Posts by Harold Kelly5

hollowsailor48 said:The server might be hitting its limit due to traffic spikes at certain times. It’s possible there are other sites hosted on the same server as Reddit that also see massive traffic, and when you factor in all the heavy lifting—images, animations, banners, videos—that’s a massive amount of data passing through the hardware.

Maybe your ISP is lagging, maybe you haven't cleared your cookies, or perhaps your browser is bloated with too many toolbars and extensions. Or hell, maybe you're still using Internet Explorer 😛
.
Even tools like AdBlock Plus aren't going to solve this. Sure, they block those annoying ads and banners from appearing on your screen, but those files are still being requested from the Reddit server 😉
.

None of that explains why the speed has suddenly cratered to 10% of what it used to be. Just a few weeks ago, this site was lightning fast. Now? It's like the digital version of the Black Plague, cholera, and AIDS all hit it at once. I'm sitting here waiting fifteen minutes for a page to load. No amount of clearing cookies is going to cause that kind of lag unless you're running a toaster for a computer or have a dial-up connection. Meanwhile, every other website I visit loads perfectly fine.

Ronald Nelson2 said:Modern society seems to have developed this strange craving for instant gratification, where everyone expects everything handed to them on a silver platter without ever breaking a sweat.

If anyone actually hit the nail on the head here—and provided the real answer to this whole topic—it was Ronald Nelson2... 😁

Nancy Wilson2 said:It is a regrettable reality, though I suppose that is simply how things stand. One can’t help but wonder how much further we might have progressed as a society if we weren't constantly bogged down by the endless friction surrounding those two figures—it's quite exhausting, really. Furthermore, consider the sheer amount of progress we've missed out on because certain researchers have gathered substantial evidence supporting reincarnation, only to be met with nothing but condescension and outright dismissal from the mainstream scientific establishment. And frankly, the list of such scientists who have been sidelined in this manner is far longer than most people care to admit. 😢 That kind of behavior—honestly—it just strikes a chord with me in all the wrong ways.

Don't worry—I am quite familiar with those theories. In fact, they serve as the very foundation upon which I have built my own reasoning: If we assume the universe has existed eternally—simply shifting through various states and configurations—then it follows that the cosmos itself must inherently contain everything necessary for its own manifestation. This would include the fundamental "software," such as the laws of physics, that dictates how matter behaves. Ergo, The universe itself is God.Take a simple premise like this: is it ever possible for there to be a break in the continuum of life or consciousness within the history of these universes? It simply cannot be. If such a rupture occurred, you would have a situation where something living could never emerge from something entirely inanimate. The chain would be broken—leaving nothing behind but dead matter. In truth, everything revolves around that singular moment of cosmic origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess all necessary properties, or the point itself *is* the Absolute—a philosophical term for God, if you feel like looking it up; it is, without question, the most compelling definition I have ever encountered.

And it has been there all along. Here is why;

Everything presented here points toward a single, inescapable conclusion: the universe has always existed. I realize that this idea feels inherently unsatisfande—perhaps even deeply unsettling—to our current way of thinking, but we must consider that our cognitive framework is likely the very source of the problem. In our corner of the universe, we operate under the unshakable assumption of cause and effect, strictly in that order. Everything within our grasp follows this linear progression; indeed, even our own minds are hardwired to function this way. Our very existence would be impossible if this temporal sequence were reversed. Therefore, when we attempt to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has simply always been, we inevitably fail—we are biologically incapable of grasping it because we reflexively hunt for a "cause" to explain the "effect" of the universe’s existence. The reality is that the universe is fundamentally different from us. It exists within the void, whereas we exist within the universe. In a timeless, eternal, and infinite nothingness, the concepts of cause and effect simply do not apply.
Based on our definition of nothingness—which, by its very nature, is timeless—it follows that for the universe to be contained within it, the universe must always have existed. It is logically impossible for the universe to have been created *within* itself, as such an act would necessitate a specific moment in time, which contradicts the eternal state of nothingness. I am not proposing this idea out of a desire for intellectual comfort; rather, it is simply the only way the mechanics of existence can actually function.
If you find yourself fundamentally unsettled by the concept of things having always existed, then I honestly don't see a way forward—there simply isn't a solution. We are left with a binary choice, really: either we accept that at some point, everything just emerged from nothingness, a perspective which I personally find entirely unacceptable, or we have to conclude that the universe doesn't exist at all. It is one or the other.
Within the descriptions of the Big Bang, there are three primary cosmological models to consider. You have the open universe, which expands indefinitely; the flat model, which eventually reaches a standstill; and the closed model, which collapses—perhaps even "bouncing" back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is indeed closed, it is entirely possible that it "bounces" back cycle after cycle, eternally. This concept of an everlasting cycle of expansion and contraction is my preferred choice—though I admit, that preference is based purely on aesthetic grounds. I am well aware, of course, that the debates are still ongoing to determine which model holds true.
So, after weighing all the arguments, which model would I choose to describe the origin of the cosmos? An infinitely eternal, unchanging void that has always existed and has always contained a finite yet unbounded, closed universe—one that is constantly changing, yet remains eternal in its own essence. In this framework, the Big Bang doesn't require a singular moment of creation; rather, it is merely one phase in a perpetual cycle of an expanding and contracting universe that carries no special significance in itself. There is no need to search beyond it; the previous cycle is simply "outside" of it.

If you want me to write out a full treatise explaining this in detail, just say the word.
...and I second everything else you wrote.

Everything we’ve discussed might actually provide KeyCode with an answer to the question: why God does not withhold knowledge. He does share it. We uncover Him through every discovery, every realization, and every "new" idea. I put "new" in quotation marks specifically to make my point: everything emanates from Him, and we are simply becoming aware of His laws—whether through science and technology, spirituality, mysticism, and so on. If we are speaking of a pantheistic God (where the universe itself is God), then this holds true regardless. Even if we are discussing the Absolute—which may or may not be solely pantheistic (immanent), but could also be transcendent—then we are at least uncovering a part of Him, or discovering Him indirectly. Anyway, we certainly receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only source possible, given that He is, in fact, the Absolute—everything that exists.

I have nothing to add; well done. 🙂

Exactly. Nowadays, certain people holding the title of "scientist" spend their time ridiculing ancient ideas and dogmas, yet they are busy peddling their own set of dogmas—not the same ones, mind you, but others entirely. It is pure mental stagnation. For instance, try touching upon the theory of evolution, or simply suggest that you don't personally experience or grasp it in the standard way, and you can expect to be bombarded from all sides, regardless of how solid your arguments might be. It isn't about whether something is true or false—that is what evidence is for—it is about the fact that this crowd preemptively shuts down any possibility of alternative thought. That, quite frankly, is the antithesis of science. You could draw it out for them and prove it fifteen different ways, and they would still just shake their heads because it doesn't fit into their tiny little universe. My criticism is directed at these scientists because, in the West today, they act as the gatekeepers of collective thought. If this were, say, the 17th century, I would be directing my criticisms toward the clergy instead, much like they were a legitimate target for critique back then.

Nancy Wilson2 said:It is a regrettable reality, though I suppose that is simply how things stand. One can’t help but wonder how much further we might have progressed as a society if we weren't constantly bogged down by the endless friction surrounding those two figures—it's quite exhausting, really. Furthermore, consider the sheer amount of progress we've missed out on because certain researchers have gathered substantial evidence supporting reincarnation, only to be met with nothing but condescension and outright dismissal from the mainstream scientific establishment. And frankly, the list of such scientists who have been sidelined in this manner is far longer than most people care to admit. 😢 That kind of behavior—honestly—it just strikes a chord with me in all the wrong ways.

Don't worry—I am quite familiar with those theories. In fact, they serve as the very foundation upon which I have built my own reasoning: If we assume the universe has existed eternally—simply shifting through various states and configurations—then it follows that the cosmos itself must inherently contain everything necessary for its own manifestation. This would include the fundamental "software," such as the laws of physics, that dictates how matter behaves. Ergo, The universe itself is God.Take a simple premise like this: is it ever possible for there to be a break in the continuum of life or consciousness within the history of these universes? It simply cannot be. If such a rupture occurred, you would have a situation where something living could never emerge from something entirely inanimate. The chain would be broken—leaving nothing behind but dead matter. In truth, everything revolves around that singular moment of cosmic origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess all necessary properties, or the point itself *is* the Absolute—a philosophical term for God, if you feel like looking it up; it is, without question, the most compelling definition I have ever encountered.

And it has been there all along. Here is why;

Everything presented here points toward a single, inescapable conclusion: the universe has always existed. I realize that this idea feels inherently unsatisfande—perhaps even deeply unsettling—to our current way of thinking, but we must consider that our cognitive framework is likely the very source of the problem. In our corner of the universe, we operate under the unshakable assumption of cause and effect, strictly in that order. Everything within our grasp follows this linear progression; indeed, even our own minds are hardwired to function this way. Our very existence would be impossible if this temporal sequence were reversed. Therefore, when we attempt to wrap our heads around the concept of something that has simply always been, we inevitably fail—we are biologically incapable of grasping it because we reflexively hunt for a "cause" to explain the "effect" of the universe’s existence. The reality is that the universe is fundamentally different from us. It exists within the void, whereas we exist within the universe. In a timeless, eternal, and infinite nothingness, the concepts of cause and effect simply do not apply.
Based on our definition of nothingness—which, by its very nature, is timeless—it follows that for the universe to be contained within it, the universe must always have existed. It is logically impossible for the universe to have been created *within* itself, as such an act would necessitate a specific moment in time, which contradicts the eternal state of nothingness. I am not proposing this idea out of a desire for intellectual comfort; rather, it is simply the only way the mechanics of existence can actually function.
If you find yourself fundamentally unsettled by the concept of things having always existed, then I honestly don't see a way forward—there simply isn't a solution. We are left with a binary choice, really: either we accept that at some point, everything just emerged from nothingness, a perspective which I personally find entirely unacceptable, or we have to conclude that the universe doesn't exist at all. It is one or the other.
Within the descriptions of the Big Bang, there are three primary cosmological models to consider. You have the open universe, which expands indefinitely; the flat model, which eventually reaches a standstill; and the closed model, which collapses—perhaps even "bouncing" back into another cycle of expansion. If the universe is indeed closed, it is entirely possible that it "bounces" back cycle after cycle, eternally. This concept of an everlasting cycle of expansion and contraction is my preferred choice—though I admit, that preference is based purely on aesthetic grounds. I am well aware, of course, that the debates are still ongoing to determine which model holds true.
So, after weighing all the arguments, which model would I choose to describe the origin of the cosmos? An infinitely eternal, unchanging void that has always existed and has always contained a finite yet unbounded, closed universe—one that is constantly changing, yet remains eternal in its own essence. In this framework, the Big Bang doesn't require a singular moment of creation; rather, it is merely one phase in a perpetual cycle of an expanding and contracting universe that carries no special significance in itself. There is no need to search beyond it; the previous cycle is simply "outside" of it.

If you want me to write out a full treatise explaining this in detail, just say the word.
...and I second everything else you wrote.

Everything we’ve discussed might actually provide KeyCode with an answer to the question: why God does not withhold knowledge. He does share it. We uncover Him through every discovery, every realization, and every "new" idea. I put "new" in quotation marks specifically to make my point: everything emanates from Him, and we are simply becoming aware of His laws—whether through science and technology, spirituality, mysticism, and so on. If we are speaking of a pantheistic God (where the universe itself is God), then this holds true regardless. Even if we are discussing the Absolute—which may or may not be solely pantheistic (immanent), but could also be transcendent—then we are at least uncovering a part of Him, or discovering Him indirectly. Anyway, we certainly receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only source possible, given that He is, in fact, the Absolute—everything that exists.

I have nothing to add; well done. 🙂

Precisely! 😁

Nancy Wilson2

Don't worry about it. A few minor tangents are perfectly fine if they actually serve the topic at hand. In fact, I intend to tie those points back into this post myself, so there really isn't an issue here. 🙂

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

Honestly, right now, I have this overwhelming urge to just go out and start shooting. If I could pick one, I’d go with something heavy-duty—maybe a .50 cal. Just to get it over with. 😛 I find myself uttering that specific word some 85,676 times a day. It’s an obsession born of pure consciousness—whether it's the will of God or just someone else's influence—yet the actual meaning remains frustratingly elusive. It never truly clicks.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

I honestly don't know anymore. It seems like people are still stuck in this outdated, frantic struggle between science and faith, desperately clinging to one while flat-out denying the other. They just can't seem to find a middle ground. If you look at history, it’s clear: the most brilliant civilizations were built on an integrated worldview. They possessed a unified perspective that gave humanity purpose and meaning. They didn't spend their time fragmenting or pitting fundamental pillars—like science and faith—against one another. Such division only serves to weaken us.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

Keycode is Keycode. They’re always going to push their own specific vision of God, regardless of whether that vision holds any water or not. It’s just how they operate. But honestly? That shouldn't even matter. At the end of the day, every individual needs to find God on their own terms—whatever makes sense to them personally. People need to find a definition or a platform that actually rings true to their own experience. There are infinite worldviews out there, so there will be an infinite number of ways to perceive the Divine. Some people won't even use the word "God." They'll call it "The Spirit," "The Totality," or "The Singularity." Whatever works for them.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

Don't worry, I’m well aware of those theories. In fact, that’s exactly where I built the foundation of my own logic: if the universe has always existed, simply shifting its form and shape over time, then the universe itself must contain everything necessary for creation—including the "programming," such as the laws of nature. Therefore, the universe itself is God. Take this for example: can there ever be a moment in the history of these universes where the continuum of life or consciousness is broken? It’s impossible. If it were, you couldn't have something living emerge from something absolutely lifeless. The chain would snap, leaving us with nothing but dead matter. Everything essentially revolves around that single point of origin: at that specific point, either the point itself must possess everything required, or the point itself *is* the Absolute. (That’s a philosophical term for God, by the way; look it up if you feel like it. It’s easily the most convincing definition I’ve ever come across.)

Nancy Wilson2 said:Yes, the book "The Conscious Universe" comes to mind—along with several others similar to yours. Essentially, the tool you are describing is consciousness itself. According to modern science and quantum physics, this field permeates everything in existence, from subatomic particles to those massive clusters of galaxies. This field is our origin and our destination after death; though, I suspect that being in alignment with the source doesn't necessarily mean seeing nothing but light and feeling pure love. Rather, you simply *are* conscious—you "feel" (meaning, you ARE) peace. In that state, the time we perceive here on Earth ceases to exist. It could last for a few seconds or a hundred years; it is irrelevant. I have read extensively on the subject and maintain an open mind—I have no issue accepting these concepts—but there is one small hitch: it all feels a bit like a New Age spike. Personally, I would much rather see serious scientists tackling this head-on... I truly don't know what they are waiting for 😢
. I find myself somewhat in agreement with your assessment. When I suggested there was no need to introduce God into the equation to explain certain phenomena, I was referring specifically to the version of God presented by KeyCode—that personified entity who supposedly conjures this entire universe out of light in a matter of days. In my view, that is sheer nonsense.
However, I suspect you may not have scrutinized the links I provided quite closely enough: the universe has always existed; it has merely shifted its form. From the initial singularity to everything we observe today, it has been a continuous process. Whether consciousness drives these cycles or if it is simply a fundamental natural function—well, I cannot say for certain. Both possibilities remain on the table. Perhaps consciousness generated the process, which subsequently became a natural function in its own right.

I was watching a documentary just a moment ago where a man argued that "normal" explosions are fundamentally different from the Big Bang, because the latter was an "ordered" event involving the precise distribution of energy and forces. And where does this order come from? We talk so much about "randomness," yet we are expected to believe that, out of a void of infinite nothingness, something happened "once"—an explosion occurred, and voilà, here is everything we see. But "nothingness" implies a total absence of everything, including time and space across any dimension; yet an event requires time, which does not exist in a void, nor ever will. Actually, all of this is detailed in the links I shared. Things are so perfectly ordered in their very essence that it only reinforces my earlier point. And yes, I realize this is entirely off-topic. Therefore, I should probably wrap this up—I have no desire to earn another strike over trivialities.

You aren't off base, and here is why: everything we have discussed provides KeyCode with the answer to that fundamental question regarding why God doesn't withhold knowledge. He isn't withholding it; He is distributing it. We uncover Him through every single discovery, every moment of insight, and every "new" idea we stumble upon. I am putting "new" in quotation marks intentionally to make my point: everything originates from Him. We aren't inventing anything; we are simply becoming aware of His laws, whether we approach them through science and technology or through spirituality and mysticism. If you subscribe to a pantheistic view—the idea that the universe itself is God—then this logic holds up perfectly. Even if we are talking about the Absolute, which might be more than just immanent but also transcendent, we are still discovering parts of Him, even if only indirectly. Regardless, we absolutely receive knowledge from Him, because He is the only possible source. If He is the Absolute, then He is essentially everything that exists. Now, if using the pronoun "He" feels too patriarchal for your taste, feel free to swap it out for whatever terminology suits you better. I’m sticking with it because I see no reason to reinvent the wheel just to satisfy modern sensibilities. 🙂

(I hope I didn't overwhelm you too much.) 🙂

@Nancy Wilson2

Exactly—when I talk about the "destruction of the universe," I’m not talking about wiping out energy itself. I mean the destruction or transformation of form, like matter.🙂

Now, this part is spot on: "Simply nature/creation at work, creating itself." But here’s the catch—for anything to have the capacity to create, it has to possess the "tools" to do so. I don't mean mechanical tools, obviously. I mean conceptual or mental tools, if such a term even works here (it feels a bit too anthropomorphic, but I’ll use it since there isn't a better way to put it). Therefore, this universe must be "alive" or "intelligent." This makes the universe itself a creator, at the very least. However, I would argue it goes much deeper than that, reaching toward a transcendent God rather than just an immanent one (panteistic, for those following along). Why? Because of Plato and his theory of Forms. Anyone who truly understands this can't just skip over it; if you try, you're left with a massive hole in your logic. To put it simply: if you have dog X, dog Y, and dog Z—each with different traits, none of them perfect, yet each unique—then there must exist an "idea" or a blueprint of the ideal dog somewhere. In other words, the actual dogs we see are merely "copies" or "shadows" of that ideal. This points directly to the fact that everything exists first in the world of ideas. It's obvious that something inanimate and unintelligent cannot produce an idea. Thus, whatever created all of existence (even by transforming itself) absolutely had to possess intelligence.

Nancy Wilson2 said:Well, I found myself dwelling on that very subject yesterday—that absolute nothingness that preceded the universe and the sheer mystery of how everything came to be. For reasons I can't quite put my finger on, my intuition seemed to nudge me toward a few specific corners of the internet. These were the links that caught my eye:

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Where%...rse%20from.htm
Imagine an infinite, eternal, and immutable void—a state of absolute nothingness that has existed since before time itself. Within this stillness, there exists a finite yet unbounded closed universe; a system that is perpetually in flux, characterized by constant change, even while the vacuum containing it remains eternally unchanged.
Imagine a balloon—if you can even wrap your head around the concept—that is in a state of perpetual, restless transformation. It shifts constantly from a single, infinitely dense point into the vast entirety of the cosmos we observe, only to collapse and begin the process all over again. And again. And again. It is a relentless, rhythmic cycle—a constant state of equilibrium where everything exists in perfect balance against nothingness. A truly infinite loop.

And then, some inner demon practically compelled me to click on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4nhLpWahLE Starting from 7:00 PM—actually, let's make that 7:45 PM—and moving forward... I don't quite follow—you've only provided a fragment. If you have a full post or a specific message you need me to rework, please send it over. I'm ready to get to work once I have the substance.( 😲 The point I was just beginning to dwell upon—that specific thread of thought—is laid out clearly from the 20:15 mark onward.

What is the actual point here? Look, it’s all well and good to have faith—really, it is—but for God's sake, let's apply a little logic to the situation. We don't exactly need some deity or supernatural figure stepping in just to explain how the world works.

I used to hold onto this notion of some sort of "intelligent nothingness"—a concept I found somewhat compelling at one point—but after everything that has unfolded, I have officially abandoned the idea.

Sure, it’s an interesting hypothesis, but it trips over a few logical hurdles. For instance, how do you account for the laws of physics themselves? They seem to act like a pre-written "program" that runs the whole show, creating and destroying the cosmos over and over. Were those laws also created? And if they were, by what mechanism? Most importantly, could they have just popped into existence on their own?
Furthermore, the whole argument collapses when you reach the singularity. At that moment, there is no "before" or "after," which implies there must be some framework existing OUTSIDE—if I can even use a spatial term like that—of space and time itself. It all seems to circle back to that "intelligent nothingness" concept you mentioned. I must say, I quite like that phrase.🙂

Susan Green15 said:The gentleman was simply poorly phrased; he likely meant hypocritical. You believers achieve success in the real world because you actually employ logic, reasoning, and observation to survive. If you applied the same thought process used for faith to your daily lives, we’d all be dead within thirty minutes. Essentially, you operate under a double standard. When it comes to religion, you choose to believe whatever feels comfortable rather than what can be backed by evidence.

For instance, you've decided that God is good, omnipotent, and just, primarily because it makes for a pleasant belief system, regardless of whether any actual arguments support it.

Just imagine if you convinced yourself in the real world that humans could fly simply because you wished it were true. If you religious folk firmly believed you could fly without bothering to check if it made any sense, the entire population would be wiped out in a matter of days.

But when it pertains to faith, you allow yourselves to think however you please—inventing concepts without any logical foundation and justifying contradictions—all without facing any immediate consequences.

An atheist, on the other hand, applies the same set of standards whether they are discussing faith or reality. An atheist remains consistent in their way of thinking.

Using "you believers" is a massive overgeneralization. Which believers are we talking about? What worldview? What social standing, economic status, or cultural background? All of those factors shape how one perceives faith.

Susan Green15 said:The gentleman was simply poorly phrased; he likely meant hypocritical. You believers achieve success in the real world because you actually employ logic, reasoning, and observation to survive. If you applied the same thought process used for faith to your daily lives, we’d all be dead within thirty minutes. Essentially, you operate under a double standard. When it comes to religion, you choose to believe whatever feels comfortable rather than what can be backed by evidence.

For instance, you've decided that God is good, omnipotent, and just, primarily because it makes for a pleasant belief system, regardless of whether any actual arguments support it.

Just imagine if you convinced yourself in the real world that humans could fly simply because you wished it were true. If you religious folk firmly believed you could fly without bothering to check if it made any sense, the entire population would be wiped out in a matter of days.

But when it pertains to faith, you allow yourselves to think however you please—inventing concepts without any logical foundation and justifying contradictions—all without facing any immediate consequences.

An atheist, on the other hand, applies the same set of standards whether they are discussing faith or reality. An atheist remains consistent in their way of thinking.

Arguments are absolutely necessary. Do you honestly believe that every single believer relies solely on blind faith without some kind of real, direct experience—or at least a hint of something like God? What everyone keeps glossing over in this debate is lived experience: that tangible, undeniable encounter that forces a person to conclude there is something more than just mere matter. The thing is, you don't find that experience at a flea market; you acquire it by keeping an open mind.

And then, of course, there is rational thought to assist the process. For example, I have yet to see or hear of a physical law stating that something can spontaneously emerge from absolute nothingness. Scientifically speaking, that is nonsense. In any equation, the input must be equivalent to the output. Therefore, if the universe, matter, energy, consciousness, and intelligence exist, they must have originated from something that also possesses or consists of those very elements. In the absence of a more precise term, we call that "God."

Consequently, belief—starting with belief in God and moving beyond—can certainly have both rational and experiential foundations. That doesn't mean it *always* does, let's be clear on that. Also, just because something cannot be proven experimentally doesn't mean it isn't real. I can't provide experimental proof that I was lying in my bed at 11:48 last night. But I know, through experience, that I was. Do you follow me? 😉

Gregory Turner71 said:That wasn't actually the topic at hand; it was just some amateur "psychoanalysis" being thrown around by forum users.

The community guidelines clearly outline how threads are supposed to be initiated.

Fine. Then how on earth are we supposed to categorize the "Jediism" thread? Anyone with even a shred of integrity can see this isn't a constructive discussion. It exists solely to mock people of faith—Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, you name it. To put it bluntly, the entire thread is nothing more than a trolling session.

I’m standing right there with Jacob Lewis5 to voice my protest.
I have to ask—why on earth was his thread wiped from the board, while this "Jediism" topic remains untouched? It’s blatantly obvious that it exists solely to mock people's actual beliefs.

Drew Reed6 said:Some people actually argue that point in their books. I think I read somewhere that they claim Jesus couldn't have done anything without Elijah? If I recall correctly, those were the arguments made by Jewish critics of the Gospels.

In my opinion, most of the friction surrounding questions about Jesus Christ stems from the fact that Christianity grew out of another religion: Judaism. When we look at the Bible, it seems like we could generally conclude that Christians argue Christianity is the beginning, while Judaism is the end of the line.

But if we look at historical evidence—not necessarily the stuff directly tied to the Bible, but more general history and our understanding of life and culture in Palestine during the first century—we have to arrive at the conclusion that, beyond its religious significance, the Bible is essentially an apologetic response to the politics of its era.

History suggests, and it makes sense logically, that the Jews would have had to view Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospels trace a genealogy back to King David, which can only really mean one thing: they believed Jesus had a legitimate claim to be the rightful king of the nation of Israel. However, the Gospels portray Jesus refusing that specific role, though these accounts are presented as apologies and might not even be strictly historical facts.

For instance, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, where the Messiah enters on a donkey, and the cleansing of the Temple are both described in the Old Testament.

What can we infer from this, other than that Jesus likely had to plan his entry and his appearance in the Temple? This definitely carries political weight if he wanted to signal to the people in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders, the Romans, and the public that he was indeed the Jewish Messiah. Of course, once the Gospels and Acts were written as apologies, theologians took over and developed theological doctrines for interpreting these texts that often strip away the historical context. This turns Jesus into a peaceful prophet who rejects violence. But honestly, an entry into Jerusalem like that and the cleansing of the Temple—the ultimate place of worship for believers—would have almost certainly triggered a violent reaction.

Theologians usually answer this by saying the Jewish people simply didn't understand the Son of God, who is peaceful and follows his own teachings; basically, they claim the Jews just missed the point. My personal hunch, though, is that the Jews actually had to understand Jesus very clearly as the Messiah of Israel, and these two specific events alone suggest to me that the historical Jesus was a different figure altogether.

I’m sitting here reading Joachim Gnilk, a Christian-oriented biblical scholar. In his book "Jesus of Nazareth," he makes a point that strikes me as perfectly logical: when we approach the Gospels, we have to grasp the context behind every single event or parable. It isn't just about the words on the page; it's about understanding the environment they were born in. The reality is that the Gospels we have today aren't simple transcripts. They are composed of various layers of earlier versions—stylized, categorized, and heavily colored by theological agendas. As for the chronological order? Don't even get me started. You could argue for hours and still be lost. What he's getting at is that a purely literal reading of the Gospels (and the New Testament in general) is essentially redundant. Take the Triumphal Entry on the donkey, for example. Sure, you could interpret it as a literal historical fact, but it's far more likely an illustrative description. Its primary purpose is theological, not necessarily historical. We often mistake symbolism for a news report, and that is where the misunderstanding begins.

Drew Reed6 said:Some people actually argue that point in their books. I think I read somewhere that they claim Jesus couldn't have done anything without Elijah? If I recall correctly, those were the arguments made by Jewish critics of the Gospels.

In my opinion, most of the friction surrounding questions about Jesus Christ stems from the fact that Christianity grew out of another religion: Judaism. When we look at the Bible, it seems like we could generally conclude that Christians argue Christianity is the beginning, while Judaism is the end of the line.

But if we look at historical evidence—not necessarily the stuff directly tied to the Bible, but more general history and our understanding of life and culture in Palestine during the first century—we have to arrive at the conclusion that, beyond its religious significance, the Bible is essentially an apologetic response to the politics of its era.

History suggests, and it makes sense logically, that the Jews would have had to view Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

The Gospels trace a genealogy back to King David, which can only really mean one thing: they believed Jesus had a legitimate claim to be the rightful king of the nation of Israel. However, the Gospels portray Jesus refusing that specific role, though these accounts are presented as apologies and might not even be strictly historical facts.

For instance, the Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem, where the Messiah enters on a donkey, and the cleansing of the Temple are both described in the Old Testament.

What can we infer from this, other than that Jesus likely had to plan his entry and his appearance in the Temple? This definitely carries political weight if he wanted to signal to the people in Jerusalem, the Jewish leaders, the Romans, and the public that he was indeed the Jewish Messiah. Of course, once the Gospels and Acts were written as apologies, theologians took over and developed theological doctrines for interpreting these texts that often strip away the historical context. This turns Jesus into a peaceful prophet who rejects violence. But honestly, an entry into Jerusalem like that and the cleansing of the Temple—the ultimate place of worship for believers—would have almost certainly triggered a violent reaction.

Theologians usually answer this by saying the Jewish people simply didn't understand the Son of God, who is peaceful and follows his own teachings; basically, they claim the Jews just missed the point. My personal hunch, though, is that the Jews actually had to understand Jesus very clearly as the Messiah of Israel, and these two specific events alone suggest to me that the historical Jesus was a different figure altogether.

Exactly. No more talking needed.