Aude sapere - Dare to know

Esoterica
1

I will only be here for approximately three months, during that time I will attempt to prove to any persons who have an interest to learn that ‘God’ did create the universe.

I will prove with facts where possible and necessary and in the absence of facts I will use sound logic and reason in a way that I hope will help you to understand the answers to the many questions that burn away at you.

I only ask that you have patience with my answers as I am currently undertaking endeavors in various ‘physical’ geographical locations throughout the world. I will however attempt to answer all questions (as well as locate and isolate any key points in your counter arguments) in as punctual a manner as possible.

I would also like to state at this time that I am not a Priest, Clergyman, Monk, Buddhist, Rabbi or any other religious representative what so ever and I am also fully aware that the topic of preference at this website is predominantly ‘time travel’.

However, since the acceptance of science and scientific reasoning, it has for most of its history been wrongfully assumed to be the architect for disproving ‘God’, especially in more recent times but this is an incorrect assumption.

Science, as will eventually be discovered in the very near future is in fact the catalyst for turning the masses of the world’s population back towards religion or spiritual necessity.

I intend to let this topic progress gradually and naturally in such a way as to eventually enable me to answer most if not all questions. At this time I do not even require you to enter into this discussion with an open mind, on the contrary I feel that your arguments against such a concept will be at their strongest and your comments at their most prejudice before I offer any information that could cause you to review or dilute them.

Finally who am I and why this site?

At this stage I am everyone and no one, through a series of ‘revealing’ dreams, a healthy knowledge of both science and various religions and a great deal of research thrown into the pot for good measure, I was finally able to start to connect the dots and obtain answers to some of life’s most complex and contradictory problems.

Once we have established the connection of ‘God’ as the creator of the universe I hope to go on and inform you how this relates to future events and the connection to possible ‘time travel’ and visits from ‘Aliens’.

It’s a very revealing journey and I hope I will have enough time to take you all the way.

Eram quod es, eris quod sum

2

There are guidelines time travellers agree to before they go back to the past and among them is not posting on this forum. I am here to ensure there is a one way exchange of information on this subject- from the present forward. The warning is for other time travellers who agreed not to post here before they came. There is a reason you were all implanted. You have been warned.

3

Titorian45, are you a real background moderator for time travellers and is Titorian story a real thing? I am confused, so please answer me. Don’t let me be blind.

4

My apologies, please allow me to clarify. I am associated with The Branson Foundation, not the Time Travel Institute. I am not the moderator of this forum, but I moderate the online activities of time travellers, particularly on this website, as per our agreement, before they came here. As such, my comment(s) are generally directed at the TT claimant(s), not the casual posters. Causality is in full effect.

5

I’d love to hear how Titorian45 plans to protect the laws of causality, without violating them himself. The very act of “time travel moderating” is a violation of causality, is it not?

6

I hope you do not mind if I ask a few questions, since it was me who took the time to compose the original post:

1) May I ask why you choose to what appears to deliberately derail post’s?

2) Is there a moderator here who actually monitors these post’s and either warns the people who deliberately derail them or deletes their replies if they are attempts at derailing them?

I took the time to join this site because I had considered it to be a serious site with inteligent people and therefore It seemed like a good place to start.

By derailing a post your are not only spoiling it but your are also undermining the integrity of the site. This eventually leads to a site with no serious contributors and you are left with a site that has no attraction, except for the people who like to just post silly and spoiling replies to otherwise serious points.

3) Are my questions valid and are my assumptions correct?

7

some say man gets further from god when they go by science, instead of the bible. i myself believe that science brings forth rational thinking, which eventually gets you to realize that some kind of god had to make all of this. after all, ya cant make something out of nothing :wink:

8

I fully agree.

Personally, I see science as one way to glimpse upon the will of God. The laws of nature had to come from somewhere, right? By carefully studying God’s creation, one can learn a great deal about the Creator.

9

Before you can prove that ‘God’ created the universe, you first must prove the existence of ‘God’.

10

i thought i did with my last post :slight_smile:

11

Packerbacker, I think that before one even attempts to prove the existence of God, we must first agree on a definition of the word “God”. Don’t you agree?

In my view, “God” is simply the word we humans use to describe the “mechanism” (for a lack of a better term) which brings the universe order and complexity. On the other hand, since you speak of “proving the existence of God”, I can only assume that your definition of the word is different.

That is, exactly, the problem with words like “God”. Different people tend to give them different meanings, rendering the entire discussion of “does God exist?” impossible.

12

And what does this have to do wth Time Travel?

13

potentially alot

14

Ruthless:

Actually, I was asking Ecce Signum. The Jesuits had a saying that if they could get their opponent to agree to the existence of God they could control the argument.

But in agreeing to the existence of God one is accepting their definition.

I should mention that this thread is way off topic.

As far as making something from nothing: This is partly a matter of perspective. It might be that ‘nothing’ is ‘everything’. If everything simultaneously exists with equal probability, one has nothing. That is, nothing stands out to be ‘something.’

So if you begin with an initial predication that all possible patterns exist to begin with, then to get ‘something’ you don’t have to create it. You simply throw away everything else. But that doesn’t require a ‘god’, but a kind of evolution. :slight_smile:

15

Sigo:

I know that the word “God” appears in the Bible.That’s the only definition that makes sense. If you mean a superhuman intelligence please don’t use that term.

My own view is that the idea is essentially derived from Moses, who established a cult and claimed he had direct contact with an entity called “God.” Unfortunately, Moses rewrote the history of the past to make it seem that his little cult represented the true beginning of the human race (it should be unnecessary to show that this cannot possibly be true). However, Moses is not to be blamed for the fact that later Europeans decided to deal themselves into the belief. But they then further developed the idea with Greek philosophy and a crucified saviour.

One can believe what one wants to believe. It would be wonderful for the world and for the future if all religion vanished overnight. The truth would not be affected except in a positive way.

On rereading “Behold the Proof”'s first post,I must admit I was a little hasty. He does say that science will lead the way to a spiritual regreening, so I’m waiting to see what he has to say. :slight_smile:

16

packerbacker, are you a man of science? if so, science could be described as god, or gods sandbox at the least.

and i know you werent talking to me, but i just had to throw my two cents in :slight_smile:

oh yeah, and btw, before moses, there was this cooky feller named abraham. so if you want to blame it on someone, blame it on him :slight_smile: moses was just a patsy :wink:

17

The word “God” appears in many other texts, too. And about the only thing they have in common, is the fact that they refer to this “God” as some form of superhuman intelligence. That’s what the dictionary says, as well.

Actually, the truth won’t be affected at all. The truth, whatever it may be, is absolute. It does not depend on our own petty preconceptions of it.

18

Yea know, that’s a very good question!

I hope Ecce Signum will shed some light on this when he returns. I have no doubt it will be interesting.

19

http://www.thegodargument.com/

RMT

20

Good morning everyone,

I say good morning because it is currently just over 6am here on the south China coastline, there is a terrible storm brewing. I am confident however that the storm will be nothing more than an inconvenience to millions of people when they wake up in the morning only to find their doormat slightly wet.

I am very pleased that this topic is starting to ignite some meaningful thought on your part as well as the re-birth of some very sincere and important questions. I use the term re-birth because in my experience when ever the subject of an entity that is greater than our present comprehension is raised, it generally means we have to brush off the cob webs to clarify to ones self exactly what our individual stance is on this point.

You see if the question is asked to subtly the answer it receives may be too hasty, we all have at some point wrestled with the concept during our lives and have a general idea of where we stand on it, as long as we don’t have to expand too deeply with our replies.

This general stand point or stance we have or more accurately believe we have is normally acquired through a sequence of events in our lives, what religious upbringing one had if any, spiritual encounters, hopes, dreams, inspirations, sadness, tragedy, loss, pains, happiness and more importantly where we allocated the success or blame for these events.

Do we blame God when we have just lost a loved one, do we declare how could there even be a God when a great tragedy has unfolded or unfortunate event has just engulfed our lives or do we declare there must be a God, when we witness a child being born into this world with all the hopes for a new generation that it shines into our hearts the first time it’s little eyes open?

Whatever the reason that sculptures our own personal views, its very hard to escape the fact that every single one of us wants to believe in something more than simply, we are here and then we are not; Its human nature.

It can also be described in some respects as mankind’s greatest paradox. If we new 100% certain that there was a God and that this life was merely a stepping stone to the everlasting wonderful things that he had planned for us once our apprenticeship here was served, would we not all live meaningful lives and strive to eradicate disease, famine and conflict? Or would we merely find a way or a system in which we could manipulate the masses to convince them otherwise?

Now I will answer a few questions before I attend to other matters, as I have said before it is my intention to gradually build and reveal answers through this post in a structured manner, I will refrain where possible from disclosing the end of the novel before we have read the opening chapter.

Questions- Packerbacker: “Before you can prove that ‘God’ created the universe, you first must prove the existence of ‘God’”

Answer: Many would say that the existence of the universe is proof of God, if not God who? Most scientist’s are now agreed that the big bang theory is explainable right back to its source the singularity, but what is it and where did it come from, was this too created?

We will visit this again later in the post.

Questions– Sigo2507: “I think that before one even attempts to prove the existence of God, we must first agree on a definition of the word “God”. Don’t you agree?”

Answer: A singular definition of the word God, an interesting concept but not one that is truly required, God can be many things to many peoples. But we can use a few words that may help to clarify, how about creator, teacher, giver of hope, light, inspiration and knowledge.

Questions- Packerbacker: “Actually, I was asking Ecce Signum. The Jesuits had a saying that if they could get their opponent to agree to the existence of God they could control the argument.

But in agreeing to the existence of God one is accepting their definition.

I should mention that this thread is way off topic.

As far as making something from nothing: This is partly a matter of perspective. It might be that ‘nothing’ is ‘everything’. If everything simultaneously exists with equal probability, one has nothing. That is, nothing stands out to be ‘something.’

So if you begin with an initial predication that all possible patterns exist to begin with, then to get ‘something’ you don’t have to create it. You simply throw away everything else. But that doesn’t require a ‘god’, but a kind of evolution

Answer: Firstly this is not about controlling any arguments and one should never be afraid to concede a point made by another in a discussion as concession on either side is a natural requirement for progression.

If we fear that we may be automatically accepting another’s views by conceding points and therefore refuse to concede anything at all, we would still very likely be living in caves.

The ‘nothing can be everything’ and ‘everything may be nothing’ point you make is more true than you can know right now, both in scientific and spiritual terms.

Questions- Packerbacker: “One can believe what one wants to believe. It would be wonderful for the world and for the future if all religion vanished overnight. The truth would not be affected except in a positive way”

Answer: Hmm, a world without religion or spirituality would be a world with out any moral obligations or boundaries, a world with out those would not leave us a much of a world as right now they are the last frontier.

Questions- ruthless: “packerbacker, are you a man of science? if so, science could be described as god, or gods sandbox at the least.

and i know you werent talking to me, but i just had to throw my two cents in

oh yeah, and btw, before moses, there was this cooky feller named abraham. so if you want to blame it on someone, blame it on him moses was just a patsy

Answer: Another very thoughtful statement, I believe we are off to a good start here.

Let’s presume there is a God and for thousands of years he/she/it has failed to consistently captivate and maintain the interest of mankind in his/hers/its creations and moral guidelines.

Let’s also presume God is smart like a marketing CEO of McDonalds for example, after so many years of getting to know his consumers, would it be a good marketing strategy to try to compete for their attention with a somewhat unorthodox method compared with more traditional methods such as preaching and teaching you not to kill your neighbor?.

Could science be considered that unorthodox marketing strategy?

Without jumping to the end, if we can start to think in terms of the universe being created by God and that it is a deliberate, complex and fantastic design of engineering, we can then start to analyze how and where the possibility of time travel fits into everything.

One of the easiest ways to explain away certain flaws in time travel is to devise the theory of multiple and infinite timelines and universes.

As well as this being a convenient theory it also negates the God aspect, after all if God exists and created mankind in whatever format, how do we have any moral obligations to him/her/it,?

If I am a serial killer on this timeline with no chance of participating in God’s greater plans after I am dead because of my atrocious crimes, does it mean I will be involved by way of my humble life as a Monk on another timeline?

I suggest you re-read some of these multiple time line theories and consider would there be any point in being a ‘God fearing’ person or ‘decent human being’ in one timeline if you have no control of how you behave in another? If the answer is no then why would one believe in God in the first place?

I can assure you that everything we do; past, present and future has direct consequences on who we are, what we represent and what legacy we leave behind us.

Study the past if you would define the future. Confucius

Note: The link below will take you to another post I created with the view to opening up a discussion on the one time line theory without confusing this post’s topic content. I used a very basic example there, but feel it grasps most of the informative points that we will eventually broach on here. Your comments welcome.

Link:
http://www.timetravelinstitute.com/ttiforum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=time_travel&Number=46769&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

Edited by Ecce_Signum (05/28/07 08:47 PM)