Alternative Theory About the Beginnings

It is time to eliminate the rift between science and religious creationism (or its alternate incarnation, "intelligent design"). The rift occurs only with respect to questions about the beginnings of things, not about general science. After all, even the Catholic Church has funded a few telescopes and exonerated Galileo. Devout Muslims use the exact same principles of chemistry and physics when constructing nuclear bombs and IEDs as those used by atheists. Therefore we will attack the religion/science rift at its point of relevancy-- beliefs about the beginnings.

With luck, this will be the first in a series of posts that will eliminate the rift, and in the process explain dark energy and human consciousness. Without luck, these ideas and myself will be eliminated from this forum well before the ideas can be explained, as we have been eliminated from every other forum on which these unusual ideas have been presented.

Let's begin with a set of assertions which to me are obvious, but will rankle, annoy, or PO others. Then I can field questions, if any, and elaborate on the assertions before moving on to other ideas, all part of a well-considered and published theory.

1. With respect to ideas about the beginnings of things, religions and science espouse slight variations on the same basic theory, the belief that a single thing or entity can create anything. This belief is illogical.

2. The God in which modern religions have chosen to believe-- specifically an entity who has existed forever, knowing all things past and present, and capable of infinite power, cannot possibly exist.

2a. The "physical singularity" posited by cosmologists as the precursor to the Big Bang cannot possibly exist.

3. This does not mean that the universe was not, to some extent, engineered by an intelligent entity, or by a consortium of intelligent entities. It only means that the universe cannot have been created by the omnipotent, omniscient God of modern "monotheistic" religions, because such an entity cannot exist.

3a. It also does not mean that an explosive event was not the precursor to the universe.

4. Any entities who might have participated in creation are limited by logic, and by certain laws of physics. They must be conscious, of course, and intelligent. They must have had a natural origin. They did not initially come into existence possessing knowledge, intelligence, or consciousness. Their essential property is the ability to freely and naturally (as in, part of their inherent nature) violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

These and forthcoming ideas are derived from physics, not from some religious system. All the ideas I will propose here are verifiable by the standards of the science upon which they impinge. Physics ideas can be verified by physics principles. Likewise ideas relating to cosmology, biology, neuroscience, psychology, and the paranormal.

I invite you to either ignore these ideas or have fun with them, and with any to follow. My requirement for posters who expect a response is simple:

Exchange whatever beliefs or opinions you currently have about the beginnings for a sense of humor.

reply to post by Greylorn

It is time to eliminate the rift between science and religious creationism (or its alternate incarnation, "intelligent design")

Why?

That's like saying it's time to eliminate the rift between the Grand Canyon and batter-fried butter balls.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Greylorn

 

It is time to eliminate the rift between science and religious creationism (or its alternate incarnation, "intelligent design")

Why?

That's like saying it's time to eliminate the rift between the Grand Canyon and batter-fried butter balls.

It is entirely a matter of personal preference. I am awed by the Grand Canyon, and although I've not tasted a fried butter ball, I would expect it to be yummy. I might dine on one at the G.C. restaurant, if they serve such comestibles, without ever noticing a rift between food and canyon-- which, incidentally, is its own rift.

And thank you for your thoughtful comments. Were you one of the jackasses I rode on down to the Colorado River banks? Could not have been the one who provided me with a ride back up.

reply to post by Greylorn

And thank you for your thoughtful comments.

You're welcome, though it appears you have failed to understand it.

Were you one of the jackasses I rode on down to the Colorado River banks? Could not have been the one who provided me with a ride back up.

Sadly, I have never visited your beautiful country. Did you get your back wet in the Colorado?

The natural mind can not comprehend the spiritual

Originally posted by guitarplayer
The natural mind can not comprehend the spiritual

Who says? Is not the mind itself, at the level of beon/soul the only entity capable of recognizing the spiritual?

I am interested in learning about your own notion concerning the genesis of physical existence. I agree that the Big Bang and literally all versions of a creator intelligence are fatally flawed theories, and I do have my own very specific theory concerning The Beginnings (completely natural and a rote default response to a very specific primordial requirement confluence). I'd really enjoy reading about what you consider to be a plausible genesis narrative.

Originally posted by NorEaster
I am interested in learning about your own notion concerning the genesis of physical existence. I agree that the Big Bang and literally all versions of a creator intelligence are fatally flawed theories, and I do have my own very specific theory concerning The Beginnings (completely natural and a rote default response to a very specific primordial requirement confluence). I'd really enjoy reading about what you consider to be a plausible genesis narrative.

The theory is described in the book, "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul," and can be obtained directly or via amazon. The requirements for an enjoyable read are, first and foremost, a good sense of humor. If you are a speed reader, forget it. Speed readers never get the ideas. Regular readers are advised to read no more than one chapter at a shot, then backtrack before moving on. The ideas are simple, but different than conventional ideas or those that you have personally devised, and the human mind has trouble with such concepts. Good luck with it! And feel free to ask questions and put forth complaints.

If you've written up your personal theory here or elsewhere, kindly point me in its direction.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by NorEaster
I am interested in learning about your own notion concerning the genesis of physical existence. I agree that the Big Bang and literally all versions of a creator intelligence are fatally flawed theories, and I do have my own very specific theory concerning The Beginnings (completely natural and a rote default response to a very specific primordial requirement confluence). I'd really enjoy reading about what you consider to be a plausible genesis narrative.

The theory is described in the book, "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul," and can be obtained directly or via amazon. The requirements for an enjoyable read are, first and foremost, a good sense of humor. If you are a speed reader, forget it. Speed readers never get the ideas. Regular readers are advised to read no more than one chapter at a shot, then backtrack before moving on. The ideas are simple, but different than conventional ideas or those that you have personally devised, and the human mind has trouble with such concepts. Good luck with it! And feel free to ask questions and put forth complaints.

If you've written up your personal theory here or elsewhere, kindly point me in its direction.

I'm going to buy it. Thanks for the heads up. Is this your book? If so, then cool. I am finishing up "The Whole of the Moon" and it'll be available as soon as the business stuff gets squared away and the process moves as it moves. Hopefully before I die of old age.

I'm looking forward to reading "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul,". I finally have a Kindle for getting books on the relative cheap.

________________________

Damn, it's not available in Kindle. crap

Originally posted by Greylorn
2. The God in which modern religions have chosen to believe-- specifically an entity who has existed forever, knowing all things past and present, and capable of infinite power, cannot possibly exist.

Does the present ever cease to exist? Have you ever seen or heard anything other than what is present?
In presence 'past' arises as a thought which is known presently.

2a. The "physical singularity" posited by cosmologists as the precursor to the Big Bang cannot possibly exist.

The singularity is not in the past - the big bang is assumed to have happened a long time ago and this is the mistake - the singularity is the present. No other time has ever been known. Time is imagined now.

Everything is appearing and disappearing now. This is the source.
Presence is the alpha and the omega.

reply to post by Greylorn

It is time to eliminate the rift between science and religious creationism (or its alternate incarnation, "intelligent design").

Whoa there! For a decent chat you need to choose one or the other: Religious creationism or intelligent design. The idea of a perfect god is absurd. The idea of this existence being a simulation made by an imperfect intelligence isn't totally impossible, or some scientist in another dimension accidentally spilled something that created our universe. Or, the galaxies in our expanding universe could be blood cells flowing through a creature's veins. All things are possible except for the perfect god-theory.

Originally posted by Greylorn
1. With respect to ideas about the beginnings of things, religions and science espouse slight variations on the same basic theory, the belief that a single thing or entity can create anything. This belief is illogical.

Where and when do ideas appear?
There has never been any thing created. The only things there are are thoughts.
Thoughts appear where and when? Presently - always presently.
What is this present? Is the present happening a 'thing'?
Right now - what is this?

It is naming and labelling which seems to make things. The word (concept) arises and makes stories which seem to take one out of presence. Nothing is ever separate to presence.
Is presence a thing?

Have you noticed that the present never goes anywhere? The present is the singularity - the present is seeing the present always - the present is ever changing in the unchanging present.

reply to post by Greylorn

2. The God in which modern religions have chosen to believe-- specifically an entity who has existed forever, knowing all things past and present, and capable of infinite power, cannot possibly exist.

Go and say the above to the Club of Rome, Skull and Bones, The Tavistock Institute and all other Luciferian and Satanic clubs. You will be dead in seconds for shear ignorance. LOLOLOL.

If there is no YHWH, then why oh why is the world elite and all central banks leading this world into a spiritual war where 6.5 billion people will be killed off ??????

And the demons continue to sit back and chuckle as this world constantly digs its way into Sheol (hell).

America has forsaken YHWH, so don't be surprised when Chinese / German / Russian soldiers knock on American's doors and ship the occupants off to the nearest FEMA camp; for their own 'SAFETY' LOL.

All of the coming chaos is already written in the Bible, Ezekiel.

And if man wrote the Bible, then they have their own rules to obey. Those rules will equal the Mark of the Beast being rammed down your throat whether you like it of not.

reply to post by Rapha

This is guy is a "little bit" out of touch with reality, lol

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greylorn

 

It is time to eliminate the rift between science and religious creationism (or its alternate incarnation, "intelligent design").

Whoa there! For a decent chat you need to choose one or the other: Religious creationism or intelligent design. The idea of a perfect god is absurd. The idea of this existence being a simulation made by an imperfect intelligence isn't totally impossible, or some scientist in another dimension accidentally spilled something that created our universe. Or, the galaxies in our expanding universe could be blood cells flowing through a creature's veins. All things are possible except for the perfect god-theory.

I agree with you that the notion of a perfect God is absurd. That it why I did not include that notion in my OP.

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greylorn

 

It is time to eliminate the rift between science and religious creationism (or its alternate incarnation, "intelligent design").

Whoa there! For a decent chat you need to choose one or the other: Religious creationism or intelligent design. The idea of a perfect god is absurd. The idea of this existence being a simulation made by an imperfect intelligence isn't totally impossible, or some scientist in another dimension accidentally spilled something that created our universe. Or, the galaxies in our expanding universe could be blood cells flowing through a creature's veins. All things are possible except for the perfect god-theory.

I agree with you that the notion of a perfect God is absurd. That it why I did not include that notion in my OP.

Not every one thinks that a Perfect God is absurd. I dont.

Does this make what i know absured?

When you ponder on the question about the absolute beginning. How do you start, and how is you beginning?

Do you start out With a absolute empty Space and move from there. Or du you start out some time after the absolute beginning when Space is not absolute empty?

I think this is a very important question: Because a lot of People dont know where they have placed their own theoretical beginning.

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Greylorn

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by Greylorn

 

It is time to eliminate the rift between science and religious creationism (or its alternate incarnation, "intelligent design").

Whoa there! For a decent chat you need to choose one or the other: Religious creationism or intelligent design. The idea of a perfect god is absurd. The idea of this existence being a simulation made by an imperfect intelligence isn't totally impossible, or some scientist in another dimension accidentally spilled something that created our universe. Or, the galaxies in our expanding universe could be blood cells flowing through a creature's veins. All things are possible except for the perfect god-theory.

I agree with you that the notion of a perfect God is absurd. That it why I did not include that notion in my OP.

Not every one thinks that a Perfect God is absurd. I dont.

Does this make what i know absured?

When you ponder on the question about the absolute beginning. How do you start, and how is you beginning?

Do you start out With a absolute empty Space and move from there. Or du you start out some time after the absolute beginning when Space is not absolute empty?

I think this is a very important question: Because a lot of People dont know where they have placed their own theoretical beginning.

Since I don't know what "absured" means I cannot determine how it might apply to your knowledge.

The notion of empty space is absurd, and the "absolute" adjective is extraneous-- "empty" means empty. Of course I do not hypothesize that anything began with an empty space for reasons that should be obvious to the logical mind.

1. Empty space has no boundaries, therefore no boundary conditions.

2. Without boundary conditions it cannot be defined as something that is either mathematically or physically real.

3. If space is empty and has no boundary conditions, it has no properties, no characteristics.

4. It would be absurd and stupid to talk about something that is not real and has no properties, i.e. something that does not exist.

Originally posted by guitarplayer
The natural mind can not comprehend the spiritual

The mind is capable of processing the "shadows" and "footprints" caused by the Presence. I know because I can't shut them off, nor would I ever want them to stop. I do have this constant problem of keeping the Door closed enough so I can remain a functioning being in society with family and responsibilities. I want to be that moth that flies straight into the hot porch light.

reply to post by Greylorn


Hi there.

In the begining there was a monolith. And at the base of the monolith there was a gathering of monkeys... Cue music after one monkey clubs another to death...

Evolution and adaption to the enviroment to me seems the best opinion. The huminoid form gave us ab advantage to do things over mammles can't.

Maybe ET tinkerd with the old grey matter to make us smater too... but that's just the usual guess.

If I went for the "built by God notion", id say the universe existed and God somehow came into being. Something that was selfaware. As it grew it finally did whats natural, and decided to create something... Earth & humanity.
But that's me assuming. And assumption is the mother of all mistakes.

The one thing that is constant in all my theorys about creation, is Space. The cosmos. Whatever aspect I think of, space is there.

So my main theory is, that our creation was possibly something to do with space. We are just a piece in that space.

(que question concerning creation of space lol...)


eee.

Originally posted by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire
reply to post by Greylorn

 

Hi there.

If I went for the "built by God notion", id say the universe existed and God somehow came into being. Something that was selfaware. As it grew it finally did whats natural, and decided to create something... Earth & humanity.
But that's me assuming. And assumption is the mother of all mistakes.

The one thing that is constant in all my theorys about creation, is Space. The cosmos. Whatever aspect I think of, space is there.

So my main theory is, that our creation was possibly something to do with space. We are just a piece in that space.
eee.

You're not as far off the track as most casual theorists. Your idea about God differs from mine in terms of timing. Intelligence preceded the construction of the universe.

Your last notion about space is, IMO, correct. My theory goes into more detail about space and our "creation" (there are two different aspects of it), and includes at least two distinct spaces. We live in a dualistic universe, after all.