Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Interesting PBS Series on Quantum Entanglement

Gil Dodgen
November 23, 2011
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Spooky action at a distance.

Comments
"Don’t feel bad Bruce, I don’t argue with brick walls either." Ah, but Bornagain, you DO. Your metaphor is apt. My philosophy is a brick wall that you and StephenB have been knocking your heads against for over a year in a vain attempt to knock it down. You haven't been satisfied with just expressing your point of view in these posts, and allowing it to stand against mine. No, you have been operating out of some need to prove that my point of view is absurd, irrational, and in conflict with "reality". In doing this, you have set yourself up to fail, because the task is impossible. You are wise to finally give up the effort.Bruce David
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
12:41 PM
12
12
41
PM
PDT
Don't feel bad Bruce, I don't argue with brick walls either. And besides, your doing a far better job than I ever could of pointing out the absurdity of your position. ,,, i.e. All is God, God created God, You are God. I am God. God disagrees with God. Evil is a illusion. Sin is a illusion. Space-Time is a illusion,,, Yada Yada Yada!bornagain77
November 28, 2011
November
11
Nov
28
28
2011
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT
What, Bornagain, you're going to leave the field to me? What about all those poor souls who might be swayed by my new age nonsense? If you abandon them, who's going to point out the absurdity and irrationality of my position and thus save them from a fate worse than death? Aren't you shirking your responsibility here? I'm just asking...Bruce David
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
10:05 PM
10
10
05
PM
PDT
Bruce, I believe what I have previously said more than stands up to your superficial responses (rationalizations). Thus I will not respond anymore.bornagain77
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT
Re. 6.1.1.2.20: Even when we occupy physical bodies, time is an illusion. All there ever is is the eternal Now. The past is just memories or records of various kinds that we perceive in the Now. Likewise for visions, plans, and expectations of the future. This simply becomes more obvious in the place we inhabit between lives (so I've read). So now explain to me exactly how the fact of "eternality of time" as you put it, demonstrates the existence of Hell. Re. 6.1.1.2.21: "Justice" is just a synonym for "judgment, condemnation, and punishment". As such, justice and unconditional love are mutually exclusive. The notion of justice doesn't apply to God at all. The idea that God is infinitely just is an error, invented to get around the obvious objection that God's unconditional love and Hell are incompatible. Furthermore, endless intolerable suffering (burning in the flames through all eternity) for a finite amount of sin (It is impossible to commit an infinite amount of sin in a finite amount of time.) hardly qualifies as justice.Bruce David
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
06:07 PM
6
06
07
PM
PDT
Bruce you have repeatedly brought up God's infinite love to say that hell is logically inconsistent with His character. Yet when we realize that God is also, in being sovereign ruler of the universe, infinitely just, then both hell and Christ's atoning sacrifice make perfect sense. In fact both characteristics of God's infinite love and infinite justice are met in Christ. Thus it is not logically inconsistent at all and makes perfect sense in an imperfect 'sinful' world. In fact the only thing that would be logically inconsistent would be for someone to deny God His essential attribute of infinite justice in dealing with sin and evil. And to deny the reality of evil in this world in so doing. Which is exactly what you have done! Infinite Justice and Infinite Mercy http://www.catholicbasictraining.com/apologetics/coursetexts/6e.htmbornagain77
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT
Well Bruce, just as I figured, you crossbred the two philosophies so as to avoid falsification.,,, None-the-less, despite my 'foolishness' and 'lack of integrity' that you accuse me of after such a tactic, I have in fact shown two very, very, different 'eternalities of time' within the space-time structure of reality. Moreover I have provided 'eyewitness' testimony of 'tunnel transitions' that lends much credible weight to both different types of 'eternalities of time'. Yet you chose your personal opinion about how you think a infinitely just and infinitely loving God should act over the physical evidence and eye witness testimony I provided. Thus you have put your philosophy in a place that is impervious to falsification from either the physical evidence provided and from logical inconsistencies pointed out by StephenB and others. In my 'opinion', since 'opinions' reign supreme in your philosophy, your philosophy and methodology is no better than that of neo-Darwinists.bornagain77
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT
Bornagain, Re. 6.1.1.2.16: "Everything is God" simply means that God created everything that exists out of Himself, much as we create our dreamscapes and everything in them out of ourselves. The difference, of course, is that God does this consciously, and with purpose and deliberate intent, and what He creates is incomprehensibly vaster and more complex than our dreams. Part of what God creates (out of himself) are individuations or localizations of Himself, or souls. These souls from time to time incarnate into human bodies, and include you and me. Since souls are individuations or localizations of Him, they have been created in His "image and likeness". Thus, everything is a part of God, including you and me, and we are created in His image and likeness. Both are true. Here's an analogy. Although it isn't perfect, it does illustrate how something can be a part of something larger, but still in its image and likeness. Consider a hologram. If you break a hologram into parts, each part still produces the entire holographic image. Thus, each such part, while not the whole, can be said to be in the image and likeness of the whole. You know, your whole attitude towards me and my philosophy is an attempt to discredit it. Rather than a respectful give and take in which you truly try to understand my point of view, your approach is to look for points where you can prove that my philosophy is wrong. This is a fundamental mistake: because you never make the effort to understand it, your attempts to discredit me always fail, and you simply end up looking foolish or lacking in integrity. Re. 6.1.1.2.17 & 18: Nothing in this long rumination of the nature of physical reality and time contradicts the fact that unconditional love on one hand and judgment, condemnation, and punishment on the other are mutually exclusive. It is logically contradictory for an unconditionally loving God to create a Hell. There are many possible explanations for how and why someone could have a vision or experience of Hell as described in the video whose link you included, but the explanation that they are witnessing actual reality is not one of them, not if God truly is unconditionally loving.Bruce David
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
further note:
THE EVENT HORIZON (Space-Time Singularity) OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN. - Isabel Piczek - Particle Physicist Excerpt: We have stated before that the images on the Shroud firmly indicate the total absence of Gravity. Yet they also firmly indicate the presence of the Event Horizon. These two seemingly contradict each other and they necessitate the past presence of something more powerful than Gravity that had the capacity to solve the above paradox. http://shroud3d.com/findings/isabel-piczek-image-formation Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US
Music and verse:
Building 429 - The Space in Between Us http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1cDtSHqeuY Luke 16:26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
bornagain77
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
03:55 AM
3
03
55
AM
PDT
Bruce you state:
It (Hell) may be in your reality. In my reality, God is unconditionally loving. That automatically eliminates the possibility of Hell.
I agree, God is unconditionally loving as exemplified by the Cross,,, And yet evil, contrary to your denials, really does exists thus exemplifying the need for the cross in the first place, go figure! Why should your desire for the way you wish reality to be trump the way reality is actually constructed???
John 15:13 "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.
notes as to the two different 'eternalities of time' found in reality: Time, as we understand it, comes to a stop (becomes eternal) at the speed of light: as well the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapes’ into a tunnel shape, (much like a sheet of paper folding and collapsing into a tunnel shape), around the direction of travel, as a ‘hypothetical’ observer accelerates towards the higher dimension of the speed of light (3:22 minute mark of this video).
Traveling At The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/5733303/
Here is the interactive website, with link to the relativistic math at the bottom of the page, related to the preceding video;
Seeing Relativity http://www.anu.edu.au/Physics/Searle/
Whereas there is another higher dimensional tunnel found in reality for a hypothetical observer 'falling into' a black hole;
Space-Time of a Black hole http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0VOn9r4dq8
Time dilation for each scenario is confirmed here:
Time dilation Excerpt: Time dilation: special vs. general theories of relativity: In Albert Einstein’s theories of relativity, time dilation in these two circumstances can be summarized: 1. –In special relativity (or, hypothetically far from all gravitational mass), clocks that are moving with respect to an inertial system of observation are measured to be running slower. (i.e. For any observer accelerating, hypothetically, to the speed of light, time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop). 2.–In general relativity, clocks at lower potentials in a gravitational field—such as in closer proximity to a planet—are found to be running slower. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
In other words, as with any observer accelerating to the speed of light, it is found that for any observer falling into the event horizon of a black hole, that time, as we understand it, will come to a complete stop for them. — But of particularly disturbing interest, to the higher dimensional eternal framework of time found at black holes, it is interesting to note that entropic decay, which is the primary reason why all things grow old in this universe, and even why, ultimately, all living organisms eventually die in this universe, is found to be greatest at black holes. Thus the ‘eternality of time’ at black holes can rightly be called ‘eternalities of decay and/or eternalities of destruction’.
Roger Penrose – How Special Was The Big Bang? “But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or the singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It would appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the WEYL part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear to find is that there is a constraint WEYL = 0 (or something very like this) at initial space-time singularities-but not at final singularities-and this seems to be what confines the Creator’s choice to this very tiny region of phase space.”
Needless to say the implications of this 'eternality of destruction' should be fairly disturbing for those of us who are of the 'spiritually' minded persuasion!
The NDE and the Tunnel – Kevin Williams’ research conclusions Excerpt: I started to move toward the light. The way I moved, the physics, was completely different than it is here on Earth. It was something I had never felt before and never felt since. It was a whole different sensation of motion. I obviously wasn’t walking or skipping or crawling. I was not floating. I was flowing. I was flowing toward the light. I was accelerating and I knew I was accelerating, but then again, I didn’t really feel the acceleration. I just knew I was accelerating toward the light. Again, the physics was different – the physics of motion of time, space, travel. It was completely different in that tunnel, than it is here on Earth. I came out into the light and when I came out into the light, I realized that I was in heaven.(Barbara Springer) Coast to Coast - Blind Since Birth - Vicki's NDE - part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y Near Death Experience – The Tunnel, The Light, The Life Review – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200200/
As well, besides having eye-witness testimony testifying to ‘accelerating up a tunnel to ‘a light”, in near death experiences, we also have ‘eye witness’ testimony of ‘falling down a tunnel’ to hell; A man, near the beginning of this video, gives testimony of falling down a ‘tunnel’ in the transition stage from this world to hell:
Hell – A Warning! – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4131476/
The man, in this following video, also speaks of ‘tumbling down’ a tunnel in his transition stage to hell:
Bill Wiese on Sid Roth – video http://vimeo.com/21230371
Now I am fairly certain that none of these people, who have had Near Death Experiences, know the physics of General, and Special, relativity all that well, so this is fairly stunning confirmation that their testimonies are trustworthy. further note:
If God, Why Evil? (Norman Geisler) – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtOOPaNmJFY
bornagain77
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Bruce 6.1.1.2.15:
I say that I (and you and everyone else) am a PART of God, made in His image and likeness.
Good so far:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Yet Bruce in 11.1.2
Up till this thread, I also looked at the etymology of pantheism and assumed that it meant simply a belief that everything was God.
Thus which is it, did God create man in his image or is everything God??? You can't have it both ways. And flip between positions when it suits you rhetorical purpose.bornagain77
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT
Mike, Up till this thread, I also looked at the etymology of pantheism and assumed that it meant simply a belief that everything was God. But since actually looking up the definition and discovering that pantheism excludes the ideas of a personal and creator god, I realize that my philosophy is not, after all, pantheism, even though I do believe that everything is God, since I hold that God IS personal and the creator of the Universe.Bruce David
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT
Actually, it depends on which definition of "theism" you adopt. By the general definition, "belief in the existence of a god or gods", pantheism is also theism, since it holds that nature and God are identical, and thus believes in the existence of a god. If, however, one adopts the more restrictive definition of theism, "belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world", then pantheism isn't theism, because a personal or creator God is specifically excluded from the definition of pantheism.Bruce David
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
12:48 AM
12
12
48
AM
PDT
Bornagain: "So, according to Bruce, Bruce is a part of God and is also identical with God." No, this is incorrect, as I pointed out in an earlier post. The part is not identical with the whole. Once again, your intense need to prove me wrong causes you to make the most elementary of logical errors. And there is nothing absurd or irrational in the idea that one part of God could disagree with another part of God, if it served His purpose for that to occur. Since you are emotionally unable to countenance the possibility that my philosophical position could be a valid one, you render yourself also unable to understand my philosophy, and thus you are unable to understand my explanation of God's purpose in creating us and the physical universe, so you cannot see how it could serve God's purpose for one part of Him to disagree with another part of Him. If you understood my philosophy, it would be obvious to you. Therefore, my philosophy will always appear absurd to you, even though every effort you make to prove that it is absurd only ends up making you look foolish, intellectually dishonest, or both.Bruce David
November 27, 2011
November
11
Nov
27
27
2011
12:37 AM
12
12
37
AM
PDT
Re 6.1.1.2.13: "Well Bruce, as laid out in post 7.1 and 7.1.1, reality, not your subjective opinion, reveals that hell is a very real possibility within what we can discern of reality." It may be in your reality. In my reality, God is unconditionally loving. That automatically eliminates the possibility of Hell. "I’m sure that is No problem for someone who equates himself with God as you do." Once again, you exhibit your usual dishonesty by distorting my meaning in order to be able to ridicule it and thus win points. You will not find one quote from me anywhere in any blog which can be construed to mean that I equate myself with God. I say that I (and you and everyone else) am a PART of God, made in His image and likeness. Since when does the part equate to the whole?Bruce David
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
09:42 PM
9
09
42
PM
PDT
---Bruce: "There is no evidence that contradicts my philosophy." It is not a question of evidence but rather one of internal inconsistency. A good example may be found below: --Bruce: "Therefore All That Is divided itself into billions of individuations, each an image and likeness of itself. You can call these “souls” if you wish. You and I are included among these individuations." So, according to Bruce, Bruce is a part of God and is also identical with God, as is, Mike1962, Bornagain77, and myself. Since BornAgain 77 and I disagree with Bruce and Mike, it follows that God disagrees with himself. Also, since Bruce thinks He is God and since Bornagain 77 and I don't think we are God, it follows that God thinks He is God and also doesn't think He is God. It doesn't get any more absurd or irrational than that.StephenB
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
09:24 PM
9
09
24
PM
PDT
Re 6.1.1.2.12: I have not changed my philosophy one iota, not one dotted i or crossed t, not by an angstrom unit. All I did was look up the dictionary definition of pantheism and realize that my philosophy doesn't satisfy the meaning that term. I freely admitted my ignorance regarding the meaning of that word. You, however, then take that admission and try to turn it into a philosophical inconsistency on my part so that you can label my position absurd. You are either too stupid to understand what I actually said or you did understand it but had the hypocrisy to ignore what you understand in a petty attempt to win points in this debate we are having. Just like most Darwinists attempting to refute ID, you don't grapple with my actual arguments. Rather, you spend your words in vain attempts to twist what I say into something that you can label "absurd", "irrational", or some such. You really need to know how transparent your efforts are. Their only effect is to make you look like a petulant child trying to win at any cost, even to the point of serious compromise of your integrity. You do NO service to the cause in which you labor (the promotion of Christian thinking). O, wad some Power the giftie gie us/To see oursels as others see us!/It wad frae monie a blunder free us/An' foolish notion. Robbie BurnsBruce David
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
Mike1962: Pantheism is theism by definition
BA77: Really??? Why are they two different words then??? Pantheism is one form of theism. Pan "all", theism "Godism." I didn't mean to say that pantheism is the only form of theism. I think that's obvious.mike1962
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Well Bruce, as laid out in post 7.1 and 7.1.1, reality, not your subjective opinion, reveals that hell is a very real possibility within what we can discern of reality. ,,, But hey Bruce, that's just reality itself giving us that clue! :) I'm sure that is No problem for someone who equates himself with God as you do.bornagain77
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
06:55 PM
6
06
55
PM
PDT
Bruce you state, after a long lecture of me not refuting your philosophy (and defending pantheism for months on these very threads), this priceless statement, 'I am a theist but NOT a pantheist.' For crying out loud Bruce, :) you, by your own admission, don't even hold to a consistent position in philosophy wherewith to form a stable heuristic in science! :) (Which I, and several others have been pointing out to you for months) Whereas my Christian philosophy has varied not one iota! I can just shake my head at the absurdity of it all! this is exactly what I meant by forever moldable philosophy that you possess. I'm sure you will claim something else tomorrow!bornagain77
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
"So does God send parts of God to hell at the judgement Almighty Bruce?" Of course not. This is one reason that I am convinced that there is no Hell (and no judgement). Why would God punish a part of Himself? What possible purpose could be served by that? You're beginning to understand. Congratulations!Bruce David
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
06:27 PM
6
06
27
PM
PDT
Bornagain: You said, "Yet Jesus is alive right now and ‘is here’ for anyone to ask (That’s the WHOLE point of Christianity Bruce!)" You then followed this by some Biblical passages in support of this statement. In the first place, that is NOT "the whole point of Christianity". The whole point of Christianity, by your own admission, is to be saved from suffering in Hell for all eternity by accepting Jesus as one's personal savior, since this is the only way that (a supposedly unconditionally loving) God will forgive us for our "sins". Secondly, Bible quotes are not going to change the fact that when given a particular moral dilemma or difficult decision to be made, a Catholic will get one answer from Jesus, an ecumenical Christian another, a Southern Baptist a third, a member of the Missouri Synod a fourth, and so on. Furthermore, individual members of each group will get different answers as well. By any normal definition of the term, this makes WWJD a subjective approach. The fact is, Bornagain, there IS no objective morality. This is one point about which many Christians delude themselves. ALL morality is subjective. Re. 6.1.1.2.3: You speak of "the reason why [science] never developed in pantheistic cultures" as if you actually knew what the reason was. Again, you express an unsupported opinion as though it were established fact. Leaving aside the fact that your term, "pantheistic culture", is a vague generality which in all probability has no specific meaning, your statement is pure speculation. You say, "Thus from a pantheistic perspective it is pointless for someone to study the material world as objectively real, hoping to understand it, since it is merely illusory." Speaking for myself, I find the study of the material world is actually enhanced by my philosophical perspective, since from that perspective, studying the material world is illuminating the awesome and stunning intelligence and creativity of the mind of God. I love to study science for exactly that reason. I find it awe inspiring (Literally--it inspires awe in me.) to contemplate the elegance and perfection of the design of the virtual world we inhabit. "[Y]ou said that I did not address this ‘illusory’ point of yours, yet a few days ago, in post 7, I held that material is not as illusory as you were making out to be." In #6, you imply that there is evidence that "directly contradicts" my philosophy. I have challenged you several times to come up with some such evidence. You have not. In fact, you have not even addressed my philosophy (laid out in summary once again in 6.1.1,2). I can find no place in #7 where you address my philosophy at all. If you disagree, give me a quote from #7 where you do so. "Bruce’s absurd claim in 6.1 that ‘pantheism IS theism’... i.e. that black is white?" Well, this is very interesting. I went to the dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary, 1989) to find out the official definitions of the two terms. I found that "theism" is defined to be "belief in the existence of a god or gods", so by that definition I am certainly a theist. What surprised me is that the definition of pantheism is "the doctrine of identifying the Deity with the various forces and workings of nature." I have always understood pantheism to mean the belief that everything that exists is a part of God. By that definition, pantheism is a species of theism, and so I was both. However, it appears I was wrong about the definition of pantheism, so I stand corrected. I am a theist but NOT a pantheist.Bruce David
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
mike As to: 'Pantheism is theism by definition.' Really??? Why are they two different words then??? I looked and pantheism and it did not say 'see theism'
pan·the·ism (pnth-zm) n. 1. A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Pantheism Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God (or divinity) are identical.[1] Pantheists thus do not believe in a personal, anthropomorphic or creator god. ,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism
whereas I looked up theism and it did not say 'see pantheism'
the·ism (thzm) n. Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theism
HMMM???bornagain77
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT
BA77: "are you a pantheist to? i.e. Do you hold the strict meaning of the word illusion as the pantheist does?"
I suspect that space-time is a computed reality, that sub-atomic "objects" are values in a virtual reality. This explains the non-intuitive features of QM quite handily. What the computing medium is I haven't a clue. Maybe it's the Creator itself. Maybe it's something else created by the Creator. I don't know. And I think it's beyond the purview of humans to determine it.
"more specifically do you agree with Bruce’s absurd claim in 6.1 that ‘pantheism IS theism’??? i.e. that black is white?"
Pantheism is theism by definition. Bruce is basically stating the advaidic vendanta view that Brahman "fragments" in the sense producing lots of individuated "souls" or "spirits" each with an individual point of consciousness, all the while staying Brahman with a "core" of infinite consciousness that is differentiated from the individual consciousnesses. Such a view is certainly theistic in the common definition. Do I believe it? No. But I don't disbelieve it either. I don't believe or reject anything that specific. I have no way of knowing the details of the ontological differences between myself, others, and the Ground of All Being. Better to take a humble position of such things. Pragmatically, what matters to me is the Golden Rule. But I am intrigued by the ideas of others.mike1962
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT
Bruce "Does this answer your question satisfactorily?" Yes. Thanks.mike1962
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
So does God send parts of God to hell at the judgement Almighty Bruce?bornagain77
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Mike1962: "So, in your view, what are 'we', the points of consciousness attached to this virtual reality (via brains within the VR) that are experiencing this VR?" Excellent question. In my view, there is only One absolute existence, as I have said. You can call the One existence God, if you wish, or The All, or All That Is, or whatever term you are most comfortable with. The All wished to experience its magnificence. It could know, intellectually, that it was magnificent, but the experience was impossible because to experience something, "not that" has to be present in experience as well. When all there is is magnificence, magnificence ceases to be. Therefore All That Is divided itself into billions of individuations, each an image and likeness of itself. You can call these "souls" if you wish. You and I are included among these individuations. It also created the virtual reality we experience as physical reality, and some of us souls agreed to immerse ourselves in this virtual reality, temporarily forgetting Who We Really Are in order to have the experience of limitation, the opposite of our magnificence, so that we, and through us, who are parts of Him, God, can remember Who We Really Are and in the process have the exquisite EXPERIENCE of our and His magnificence. Does this answer your question satisfactorily?Bruce David
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
mike1962, more specifically do you agree with Bruce's absurd claim in 6.1 that 'pantheism IS theism'??? i.e. that black is white?bornagain77
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
mike1962, are you a pantheist to? i.e. Do you hold the strict meaning of the word illusion as the pantheist does?bornagain77
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
12:05 PM
12
12
05
PM
PDT
Bruce, I know, besides the divinity of Jesus, that you have attacked the integrity of the Bible from time to time. To which I thought you might find the following interesting:
Undesigned Coincidences (evidence for the historicity of the Gospels) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGVLeC5HbSQ
bornagain77
November 26, 2011
November
11
Nov
26
26
2011
11:59 AM
11
11
59
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply