Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/24/2023 at 10:33 AM, JensenZ said:

1. God exists, is all good, all knowing, and all powerful.

2. Such a being has no limits to its ability.

3. A good being will always eliminate all the evil that it can.

4. Evil exists, so God must not.

Why do you think God is "good" or "bad", when God isn't human ergo has no human emotions.

Religion defines God in human terms when God created a universe where entire solar systems die, with all the beings that might have been in that solar system.

How about when planet earth dies along with the sun? If humans still exist on it then, is God bad for allowing the sun to reach the end of it's fuel and die ( assuming humans don't manage to escape to other solar systems- but the entire universe will die eventually ).

 

Nature is the norm, and in nature everything dies, eventually. Why do you think humans are special in creation? That is what religion believes, so are you religious? Do you believe that humans were created in God's image, so special, or just part of evolution and not special at all?

[JensenZ]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'm not wrong but if you can't understand why, I'm not going to repeat what has already been explained hundreds of times on the thread.

Believe whatever you will, as I'm not here to convert anyone.

No one is explaining anything, especially on religious matters, merely giving opinions.  

 

I'll stick to the dictionary definition as "religion" is a word that has a specific meaning, and explanations are unnecessary.  

 

Here's another: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural".

 

That's good enough for me. If you want to make the issue more complicated than it needs to be, that's your prerogative, but I have more interesting topics to debate.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

No one is explaining anything, especially on religious matters, merely giving opinions.  

 

I'll stick to the dictionary definition as "religion" is a word that has a specific meaning, and explanations are unnecessary.  

 

Here's another: "the service and worship of God or the supernatural".

 

That's good enough for me. If you want to make the issue more complicated than it needs to be, that's your prerogative, but I have more interesting topics to debate.

I'll give you a clue.

 

Religious people need to believe in a human friendly God, but I can believe that God exists without being religious.

 

If you have more interesting topics to debate why did you post on this thread?

Edited April 25, 2023 by thaibeachlovers

[JensenZ]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do you think God is "good" or "bad", when God isn't human ergo has no human emotions.

Religion defines God in human terms when God created a universe where entire solar systems die, with all the beings that might have been in that solar system.

How about when planet earth dies along with the sun? If humans still exist on it then, is God bad for allowing the sun to reach the end of it's fuel and die ( assuming humans don't manage to escape to other solar systems- but the entire universe will die eventually ).

 

Nature is the norm, and in nature everything dies, eventually. Why do you think humans are special in creation? That is what religion believes, so are you religious? Do you believe that humans were created in God's image, so special, or just part of evolution and not special at all?

Why do I think God is "good" or "bad"? I was actually forwarding some philosophical concepts that keep people up at night. Theodicy and "the problem of evil". 

 

Apart from that, the Bible mentions that God is good 36 times.

 

https://www.biblelyfe.com/blog/bible-verses-about-the-goodness-of-god#:~:text=Psalm 25%3A8-9,teaches the humble his way.

 

Now I'm not sure if you use the Bible as a reference, but it should answer your question.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/24/2023 at 1:02 PM, JensenZ said:

This is an incredibly absurd comment. We're talking about institutional religion, from 500 years ago, instilled on an uneducated population. 94.5 percent of the population is Catholic. It's in their DNA. Perhaps you could suggest that over 100 million Catholics must give up their religion.

That's their choice. I was religious till I saw the light and gave it up.

I could have chosen to stay in it.

[JensenZ]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I'll give you a clue.

 

Religious people need to believe in a human friendly God, but I can believe that God exists without being religious.

 

If you have more interesting topics to debate why did you post on this thread?

Your clues are wasted on me, as you seem very confused. The topic is "do you believe in God and why" with no mention of the word "religion".

 

More interesting topics are just about any topic other than debating the difference between God and religion. The dictionary definition servers me well. No further explanations are necessary.

 

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, JensenZ said:

Your clues are wasted on me, as you seem very confused. The topic is "do you believe in God and why" with no mention of the word "religion".

 

More interesting topics are just about any topic other than debating the difference between God and religion. The dictionary definition servers me well. No further explanations are necessary.

 

 

 

 

Hmmmm. Interesting enough to post again!

 

Yes the thread is about God, but loads of posters keep bringing religion into it, including yourself.

[JensenZ]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's their choice. I was religious till I saw the light and gave it up.

I could have chosen to stay in it.

That reply was not to you. I have no idea of your religious affiliations or beliefs based on the few posts I've read in the last few days. I do sense much confusion though...

[JensenZ]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hmmmm. Interesting enough to post again!

 

Yes the thread is about God, but loads of posters keep bringing religion into it, including yourself.

It's not interesting that you're posting again as you're just baiting at this stage. You know why I'm here and you know the topic of the thread. I don't need your permission to post here.

[mauGR1]

7 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

This timeless consciousness splits and creates fragments just like a prism splits light, creating seemingly separate personalities in the process, without time or place restrictions. A sort of simultaneous "past lives". 

I perceive quite intuitively that space and time are " the same thing", but if i had to explain it, i would be in trouble. 

So , while looking for answers on the net, i came across with this opinion of a scientist,  i guess, which i find somehow interesting. 

 

spacetime might emerge from the materials we usually think of as living in the universe—matter and energy itself. “It's not [that] we first have space and time and then we add in some matter,” Wüthrich says. “Rather something material may be a necessary condition for there to be space and time".

[save the frogs]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do you think God is "good" or "bad", when God isn't human ergo has no human emotions.

if god is neither good nor bad, then what?

god is "neutral"?

but doesn't it mean then that humans are all helpless victims of random negative events?

 

[Hummin]

27 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

if god is neither good nor bad, then what?

god is "neutral"?

but doesn't it mean then that humans are all helpless victims of random negative events?

 

As many thais say, you thinking to much, and that is a very good advise, and sometimes better to accept life is a rollercoaster with brakes and speed control that works sometimes and sometimes not. 

 

Enjoy the ride, and stay focused on the positives as they come and go.. 

 

We are like ants, life is right here and now, and we do what we have to do to survive another day. We will never know when someone decides to put fire or poison to our anthill to get rid of us. 

[save the frogs]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

We will never know when someone decides to put fire or poison to our anthill to get rid of us. 

like the aliens?

or AI maybe?

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, save the frogs said:

like the aliens?

or AI maybe?

More like humans, humans activity which indeed could be AI, if they make AI to harm us, go to war against us, and also natural disasters including asteroids, even other galaxy or universe events  we are not aware of yet.

 

I believe other  Humans is the worst enemy and threat to all of us, both making environmental damages and also warfare.

 

Always the other part who is wrong, even it takes two or more to make the moves that finely  leads to beginning of the end.

Edited April 25, 2023 by Hummin

[thaibeachlovers]

Hi to those that have been on this thread with me for a long time.

 

As some will know I've not been happy about that which we may not discuss for a long time, so I'm letting you know that I am choosing to try and have a long break from the forum, though that doesn't mean I won't be back sometime in the future.

 

Also, as some will know I've tried to get out before, but always end up getting sucked back in, so the only way to stay out is to not drop back in for a "quick look", which just ends up with seeing something interesting that I just "have" to reply to.

 

So, if you don't see me posting, I haven't been sent on a "holiday", but chose to do the many other things that require my time instead.

 

I will say though, that this thread is why I kept getting sucked back in, as it's been a real learning experience and I'll be sorry to not keep learning from it, but it won't work if I just try and post on here- it's all or nothing with me.

To those that came to contribute, rather than scorn, thank you, it's been real.

 

I do hope that this time I can get out and stay out, but the power of the dark side is strong, and I am weak, so don't be surprised if you see me crawling back.

 

Take care guys, and keep learning- after all, life is either about learning new things, or it's rather pointless, IMO.

 

So, bye for now.

 

 

PS. If you respond to this post, don't expect a reply, as if my plan works I won't be reading it.

 

[Red Phoenix]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

As some will know I've not been happy about that which we may not discuss for a long time, so I'm letting you know that I am choosing to try and have a long break from the forum, though that doesn't mean I won't be back sometime in the future.

If the What Cannot Be Discussed on this Forum is the main reason for you taking a step back, do send me a PM and I will provide you with the link to the Thai sub-Forum  (not AN) dedicated to such discussions (but also providing much needed humor and occasionally addressing spiritual issues).  At the moment that sub-Forum has only 11 Members, but all with similar background and frustrated with the lack of free speech on That Which Cannot Be Discussed on regular Forums.

[save the frogs]

13 hours ago, Hummin said:

We are like ants,

so i don't think we are like ants at all.

let's say we have the capacity to build nuclear weapons and who knows if it may even have ramifications in other galaxies.

 

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Also, as some will know I've tried to get out before, but always end up getting sucked back in, so the only way to stay out is to not drop back in for a "quick look", which just ends up with seeing something interesting that I just "have" to reply to.

 

So, if you don't see me posting, I haven't been sent on a "holiday", but chose to do the many other things that require my time instead.

 

I will say though, that this thread is why I kept getting sucked back in, as it's been a real learning experience and I'll be sorry to not keep learning from it, but it won't work if I just try and post on here- it's all or nothing with me.

To those that came to contribute...

It's not that different than in real life, did free speech ever existed?

But i guess we can still discuss everything, as long as we stay calm, and we use a proper language. 

As much as one may not like to talk about, and i can understand why, there's a battle going on between the light and the dark forces. 

See you back soon ????

[Hummin]

4 hours ago, save the frogs said:

so i don't think we are like ants at all.

let's say we have the capacity to build nuclear weapons and who knows if it may even have ramifications in other galaxies.

 

Still in the perspective of what we know about the Galax and iniverse, we are not at an ant size even in comparison. Just think about it

[Hummin]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hi to those that have been on this thread with me for a long time.

 

As some will know I've not been happy about that which we may not discuss for a long time, so I'm letting you know that I am choosing to try and have a long break from the forum, though that doesn't mean I won't be back sometime in the future.

 

Also, as some will know I've tried to get out before, but always end up getting sucked back in, so the only way to stay out is to not drop back in for a "quick look", which just ends up with seeing something interesting that I just "have" to reply to.

 

So, if you don't see me posting, I haven't been sent on a "holiday", but chose to do the many other things that require my time instead.

 

I will say though, that this thread is why I kept getting sucked back in, as it's been a real learning experience and I'll be sorry to not keep learning from it, but it won't work if I just try and post on here- it's all or nothing with me.

To those that came to contribute, rather than scorn, thank you, it's been real.

 

I do hope that this time I can get out and stay out, but the power of the dark side is strong, and I am weak, so don't be surprised if you see me crawling back.

 

Take care guys, and keep learning- after all, life is either about learning new things, or it's rather pointless, IMO.

 

So, bye for now.

 

 

PS. If you respond to this post, don't expect a reply, as if my plan works I won't be reading it.

 

Anyway wo knows even you do not come back to read, I believe just replying to you is a food gesture and who knows you feel it or not. Somehow we have been connected through this tread.

 

Have a good continuous journey. 

 

I have been having the same feeling for my internet activity for a long time. Even quit social media for a year, but Im back. Hopefully I do the same as you soon, and if not here when back, good luck.

[save the frogs]

On 4/25/2023 at 7:43 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

So, bye for now.

don't stop believin', beach lover!

 

 

[Nemises]

Do you believe in God?

 

Yes, I believe in God. I also believe in the Easter Bunny.

[Sunmaster]

6 hours ago, Nemises said:

Do you believe in God?

 

Yes, I believe in God. I also believe in the Easter Bunny.

You probably also believe your comment was very clever....

[Red Phoenix]

I recently came across this interesting article by John CARTER, which might lead to some discussion on this thread as it addresses a very unconventional way of looking at the world.

After reading the first paragraphs, you might be tempted to tell me to 'stay on topic' as this thread is about Do You Believe in God and Why.  But if it triggers your interest (it certainly did with me) I would recommend you to make the effort to read the lengthy article.  Although the word God is never used, the author refers to the age-old idea of a conscious Universe which imo is a very accurate way of talking about God.

Below I copy/pasted the introductory paragraphs and the full article can be accessed here:

https://barsoom.substack.com/p/electric-yggdrasil

Electric Yggdrasil

The metaphors for the shape of the world that shape the way we see the world

~ A while ago, a good friend of mine related to me a strange conversation he’d had at the bar. His companion had insisted that the Earth is not a sphere. At first my friend assumed the guy was another tiresome flatlander, which was also my first assumption. Instead, the acid-head insisted that our planet possesses some sort of hyper-dimensional geometry. This assertion left my friend baffled, which was why he brought it up to me. What could this guy have possibly meant?

Now, I have no idea what he meant. I heard of this exchange second hand, and wasn’t there to interrogate the guy further in order to probe out his meaning.

It did, however, get me thinking.

So often in these sorts of debates, we find ourselves on one side or another of a sharply divided ontological belief-set. One side stakes out a position, we claim the other, and the interaction then becomes a shoving match between two sides that are convinced that they are in possession of the truth. This is frequently unhelpful from an alethiological perspective, because when you’re quite convinced that you know what the truth is, you immediately close yourself off to the possibility that you really don’t.

Sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle, being a compromise between the contested positions, or a synthesis of them. That isn’t so interesting, though.

In other cases, both things are true. Consider the statements ‘there is nothing new under the Sun’ and ‘all there is, is change’. Both of them point to important aspects of reality. The first relates to basic dynamics, the laws of nature being invariant over time. The second indicates that everything is flow and process – in our material universe, nothing lasts forever, nothing is ever fixed, everything is always becoming something else, and indeed there are no things as such. As the weeping philosopher said, ‘No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river, and he’s not the same man’ ... and yet, during his life as now, there are rivers, and there are men who step in them. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

 

The most interesting cases are the ones in which both positions are actually wrong, or at any rate incomplete, and the tenacity of the fight between them prevents either from seeing something else that might be even more interesting.

So, take the debate over the geometry of the Earth. And yes, I’m almost as annoyed as you that this is even a debate, but bear with me.

< article continued here: https://barsoom.substack.com/p/electric-yggdrasil >

 

[mauGR1]

24 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

I recently came across this interesting article by John CARTER, which might lead to some discussion on this thread as it addresses a very unconventional way of looking at the world.

After reading the first paragraphs, you might be tempted to tell me to 'stay on topic' as this thread is about Do You Believe in God and Why.  But if it triggers your interest (it certainly did with me) I would recommend you to make the effort to read the lengthy article.  Although the word God is never used, the author refers to the age-old idea of a conscious Universe which imo is a very accurate way of talking about God.

Below I copy/pasted the introductory paragraphs and the full article can be accessed here:

https://barsoom.substack.com/p/electric-yggdrasil

Electric Yggdrasil

The metaphors for the shape of the world that shape the way we see the world

~ A while ago, a good friend of mine related to me a strange conversation he’d had at the bar. His companion had insisted that the Earth is not a sphere. At first my friend assumed the guy was another tiresome flatlander, which was also my first assumption. Instead, the acid-head insisted that our planet possesses some sort of hyper-dimensional geometry. This assertion left my friend baffled, which was why he brought it up to me. What could this guy have possibly meant?

Now, I have no idea what he meant. I heard of this exchange second hand, and wasn’t there to interrogate the guy further in order to probe out his meaning.

It did, however, get me thinking.

So often in these sorts of debates, we find ourselves on one side or another of a sharply divided ontological belief-set. One side stakes out a position, we claim the other, and the interaction then becomes a shoving match between two sides that are convinced that they are in possession of the truth. This is frequently unhelpful from an alethiological perspective, because when you’re quite convinced that you know what the truth is, you immediately close yourself off to the possibility that you really don’t.

Sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle, being a compromise between the contested positions, or a synthesis of them. That isn’t so interesting, though.

In other cases, both things are true. Consider the statements ‘there is nothing new under the Sun’ and ‘all there is, is change’. Both of them point to important aspects of reality. The first relates to basic dynamics, the laws of nature being invariant over time. The second indicates that everything is flow and process – in our material universe, nothing lasts forever, nothing is ever fixed, everything is always becoming something else, and indeed there are no things as such. As the weeping philosopher said, ‘No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river, and he’s not the same man’ ... and yet, during his life as now, there are rivers, and there are men who step in them. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

 

The most interesting cases are the ones in which both positions are actually wrong, or at any rate incomplete, and the tenacity of the fight between them prevents either from seeing something else that might be even more interesting.

So, take the debate over the geometry of the Earth. And yes, I’m almost as annoyed as you that this is even a debate, but bear with me.

< article continued here: https://barsoom.substack.com/p/electric-yggdrasil >

 

Very interesting article, however, what is "known" to be the deepest point of the oceans, could be just the deepest point discovered so far.

 

[Hummin]

3 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

I recently came across this interesting article by John CARTER, which might lead to some discussion on this thread as it addresses a very unconventional way of looking at the world.

After reading the first paragraphs, you might be tempted to tell me to 'stay on topic' as this thread is about Do You Believe in God and Why.  But if it triggers your interest (it certainly did with me) I would recommend you to make the effort to read the lengthy article.  Although the word God is never used, the author refers to the age-old idea of a conscious Universe which imo is a very accurate way of talking about God.

Below I copy/pasted the introductory paragraphs and the full article can be accessed here:

https://barsoom.substack.com/p/electric-yggdrasil

Electric Yggdrasil

The metaphors for the shape of the world that shape the way we see the world

~ A while ago, a good friend of mine related to me a strange conversation he’d had at the bar. His companion had insisted that the Earth is not a sphere. At first my friend assumed the guy was another tiresome flatlander, which was also my first assumption. Instead, the acid-head insisted that our planet possesses some sort of hyper-dimensional geometry. This assertion left my friend baffled, which was why he brought it up to me. What could this guy have possibly meant?

Now, I have no idea what he meant. I heard of this exchange second hand, and wasn’t there to interrogate the guy further in order to probe out his meaning.

It did, however, get me thinking.

So often in these sorts of debates, we find ourselves on one side or another of a sharply divided ontological belief-set. One side stakes out a position, we claim the other, and the interaction then becomes a shoving match between two sides that are convinced that they are in possession of the truth. This is frequently unhelpful from an alethiological perspective, because when you’re quite convinced that you know what the truth is, you immediately close yourself off to the possibility that you really don’t.

Sometimes the truth is somewhere in the middle, being a compromise between the contested positions, or a synthesis of them. That isn’t so interesting, though.

In other cases, both things are true. Consider the statements ‘there is nothing new under the Sun’ and ‘all there is, is change’. Both of them point to important aspects of reality. The first relates to basic dynamics, the laws of nature being invariant over time. The second indicates that everything is flow and process – in our material universe, nothing lasts forever, nothing is ever fixed, everything is always becoming something else, and indeed there are no things as such. As the weeping philosopher said, ‘No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river, and he’s not the same man’ ... and yet, during his life as now, there are rivers, and there are men who step in them. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

 

The most interesting cases are the ones in which both positions are actually wrong, or at any rate incomplete, and the tenacity of the fight between them prevents either from seeing something else that might be even more interesting.

So, take the debate over the geometry of the Earth. And yes, I’m almost as annoyed as you that this is even a debate, but bear with me.

< article continued here: https://barsoom.substack.com/p/electric-yggdrasil >

 

Sometimes it is ok to look at world and our existence in the bigger picture for the best of our own sake ????

 

However, there is a growing Theory there have been several lost greater civilations before us which would explain the pyramids for an instance.

 

Another theory more likely is the universial consensus we have around us and connects us with constant information and solutions. 

 

Several cultures have more or less discovered simultaneously same solutions to same problems, where no proof of or physical connection have been found. So either there have been greater lost civilations being slowly restored, there have been physical contact between cicilations much earlier or a universal consensus who connects us. 

 

The best proof is fungal intelligence who might have connected us in times when the earth was still pure and not broken up by our pollution and industrialism. 

 

If anyone have stayed in a healthy preserved forrest for a longer time, would know what Im talking about, unfortunate wery few have, and the chances for masses of people to connect getting less for every minute passing by. 

 

The forrests are broken, the sea is polluted by noise and other human activity. The rivers who once was clear, are full of pollution also both pollution and soil erosion. And I can go on but I guess you all get the message. We ruin our existence from the smallest atom, molecule, bacteria, and animals we are depended on to live a healthy sustainable life mentally and physically. 

 

Our biggest sin against a god, is our ignorance against Mother earth. 

[Red Phoenix]

7 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Another theory more likely is the universal consensus we have around us and connects us with constant information and solutions. 

...

Several cultures have more or less discovered simultaneously same solutions to same problems, where no proof of or physical connection have been found.

Rupert Sheldrake - one of my heroes - was also intrigued by that often reported phenomenon of inventions/breakthroughs being done simultaneously by persons not in contact with each other.  And it led him to formulate his theory of 'morphic resonance' in the 1980s. 

In his own words:

Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems. In its most general formulation, morphic resonance means that the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. The hypothesis of morphic resonance also leads to a radically new interpretation of memory storage in the brain and of biological inheritance. Memory need not be stored in material traces inside brains, which are more like TV receivers than video recorders, tuning into influences from the past. And biological inheritance need not all be coded in the genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes; much of it depends on morphic resonance from previous members of the species. Thus each individual inherits a collective memory from past members of the species, and also contributes to the collective memory, affecting other members of the species in the future.

That may sound very hypothetical and somewhat farfetched, but Sheldrake has done many experiments to test his hypothesis.

One of the nicest ones based on his musing that if his theory was correct that it implied that whenever a person did find a solution to a problem that hadn't been solved before that it would be easier for other persons to also solve that problem. This because the solution would now be available in the morphic fields and could be tapped into. 

And so one of his experiments was by making use of the Times crosswords-puzzle, and he tested the hypothesis that it would be easier to solve that puzzle not on the day that it was published, but one or two days later when millions of people would have solved the puzzle already.  Using statistical analysis on the results of his experiment it turned out that indeed it was significantly easier to solve the puzzle when other people had solved it earlier.

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Red Phoenix said:

Rupert Sheldrake - one of my heroes - was also intrigued by that often reported phenomenon of inventions/breakthroughs being done simultaneously by persons not in contact with each other.  And it led him to formulate his theory of 'morphic resonance' in the 1980s. 

In his own words:

Morphic resonance is a process whereby self-organising systems inherit a memory from previous similar systems. In its most general formulation, morphic resonance means that the so-called laws of nature are more like habits. The hypothesis of morphic resonance also leads to a radically new interpretation of memory storage in the brain and of biological inheritance. Memory need not be stored in material traces inside brains, which are more like TV receivers than video recorders, tuning into influences from the past. And biological inheritance need not all be coded in the genes, or in epigenetic modifications of the genes; much of it depends on morphic resonance from previous members of the species. Thus each individual inherits a collective memory from past members of the species, and also contributes to the collective memory, affecting other members of the species in the future.

That may sound very hypothetical and somewhat farfetched, but Sheldrake has done many experiments to test his hypothesis.

One of the nicest ones based on his musing that if his theory was correct that it implied that whenever a person did find a solution to a problem that hadn't been solved before that it would be easier for other persons to also solve that problem. This because the solution would now be available in the morphic fields and could be tapped into. 

And so one of his experiments was by making use of the Times crosswords-puzzle, and he tested the hypothesis that it would be easier to solve that puzzle not on the day that it was published, but one or two days later when millions of people would have solved the puzzle already.  Using statistical analysis on the results of his experiment it turned out that indeed it was significantly easier to solve the puzzle when other people had solved it earlier.

If the universe is first and foremost consciousness and if form is just an attribute of consciousness, wouldn't it mean that solutions are present at any time?

They wouldn't have to be discovered from nothing, but somehow simply be accessed. 

What I'm trying to say is, if morphic fields exist, they exist as always complete, irrespective of time and space. That means that the idea of "before a certain event" and "after a certain event " are meaningless and have no influence on the integrity of the morphic field. In your example, the answers of the crossword puzzle are already present in the field and simply have to be accessed. The more people access this info, the easier it becomes for others to do so as well. It is not the people who put that information in the morphic field.

 

Am I missing something? 

[Hummin]

4 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

If the universe is first and foremost consciousness and if form is just an attribute of consciousness, wouldn't it mean that solutions are present at any time?

They wouldn't have to be discovered from nothing, but somehow simply be accessed. 

What I'm trying to say is, if morphic fields exist, they exist as always complete, irrespective of time and space. That means that the idea of "before a certain event" and "after a certain event " are meaningless and have no influence on the integrity of the morphic field. In your example, the answers of the crossword puzzle are already present in the field and simply have to be accessed. The more people access this info, the easier it becomes for others to do so as well. It is not the people who put that information in the morphic field.

 

Am I missing something? 

Im not sure there is place for everyone to connect or to handle the information given by connectiong, thats why every culture had their Sjamans to guide and care for the meaning of life, while others had other purposes. Chaos seems to interupt when to many find solutions or think they was given the truth. 

 

It still puzzles me, even we have same experience when we had our experiences, is how we progress differently by colouring the experiences and also give it different meanings. 

 

Another thing I see now in Europe, many slowly turn to Islam to find meaning because of their is so much more present in the dail lives visually and presence than any other religions today, and gives us new impulses. Why so? 

 

Do muslims have a stronger identity than any other religions? 

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

If the universe is first and foremost consciousness and if form is just an attribute of consciousness, wouldn't it mean that solutions are present at any time?

They wouldn't have to be discovered from nothing, but somehow simply be accessed. 

What I'm trying to say is, if morphic fields exist, they exist as always complete, irrespective of time and space. That means that the idea of "before a certain event" and "after a certain event " are meaningless and have no influence on the integrity of the morphic field. In your example, the answers of the crossword puzzle are already present in the field and simply have to be accessed. The more people access this info, the easier it becomes for others to do so as well. It is not the people who put that information in the morphic field.

 

Am I missing something? 

I don't see the contradiction, it just depends if you look at the issue as a mortal physical human, or if you look at it from the point of view of the infinite/eternal. 

All is one, so it's quite normal for the "information " to exist everywhere and everytime..