Jump to content

The Mortal God


YoungGuyver
 Share

Recommended Posts

I was reading on M-theory a while back, and how some versions of it suggest how we might survive the death of our universe. How not only we might escape into an alternate dimension, but how we might possibly create a new universe with just and ounce of energy (all the positive and negative energy almost cancel out, leaving just an ounce worth). That's very interesting when I started reading the bible again last year, when some of these crazy theories start stirring some things that most would say come from science fiction.

Things like this:

If this universe were created, and -this- planet were added in later through a dimensional gate way... if it's core were a dimensional gate that allowed it the planet's mass to come through? I really want to take particle samples from deep into the crust and compare it to particles from off world.

Such an extraordinary, yet mechanical creation of our world is disturbing. If indeed our world has a trans dimensional genesis, then it very well suggests why our world was created. The 'why' suggests that our gods may have been mortal. As an explanation for their actions, I find it very scary. In terms of repercussions any way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

so perhaps our earth is older than our universe?

i can't imagine the kind of maths needed to launch a planet into anothr universe. it's hard enough to make a rocket slingshot round the moon knowing the mass etc.

a whole planet being set into a steady orbit around a star? through a dimensional gateway? while the star is hurtling at incredible speeds away from it's source of creation? and also spiralling around a central point in the milky way?

that takes some damn complex maths!

how do they get all the variables right? is there many attempts at this?

do they experiment with lots of planets first?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer any of that would require more information.

Many problems are seemingly complex until you find ways to engineer them out. What if, for instance, objects of extreme gravity were attracted through the dimensional fabrics? What if every star was naturally attracted to a counterpart across the dimensional threshold due? That would be a great way to cheat. Unfortunately, we would have to understand the exact nature between the dimensions before we could answer that question. And before bothering to enter that entire line of research, one might have to test to see if Earth is indeed extra dimensional. Hence, the particle test, assuming it hasn't been contaminated.

And of course, we would never know if they tested with other planets before unless we saw exact evidence. A theory requires scrutiny, and experimentation. Not ridicule without serious thought. This is the closest I've come in recent years to believing in the bible. It's not my fault if I suspect that Yaweh might be evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hold on, i hope i didn't cause offence?

i wasn't ridiculing anything if that is what you are saying.

i'm not sure exactly where you are coming from with this, if you are dead serious, or just playing with some thoughts.

perhaps you could elaborate more on your thoughts and why you came across this specifically and also i'm interested in learning why you would consider yhwh to be evil.

ps, do you notice that evil is the mirror of live and is only six letters away from love?

ijklmno

or if you just count vowels, it is only 1 letter away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took offense because you were asking logistics questions that would only be asked if questioning the reality of it, or if one were preparing 'the day of' doing it. What I thought would be obviously premature to ask, as there would be so much more important work to do before hand.

I define evil as that which causes unnecessary harm. Or rather, harm that is not truly required for it's survival, broadly speaking. We kill to eat, we eat to survive. Thus, killing to eat is morally acceptable. Torture yield inaccurate tactical data, and we can clearly survive without it. Thus, torture would be evil.

Yaweh killed an innocent baby to punish king David for murdering a man in order to get away with committing adultery. David was wrong in what he did, but was Yaweh right by default? Simply because we consider him all powerful? Because he is our creator? Does that make abortion right? Would the baby not be innocent? In the old testament, it reads as if humanity is a crop, something to be cultivated. That humanity is a strain, and that our genes directly dictate our actions. Have we no soul? No free will if we are merely the product of our fathers? Hopefully this story was never meant to be taken literally, and that it's true message is that we can not profit (gain rewards such as children) from our evil acts. But if Yaweh were real, would this not give insight into his mind? Describe our relationship? So many places where it is mentioned the killing of children-though in many cases I mnyself vie it to be a poetic killing. Interesting. But if the transdimension thing were real, with the theory that god would be mortal, and seeking survival, why would rules be given for slavery? If other things had been banned, why allow this to exist? Gay is evil, and beating slaves is ok? The bible does not say god is omnipotent, but rather almighty. If almighty extends to omnipotent, then would he not predict the future in order to include what the bible would need to truly extend to future generations?

I'm drunk right now, heading to bed tired, and I must stop. I like you Ryuki, and I look forward to talking to you some more good friend

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought up the lgistical questions because you seemed to be suggesting that this dimensional skipping meant that humanity was much the same then as it is now, a mortal race, fallible and using science. in fact, I was exploring your idea, so i hope you still do not get offended by me thinking about what you suggested.

in fact ideas need to be explored or they amount to nothing. any idea or belief should be at the very least rational. based upon something and if it doesn't fit and yet is still believed, then that's irrational. so questions are to be answered and perhaps reinforce, not to cause insult.

Yaweh killed an innocent baby to punish king David for murdering a man in order to get away with committing adultery. David was wrong in what he did, but was Yaweh right by default?

yes. but it depends on your chosen belief. if i were to believe that there were true evil, it effects my emotions. i feel fear of that which i label as evil. it is because i do not understand. does the baby suffer? no, the baby is dead. the view of death a the ultimate bad thing, is prevalaent in society. but when dead, does a person feel the earthly pain and suffering anymore? no, the people around that person will feel the loss. the one who has died is now in the afterlife, if that person is innocent then they will go straight to heaven and they will go from this earth into bliss. if yhwh had punished king david, would he have changed? perhaps not. would he have learned? perhaps not. would he have felt the pain he had caused? perhaps not. as the pain he had caused was not the man who was dead. that man was from this world and no longer suffering. the people that king david hurt was the people who were close to that man. his family his friends. yhwh gave king david the same pain and suffering.

there is so much in each situation that goes beyon our initial labels of good and bad. if you really look into situations, you see far more complex things going on.

I'm wondering.. if you are suggesting that our gods were mortal, then where does YHWH come into this? surely if this is M theory, and the earth was physically taken from one universe to another, then how exactly does this work? what purpose does YHWH serve if it is not creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to add my cents worth in the creation of the world. I believe that the earth was formed eons ago from a single particle, and as time progressed, the single particle acquired mass as it revolves around the sun collecting space particles to add to its own mass. Similar to the other planets that are orbiting the sun. As the mass formed and grew to the size of a planet, certain organisms began to evolved and thus was the start of creation. If we were to put this in a biblical way which the bible mentioned God creating the world in 7 days, I believed that each of the seven days are equivalent to thousands of years or more.

And if we were to add the theory of another dimension, perhaps it was that single particle that came from another dimension. Because of its unique qualities, in some unexplained phenomenon, began to attract other substance, thus it started to gather mass and beginning the process of the planets creation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh, that's interesting. like a planet creation tool?

it makes me think of hitch hikers guide to the galaxy.

i am fascinated by what could be inside our earth. i sometimes enjoy the idea of silicon based organisms living within the molten magma inside our world.

or whatever elements would combine and work at that temperature and pressure anyway.

but anyway, the idea of coming from another dimension is very interesting.

although scientists say they have figured out that the earth was collided with hte moon a long while back. so is it even possible?

i guess those scientists could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Ryuki. I agree with adding more ideas. I took offense because the line of logistics you were using is usually used to show how difficult, or next to impossible something is.

I am suggesting that Yaweh, Baal, El, and all the gods of that kind are in fact mortal, and created this world, if not universe, in order to escape their dying universe.

You make a good point about death, but... does that then meen that it is alright to kill someone that noone knows? If there is noone to miss them, how could it then be wrong? Is it then ok to kill the homeless people in the streets? Or the forgotten prostitutes? To me, you are stealing someone's life. There is a value to life. We don't just exist to make others happy, but to exist for ourselves. Else, you might argue that we might as well commit suicide in order to avoid the negative emotions associated with death-as life would be completely meaningless.

Instead of testing the phase of particles (which is next to impossible with our current technology), we may just analyze to composition of the Earth's core, and study it for transdimensional properties. Of course, it would make sense from an engineering perspective that the core would be a receiver, and that in the original dimension would be the transmitter. So working out how both ends of the gateway would work might be a bit of a challenge. Unless we study any supposed transdimensional references, and search for keys (yes, I have ideas already). But we could also model how the early Earth worked as a transdimensional creation, and start a study from there. It might give us ideas on what else we might want to look for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok so now i watched the video.

now i know where you are coming from.

i thought you were just using the video as an example of what you already said.

so i didn't realise how important it was.

I can't make any sense of it myself.

but i have to ask, if the matter for earth were coming from another dimension... how would living beings come through?

wouldn't they be crushed and burnt by the molten core?

or are you suggesting that the chemical makeup of earth is what is important?

perhaps what this is a marker of is earth being grown into a specific state by some beings who needed it to be a certain way in order to support our kind of life?

in this respect, I do not think these beings need be mortal.

in fact, some of the modern day beliefs of higher dimensional beings would have it that these beings created earth in the same spirit. ( ha, excuse the pun)

there are many that believe that earth is an experiment by higher dimensional beings to reate a race that can embody both logic and emotion equally.

they say it is the balancing of the reptillian brain with the feline brain.

does any of this ring true with anything you have been thinking of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all I know, any creator in these kind of conditions, it wouldn't really matter what the physical form of such a creator is. But in order to 'fear' the death of your own universe to the point where you create an escape, it suggests mortality on some level. Reptilian, human, cloud monster, whatever.

I'm really curious about the extent of dimensional cross over and its full capabilities. If Genesis has any accuracy, then the molten core formed with the water/firmament around it. The growing of the Earth then makes more sense when it says that the firmament was divided-when water begins to evaporate into cloud cover; unless this is a reference to the water existing first and the core formed inside it. That is the one thing that model in the link is missing; higher water levels that would show the Earth flooded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Ryuki. I agree with adding more ideas. I took offense because the line of logistics you were using is usually used to show how difficult, or next to impossible something is.

I am suggesting that Yaweh, Baal, El, and all the gods of that kind are in fact mortal, and created this world, if not universe, in order to escape their dying universe.

You make a good point about death, but... does that then meen that it is alright to kill someone that noone knows? If there is noone to miss them, how could it then be wrong? Is it then ok to kill the homeless people in the streets? Or the forgotten prostitutes? To me, you are stealing someone's life. There is a value to life. We don't just exist to make others happy, but to exist for ourselves. Else, you might argue that we might as well commit suicide in order to avoid the negative emotions associated with death-as life would be completely meaningless.

in terms of temporal cause an effect, then killing somebody before their time would deprive a future being from that person. when a person has completed their earthly task, they usually die anyway. we're all here for a reason no matter how mundane one might think that reason to be. hence the search for the meaning of life.

also, if somebody is killed in such a way, I would usually believe that is part of their bargain. that their spiritual body decided that they would take the task of dying in a particular place and time. even if the baby is still young, the spirit body already understands the needs of another and decides out of love for king david that his death is necessary for the king to learn and grow. and in so doing leaves a template for the billions of people that will hear his story. I do not believe it is ok to kill a being without permission.

and commit suicide is a crime because your spirit body decided to come into your body. your spirit body would never decide to end that life prematurely, and if the ego self decide to end that life, then hte ego is stealing that life from the spirit body. but of course, this forms part of my belief. if you cannot acept that part of my belief i would be happy to work within your own boundaries and look for alternate logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For all I know, any creator in these kind of conditions, it wouldn't really matter what the physical form of such a creator is. But in order to 'fear' the death of your own universe to the point where you create an escape, it suggests mortality on some level. Reptilian, human, cloud monster, whatever.

this sounds like your boundary goes to the ether and not on to spirit.

ether is the astral plane and some alien are supposedly etheric in nature.

when you go onto spirit you cross the boundary to eternity.

i hope that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we might disagree. I don't want you to change your views on death to suit my theories.

But I don't think Yaweh is some ultimate god in the sense that WE believe in. Did he and his buddies create our universe? Maybe. Did they create his original universe? Doubtful. Is there a god above all else? Possibly. Is it interfering with any universe? Not that I've seen. But we can argue till we are blue in the face, and I don't think we'll ever truly convince each other.

I'm just scared that someone will actually give Yaweh what he wants. Then I see us either being put into slavery, or death. Which is an alternative way to look at revelations. Should we submit to our parents just because they are stronger? Or that they are our parents? Should Hitler's children obey him without question? How can humanity ever gain true maturity without being responsible for its own actions and actively questioning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we might disagree. I don't want you to change your views on death to suit my theories.

But I don't think Yaweh is some ultimate god in the sense that WE believe in. Did he and his buddies create our universe? Maybe. Did they create his original universe? Doubtful. Is there a god above all else? Possibly. Is it interfering with any universe? Not that I've seen. But we can argue till we are blue in the face, and I don't think we'll ever truly convince each other.

I'm just scared that someone will actually give Yaweh what he wants. Then I see us either being put into slavery, or death. Which is an alternative way to look at revelations. Should we submit to our parents just because they are stronger? Or that they are our parents? Should Hitler's children obey him without question? How can humanity ever gain true maturity without being responsible for its own actions and actively questioning?

I don't need to change my views. that's the beauty.

heres an idea about the word truth. the only truth in the whole of existence is the two words "I AM" and those words are only true to any one individual when they state them with absolute honesty and purity.

everything else is just an idea.

now that is the way i see the world, so even if you disagree with that statement, I will never find your views to be objectionable, i accept them wholeheartedly as your truth.

i don't know if you have looked up hte hebrew, you may know or not that YHWH can translate to "i am that i am" which basically means "existence itself" I.E. all that is, the thoughts and feelings of every individual that ever was and ever will be, or also eternity.

but that is one interpretation and of course, names can be effecting of something, once laguageis used, connotations come into play and also context.

the chronicles of that now named yaweh may have come to represetn a certain concept of creation that is not favourable.

could also be that when yaweh spoke to moses, it was a ruse. and that the name given to him was those group of beings putting themself on a pedestal?

but of course the more we learn.. the more idea can arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you've never seen a Young Earth Creationist's position outlined with supporting scientific evidence? Unless you're just such an establishment brown noser you are willing to defy the underlying principles of science in favor of tribalism, it's not exactly like their case is easily shot down. Indeed it is more robust then conventional theory which is unable to even establish theoretically how you get from A to B. One of the big issues being how a big uniform explosion turns into lots of objects rotating around each other. Nevermind the whole coalescing in defiance of diffusion, entropy, and just about everything else known about how such things operate. Then there's the dating limit related directly to the Moon, Earth, orbits, and otherwise related to reasonable conditions. The establishment side which favors a Naturalistic perspective struggles to rationalize these with the big numbers they try to justify Darwinism with, hence questionable buffers like the whole Moon smacking the Earth business in a questionable attempt to guard against inherent problems related to the Moon's orbit and their dates. It's an interesting and more involved debate then the average person seems to realize.

God, evil? Maybe in the same sense some view a Drill Instructor, but otherwise you're coming across as being the victim of making decisions with insufficient research.

Look at Leviticus Chapter 19 sometime, then Matthew 5-7 aka the Sermon on the Mount. Despite common misconceptions Jesus did not teach something different from the Old Testament, as he said he came to fulfill. If you read Leviticus more thoroughly from the beginning you will see the nature of the atonement ritual, and thus appreciate the part of Jesus' death on the cross most obsess on to the point of not even recognizing the other angles. I should probably back up a little before I go forward on the rest there.

As you should know the Jewish Torah from Genesis to Exodus basically covers their early history to the establishment of Isreal. As it is one of the most well supported documents and there is less reason to question its validity then a significant portion of document from period. Initially the Isreal state is setup and it is radically different from anything until Christianity starts propagating. Law applies universally, and life is valued to an unprecedented degree. You have to hit period where Christianity has shifted views further that way for what God and Moses cobbled together to keep a unruly group in line to begin to look like it doesn't, and even then statement usually have to be taken out of context to the point they mean the opposite of what it'd actually mean. For instance Mosiac law requires 2 eye witnesses confirming a crime and in agreement in order to prosecute, while in the modern world you can be put on death row from a case built entirely on circumstantial evidence. Hence DNA evidence and other advancements freeing innocent people that otherwise would have been executed. Further they were healthier then their neighbors and had all the advanced technology of period including pulling the feat of doing an aqueduct through a mountain while starting on both sides.

Isreal eventually developed some major problems that lead to their fall. A major one was asking for a King, and God point blank outlined why this was a very, very bad idea. This among other factors including the creation story is radically different from everyone else by the way. It's just about impossible to justify the Hebrews just showing up because of just how radically different they were. It was none the less allowed to go through and as was inevitable through David, Solomon, and Solomon's son you have increasing corruption and flagrantly ignoring the law. Solomon's temple in particular was built in defiance of laws regarding labor and limitations on how long one could hold what would probably be most accurately termed indentured servants ala an enlistment contract. Probably why it gets leveled every time God has anything to say about it. Another big thing was they starting practicing the paganism of their neighbors and particularly the tradition of screwing the priestess, who in this case would burn any resultant infant to death aka "roll them through fire." So God drops their protection, informs their enemies, and they're dragged off to Babylon.

Rather then reforming you have what are effectively Lawyers take over power from the priests and use legalese word twisting to make the law say whatever they want in defiance of what it actually says. The perhaps most prominent groups of these being called the Pharisees.

So the question you've probably always asked yourself is what would possess the Pharisees to not just order Jesus' execution but crucifixion aka a public display of the longest most painful death the power of the time can come up with. Well if you actually know what the whole speel about "turning the other cheek" meant in context. Those concepts are something that are a serious threat to any Oligarchy, because it's not even vaguely pacifism, instead it is what Sun Tzu called the greatest Art, the ability to win without having to fight. Perhaps one of the biggest examples of which is the cross itself, which once viewed as a tool of oppression now represents hope.

Edited by IC Ominae
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what it is about the way your writing, but i can't understand what you wrote.

so I'm afraid, if you were discussing with anything i said, I'm afraid i am unable to answer.

so I apologise if you think i have ignored you.

edit:

I think it's about punctuation. I am not clear on rules of punctuation, but i think your sentences are longer than the general accepted length. also it seems like not much punctuation.

further edit:

I considered this and did some research, good sentence length is usually 15-20 words.

I'm not badgering you to rewrite or change. I'm just explaining that there may be some misunderstanding by some people who reply.

there may be some people who find it very hard to understand at all.

specifically dyslexics.

like myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Basically Ryuki, what he was really saying was that instead of debating the possibility of something else, he'd rather try to convince us to follow his already existing establishment and beliefs.

Note: if I were following the 'scientific doctrine', or whatever label you wish to apply for it, we wouldn't be having this discussion. As you won't find my theory in any of those as far as I am aware. Good luck with that pathetic line or argument. Perhaps actually thinking and attempting to understand my theory will provide you with better arguments. You lumping me into a group without even taking the time to see if I really 'am' a member of that group is rather insulting. This is a half shodded attempt to convert me.

I take it you've never seen a Young Earth Creationist's position outlined with supporting scientific evidence?

Actually I have taken a look at a few creationists websites. One in particular takes an unbiased view as they publish experiments and peer review them in an attempt to find problems with the main stream in favor of creationism. They tested such things as carbon dating samples-where so far everything as matched up with the main stream. (Some samples initially look like modern science has made a mistake with a dating technique, until you count in other geological factors such as magma and volcanic flows that alter such things as hydrogen soil levels. Accurate results require accurate science. If you want to challenge, bring something concrete to the table.

One of the big issues being how a big uniform explosion turns into lots of objects rotating around each other.

It was science that noticed the explosion in the first place. Science doesn't give you all the answers at once. You have to work, due the math, and see if it matches up with reality. So far what does creationism offer to explain these things? That 'god wanted it that way to make the universe work'? Mainstream science is stilling working through the problem, trying to figure out how it really works. Do I agree with all of it? No. I've got my own theories. I don't agree with the conceptualization of string theory for instance. But its a damn good start.

The establishment side which favors a Naturalistic perspective struggles to rationalize these with the big numbers they try to justify Darwinism with, hence questionable buffers like the whole Moon smacking the Earth business in a questionable attempt to guard against inherent problems related to the Moon's orbit and their dates. It's an interesting and more involved debate then the average person seems to realize.

Note: modern science deals with 'Neo-Darwinism', which uses modern discoveries, research, and experimentation to figure out how it all REALLY works. For instance, Darwin suggested a tree of life (religious reference also), while science shows us that genetically it is more like a web of life-where even viruses can transmit a mutation across several species at once. That was something Darwin NEVER predicted. We are so far past Darwin. Basing your arguments on him is useless. It's like basing your astronomy on Copernicus, or Galileo. It's ancient news baby.

Though about the Earth and the moon, yes, there are already debates about that. Even in the modern mainstream science there are questions. Don't you think it strange that I am trying to use real science to explain how the Earth could expand? Is it not possible that maybe it is related?

God, evil? Maybe in the same sense some view a Drill Instructor, but otherwise you're coming across as being the victim of making decisions with insufficient research.

Not necessarily. If my theory is right, and this planet/universe was created as an escape route for entities from a dying universe, then we very well could view god as evil. So far, the defense we have made for some of god's 'questionable' acts have been that he is omnipotent and has some glorious divine plan that is so far incredibly beyond us. But if he requires an escape route, then he couldn't possibly be omnipotent, and might very well be evil. And yes, Jesus is nice. But we must analyze the source material. How accurate is it? How come there are two versions of Josephus' material (That with Jesus mentioned, and that without?). How come no other historian mentioned him until 150 years later? How come his life follows the same pattern of countless other gods? How come Moses (Mosheh in the original pronunciation) parallels Micies and others? How comes Jacobs conquest of the Canaanites yields no archeological evidence? Is Karen Armstrong correct when she suggests that Jacobs crossing of the Jordon was the only historical crossing into the new nation of Israel, and that the conquest was a philosophical one? That is was again a parable?

Further they were healthier then their neighbors and had all the advanced technology of period including pulling the feat of doing an aqueduct through a mountain while starting on both sides.

And the ancient nations of the Egyptions, Olmecs, and one other that name escapes me built sky scraper like structures. Does that meen that THERE gods were real?

Isreal eventually developed some major problems that lead to their fall. A major one was asking for a King, and God point blank outlined why this was a very, very bad idea.

Yeah. He outlines in Samuel 1 chapter 8 that a king would basically tax the people to death.

This among other factors including the creation story is radically different from everyone else by the way. It's just about impossible to justify the Hebrews just showing up because of just how radically different they were.

You meen like how it is also almost impossible to explain how the Egyptian civilization seemed to radically appear? How Egyptologist count the kings on the kings list as real, but the gods before them on the same lists as nothing more than mythological, even though the myths from the gods seem to describe how they came to be?

So the question you've probably always asked yourself

actually, no. That is not the question I have always asked myself. One of my questions involves the point of this thread, which involves transdimensional physics. THAT is the point of this thread. Hopefully you are satisfied in your petty religious conversion attempts. Hopefully we can get back on topic. Maybe after you realize that you can't convert everyone here you will attempt to hack into the site to stop an alternate line of thought from continuing to spread-but some of us are indeed well versed and still disagree with you. Just because you have read and understand everything in the bible does not meen you agree with it.

is what would possess the Pharisees to not just order Jesus' execution but crucifixion aka a public display of the longest most painful death the power of the time can come up with. Well if you actually know what the whole speel about "turning the other cheek" meant in context. Those concepts are something that are a serious threat to any Oligarchy, because it's not even vaguely pacifism, instead it is what Sun Tzu called the greatest Art, the ability to win without having to fight. Perhaps one of the biggest examples of which is the cross itself, which once viewed as a tool of oppression now represents hope.

We've already gone over 'turn the other cheek' on this message board. Why bother going over it again? We already pointed out the cultural ramifications, and how it would make the violence of the act an undesirable thing.

Back on track:

I still have to take a look as some measurements, and see what the radius of the Earths core is compared to the size of the smallest possible crust in this pangea model. I want to see if the crust meets the surface of the core. Of course I am expecting water to cover the surface-as that would be firmament. The division of firmament would likely be the introduction of an atmosphere which creates a blanket of cloud cover. Due to intense heat? Would the separation of the continents reveal magma fissures that would begin evaporation under the surface of the water? Or would the transdimensional core generating a crust bring about the heat in the water surface? (That is my guess) That the generation of molten material from the core was the generation of the crust, that the layer of water cooled it into the core, and at the same time helped create an atmosphere. Though there is still so much to check out on this. I havn't even checked other growing Earth theories in any detail yet to see where they are or what they really have.

It could be interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, do you think that yaweh is still alive?

because the bible covers a long period of time so I'm guessing that this being is long lived.

is it something like the caretaker from star trek voyager?

if this is some long lived creature, do you think that these past things reflected a different attitude? because people learn and change over time.

is it posible that yaweh learned and changed?

i think it's interesting to think about material coming from the center of the earth.

we are mostly water and i watched a program once that showed life down in the deep dark depths of teh ocean. it was not any form of life that depended on the sun. it was a different ecosystem using geothermal energy. it was suggested on this program that this was in fact the source of our life. that somehow this life in hte dark depths actually changed and evolved into life that uses the light of the sun.

now this does seem to follow along with your thoughts in the way that it is coming from within rather than without.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ryuki,

I apologize that I was not clear enough for you. I will try to keep things short and clear, which means I will not be going to excess with the piecemeal approach Young seems to favor. In my experience I've seen forums practically ban that argument style because of the tendency of people to in reality fail to address point or actually discuss things in practice.

My previous post brought up the Young Earth Creationist, who date the Earth at a few thousand years old. The reason being they tend to emphasize the constraints preventing older dates of the Earth and Universe. Planets and moons for instance have decaying orbits but also limits on how far away they can be while still being captured in a orbit. More directly related to Young's theory is the issues related to erosion, corrosion, and radioactive decay. If Earth was significantly older then the Universe it would be quite apparent.

There are also Old Earth Creationists which consider Earth to be older and will stress the Hebrew word usually translated as Day in the beginning of Genesis does not have the constraints we place on the English word. Age as in the "Industrial Age" would translate just as well given the nature of the original Hebrew word.

As Young points out conventional theory is based around dating with Radioactive isotopes and stratified layers. The problem with radioactive isotope based dating is that you cannot certify your assumptions, which leads to a a lot of imprecision. The two major problems with the methods are that you have to assume a initial mass and the half life of isotopes. The half life is subject to changes in temperature and pressure among other factors, and initial radioactive mass on further other factors. There are in fact a several radioactive isotopes this is based upon, and the resultant dates are quite often not in agreement that leads those favoring conventional theory to attempt to pick and choose based on expected dates. These issues are well known and there are some significant historical cases where they were shown to be utterly in error.

Given Young's extreme overconfidence in relation to radioactive dating, and lack of appreciation of what it does to his theory regardless, it is doubtful he has done much research on the subject. The fact he would make a major point of it when I mentioned the orbital issues, tends to mean he is using a canned argument after as he put it:

lumping me into a group without even taking the time to see if I really 'am' a member of that group

That's blatant hypocrisy and a unsubstantiated accusation besides. I brought up scientific issues, referencing a group that makes a point of bringing them up. Young is off on a crusade. Nevermind that Newton himself is on record lambasting people like him, and he's giving the finger to almost all of what Scientifically has actually been well established to throw his hat in with what are at best Theoretical Science types who have yet to ground anything with reality. As someone with an Applied Science degree who values those principles I find that quite disturbing.

Afterall "religion" such as was practiced in Egypt stagnated development exactly because it refused to be questioned and went the way of bureacracies. Young seems to believe that's how things should be. Science is about finding the truth, and that involves doing the actual footwork and making sure it actually agrees with reality. Challenges are simply part of the game, if your interested in science instead of using it as a buzzword.

It was science that noticed the explosion in the first place.
Noted how? They theorized and then interpreted data based on telescopes in the appropriate band. They didn't even have the technology to go looking while they were originally theorizing about it.
Note: modern science deals with 'Neo-Darwinism', which uses modern discoveries, research, and experimentation to figure out how it all REALLY works. For instance, Darwin suggested a tree of life (religious reference also), while science shows us that genetically it is more like a web of life-where even viruses can transmit a mutation across several species at once. That was something Darwin NEVER predicted. We are so far past Darwin. Basing your arguments on him is useless. It's like basing your astronomy on Copernicus, or Galileo. It's ancient news baby.
And? You probably don't even know about the Nobel prize involving the one fly given your lack of understanding of the "evidence" of the big bang and your apparent lack of knowledge about radioactive dating methods. No one understanding these things would have such a false sense of confidence to act so certain about such thing.

So what? You found out about Gene therapy? Found out they only managed one "successful" case? The problem normally is the immune system reacts to the gene therapy preventing what can even vaguely be called success. There was however this one case where If I remember Correctly a pair of young boys had an issue with their immune system not working. This opened up the vector for Gene therapy to go in. The problem was they died a few years later because things swung to far the other way as a result.

Still doesn't get around problem like the fact your 19th century argument of likeness of other objects to an eye is analogous to the likeness between a mercury thermometer and a thermocouple. Utterly different operational parameters, and no clear way to make the jump between A & B. Despite what those not in the engineering field may think Magic Fairies do not magically make everything cooperate. Hence if I really wanted to deep six you I'd just point out the probability has been calculated out to get a horse, ignoring the known fact that some intermediate steps don't work and thus would be a impenetrable barrier. The result is the probability of a mating pair is greater then all the projected lifespan of the universe using the conventional theory long universe view.

Hence the Cambrian explosion problem where based on the conventional dating approach complex lifeforms appear to have just sprung up fully formed in ridiculous numbers and variety, is a death sentence to that in of itself. The odds of you spontaneously teleporting based on the Heisenberg principle is most likely better.

Though about the Earth and the moon, yes, there are already debates about that. Even in the modern mainstream science there are questions.
What do you mean "even"? Your suppositions do not even vaguely meet the evidence requirements to be reviewed as legitimate, let alone having vaguely anything to do with real science. You give the impression you couldn't recognize GIGO with what your playing with, and I don't see evidence of even that amount of work. Yet you want to keep coping an attitude?

Spare me the bravado, until you have more then what a village idiot could draw up.

Not necessarily. If my theory is right, and this planet/universe was created as an escape route for entities from a dying universe, then we very well could view god as evil. So far, the defense we have made for some of god's 'questionable' acts have been that he is omnipotent and has some glorious divine plan that is so far incredibly beyond us. But if he requires an escape route, then he couldn't possibly be omnipotent, and might very well be evil.
So you showed off your utter lack of appreciation of all known dating methods, conventional or otherwise in a lame attempt to try to swipe at implying God is evil? Okaaay. You know most people at least have something legit to whine about if they're going to bother.
And yes, Jesus is nice. But we must analyze the source material. How accurate is it? How come there are two versions of Josephus' material (That with Jesus mentioned, and that without?). How come no other historian mentioned him until 150 years later? How come his life follows the same pattern of countless other gods? How come Moses (Mosheh in the original pronunciation) parallels Micies and others? How comes Jacobs conquest of the Canaanites yields no archeological evidence? Is Karen Armstrong correct when she suggests that Jacobs crossing of the Jordon was the only historical crossing into the new nation of Israel, and that the conquest was a philosophical one?
This is a complete and utter load of garbage, Mr. I-can't-be-bothered-to-research-dating-methods-and-their-implications.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spare me the bravado, until you have more then what a village idiot could draw up.

cut it out dude.

there's no need for this posturing.

this topic is for discussing youngs idea.

i think the point of the topic is to explore if it could be true and not to just pick holes at it and/or shot down in flames.

if you simply don't like it, then please leave the topic. if you are so biased against it, then none of your discussing will help to keep the topic and will just cause disruption.

also please stop making assumptions about the extent of people's knowledge.

and lastly, thank you i appreciate you changing your writing style, I could well understand most of what you wrote this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I bought a very interestig book today.

hre is some information on a reference to yahweh in this boook.

it talks of the sephiroth.

it is relating the sephirith to 4 worlds.

I haven't read fully so I'm unsure what this means but it seems each sphere of sephiroth has different names.

the name yahweh appears a number of times in 'atziluth' which gives a divine name, as opposed to archangel, angelic choir and material world.

there are 4 instances but only 1 is pure. the others are with other words and so i will omit those for now.

the pure entry is Chockmah. the divine name for this is Yahweh. the archangel is Ratziel. angelic choir is Auphanim. material world is Zodiac.

just in case you do not know of the sephiroth, it is in reference to Kabbalah.

i find it interesting in this manifestation, yahweh is not the ruling element.

the ruling element is Eheieh (divine name). This makes sense to me actually. because god cannot speak to man. so moses could not have been communicating with the head honcho. so whenthe name YHWH was given, this was the name of one that serves the almighty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this thread is weird to me, im not going to attack anyones theories as i dont see the point. i just dont think there is a physical god. The beings that were on earth that gave us knowledge were thought of as 'gods', but they were not GOD. its semantics i suppose. even if we were spawned from elsewhere in the universe that would just be a Guyver 'creators' scenario, true they may have made us, but something always created them- the 1 true GOD.

in years to come our species may be thought of as gods - if we end up creating a super race in testtubes or an android/gyroid race that outlives us we will be their gods, in a way we may even be inferior to them but we created them. were it not for us they would not exsist.

on your post about kabbalah Ryuki, my subjective view of Yahweh is from a further view of tetragammatron representing the uniting of the elements, so as i see it chokmah as Yahweh represents god united with and in the universe manifest and Kether / Ehyeh represents the infinite consciousness, but yet still not the absolute pure divine spirit - i say this as my reference states that although kether is the closest to god it still is not god. Yahweh isnt the true name of god as that could not be spoken, ehyeh is a higher concept and yet still isnt God.

this is a blanket statement, but i think general perceptions of esoteric concepts are never the actual meaning. you always have to look deeper and when you do the conepts are more complex and can often throw up more questions! example yahweh as god is not god god, if anything it is a part of the trinity of kether, chokmah and binah .

:question:

btw. have you watched Evangelion tv series and end of evangelion movie??

Edited by Eether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hated evangelion.

I watched it yeah, long time ago.

i guess i felt that i was cheated by it.

yeah, i know what you say Eheieh not actually 'god' but part of it.. well let's just say, I believe our comprehension is not enough to be able to understand any further. after all, most humans only inhabit the third dimension. our perception can currently only reaches far as the 6th dimension, but many theories state that there is more dimensions. I can well believe that,. but since my mind is anchored here, I cannot comprehend it.

I'm not sure about the tetragrammaton being a combination of elements but i can accept that view. I would personally like to draw a parallel with metatron. metatron being a amalgamation of different angels, sort of like an office. perhaps yhwh was actually metatron.. since metatron tends to be the voice of god in many instances.

ahh.. well I am a little sad that youngguyver has stopped sharing his ideas. I found it very interesting to read his ideas.

hopefully he will come back upon reading this further discussion?

after all... sephiroth was seen as the bad guy in final fantasy 7... there must be a reason for that, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...