HOW is God "Eternal"?

[Audie]

Yes.

Some (usually rightfully) have a problem with circular reasoning, but, overall, everything is based on -circles back to -the most basic/simple facts -the foundation of everything. At some point, things cannot be reduced or be less complex -and "It just was" expresses that idea.

It is not logical to say, for example, that there was absolute nothing -then there was something -or that nothing became something. Absolute nothing would only be so by not becoming or producing something else.

That which exists... just... does.
It literally can not be otherwise.

What seems like daily life logic doesn't work well for physics.
The further one goes the more counterintuitive
and weird it gets.

You might have fun with Ted Tegmark's
Mathematical universe. Recommended, even.

 

[rational experiences]

Science is possessed by science.

Energy mass in a vacuum is stone.

Stone gases stopped burning.

Earth heavens one body own that proof.

Vacuum and stone gases not burning.

Science discussing second body sun big bang blasted. Converted earth mass and vacuum gases by natural law and changed law on fire.

What you lie about today.

God stone and heavens only owned non burning gases as seal of God.

Multiple AI UFO transmitters return from vacuum as it cannot cool what science changed. Natural law of stone in a vacuum.

The feedback all of your science memories of what you did to God mass is all your fake thesis today.

God stone remains mass intact. The very place your man science mind identified as God. First. Origin theist moment thinking. Science only belongs to earth.

So today you lie about God stone earth being eternal as you mass convert form of god into an unnatural form which possesses your thinking.

As dust gives you electricity AI UFO effect transferred that memory to nuclear sludge also in feedback. Why you believe nuclear sludge can form electricity also.

Just AI science psyche possesed.

 

[Yerda]

What seems like daily life logic doesn't work well for physics.
The further one goes the more counterintuitive
and weird it gets.

You might have fun with Ted Tegmark's
Mathematical universe. Recommended, even.

Max.

Good book though.

 

[Etritonakin]

While I agree to an extent with the statement that evolution is a "designer", this is a misrepresentation of the actual process. There is no "purpose" or "intent" or any kind of "planning" going on.

By any and all accounts, genetic mutations (= the source of the changes) are random.
There is no "agent deciding" somewhere to make mutation X happen "because it will be beneficial for this or that". This is not how it works at all.




By the same token, you could say that in us, the universe itself becomes aware and we "are" the universe looking back at itself, as practically all the atoms we are composed of were at one point forged in the cores of stars who were kind enough to explode and spread their inner elements out into the galaxy - we are ultimately made from stardust.

However, I don't see how such poetic concepts are helpful to the point.



So god = the universe?
If yes, I just call it the universe.

There actually is a whole lot of purpose/intent/planning going on with evolution -just not the self-aware kind... which is more about level of complexity... will try to get back to that later...
For now... our complex, purposeful, decision-making processes would not be possible without (and are composed of) more simple examples of the same thing.

There does exist within the evolutionary processes decisions made for specific purposes -rejection of other choices, etc -but more simple than a complex, self-aware being might make.

 

[rational experiences]

There actually is a whole lot of purpose/intent/planning going on with evolution -just not the self-aware kind... which is more about level of complexity... will try to get back to that later...
For now... our complex, purposeful, decision-making processes would not be possible without (and are composed of) more simple examples of the same thing.

There does exist within the evolutionary processes decisions made for specific purposes -rejection of other choices, etc -but more simple than a complex, self-aware being might make.

A theist. Is a human and you did not invent by machine theism your presence. Otherwise you would self bio manifest inside your machine womb.

As false mother ideas strings to self..past self then removal of self by heavens gas mass removal also. falsely claiming natural gas mass is a future number. When it is only present.

Human parents first. You baby human adult not the first.

Parents did not invent science. Parents not God. Parents aren't a string thesis.

A theist baby self quotes small cell biological history created me. Called it genetic advice yet two full bodied humans owned it.

Sperm ovary.

Not a machine string theory.origin reason a human theories...

To build a machine.

Origin human life sacrificed moment...human to theory genetics when self life human was mutated cell blood bone sacrificed.

Human science medical condition versus origin human reasoning machine.

From previous Moses genetic human mutated life. Healed returned genetics. To removed genetic human health. Bible reasoning.

Argument temple science conditions.

Argument between occult scientists human. Working in the temple. Moses theme taught what temple Egyptian using signals changed into striking bodies satanic. The description. As an analogy.

The teaching. It surprised them. They did not expect the conversion by God.

Ask science didn't you always claim God is origin in spatial ownership as science product earth?

Yes.

Science owns that human statement God existed first in created history.

What is the first science bio form stated to be God earth owned,?

Microbes bacterias. Which is not garden nature. Animals or human.

Which you cannot coerce today.

Information status.

Humans were not the first life form.

Medical biology speaks only about humans for humans is not occult science information.

Our first life human and parents.

If one self says once said i was an ape human. Then it owns a healthy whole bodied human reasoning.

The conclusion life de evolved the status on God earth.

Seeing if you claimed God the earth did not exist in a human theism you would be outright lying.

Reason against occult practice. Those scientists lied.

A spatial moment is not out of space in a machine reaction built by a human inside atmosphere. The space discussed only relative to the God mass removed moment in a forced conversion.

Inside of a machine.

God as a body is not in space sits inside it's heavens. As proof against satanic occult human life destruction.

 

[rational experiences]

Reason comparing human theory.

We live in daylight one day constant. Same day everyday

Only the cross + seasons change causing the day status to vary.

The one only day supports life formed in self presence present owning health as it's highest form.

Any lower equal one species suffering was harmed.

Daylight presence balanced with non burning night.

To be informed.

UFO effect science caused. Why it was depicted in paintings as advice science caused it.

Memory imaged back by UFO radiation mass said human life completely destroyed. Patterns memory of the fall is the claim.

UFO vision as an image is seen in clouds along with animal images and human images. Whose body ends as bio held forms in natural life.

Clouds get recreated constantly every day.

A UFO does not end as a bio life form.

Evidence it is fake.

Science however by machinery can build a UFO machine their own selves.

Proving it was only science machine cause. Machine is included in conversion reaction of God stone mass by thesis. The product before a machine begins with God stone mass.

Remove stone mass as god it produces a machine body.

Theists falsified natural advice and claimed God invented UFO machine. Humans did.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There actually is a whole lot of purpose/intent/planning going on with evolution

No, there isn't. If you think there is, I'm very curious to read how you think there is.

For now... our complex, purposeful, decision-making processes would not be possible without (and are composed of) more simple examples of the same thing.

I don't know what you mean by that.

There does exist within the evolutionary processes decisions made for specific purposes -rejection of other choices, etc -but more simple than a complex, self-aware being might make.

I don't see how.

 

[Etritonakin]

No, there isn't. If you think there is, I'm very curious to read how you think there is.




I don't know what you mean by that.



I don't see how.

Will try to get back to this, but....

The same idea as complex computers -even A.I. -being made possible by simple logic gates -which make very basic decisions based on very basic input (simple awareness). There are also less complex forms of self-awareness which make up complex self-awareness.

(We can also program things to make decisions toward our purposes -while those programmed things are themselves unaware of the purpose.)

On a higher level....
Even in our own bodies, things such as the immune system make decisions for a specific purpose -but are not themselves aware/understanding of their purpose. Another example would be the circulatory system protecting core systems rather than extremities when cold.

 

[Inquire of God]

Many who consider the word "ETERNAL" in reference to God believe it applies not only to existence, but existence in a complex, self-aware state.... "I have always been here -I have always looked out from behind these eyes" as someone once wrote.

This would mean that God could not have been the initiator of himself. He would simply have been.

The best scientific explanation thus far for why anything at all exists is.... "It just was". However, "It" is seen to be something which changes and develops.

If God is essentially composed of everything which exists -if God is that is -and developed from simplicity to the point of being able to state "I AM THAT AM" -the beginning and end -that which was, is and is to come -God would be no less eternal.

Do we not say of ourselves "I was" when referring to a point before we were able to say "I am"?

If that is the case, God's self-realization and mastery of his own nature ("everything" becoming self-aware and master of its destiny) would essentially be an understanding of -and mastery of -evolution in its broadest sense.

Why would God not then employ that idea in creating? Would it even have been possible to ignore that basic aspect of his own nature? Creation and evolution are two different aspects of the same overall reality. The only possible question would be which was required at any point.
Would not any thing we discovered to be true about reality be indicative of God's nature?

Rom 1:19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Genesis 1:21 "AND GOD CREATED...EVERY LIVING CREATURE...AFTER THEIR KIND..."
This means, no, to evolution.
Evolution that does not extend beyond kind, is real, and provable, but no other evolution is provable, merely extrapolated. There is a reason for that, see Genesis.

 

[Etritonakin]

Genesis 1:21 "AND GOD CREATED...EVERY LIVING CREATURE...AFTER THEIR KIND..."
This means, no, to evolution.
Evolution that does not extend beyond kind, is real, and provable, but no other evolution is provable, merely extrapolated. There is a reason for that, see Genesis.

Perhaps you are assuming the limits of "kind" after that particular time.

Regardless, few realize that the first statement of Genesis -In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth -refers to the initial creation/completion of the Earth... and the rest has to do with what happened AFTER the earth then HAD BECOME (check the definition of the word translated "was") waste and ruin/formless and void for some reason.

What reason? "the angels which kept not their first estate" -as Lucifer had already turned and led sinning angels in a coup "above the heights of the clouds" against the throne of God -and was cast BACK DOWN to Earth afterward -which is why he was already "the destroyer" when interacting with humans in Eden.

Any amount of time could have transpired between the completion of the Earth (at which the angels/sons of God "shouted for joy") and its becoming ruined -which allows for all we can see from the fossil record.

Genesis actually describes a renewal of Earth in preparation for God's plan for man. It does not even state that it was completely lifeless -or that humanoids did not exist before Adam and Eve. Adam was the first man by biblical definition -not scientific -the first with the potential for eternal life. Ever wonder why Cain was worried other humans would kill him -or how he found a wife in Nod after being cast out of Eden?

Notice that when there was darkness on the face of the deep, the deep was already there!

God can create directly -and by evolution. Evolution actually allows for the possible development of life on countless worlds -without the need for micromanagement of every detail.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Will try to get back to this, but....

The same idea as complex computers -even A.I. -being made possible by simple logic gates -which make very basic decisions based on very basic input (simple awareness). There are also less complex forms of self-awareness which make up complex self-awareness.

(We can also program things to make decisions toward our purposes -while those programmed things are themselves unaware of the purpose.)

On a higher level....
Even in our own bodies, things such as the immune system make decisions for a specific purpose -but are not themselves aware/understanding of their purpose. Another example would be the circulatory system protecting core systems rather than extremities when cold.

How does any of this relate to the process of biological evolution?

 

[Etritonakin]

How does any of this relate to the process of biological evolution?

Inasmuch as biological evolution does make decisions for specific purposes ....toward purpose-based optimal outcomes (though not quite the same as specific logical decisions, even the overall effects of random mutations are toward survival of life overall rather than overall extinction)....

It is the awareness/understanding of purpose -as well as self-awareness -that it lacks in and of itself -not actually purpose. Purpose can exist where understanding and self-awareness do not -and also where they are not immediately apparent.

It can exist more simply before understanding and self-awareness develop -and can exist far removed when caused by a self-awareness with understanding.

Purpose does not actually need TO BE purposed -and such more simple examples precede and allow for purpose in the more complex sense.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Inasmuch as biological evolution does make decisions for specific purposes

It doesn't.

....toward purpose-based optimal outcomes (though not quite the same as specific logical decisions, even the overall effects of random mutations are toward survival of life overall rather than overall extinction)....

No. Mutation is random with respect to fitness.

It is the awareness/understanding of purpose -as well as self-awareness -that it lacks in and of itself -not actually purpose. Purpose can exist where understanding and self-awareness do not -and also where they are not immediately apparent.

This is just an assertion. And one that doesn't make particularly much sense at that.

Purpose does not actually need TO BE purposed -and such more simple examples precede and allow for purpose in the more complex sense.

I smell a teleological fallacy in the making.

 

[Etritonakin]

It doesn't.



No. Mutation is random with respect to fitness.



This is just an assertion. And one that doesn't make particularly much sense at that.



I smell a teleological fallacy in the making.

Does.
Not overall.
Nope- just the fact of the matter.
Not fallacy -reality.

This isn't debate class. It just is that way.

Perhaps there are different words for the two different occurrences of which I am not aware -which would allow me to make things more clear.

Things can very much be done for a purpose -without a complex, self-aware being having knowingly purposed them.

The former is a product of the general direction of development of reality -and the latter is a product of the former.
They are not actually, basically, different things -the difference is in increasing complexity and order. The former becomes the latter.

(what some would call disorder from a certain perspective)

It is similar to how something can be OF a certain design -and even have specific purposeful function -without having BEEN designed by a complex, self-aware being.

If it were not so.... complex, self-aware beings who knowingly designed for purposes they understood would not even be possible.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Does.
Not overall.
Nope- just the fact of the matter.
Not fallacy -reality.

This isn't debate class. It just is that way.

Perhaps there are different words for the two different occurrences of which I am not aware -which would allow me to make things more clear.

Things can very much be done for a purpose -without a complex, self-aware being having knowingly purposed them.

The former is a product of the general direction of development of reality -and the latter is a product of the former.
They are not actually, basically, different things -the difference is in increasing complexity and order. The former becomes the latter.

(what some would call disorder from a certain perspective)

It is similar to how something can be OF a certain design -and even have specific purposeful function -without having BEEN designed by a complex, self-aware being.

If it were not so.... complex, self-aware beings who knowingly designed for purposes they understood would not even be possible.

You lost me.

You speak in very abstract / vague / poetic terms here imo and I have difficulty identifying where you are talking metaphorically and where you aren't.

 

[Etritonakin]

You lost me.

You speak in very abstract / vague / poetic terms here imo and I have difficulty identifying where you are talking metaphorically and where you aren't.

Hmmmmmmm.......

I guess function would be the term, but purpose is also often used to describe the same thing... such as in...

"DNA serves two important cellular functions: It is the genetic material passed from parent to offspring and it serves as the information to direct and regulate the construction of the proteins necessary for the cell to perform all of its functions."

Like.... the purpose of the nose is to gather information to be passed onto the brain... and the purpose of an individual might be to smell a flower.

Perhaps function should be used where there is no forethought.... but purpose is often used -especially if something 'serves' a purpose -and especially by very complex function.

Anyway... without increasingly complex function, forethought could not have developed -and the latter is by arrangement of the former.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmmmmmmm.......

I guess function would be the term, but purpose is also often used to describe the same thing... such as in...

"DNA serves two important cellular functions: It is the genetic material passed from parent to offspring and it serves as the information to direct and regulate the construction of the proteins necessary for the cell to perform all of its functions."

Like.... the purpose of the nose is to gather information to be passed onto the brain... and the purpose of an individual might be to smell a flower.

Perhaps function should be used where there is no forethought.... but purpose is often used -especially if something 'serves' a purpose -and especially by very complex function.

Anyway... without increasingly complex function, forethought could not have developed -and the latter is by arrangement of the former.

So..... you're just making a semantic argument by playing with words and pretending "purpose" and "function" are the same thing.

The problem is that the word "purpose" comes with implied baggage. Baggage that includes "agency" and "planning" and "intent" - which aren't present in the evolutionary process.

 

[Etritonakin]

So..... you're just making a semantic argument by playing with words and pretending "purpose" and "function" are the same thing.

The problem is that the word "purpose" comes with implied baggage. Baggage that includes "agency" and "planning" and "intent" - which aren't present in the evolutionary process.

No. I am not responsible for the words being used interchangeably.

Also, some of those things -though less complex examples -are present within the process -and especially indicated by the overall result.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. -and you missed my point altogether.

Maybe if you spoke in clearer terms, that wouldn't happen.

At this point, I have no clue what your point is anymore, if it's not to "muddy the waters" by interchanging the words "function" and "purpose".

 

[Etritonakin]

Maybe if you spoke in clearer terms, that wouldn't happen.

At this point, I have no clue what your point is anymore, if it's not to "muddy the waters" by interchanging the words "function" and "purpose".

See edit.

-and I was quite clear.

Perhaps it is difficult for you to realize that the complex examples cannot happen without the less complex examples.

Finally, there very much can be purpose -a purpose for a function -without intent being involved or directly involved.

From the definition of purpose...
"the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists."

Not really the same thing as intent.

There can even be reasons without reasoning. Not my fault human language is imperfect. I was still quite clear.