Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Definitions of God and Satan

pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:07:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
God- Mans definition of the phenomena behind the energies of the universe.

This energy was the initial start of the expansion of our universe.

All matter is or was manipulated by this energy.

This energy has evolved our universe and is essentially what made us evolve from microbes to a species.

This energy generates our thoughts and actions to this day.

The understanding and discussion of the energies existence and evolution is what has built up our knowledge of science and philosophies today and thus is the energy behind collective thought.

Satan (devil) - Mans perception of all evil in the world.

Evil only comes from irrational or greedy decisions by man.

Evil can not be created without the use of a persons free will and ignorance.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:18:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:13:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I can't trust you!! You're pozessed!

If I really am possessed, what I say should be of even more significance whether it is good or evil.

Unless what I talk about seems like annoying rubbish, then you can disregard what I say as you think I'd be mentally handicapped.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:20:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:18:00 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/11/2012 6:13:28 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I can't trust you!! You're pozessed!

If I really am possessed, what I say should be of even more significance whether it is good or evil.

Unless what I talk about seems like annoying rubbish, then you can disregard what I say as you think I'd be mentally handicapped.

I don't think you're mentally handicapped, but I would be inclined to consider your statement that god is man's definition of the phenomena of the natural world to be rubbish.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:25:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think you're mentally handicapped, but I would be inclined to consider your statement that god is man's definition of the phenomena of the natural world to be rubbish.

Please do express your opinion on why you find it to be rubbish.

When you state your claims please provide proof of your claims if you believe proof will be needed.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:39:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:25:55 PM, pozessed wrote:
I don't think you're mentally handicapped, but I would be inclined to consider your statement that god is man's definition of the phenomena of the natural world to be rubbish.

Please do express your opinion on why you find it to be rubbish.

When you state your claims please provide proof of your claims if you believe proof will be needed.

If god were man's explanation for the phenomena of the universe, then the reason provided for why the earth orbits the sun (as an example) would be God. However, gravity is the explanation of why the earth orbits the sun. And General Relativity is an explanation for gravity. At best, you can stick God in as an explanation for why things exist, however such a claim can not be empirically supported, and in any case God would not be man's definition for the phenomena of the universe, he would be an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:46:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:25:55 PM, pozessed wrote:
I don't think you're mentally handicapped, but I would be inclined to consider your statement that god is man's definition of the phenomena of the natural world to be rubbish.

Please do express your opinion on why you find it to be rubbish.

When you state your claims please provide proof of your claims if you believe proof will be needed.

I didn't see your proof, got one?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:51:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:39:00 PM, Enji wrote:
If god were man's explanation for the phenomena of the universe, then the reason provided for why the earth orbits the sun (as an example) would be God. However, gravity is the explanation of why the earth orbits the sun. And General Relativity is an explanation for gravity. At best, you can stick God in as an explanation for why things exist, however such a claim can not be empirically supported, and in any case God would not be man's definition for the phenomena of the universe, he would be an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

Everything you describe is the aftermath of the energy that expanded the universe.
According to my definition of God, you described Gods abilities. This would contradicts your claim that God is not the phenomena behind the energy in our universe.
In my opinion our universe was either pre-programmed to evolve, or our universe has a conscious thought process all of its own.

If my definition were to be correct God would not only be an explanation to our existence but a better understanding of how to use and discuss our knowledge and attain better collective thought.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:52:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:46:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/11/2012 6:25:55 PM, pozessed wrote:
I don't think you're mentally handicapped, but I would be inclined to consider your statement that god is man's definition of the phenomena of the natural world to be rubbish.

Please do express your opinion on why you find it to be rubbish.

When you state your claims please provide proof of your claims if you believe proof will be needed.

I didn't see your proof, got one?


lol, I was just gonna say that..
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 6:53:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:46:43 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/11/2012 6:25:55 PM, pozessed wrote:
I don't think you're mentally handicapped, but I would be inclined to consider your statement that god is man's definition of the phenomena of the natural world to be rubbish.

Please do express your opinion on why you find it to be rubbish.

When you state your claims please provide proof of your claims if you believe proof will be needed.

I didn't see your proof, got one?

Proof to what?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 7:00:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:51:33 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/11/2012 6:39:00 PM, Enji wrote:
If god were man's explanation for the phenomena of the universe, then the reason provided for why the earth orbits the sun (as an example) would be God. However, gravity is the explanation of why the earth orbits the sun. And General Relativity is an explanation for gravity. At best, you can stick God in as an explanation for why things exist, however such a claim can not be empirically supported, and in any case God would not be man's definition for the phenomena of the universe, he would be an explanation for why there is something rather than nothing.

Everything you describe is the aftermath of the energy that expanded the universe.
According to my definition of God, you described Gods abilities. This would contradicts your claim that God is not the phenomena behind the energy in our universe.
In my opinion our universe was either pre-programmed to evolve, or our universe has a conscious thought process all of its own.

If my definition were to be correct God would not only be an explanation to our existence but a better understanding of how to use and discuss our knowledge and attain better collective thought.

In order for you to be correct, you must show that God is a necessary cause of the universe's existence. Otherwise, God is merely one sufficient cause.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 7:09:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 7:00:46 PM, Enji wrote:
In order for you to be correct, you must show that God is a necessary cause of the universe's existence. Otherwise, God is merely one sufficient cause.

http://www.youtube.com...

God is the phenomena that created the energy.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 7:11:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 7:09:24 PM, pozessed wrote:
God is the phenomena that created the energy.

I meant to say created and distributed the energies.

Can we not edit posts?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 7:14:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 7:09:24 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/11/2012 7:00:46 PM, Enji wrote:
In order for you to be correct, you must show that God is a necessary cause of the universe's existence. Otherwise, God is merely one sufficient cause.

http://www.youtube.com...

God is the phenomena that created the energy.

I'm not arguing against the Big Bang theory, however M-theory provides an explanation of the pre-big-bang conditions that eliminates the need of a god. The occurrence of the Big Bang is not proof of a god; god could be considered a sufficient cause for the Big Bang, however other sufficient causes also exist.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2012 7:30:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 7:14:36 PM, Enji wrote:
I'm not arguing against the Big Bang theory, however M-theory provides an explanation of the pre-big-bang conditions that eliminates the need of a god. The occurrence of the Big Bang is not proof of a god; god could be considered a sufficient cause for the Big Bang, however other sufficient causes also exist.

My understanding of M-theory is that it is a build up of universes that are better described as parrallel dimentions.
The reason I say this is because the information I have learned states that a new universe is created every time a natural occurence happens.
What that means is- every time something happens in nature, a universe is created for every possible occurence that could potentially happen from the natural effects.

For this theory to be correct memory of what naturally happened has to be sustained from a single point entirely.

Skip to 21:00 of this video to hear a decent description of the M-verse I'm talking about.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2012 10:07:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Nobody is going to refute my claims any further? Would this not be a link to science and God if it were true?
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 11:03:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
M-theory is not the Many Worlds theory, it is a variation of string theory.

According to Stephen Hawking, "M-Theory does not disprove God, but it makes him unnecessary. It predicts that the universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing, without the need for a creator."

Thus, God is not necessarily behind the energy of the universe. In order for your definition to be correct, you need to provide evidence to support your definition.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 11:50:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 11:03:00 AM, Enji wrote:
M-theory is not the Many Worlds theory, it is a variation of string theory.

According to Stephen Hawking, "M-Theory does not disprove God, but it makes him unnecessary. It predicts that the universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing, without the need for a creator."

Thus, God is not necessarily behind the energy of the universe. In order for your definition to be correct, you need to provide evidence to support your definition.

If I'm not mistaken isn't that what I just went over? I may have used universes or universe as the wrong description but I could of sworn M-theory is what those videos were talking about.

Either way, if Hawkings concept includes various "strings" that are seemingly interconnected and have similar characteristics of each other, then I argue that there has to be a form of memory in order for these "strings" to replicate each other.

If I am not mistaken these strings are connected via quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is when 2 particles are fused together and then separated again but now they have a "special connection."
No mater how far in space and time these entangled particles are from each other, they will mimic the others actions immediately.
The "special connection" in my opinion is a transfer of information. Which could ultimately be described as communication.

I assume I am talking about the same string theory as you. If not please enlighten me.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 12:32:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 7:30:47 PM, pozessed wrote:

My understanding of M-theory is that it is a build up of universes that are better described as parrallel dimentions.
The reason I say this is because the information I have learned states that a new universe is created every time a natural occurence happens.

This is Many Worlds theory. This is not M-Theory. M-theory is a unifying string theory (string theory is the theory that elementary particles are made up of vibrating strings, however there are several different versions of string theory which seem to work; m-theory brings these together).

At 10/15/2012 11:50:08 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/15/2012 11:03:00 AM, Enji wrote:
M-theory is not the Many Worlds theory, it is a variation of string theory.

According to Stephen Hawking, "M-Theory does not disprove God, but it makes him unnecessary. It predicts that the universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing, without the need for a creator."

Thus, God is not necessarily behind the energy of the universe. In order for your definition to be correct, you need to provide evidence to support your definition.

If I'm not mistaken isn't that what I just went over? I may have used universes or universe as the wrong description but I could of sworn M-theory is what those videos were talking about.

The part you directed me to (26:00) was about many worlds theory, not M-Theory. I didn't sit here for 45 minutes watching your video, sorry.

Either way, if Hawkings concept includes various "strings" that are seemingly interconnected and have similar characteristics of each other, then I argue that there has to be a form of memory in order for these "strings" to replicate each other.

If I am not mistaken these strings are connected via quantum entanglement. Quantum entanglement is when 2 particles are fused together and then separated again but now they have a "special connection."
No mater how far in space and time these entangled particles are from each other, they will mimic the others actions immediately.
The "special connection" in my opinion is a transfer of information. Which could ultimately be described as communication.

I assume I am talking about the same string theory as you. If not please enlighten me.

Quantum entanglement does not violate any laws of quantum-mechanics or string theory. How does this prove that god is 'the phenomena behind the energies of the universe'?
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 1:56:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:07:47 PM, pozessed wrote:
God- Mans definition of the phenomena behind the energies of the universe.

This energy was the initial start of the expansion of our universe.

All matter is or was manipulated by this energy.

This energy has evolved our universe and is essentially what made us evolve from microbes to a species.

This energy generates our thoughts and actions to this day.

The understanding and discussion of the energies existence and evolution is what has built up our knowledge of science and philosophies today and thus is the energy behind collective thought.

Would you be surprised if that energy that pattern physicality makes a stacked shape arrangement that is directly reflected in the human body?



Satan (devil) - Mans perception of all evil in the world.

Evil only comes from irrational or greedy decisions by man.

Evil can not be created without the use of a persons free will and ignorance.

Satan is directly translated as adversary. So could not God when developing universal consciousnesses, also develop an antagonist? Something to accelerate choice and change?
DanielChristopherBlowes
Posts: 1,066
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 4:52:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/11/2012 6:07:47 PM, pozessed wrote:
God- Mans definition of the phenomena behind the energies of the universe.

This energy was the initial start of the expansion of our universe.

So this energy is eternal?

All matter is or was manipulated by this energy.

So this energy Has purpose?

This energy has evolved our universe and is essentially what made us evolve from microbes to a species.

So this energy has power and intelligence?

This energy generates our thoughts and actions to this day.

So this this energy is involved in our lives?

The understanding and discussion of the energies existence and evolution is what has built up our knowledge of science and philosophies today and thus is the energy behind collective thought.

Wow.. Sounds like God to me! (apart from the evolution claptrap)


Satan (devil) - Mans perception of all evil in the world.

Evil only comes from irrational or greedy decisions by man.

Evil can not be created without the use of a persons free will and ignorance.

evil is the absence of good, of God.. Just as darkness is the absence of light.
Everyone on the side of Truth listens to Me. (Jesus Christ)
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 5:15:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 12:32:48 PM, Enji wrote:
Quantum entanglement does not violate any laws of quantum-mechanics or string theory. How does this prove that god is 'the phenomena behind the energies of the universe'?

No, no I wasn't saying QE violated laws of QM, I was saying QE seems like conscious communication between the 2 particles, which hypothetically could be conscious energy on the most minute scale.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 5:28:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 1:56:18 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
Would you be surprised if that energy that pattern physicality makes a stacked shape arrangement that is directly reflected in the human body?

No sir I wouldn't be surprised to learn that DNA was formed from this energy, nor would I be surprised if this energy created all such spiral phenomenons using a magnetic vortex from the beginning of expansion to form all the spirals we describe in our universe today.

Satan is directly translated as adversary. So could not God when developing universal consciousnesses, also develop an antagonist? Something to accelerate choice and change?
I don't think he had to create him, I think man created him. I believe that since God gave us complete free will over our rationality, irrationality was going to be an obvious flaw. Therefore he let us create satan in order to gain knowledge of evil thoughts without actually acting upon them, but once we started acting upon our devilish thoughts we had to give them a definition.
In order to maintain our innocence and get to heaven we called all evil deeds sin, and blamed it on the devil so we wouldn't have to hold ourselves accountable for our own actions.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 5:31:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 4:52:48 PM, DanielChristopherBlowes wrote:
At 10/11/2012 6:07:47 PM, pozessed wrote:
God- Mans definition of the phenomena behind the energies of the universe.

This energy was the initial start of the expansion of our universe.

So this energy is eternal?

All matter is or was manipulated by this energy.

So this energy Has purpose?

This energy has evolved our universe and is essentially what made us evolve from microbes to a species.

So this energy has power and intelligence?

This energy generates our thoughts and actions to this day.

So this this energy is involved in our lives?

The understanding and discussion of the energies existence and evolution is what has built up our knowledge of science and philosophies today and thus is the energy behind collective thought.

Wow.. Sounds like God to me! (apart from the evolution claptrap)


Satan (devil) - Mans perception of all evil in the world.

Evil only comes from irrational or greedy decisions by man.

Evil can not be created without the use of a persons free will and ignorance.

evil is the absence of good, of God.. Just as darkness is the absence of light.
The answer to your questions are yes and It sounds at the least intriguing and worth looking into as something with "God like" tendencies.

I agree with you about evil.

Thank you for your input. =)
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 5:57:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 5:15:49 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/15/2012 12:32:48 PM, Enji wrote:
Quantum entanglement does not violate any laws of quantum-mechanics or string theory. How does this prove that god is 'the phenomena behind the energies of the universe'?

No, no I wasn't saying QE violated laws of QM, I was saying QE seems like conscious communication between the 2 particles, which hypothetically could be conscious energy on the most minute scale.

What about communication between a central point of light through the quantum substrate with a surrounding ceiling of omnipresent light?

This would be the origin of the E=m^2 relationship. E = the quantum matrice, m = a real point of matter at the center and c^2 = the OP light ceiling.

This is also why light behaves as a particle and a wave. An "influx" manifests as a particle, an "out-flux" manifests as a wave form.

The quantum field have 2 "components" the star-tetrahedral frozen light matrice and the space in between the lines. The void space is the origin of QE.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 6:05:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 5:28:20 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 10/15/2012 1:56:18 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
Would you be surprised if that energy that pattern physicality makes a stacked shape arrangement that is directly reflected in the human body?

No sir I wouldn't be surprised to learn that DNA was formed from this energy, nor would I be surprised if this energy created all such spiral phenomenons using a magnetic vortex from the beginning of expansion to form all the spirals we describe in our universe today.

I have found through an equation that DNA is formed in saturate nebular clouds by features that issue from the galactic core. Beam tubes that are the braided influence of the higher order flows you are alluding to. A galactic core is a precipitate of those forces. Top down model, not bottom up.

Here's a preliminary...

Infinity (OP light) hides itself in 3 directions to make relativity possible.

It clears a sphere creating a ceiling of light (10v, c^2), a central point of light (1v, m) and a frozen substrate of light that is the inverse of the OPL mathematical shape (E). That substrate is the quantum planck matrice and it has 8 vectors existing as star-tetrahedral matrice. Bottom scale. Truth/waters. E=mc^2

9 vectors is the void space in-between the quantum tetra-star matrice lines and in the origin of quantum entanglement.

So in a beginning, 10,9,8 and 1 are all formed in the same contractive instant. Ceiling, substrata, space and floor.

When light expresses itself again now inside a fixed volume it has to keep moving to remain light so it forms a rotating torus. The central line/axis of the torus is 2v, 2 possible directions but one direction of flow. One Path. Two choices, with or against Life. This is the rod of iron.

The toruses expansion at the bottom and up the inside of the sphere into the 7 colors is 7v. So at this 2nd step both 2 and 7v are formed at the same instant.

The perfectly straight central axis allows a perfectly flat sphere dividing wheel to be spun. An upper and lower hemisphere. This is step 3.

There is one more step of vector equilibrious light unfoldment and stacking before material creation is formed. This makes a toroidal feature above the wheel (anti-matter) and toroidal feature below (matter) Step 4

Step 5 is the creation of a galaxy by condensive implosion. The fractal implosion of light has reach solidity and can now create a standing wave recursion of light projecting outwards through physical vehicles in harmony with the Over-Light.

Mankind is step 6 of this equation....and we are at the tail end of this step, learning to project in harmony with all that has come before us so that it may rejoice (re-braid, inhabit) us and we rise as One into a new eternal growth spiral. =)
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 6:11:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So inside the universal sphere contains a primary torus with a total 4 inner nested toroids (inside like the outside, above like the below). 2 (one side the other) inside the top hemisphere and 2 underneath. Vector equilibrious counter balance.

Now look at your hands and feet.

Now look at your body. Specifically your alimentary canal and two shoulders and two hips.

Also the origin of the circle of 4ths/spiral of 5ths musical relationship.

Five fused toroids....now look at your sacrum.

I could go and on and on ;)
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 6:13:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 5:57:54 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
What about communication between a central point of light through the quantum substrate with a surrounding ceiling of omnipresent light?

This would be the origin of the E=m^2 relationship. E = the quantum matrice, m = a real point of matter at the center and c^2 = the OP light ceiling.

This is also why light behaves as a particle and a wave. An "influx" manifests as a particle, an "out-flux" manifests as a wave form.

The quantum field have 2 "components" the star-tetrahedral frozen light matrice and the space in between the lines. The void space is the origin of QE.

Well to be quite honest I am new to the world of physics and have no idea about what you just said.
You have propelled me towards a new realm of knowledge that I need to gather information on in order to give an at least seemingly appropriate response.
I'll have to indulge in some web browsing to understand exactly what your saying.
Ill let you know a conclusion in a day or 2.
If you wouldn't mind sending me some information that would help me get a better understanding of hat your describing I'd be more than happy to do some research.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2012 6:17:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 10/15/2012 6:11:56 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
So inside the universal sphere contains a primary torus with a total 4 inner nested toroids (inside like the outside, above like the below). 2 (one side the other) inside the top hemisphere and 2 underneath. Vector equilibrious counter balance.

Now look at your hands and feet.

Now look at your body. Specifically your alimentary canal and two shoulders and two hips.

Also the origin of the circle of 4ths/spiral of 5ths musical relationship.

Five fused toroids....now look at your sacrum.

I could go and on and on ;)

It does sound like you have informative knowledge, could you please share some of the things that you have been researching, with references, so I can learn from them to?