what is the biggest bummer?

[Dale]

choose one, or place a rating

1) a time finite bang/crunch/etc., in a universe, in/out a multi-
verse, where you live good times and bad, and that is it

2) as (1) except cycles of bangs/crunches/etc in time. and no
recollection of previous lives

3) as (2) with full recollection of lives

4) as (2) with partial recollection of lives

5) an infinite continuum of time, where all things exist and all
things pass, including heaven and hell

6) as (5) except with what empathy can be had by the Supreme Being
that exists by (5), commensurate with what its purpose is only be (6)

[God]

Oscar Wilde once said
"I love having conversations with myself. I find myself very
intelligent. Sometimes I am so intelligent that I do not understand a
word I am saying.".
I am suprised you do no suffer with this problem yourself.

The answer is none of those as there was no big bang same as there was
no Jesus Christ.
Why not try again, this time assuming that science is wrong rather
than that science is right.
Look at things from the piont of view of a Creator rather than from
the point of view of science.
And then you will find that there are no bummers for the Men.
However there will be one whopping great Big Bummer for the women.

Post by Dale
choose one, or place a rating
1) a time finite bang/crunch/etc., in a universe, in/out a multi-
verse, where you live good times and bad, and that is it
2) as (1) except cycles of bangs/crunches/etc in time. and no
recollection of previous lives
3) as (2) with full recollection of lives
4) as (2) with partial recollection of lives
5) an infinite continuum of time, where all things exist and all
things pass, including heaven and hell
6) as (5) except with what empathy can be had by the Supreme Being
that exists by (5), commensurate with what its purpose is only be (6)

[God]

Things are put there by the Creator you see.
So if you "think" you have evidence of a big bang, that evidence was
put there by the Creator.
He could remove it or change it if he chose to same as he could alter
the speed of light. He can make things appear or disappear, he can do
anything you see.

Once you know that, then you know it is pointless and futile trying to
explain things or prove things with Science when the Creator has power
over that kind of thing.

Once you know there is a Creator, then things will make more sense, as
to why you have bananas and pineapples and raspberries.
And why you have pleasure and nature and clouds and snow and all kinds
of things you like.
Those things were Created FOR you.

And to be honest it is rather rude and ungrateful to give credit to
science.

Why not try saying thank you instead?
Have you not noticed that they are all the right size and the right
proportion and the right ratio?
Have you not noticed that you have tea AND coffee?
And chocolate as well.
Who put those things there for you?

Listen for that voice in your mind and your heart that joins you to
the Creator because ALL Men are joined to the Creator in some way.

Men are not joined to women you know.
It is God you are joined to.

[Mitchell Holman]

Post by God
Once you know there is a Creator, then things will make more sense, as
to why you have bananas and pineapples and raspberries.
And why you have pleasure and nature and clouds and snow and all kinds
of things you like.
Those things were Created FOR you.

If your god created sunsets and clouds and
bananas he also created polio and Alzheimers
and Parkinson's and Ebola and ALS and cancer.

Ever think of that?

[noname]

Post by Mitchell Holman

Post by God
Once you know there is a Creator, then things will make more sense,
as to why you have bananas and pineapples and raspberries.
And why you have pleasure and nature and clouds and snow and all
kinds of things you like.
Those things were Created FOR you.

If your god created sunsets and clouds and
bananas he also created polio and Alzheimers
and Parkinson's and Ebola and ALS and cancer.
Ever think of that?

I don't know about the person who's posting as "God
<***@omnipresent.com>", but I've thought about that a lot. I think
people have very different ideas about what the word "God" means. It's
when people like this "God" poster start leaning toward "thou shalt lick
God's toes" that I decide they're nuttier than I care to deal with and
check out.

The post I'm replying to seems to have quite an eclectic readership,
alt.atheism,
alt.philosophy,
alt.philosophy.taoism,
alt.talk.creationism,
sci.skeptic

The only one of those groups that I'm subscribed to is a.p.t. If anyone
cares to have a[n at least semi-rational] discussion you'd probably
quadruple the post-rate in a.p.t. within a couple days; I'm not sure if
that's a good thing or not.

[Julian]

Post by God
Things are put there by the Creator you see.
So if you "think" you have evidence of a big bang, that evidence was
put there by the Creator.
He could remove it or change it if he chose to same as he could alter
the speed of light. He can make things appear or disappear, he can do
anything you see.
Once you know that, then you know it is pointless and futile trying to
explain things or prove things with Science when the Creator has power
over that kind of thing.
Once you know there is a Creator, then things will make more sense, as
to why you have bananas and pineapples and raspberries.
And why you have pleasure and nature and clouds and snow and all kinds
of things you like.
Those things were Created FOR you.
And to be honest it is rather rude and ungrateful to give credit to
science.
Why not try saying thank you instead?
Have you not noticed that they are all the right size and the right
proportion and the right ratio?
Have you not noticed that you have tea AND coffee?
And chocolate as well.
Who put those things there for you?
Listen for that voice in your mind and your heart that joins you to
the Creator because ALL Men are joined to the Creator in some way.
Men are not joined to women you know.
It is God you are joined to.

Loading Image...

[noname]

Post by Julian
https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnpAz2ID0L4uS52/giphy.gif

That's a very American view.

[Julian]

Post by God
Things are put there by the Creator you see.
So if you "think" you have evidence of a big bang, that evidence was
put there by the Creator.
He could remove it or change it if he chose to same as he could alter
the speed of light. He can make things appear or disappear, he can do
anything you see.
Once you know that, then you know it is pointless and futile trying to
explain things or prove things with Science when the Creator has power
over that kind of thing.
Once you know there is a Creator, then things will make more sense, as
to why you have bananas and pineapples and raspberries.
And why you have pleasure and nature and clouds and snow and all kinds
of things you like.
Those things were Created FOR you.
And to be honest it is rather rude and ungrateful to give credit to
science.
Why not try saying thank you instead?
Have you not noticed that they are all the right size and the right
proportion and the right ratio?
Have you not noticed that you have tea AND coffee?
And chocolate as well.
Who put those things there for you?
Listen for that voice in your mind and your heart that joins you to
the Creator because ALL Men are joined to the Creator in some way.
Men are not joined to women you know.
It is God you are joined to.

https://pbs.twimg.com/tweet_video/CTCISTtXAAAwhA8.mp4

[Dale]

Post by God
And then you will find that there are no bummers for the Men.

I'm a man, and have had suffering

maybe the path to empathy isn't just empathy, from the view of the
Creator as you asked for, fits (6) in my original post of this thread

[God]

I am looking at the long term view.
You may have suffered in the short term but what about the long term
view?

A lot of people wonder how it would be possible to live in Heaven for
ever, but Heaven is a normal way of Life.
Basically where you live and your normal lives should be Heaven.

And it WAS Heaven before the women ruined it.
Before the women bamboozled and barged their way in and ruined Life on
Earth it WAS Heaven.

The women knew nothing about it.
They did not know what was REALLY going on.
They knew nothing about God or the Men's relationship with God.

So no wonder they resorted to science to try to explain things, they
had no Truth they had no Memories, they knew nothing about God.
They knew nothing about how the countries and languages had got there.
Nothing about writing or Art or Poetry or Music or how the Musical
Instruments had got there. They knew nothing about anything and just
barged their way in starting trying to do what the Men did, when the
Men had been doing those things with God.

You may not remember right now how things used to be.
And like I said in another Message, it is better not to remind the Men
of how things used to be, it would break your hearts if you knew what
has been Lost.

If you remembered the wonderful times and the beauty and the songs we
used to sing and the words we used to say in our Happy World and
compare it to what Earth is now, now that the women have ruined the
place, you would never get out of bed again.

Life would be pointless and you would just want to die.

But we have to carry on until women have done all their Sins.
Each one has to be proved.

Post by Dale

Post by God
And then you will find that there are no bummers for the Men.

I'm a man, and have had suffering
maybe the path to empathy isn't just empathy, from the view of the
Creator as you asked for, fits (6) in my original post of this thread

[Dale]

Post by God
So no wonder they resorted to science to try to explain things

the philosophy science as I will describe is empiricism, probably has
always proceeded abstraction or faith

[Dale]

Post by God
So no wonder they resorted to science to try to explain things

the philosophy science as I will describe is empiricism, probably has
always proceeded abstraction or faith

[God]

It won't be long until the Music starts again, and only the Men will
know those songs and only the Men will be able to Sing those Songs,
and only the Men can be lifted up in Spirit to a New World, to a New
Dimension.

Transcendence is Easy when you know how.

All the suffering you have today is caused by the women, but the Men
have to hold on just a bit longer, while the women finish doing their
Sins.

Once they have each done their Sins then it will be over.

[noname]

Post by God
It won't be long until the Music starts again, and only the Men will
know those songs and only the Men will be able to Sing those Songs,
and only the Men can be lifted up in Spirit to a New World, to a New
Dimension.
Transcendence is Easy when you know how.
All the suffering you have today is caused by the women, but the Men
have to hold on just a bit longer, while the women finish doing their
Sins.
Once they have each done their Sins then it will be over.

Sounds great, everybody grab hisself a woman and git to sinnin!

The frightening thing is, stupidity is contagious.

[noname]

Post by God
I am looking at the long term view.
You may have suffered in the short term but what about the long term
view?
A lot of people wonder how it would be possible to live in Heaven for
ever, but Heaven is a normal way of Life.
Basically where you live and your normal lives should be Heaven.

"Kingdom of God is all around you" and so forth and so on, seems like
that idea's a couple thousand years old. There's another saying that's
about 500 years older than that one, Gautama said, "With our thoughts we
make the world. Speak or act with a pure mind and happiness will follow
you as your shadow, unshakable." It has also been written that Man is
created in God's image.

Lots of things have been said and written using the word 'God' and there
are few views that reconcile them.

Maybe men are just sleeping gods, causing their own suffering, because
they don't know their dreams are their worlds, they don't know that
their worlds are physical manifestations of their dreams. One can
master his fate but never control it.

Post by God
And it WAS Heaven before the women ruined it.
Before the women bamboozled and barged their way in and ruined Life on
Earth it WAS Heaven.
The women knew nothing about it.
They did not know what was REALLY going on.
They knew nothing about God or the Men's relationship with God.

You're just angry due to lack of pussy.

Post by God
So no wonder they resorted to science to try to explain things, they
had no Truth they had no Memories, they knew nothing about God.
They knew nothing about how the countries and languages had got there.
Nothing about writing or Art or Poetry or Music or how the Musical
Instruments had got there. They knew nothing about anything and just
barged their way in starting trying to do what the Men did, when the
Men had been doing those things with God.
You may not remember right now how things used to be.
And like I said in another Message, it is better not to remind the Men
of how things used to be, it would break your hearts if you knew what
has been Lost.
If you remembered the wonderful times and the beauty and the songs we
used to sing and the words we used to say in our Happy World and
compare it to what Earth is now, now that the women have ruined the
place, you would never get out of bed again.
Life would be pointless and you would just want to die.
But we have to carry on until women have done all their Sins.
Each one has to be proved.

Stop jerking off and wake up, you can't make the world be what your
desires cry out for by pretending the desired is real, that's what they
call "delusional", and the fact that most people live in that state more
or less continually makes it average, and it might make it "normal" if
you take a democratic view of normality, but it's still bullshit.

[djinn]

Post by Dale
I'm a man, and have had suffering

"pain is inevitable,
suffering is optional."

Post by Dale
ascribed to Buddha

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ***@netfront.net ---

[Dale]

Post by djinn

Post by Dale
I'm a man, and have had suffering

"pain is inevitable,
suffering is optional."

Post by Dale
ascribed to Buddha

doesn't Buddha ascribe some suffering to desire? maybe a good priority
of what to think, but for the life of me can't accept always, maybe I
am missing the 8-fold path

[noname]

Post by Dale

Post by djinn

Post by Dale
I'm a man, and have had suffering

"pain is inevitable,
suffering is optional."

Post by Dale
ascribed to Buddha

doesn't Buddha ascribe some suffering to desire? maybe a good priority
of what to think, but for the life of me can't accept always, maybe I
am missing the 8-fold path

Once followers have set up an official 8-fold path the essence of the
thing has been lost and mostly remains lost until someone rediscovers
it, which is made more difficult by the 8-fold path itself.

[tippy2tim]

Post by Dale

Post by djinn

Post by Dale
I'm a man, and have had suffering

"pain is inevitable,
suffering is optional."

Post by Dale
ascribed to Buddha

doesn't Buddha ascribe some suffering to desire? maybe a good
priority of what to think, but for the life of me can't accept
always, maybe I am missing the 8-fold path

buddha is not the real god

[Dale]

Post by tippy2tim
buddha is not the real god

don't some think he is not a God?

are there sects that think there are no Gods?

[who]

Post by Dale

Post by tippy2tim
buddha is not the real god

don't some think he is not a God?
are there sects that think there are no Gods?

Once upon a time
there appeared to be Life.

Within this appearance were Life-forms.

Now all the forms are seen to be
as if they are in various senses different
while at the same time they all share in Life.

Life arose out of what appears to be Nonlife.

Of all the forms of Nonlife that appear
to have existed prior to Life, one of them was
called the Big Bang. It was also called the Great What.

Now the Great What, it was thought, might
have been the biggest bummer. As if what is, is,
as all of the forms of What are, as they appear
to be What-forms, are, formed.

What is, actually, the greatest joy.
Although, some see many of its forms as a bummer.

What is able to take the form of maps,
of explanations, building up from the first floor of
the Great Building of Sorts.

As forms appear, of Life, of What, there also
may be found When and Where and How.

Why is a different story.
At times it is the cafeteria.

One time Jesus walked into the cafeteria
where he met Buddha, Krishna, Indra, YHWH,
and many other forms of What and Life.

Although, some say it is the other way a
round after round goes round.

With Taoism, ways are ways.
Dao are dao in those ways.

Dao could be the biggest bummer.
Ore the greatest joy.
Oar the greatest joy.

- of What

[noname]

Post by Dale

Post by tippy2tim
buddha is not the real god

don't some think he is not a God?

Yeah, them ones would be called Buddhists. Buddha has nothing to do
with godhood, Buddha has to do with liberation from suffering. Just
because Gautama turned up a fat bag of clues is no reason to worship him
as a god.

Post by Dale
are there sects that think there are no Gods?

Pick something, it won't take long to find some bunch of folks that hold
to that belief.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:01:42 -0500, the following appeared

Post by Dale

Post by tippy2tim
buddha is not the real god

don't some think he is not a God?

Yes, Buddhists.

Post by Dale
are there sects that think there are no Gods?

Define "sect".

[Alex W.]

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

THe larval stage of a religion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:39:19 +0000, the following appeared in

Post by Alex W.

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

THe larval stage of a religion.

OK. And that differs from "cult"...how?

[{:-])))]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:39:19 +0000, the following appeared in

Post by Alex W.

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

THe larval stage of a religion.

OK. And that differs from "cult"...how?

Cults are from what cultures arise.

Sects are from what sections arise.

A cross section of a culture may reveal
various sects, all of which are cults.

A cross culture of a section may reveal
various cults, all of which are sections.

It's the first slice that makes all
of the difference in the worlds of words.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 06:17:39 -0800, the following appeared

Post by {:-])))

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:39:19 +0000, the following appeared in

Post by Alex W.

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

THe larval stage of a religion.

OK. And that differs from "cult"...how?

Cults are from what cultures arise.
Sects are from what sections arise.
A cross section of a culture may reveal
various sects, all of which are cults.
A cross culture of a section may reveal
various cults, all of which are sections.
It's the first slice that makes all
of the difference in the worlds of words.

So basically there's no difference? OK.

[{:-])))]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 06:17:39 -0800, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:39:19 +0000, the following appeared in

Post by Alex W.

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

THe larval stage of a religion.

OK. And that differs from "cult"...how?

... snipped ...

Context tends to be a ruler
when semantics are at play.

Post by Bob Casanova
So basically there's no difference? OK.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sect-cult.html

Question: "What is the difference between a sect and a cult?"

Answer: The word sect comes from the Latin word secta, which means
“school of thought.” It is a subjective term that may apply to a
religious faith or denomination, or it may refer to a heretical
splinter group. Sometimes, the connotation is one of disapproval, ...

Sects are found in all religions. ...

There are also non-religious sects, such as capitalists and socialists
among economists, or Freudians and Jungians among psychiatrists.

In contradistinction, the word cult always carries a negative
connotation. There are specific criteria used to identify a cult. In
Combatting Cult Mind Control, deprogrammer Steven Hassan singles out
what he refers to as “destructive cults,” which he defines as “a
pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people
that have dictatorial control. It uses deception in recruiting new
members (e.g. people are NOT told up front what the group is, what the
group actually believes and what will be expected of them if they
become members).” Hassan also correctly points out that cults are not
only religious; they may also be commercial or secular in nature.

...

- hth

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 17:16:02 -0800, the following appeared

Post by {:-])))

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 06:17:39 -0800, the following appeared

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:39:19 +0000, the following appeared in

Post by Alex W.

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

THe larval stage of a religion.

OK. And that differs from "cult"...how?

... snipped ...

Context tends to be a ruler
when semantics are at play.

If it's only about semantics, rather than about the basic
nature of each as currently understood, then there's no
issue; just wait until the accepted definitions change.

Post by {:-])))

Post by Bob Casanova
So basically there's no difference? OK.

http://www.gotquestions.org/sect-cult.html
Question: "What is the difference between a sect and a cult?"
Answer: The word sect comes from the Latin word secta, which means
“school of thought.” It is a subjective term that may apply to a
religious faith or denomination, or it may refer to a heretical
splinter group. Sometimes, the connotation is one of disapproval, ...
Sects are found in all religions. ...
There are also non-religious sects, such as capitalists and socialists
among economists, or Freudians and Jungians among psychiatrists.
In contradistinction, the word cult always carries a negative
connotation. There are specific criteria used to identify a cult. In
Combatting Cult Mind Control, deprogrammer Steven Hassan singles out
what he refers to as “destructive cults,” which he defines as “a
pyramid-shaped authoritarian regime with a person or group of people
that have dictatorial control. It uses deception in recruiting new
members (e.g. people are NOT told up front what the group is, what the
group actually believes and what will be expected of them if they
become members).” Hassan also correctly points out that cults are not
only religious; they may also be commercial or secular in nature.
...
- hth

[{:-])))]

Post by Bob Casanova
If it's only about semantics, rather than about the basic
nature of each as currently understood, then there's no
issue; just wait until the accepted definitions change.

Once the understanding it updated
then a conversation is able to continue.

If Alex sees Luther as a sectarian
rather than a heretical cult leader
then the two of you might be on
a page in the same book.

Except, the word, religion
may arise as a quibble of sorts.

Both Protestantism and Catholicism are
forms of the same religion.

That might be an accepted way
of seeing Christianity.

Otoh, the Jesus cult
took time to develop its own, religion,
as an offshoot of its parent form.

Alex might be restricting his usage
to religions instead of the words having
a broader sense of application.

A rock-star might have a cult following.
Same sense of the word with a movie.

The basic nature of a cult need not be bad.

[Alex W.]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 06:17:39 -0800, the following appeared

Post by {:-])))

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:39:19 +0000, the following appeared in

Post by Alex W.

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

THe larval stage of a religion.

OK. And that differs from "cult"...how?

Cults are from what cultures arise.
Sects are from what sections arise.
A cross section of a culture may reveal
various sects, all of which are cults.
A cross culture of a section may reveal
various cults, all of which are sections.
It's the first slice that makes all
of the difference in the worlds of words.

So basically there's no difference? OK.

Two differences: time and money.
All religions start out as cults.
Then they acquire power and wealth.
This needs to be managed, so over time these cults create organisations,
institutions, structure.
That means that the raw primal belief of the cult is codified and
ossified ... and we have ourselves a religion.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:18:05 +0000, the following appeared in

Post by Alex W.

Post by Bob Casanova
On Sun, 08 Nov 2015 06:17:39 -0800, the following appeared

Post by {:-])))

Post by Bob Casanova
On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 17:39:19 +0000, the following appeared in

Post by Alex W.

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

THe larval stage of a religion.

OK. And that differs from "cult"...how?

Cults are from what cultures arise.
Sects are from what sections arise.
A cross section of a culture may reveal
various sects, all of which are cults.
A cross culture of a section may reveal
various cults, all of which are sections.
It's the first slice that makes all
of the difference in the worlds of words.

So basically there's no difference? OK.

Two differences: time and money.
All religions start out as cults.

...or sects; as an example, all Protestant varieties of
Christianity started as offshoots (i.e., sects) of
Catholicism.

Post by Alex W.
Then they acquire power and wealth.
This needs to be managed, so over time these cults create organisations,
institutions, structure.
That means that the raw primal belief of the cult is codified and
ossified ... and we have ourselves a religion.

[Dale]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:01:42 -0500, the following appeared

Post by Dale

Post by tippy2tim
buddha is not the real god

don't some think he is not a God?

Yes, Buddhists.

Post by Dale
are there sects that think there are no Gods?

Define "sect".

its obvious

[{:-])))]

Post by Dale

Post by Bob Casanova
Define "sect".

its obvious

What is obvious is what appears.

It appears that dinosaurs once roamed
where the deer and the antelope played.

On another side of a coin there appears
to be none other than atoms, whirling,
swirling with their sub-parts having orbitals.

Entangled in a mass of one, moving, ever
backward and forward in time, they all
appear to look alike electron-wise.

Given a loaf of spacetime, time and space
appear to be able to be sliced in ways.

What is really going on appears to be.

Obviously.

For some, what appears to be can be
a major bummer of sorts.

As a last resort, one may sort
things out in a different fashion of thought.

To see how what appears in thought
can be thought to be thought.

Such a thought might be the biggest.
A grain of truth might be found within it.

[{:-])))]

Post by Bob Casanova
On Thu, 05 Nov 2015 21:01:42 -0500, the following appeared

Post by Dale

Post by tippy2tim
buddha is not the real god

don't some think he is not a God?

Yes, Buddhists.

Post by Dale
are there sects that think there are no Gods?

Define "sect".

It might suggest a division of sorts.

Bisect, trisect. Intersect.

Could be the same ect as in connect.

Ions may be involved.

At the intersection of the connection of all
the messages in this thread, growing out
of proportion, one sect leads to another.

[tt]

Post by Dale

Post by tippy2tim
buddha is not the real god

don't some think he is not a God?
are there sects that think there are no Gods?

jesus is god

[noname]

Post by djinn

Post by Dale
I'm a man, and have had suffering

"pain is inevitable,
suffering is optional."

Post by Dale
ascribed to Buddha

Pain is the inevitable result of optional decisions and suffering is
what inevitably results when you stick your hand into a running machine
you know nothing about for no better reaon than that you want to. Once
you know what you're working with, it's easier to keep your fingers
intact; start by keeping them to yourself.

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Dale
choose one, or place a rating
1) a time finite bang/crunch/etc., in a universe, in/out a multi-
verse, where you live good times and bad, and that is it
2) as (1) except cycles of bangs/crunches/etc in time. and no
recollection of previous lives
3) as (2) with full recollection of lives
4) as (2) with partial recollection of lives
5) an infinite continuum of time, where all things exist and all
things pass, including heaven and hell
6) as (5) except with what empathy can be had by the Supreme Being
that exists by (5), commensurate with what its purpose is only be (6)

Which ones do you have evidence for?

[Dale]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
choose one, or place a rating
1) a time finite bang/crunch/etc., in a universe, in/out a multi-
verse, where you live good times and bad, and that is it
2) as (1) except cycles of bangs/crunches/etc in time. and no
recollection of previous lives
3) as (2) with full recollection of lives
4) as (2) with partial recollection of lives
5) an infinite continuum of time, where all things exist and all
things pass, including heaven and hell
6) as (5) except with what empathy can be had by the Supreme Being
that exists by (5), commensurate with what its purpose is only be (6)

Which ones do you have evidence for?

I admit all cosmology isn't testable, including a Supreme Being,
God(s), Angels, etc. but abstraction and faith have their place along
side of philosophy in my opinion

ever just abstract your way around a philosophical debate instead of
using a logical fallacy look-up table for each step?

ever forget and just use faith until you remember?

do you have evidence of atheist cosmology?

[Jeanne Douglas]

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
choose one, or place a rating
1) a time finite bang/crunch/etc., in a universe, in/out a multi-
verse, where you live good times and bad, and that is it
2) as (1) except cycles of bangs/crunches/etc in time. and no
recollection of previous lives
3) as (2) with full recollection of lives
4) as (2) with partial recollection of lives
5) an infinite continuum of time, where all things exist and all
things pass, including heaven and hell
6) as (5) except with what empathy can be had by the Supreme Being
that exists by (5), commensurate with what its purpose is only be

(6)

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Which ones do you have evidence for?

I admit all cosmology isn't testable, including a Supreme Being,
God(s), Angels, etc. but abstraction and faith have their place along
side of philosophy in my opinion
ever just abstract your way around a philosophical debate instead of

"Philosophical debates" are nothing but navel-gazing. In other words,
worthless.

[Dale]

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
choose one, or place a rating
1) a time finite bang/crunch/etc., in a universe, in/out a

multi-

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale

Post by Jeanne Douglas

Post by Dale
verse, where you live good times and bad, and that is it
2) as (1) except cycles of bangs/crunches/etc in time. and no
recollection of previous lives
3) as (2) with full recollection of lives
4) as (2) with partial recollection of lives
5) an infinite continuum of time, where all things exist and all
things pass, including heaven and hell
6) as (5) except with what empathy can be had by the Supreme Being
that exists by (5), commensurate with what its purpose is only be

(6)

Post by Jeanne Douglas
Which ones do you have evidence for?

I admit all cosmology isn't testable, including a Supreme Being,
God(s), Angels, etc. but abstraction and faith have their place along
side of philosophy in my opinion
ever just abstract your way around a philosophical debate instead of

"Philosophical debates" are nothing but navel-gazing. In other

words,

Post by Jeanne Douglas
worthless.

I can't leave myself in an abstractive mode all the time