiry is presented because it is sourced from a religious text or has God mentioned within it it is tossed to the way side with.."Well, I don't believe in God, so everything that the text contains is false'!

Well, I agree that the focus should be on timetravel. And if there are certain truths in religious texts, I think that they shouldn't be ignored. However, there are some things that you and Ray might consider true, while I think they aren't. That's why I'm so "vehement" in my disbelief sometimes /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

As a side note: Roel, you are a dead ringer to a good friend of mine, Danny Brown! I know you are not him, but the similarites are uncanny. Everytime I see your picture, I have to look twice to confirm you aren't Danny. I know this doesnt realy matter to you, but, damn if I dont like you! He is a good man, good sense of humor, and interestingly enough, he is a graphic web designer in Florida.

Talking about coincedences... I think I might have already mentioned this, but there's a man here in Holland by the name of Roel van Houten who has the same date of birth as I do. Furthermore, I discovered this on the moment that he was exactly twice my age.

I can assure you I'm not the same person

Another minor coincedence is that of all the states in the US, I have only visited one... Florida.

 

[KerrTexas]

Roel....

Walking into a building proofs that there is an inside. Walking out of it proofs that there is an outside

When you are inside, it is faith alone that the outside is still there. You have no proof that it actually exists if you can not see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it.
The only reason you can count on that the outside is still in existence is because it always has been there so far. In the moment of experiencing the inside of the building, the outside is no longer an experience of the moment.

Inside" and "outside" are manmade definitions

Definitions of terms again?

you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph. First you say that I'm referring back to my past experience, next you claim that it's pure faith!

Rainman did not contradict himself at all. Your faith is based on past experiences . You are basing the fact of there being an outside on the premise it has been there before, but while inside the building you have absolutley no proof that it actually is there.

the things you have just described have nothing to do with faith.

Has everything to do with faith. Walking outside doesnt prove it was there whilest you didnt see it! Provide me with "proof" it exists whilest you dont see it!

 

[KerrTexas]

I hope you understand that I am not in a quest to insult you in any way, nor trash your ideals..but I tend to be blunt at times.

However, there are some things that you and Ray might consider true, while I think they aren't

Of course, I am certain there are many things not true, such is the purpose of debate.
Logic follows a clear and plain path regarding method of inquiry. I am sorry, but you are not following that path.

If a is like b, and b is like c, then c must be like a.

If I am not experiencing the outside of the building at this moment in time, and I can't prove that it is still there at this moment in time, then I can't prove the outside exists at this moment in time because I am not experiencing the outside of the building at this moment in time.

I know you dont like the building analogy, but it does serve the purpose of our debate. It is rather simple to demonstrate what is meant by certain terms, without bringing in complex formulas and philosophical quotes by masters of thought.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Godess?

CAUTION: You are about to tread into waters which you have already exhibited scant knowledge of.

I have to agree with you. But again, the basic meaning of the word "religion" gives me every reason to assume that it is a religion. I admit that in this case I was a bit overconfident. Perhaps you could be so kind to explain why the Quabalah does not comply to the definition of a religion?

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

When you are inside, it is faith alone that the outside is still there. You have no proof that it actually exists if you can not see it, feel it, hear it, taste it, or smell it.
The only reason you can count on that the outside is still in existence is because it always has been there so far. In the moment of experiencing the inside of the building, the outside is no longer an experience of the moment.

I fail to see the logic in that. This way of thinking renders any type of proof obsolete. How can you proof anything if the validity of the proof vanishes when you're temporarily unable to access it?

Rainman did not contradict himself at all. Your faith is based on past experiences . You are basing the fact of there being an outside on the premise it has been there before, but while inside the building you have absolutley no proof that it actually is there.

No, in this case my knowledge is based on past experiences. I don't believe there's an outside; I know there's an outside. Of course you will say that the same applies to god. You rely on your experiences when you say god exists, but the main difference is that I can proof to other people that there's an inside and an outside. So yes, Rainman DID contradict himself.

Provide me with "proof" it exists whilest you dont see it!

I can proof to you right now that there is an outside!

Roel

 

[Rho]

creedo -

what knowledge have you of gods angelic hierarchies?

 

[creedo299]

asked>what knowledge have you of gods angelic hierarchies?

More than just passing, very detailed.

 

[RainmanTime]

That makes no sense at all. Please read what you've written and ask yourself if there is any indication whatsoever that something like that could ever happen. Besides, you are contradicting yourself in this paragraph. First you say that I'm referring back to my past experience, next you claim that it's pure faith!

I am using nothing more than your very own criteria in that "proof" is only that which you can perceive as truth via your senses. Unfortunately for you, I have taken this theory of proof to a very logical extreme. What I have said makes perfect sense from this standpoint. Just because you experienced something as true in the past is not a guarantee that it remains true when you are not experiencing it. We are not talking about probability that such a thing could happen. We are talking about the technical aspect of perception-based proof, versus intuition-based faith. Just because you have never seen something wild like this happen does not mean the Langoliers are not always outside your perception, doing their thing. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But really, I am not joking. Your intuition is an element of faith that you utilize. You have faith that your senses have, in the past, accurately described to you what was really going on. Even trollface's friend Derren Brown proves that this is not always reliable...and that his subjects are using faith to arrive at a personal view of truth. The fact that your truths seem more reasonable than someone's elses is technically irrelevant. What you are relying on cannot be called proof. It is nothing more than intuition.

Tell me, do you think there's proof for anything? Do you think there are things that can be proven, or is everything just a big illusion?

Godel has shown us that there are clearly many things that cannot be proven. Others have established "proof" of some phenomenon that the entire world accepted as true...only to be shown that this "proof" did not stand when new evidence was uncovered. Still others (magicians) make a living out of trying to make you believe something you perceived really did occur, when in actuality it was just an illusion. These three facts form a reasonable basis for my view that "even if my senses perceive it, and it seems real to me, there is still a possibility that everything is a big illusion." Indeed, I think you know this is a basis of my Massive SpaceTime model. The elements we perceive as distinct units of Mass, distinct areas of Space, and distinct sequences of Time are illusory in our perception of them as distinct. I maintain that their "true" state is when they are totally integrated. So under these conditions, yes I would have no problem believing that the things we perceive in our limited states are all illusions.

In fact, I know it is so. I am an eternal being, as are you. You have simply not yet achieved this level of integration, for it requires willing dissolution of the self as separate from the rest of the universe. But you can, if you wish.

but the things you have just described have nothing to do with faith.

I understand that you do not think so. But they actually do.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Godess?

I admit that in this case I was a bit overconfident. Perhaps you could be so kind to explain why the Quabalah does not comply to the definition of a religion?

I would rather see your factual proof for why it is indisputable. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif But I will let you off the hook on this one (but will resurrect something else you did not address further down). I will now attempt to explain:

First, I would not debate that SOME people down through history have, indeed, "religionized" the precepts of Qabalah. By this, I mean they have morphed its knowledge into statements of "this is how you must do things, and what you must believe, to worship and partake of God." However, just because they used the knowledge of Qabalah and created a religion from it, does not mean that Qabalah IS a religion.

Qabalah is a compendium of knowledge. This knowledge can be used for many things, completely independent of whether or not you even believe in God. In fact, many people do use it for "black magick". Others simply use it to understand the structure of our universe. It is very similar to a universal encyclopedia, except it is much more compact, concise, and coherent. How you apply it is totally up to you, the individual. In fact, some believe it a "sin" for people to tell you that "this is how you must apply it".

This is why the Qabalistic-based knowledge that I share here, and on my website, are simply my observations of how the Tree Of Life (the central glyph of Qabalah) aligns and overlays with many aspects of life as we know it. You are free to ignore it, debate it, or refuse to accept it. I am not going to tell you that you are going to hell by not accepting it. But what I am telling you, from my own experience, is that if you start to look into it, of your own means and ways, that you might, indeed, find some personal uses for it that will astound you. In essence, you can and should "prove it to yourself"....don't just take my word for it (and I know you don't).

For example: The TOL is a systematic architecture diagram that overlays and describes the three primary "centers" of the human body: Cognitive, Locomotive/Respirative, and Reproductive. MANY people down thru history have accepted this knowledge, and applied it to how they balance these three centers of their body. OvrLrdLegion mentioned some of these people by name in the other thread. As it turns out, these people were highly effective humans... they achieved a great deal, and they did so by striking a healthy balance between these areas of their physical bodies...and their non-physical mind/soul/spirit.

Now...I would really like to hear your thoughts on this stuff that I had asked you earlier. I don't want to accuse you of purposefully avoiding it....at least not yet. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

So let's not jump directly to God just yet. Let's stick closer to the point of my link. Would you see this data as statistically significant "proof" that human beings can be, and are, connected to each other in non-physical ways? Ways that cannot be positively detected by our limited senses? If so (and again, I find this data hard to argue with), then we are approaching some "factual proof" that humans may, indeed, have a non-physical soul and spirit that are capable of interacting with each other on exo-physical levels.

What do you think? G'nite! (I promise...I am not just pissing in the wind here!)

RMT

 

[Rho]

creedo -

care to elaborate?
Angelophany?