X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>> quibbler wrote:
>> >God is so fundamental that we can find absolutely no evidence in material reality
>> >for god?
>>
>> If you are completely deluded with a perception of a virtual reality,
>> you can hardly find any evidence for the existence of the computer.
>
>I believe the term for your above comment is ignorantio elenchi.

Actually, the term for your above comment is non sequitur. Look that
up and then come back to me.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>> >Again, you have neglected the possibility that the first fluctuation
>> >happens simultaneously with the emergence of time.
>> Exactly, because without time, there are no events,
>
>Look you stupid, fucking, moron, I just told you at least 3 times that
>time arose at the same time as the matter creation.

Listen, you ignorant, motherfucking son of a bitch, :) I told you
several times that any change of states implies time, and therefore,
if time is created with the space, it cannot exist prior to the event
of creation, and therefore the event itself can never come to be,
because everything is frozen into static nonexistence, in which there
is no change, no quantum fluctuations, nothing, and since time, space
and matter imply each other, this means that there was no space, and
no matter - not even the singularity, not even the quantums, nothing.
If you define this universe as the totality of existence, all events
freeze with the singularity, and any change of that condition is not
possible, except by external force. This is not a proof of God, but
it's reason enough not to believe that this universe came out of
nothing, or that it existed eternally. It was created, and the force
that created it was not bound by any laws of our universe, because
those laws were created with the universe. This is why any attempt to
seek God within this universe or its laws is doomed; God is the
reality of a higher order, completely unbound with this universe and
its laws.
As for the relationship of God's time and world's time, it resembles
the difference of time within a dream and physical time; in a dream,
the time came to be with the beginning of the dream, and will end when
the dreamer awakens. Deduction regarding the creation of a dream
cannot be done within the dream, because it didn't exist eternally,
nor did it create itself; it is merely a figment of the dreamer's
mind. All of that applies to our universe.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Adam Meadows

Adam Meadows wrote:
>On 30 Jun 2001, ColinBlackburn wrote:
>
>> Dear Readers,
>> What if our Creator detests sin simply because of the
>> twisting effect that it has on us psychologically.
>
>Then if we simply don't let sin twist us, we should be fine! ;)
>
>Guilt is why sin is bad. I like it.

No, the guilt is the only positive thing about sin, because it is the
voice of your conscience, telling you that you're on the wrong track.
Guilt shows the way back, through remorse into freedom.

(where "sin" is defined as every choice of thought or action that
differs from alignment with God, where every act of alignment with God
creates the feeling of rightness, and the opposite creates the feeling
of wrongness, because God, the ultimate reality, is the absolute
measure of right and wrong)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>> (meaning, either change of states, or
>> velocity). No time, no quantum fluctuations, no universe.
>
>Again, you have neglected the possibility that the first fluctuation
>happens simultaneously with the emergence of time.

Exactly, because without time, there are no events, which includes the
fluctuations. Without time, nothing ever happens, and nothing can ever
happen.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>God is so fundamental that we can find absolutely no evidence in material reality
>for god?

If you are completely deluded with a perception of a virtual reality,
you can hardly find any evidence for the existence of the computer.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Zoran Znidari?

"Zoran Znidari?" wrote:
>Tu dolazi transcendentalna meditacija. Ona podjednako razvija sve potencijle
>ljudskog mozga, i "musku" i "zensku" polutku mozga, tako da dolazimo do
>stvarnja vrlo integrirane i objedinjene licnosti.

Ma daj mi nadji primjer jedne objedinjene i cjelovite licnosti koja je
do toga dosla praksom TMa.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Matti Lamprhey

"Matti Lamprhey" wrote:
>In another group the proposition "Water is wet" was suggested as "something
>we can all agree on".
>
>Does everyone here agree?

Depends on the temperature. :)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: Denis Simoda

"Denis Simoda" wrote:

>> >Moram znati sto nije, da bi znao sto je. Bio sam prilicno odusevljen
>> >knjigom Razgovori s Bogom. Tamo se dosta raspravlja o svjesti o
>> >onome sto nije, u nama i u svijetu. Sto ti kazes?
>>
>> Nije losa.
>
>Drzis li da je u razgovorima sudjelovao Bog ili je samo Neelova zena?
>Prica o Brahmanu kao o krajnjem aspektu, s naglaskom povratka
>u svijet relativnog (materijalni, ne duhovni) gdje onda dusa uvijek
>ponovo i ponovo ocituje novu verziju Sebe. Nista o duhovnom
>nebu "relacija", u koje kad netko ode, nikada se vise ne vraca.

:)) Vidim da malo previse gledas svijet kroz Hare Krishna naocale. :)

On prica o tome da je poanta zivota u ovom svijetu (izmedju ostalih) u
tome da okruzeni svim i svacim odaberemo sto drzimo sobom, i da
stanemo svojom egzistencijom iza takvog izbora. Dakle kad se prema
necemu odredis, istodobno odredjujes i sebe. Kad velis da je nesto
zlo, time u stvari govoris da je nespojivo s tvojom prirodom, odnosno,
da to odbacujes. Kad velis da je nesto dobro, to u stvari znaci da to
dozivljavas kao odraz svoje prirode i svojih izbora. E sad, kad
dozivljavas Boga kao svoj krajnji izbor, onda vlastitu narav
dozivljavas kao Bozansku, a posljedica toga je sloboda od daljnjeg
petljanja s nizim stvarima. Sto se desava nakon toga, pa, recimo da ti
je egzistencija od kvalitete odabranog.
Iz dubine te teorije ocigledno je da je netko pametan sudjelovao u
njenom nastanku, a ako je to Neelova zena, onda je pametnija od
Prabhupadinog Krsne. ;)

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>> This can happen only if you have a bad definition of God.
>
>No. For one thing, all definitions of god are bad. There is not one that is
>coherent.

God is the fundamental reality.

What is incoherent with this definition? Or are you just ignorant of
any coherent concept of God?

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org

X-Ftn-To: quibbler

quibbler wrote:
>> Well, you can try, but, this definition is hard to sustain. Big Bang
>> had a cause;
>
>No. Quantum fluctations are not caused at least according to Quantum
>Electrodynamics. They are random.

:)))
And where did those quantum fluctuations take place? AFAIK, every
quantum function implies time (meaning, either change of states, or
velocity). No time, no quantum fluctuations, no universe. If you stop
the time, everything in this universe goes bye-bye. It can't cause
itself because it does not exist. So, you need God in order to have
the universe, and God is not a part of the layer of "reality" in which
this universe exists; it would be more appropriate to say that this
universe is merely God's dream of a sort.

--
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org