divinism.net consultation
GregKaye
I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
creative potential of existence.
Please have a look at http://www.divinism.net/
and share whatever comes to mind
Cheers chaps
Greg
John Brockbank
"GregKaye" <consu...@divinism.net> wrote in message
news:3cee98c5-7078-4249...@z16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Seems like a rather daft idea, derived from the idea that people in future
develop time travel and come back to tease people, covered by Douglas Adams
whose radio prgramme you might have heard. The standard SF approach though
is I think that although it is possible to travel forwards and then
backwards in time, it is not possible to go back beyond the present because
if one could, things get too wierd.
Of course it might be that 'many worlds' of quantum theory are caused by
just that. I am sure that nobody in future has gone back to the past and
caused me not to exist though.
I can absolutely assure you that, from my knowledge of people, if the thing
is true, it won't be long before another God evolves and develops the
ability to un-exist existence, and will do it, but it hasn't. So it does
not seem likely to be an idea that stands up.
Pete Barrett
<consu...@divinism.net> wrote:
>Hi
>
>I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
>I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
>creative potential of existence.
>
What exactly is the "creative potential for existence"? What do you
mean by it?
GregKaye
> "GregKaye" <consult...@divinism.net> wrote in message
>
> news:3cee98c5-7078-4249...@z16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Hi
>
> > I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
> > I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
> > creative potential of existence.
>
>
> > and share whatever comes to mind
>
> > Cheers chaps
>
> > Greg
>
> Seems like a rather daft idea, derived from the idea that people in future
> develop time travel and come back to tease people, covered by Douglas Adams
> whose radio prgramme you might have heard. The standard SF approach though
> is I think that although it is possible to travel forwards and then
> backwards in time, it is not possible to go back beyond the present because
> if one could, things get too wierd.
>
> Of course it might be that 'many worlds' of quantum theory are caused by
> just that. I am sure that nobody in future has gone back to the past and
> caused me not to exist though.
>
> I can absolutely assure you that, from my knowledge of people, if the thing
> is true, it won't be long before another God evolves and develops the
> ability to un-exist existence, and will do it, but it hasn't. So it does
> not seem likely to be an idea that stands up.
It can always be asked where did this come from or where did that come
from. It is often rightly asked who created God and a similar
question might be asked about quantum theory. All I know for sure is
that I exist and I'd really like to try to work out how it happened.
Well, to be truthful I'd like to know how it happened but I think that
that's unlikely to happen. The current situation has left me to deal
with daft ideas (as you have so impolitely described it) for the
simple reason that I have not yet found anything better. There may
also be a benefit if you could reword your last paragraph because I,
for one, am not completely sure that I understand what you mean.
GregKaye
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:53:00 -0700 (PDT), GregKaye
>
> >Hi
>
> >I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
> >I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
> >creative potential of existence.
>
> What exactly is the "creative potential for existence"? What do you
> mean by it?
That's a big question. According to certain trains of thought there
was (and I realise that I am sliping into the language of time) an
initial point/stage/situation of existence. If existence started then
it must have started somewhere. Maybe that somewhere was in a very
isolated location and maybe that somewhere was everywhere and,
potentially, everywhen. Within any of the possible conceptions of
origination then the creative potential for existence must have had
the capability to bring existence into being.
We are left to wonder whether things can exist without a cause or
whether a cause is something that they require. The concept of
retorspective or circular divinism essentially suggests that there was
a circuit of causes. Something within existence caused the creative
potential for existence and "then" the creative potential for
existence caused existence. My guess that this may sound a bit too
much like the action of a god for certain people on this site but what
can I do?
Sleepalot
He means "look at me - I'm pretentious".
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Sleepalot
>All I know for sure is
>that I exist and I'd really like to try to work out how it happened.
Ask your parents.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
Sleepalot
"Harmful or malicious software detected at this site"
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
GregKaye
>
> >Hi
>
> >I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
> >I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
> >creative potential of existence.
>
> What exactly is the "creative potential for existence"? What do you
> mean by it?
One thing that I didn't say in my previous reply is what I didn't mean
by it.
I wouldn't necessarily consider the creative potential for existence
to necessarily have any self guided thinking ability.
The 'creative potential for existence" does not need to be a god.
I don't personally consider that i
GregKaye
Jon Skinner
that you......?
Oh dear. Greg seems to have popped out of existence mid sentence there.
--
Jon
Pete Barrett
<consu...@divinism.net> wrote:
>
>That's a big question. According to certain trains of thought there
>was (and I realise that I am sliping into the language of time) an
>initial point/stage/situation of existence. If existence started then
>it must have started somewhere. Maybe that somewhere was in a very
>isolated location and maybe that somewhere was everywhere and,
>potentially, everywhen. Within any of the possible conceptions of
>origination then the creative potential for existence must have had
>the capability to bring existence into being.
>
All I can understand by 'bring existence into being' is 'cause
existence to exist'. That would imply that it's possible for existence
not to exist, which seems nonsensical or contradictory (depending on
the semantics of applying a term like 'exists' to a concept) to me.
John Brockbank
>>>>>>>>>>>
Unlikely, perhaps, but then again cosmology has got quite a long way back,
to within a very short time indeed after the beginning. That, when the fact
that galaxies exist was not known at all 100 years ago.
It has not been ever known what causes mass, but it is considered fairly
certain (90%, it has been guessed) that within 10 years it will be known.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The current situation has left me to deal
with daft ideas (as you have so impolitely described it) for the
simple reason that I have not yet found anything better.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, I accept that I was stating it succinctly. That is often taken as
impolite but I have learned that when peoples' ideas are challenged they
tend to take it fairly hard however it is put. It is best to say that I am
sorry I put it rather bluntly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There may
also be a benefit if you could reword your last paragraph because I,
for one, am not completely sure that I understand what you mean.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
There you are you see. I think it fairly obvious that if what you surmise
was correct, (a future evolved god started us) then one 'god' or other
would also have unstarted us with just about the same likelihood. After
all, there is no reason under the idea why billions of gods would not
evolve, and one of them would almost certainly have the same idea as me.
If he actually will do it in future, (stop existence in the past) then of
course we don't exist. But we do. That is why the idea is, pretty please
with a cherry on top, daft.
John Brockbank
"Sleepalot" <sleep...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0di3a5d67jk7ur77s...@4ax.com...
Blimey. It directed me to what purported to be an Edge article. They are
quite often worth a look. Perhaps he is trying to experiment with
generating variable links on the fly and you got a dud.
GregKaye
> GregKaye <consult...@divinism.net> wrote:
> >Hi
>
> >I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
> >I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
> >creative potential of existence.
>
>
> >and share whatever comes to mind
>
> "Harmful or malicious software detected at this site"
>
> --
> Sleepalot aa #1385
I had a message back from my service provider that said that there was
nothing wrong seen on the site - so where was the malice?
Sleepalot
>On Sep 5, 3:15�am, Sleepalot <sleepalo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> GregKaye <consult...@divinism.net> wrote:
>> >Hi
>>
>> >I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
>> >I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
>> >creative potential of existence.
>>
>> >Please have a look athttp://www.divinism.net/
>>
>> >and share whatever comes to mind
>>
>> "Harmful or malicious software detected at this site"
>>
>I had a message back from my service provider that said that there was
>nothing wrong seen on the site - so where was the malice?
I'm not an IT expert, merely reporting what my browser told me.
--
Sleepalot aa #1385
GregKaye
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 13:29:20 -0700 (PDT), GregKaye
>
That's a key point. Nothing can exist outside existence.
People often talk about the beginning of the universe and yet this
fails to take the question to its full extent. The key question
relates to the beginning of existence. Does existence contain a
situation that might be, according to interpretation, classified as
being a beginning.
Then the question would come, if existence contains a beginning
situation, what could cause this beginning? Anything that could cause
the beginning of existence must, by necessity, exist. Existence could
only have been caused to begin by something within existence and this
means that, if existence had a beginning, a circular dynamic is
required. Existence can only have a beginning if there is a
possibility, within existence, to go back to an initial situation of
existence within which it all could have begun.
GregKaye
> Hi
>
> I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
> I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
> creative potential of existence.
>
>
> and share whatever comes to mind
>
> Cheers chaps
>
> Greg
I am having trouble posting on this news group and keep getting the
message:
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to
this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the
Internet.
We were unable to post your message
If you believe this is an error, please contact Google Support.
I am also having trouble finding the support and may have to stop
posting here.
If I do get the chance to post again I will answer a number of post in
this one reply.
> > On Sep 4, 8:14 pm, petebarr...@freeuk.com (Pete Barrett) wrote:
> > > On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 04:53:00 -0700 (PDT), GregKaye
>
> > > <consult...@divinism.net> wrote:
> > > >Hi
>
> > > >I'm really hoping for thoughts and feedback related to a concept that
> > > >I have been developing regarding the path of origin relating to the
> > > >creative potential of existence.
>
> > > What exactly is the "creative potential for existence"? What do you
> > > mean by it?
>
> > One thing that I didn't say in my previous reply is what I didn't mean
> > by it.
> > I wouldn't necessarily consider the creative potential for existence
> > to necessarily have any self guided thinking ability.
> > The 'creative potential for existence" does not need to be a god.
>
> > I don't personally consider that i
>
> that you......?
>
> Oh dear. Greg seems to have popped out of existence mid sentence there.
>
> --
> Jon
Whoops
I guess that I inadvertantly added or failed to delete that final i
with the effect of raising the question as to whether or not I exist.
Well, at the very least I must have had a momentary existence of some
sort and can only thank you for having these thoughts in mind.
I, presuming that I exist, keep getting a message that says "We were
unable to post your message" and then another chance to validate the
message. Does anyone else have this problem.
"GregKaye" <consult...@divinism.net> wrote in message
news:391c3425-1ea3-46d8-
bad4-431...@e12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 4, 7:23 pm, "John Brockbank" <wag...@screaming.net> wrote:
- Show quoted text -
It can always be asked where did this come from or where did that
come
from. It is often rightly asked who created God and a similar
question might be asked about quantum theory. All I know for sure is
that I exist and I'd really like to try to work out how it happened.
Well, to be truthful I'd like to know how it happened but I think
that
that's unlikely to happen.
Unlikely, perhaps, but then again cosmology has got quite a long way
back,
to within a very short time indeed after the beginning. That, when
the fact
that galaxies exist was not known at all 100 years ago.
It has not been ever known what causes mass, but it is considered
fairly
certain (90%, it has been guessed) that within 10 years it will be
known.
The current situation has left me to deal
with daft ideas (as you have so impolitely described it) for the
simple reason that I have not yet found anything better.
John said
Well, I accept that I was stating it succinctly. That is often taken
as
impolite but I have learned that when peoples' ideas are challenged
they
tend to take it fairly hard however it is put. It is best to say that
I am
sorry I put it rather bluntly.
There may
also be a benefit if you could reword your last paragraph because I,
for one, am not completely sure that I understand what you mean.
There you are you see. I think it fairly obvious that if what you
surmise
was correct, (a future evolved god started us) then one 'god' or
other
would also have unstarted us with just about the same likelihood.
After
all, there is no reason under the idea why billions of gods would not
evolve, and one of them would almost certainly have the same idea as
me.
If he actually will do it in future, (stop existence in the past)
then of
course we don't exist. But we do. That is why the idea is, pretty
please
with a cherry on top, daft.
Reply:
It seems fair that members of a group that considers issues related to
Atheism might focus attention on the question of the existence or non
existence of gods. I can only ask that you also keep in mind that the
proposed concept of Divinism also considers the possible origin of a
"creative potential for existence" which, if it has a place within
existence, may or may not have a godlike personality.
I found the issue of annihilation that you raised to be of great
interest. It raises the question as to whether there may be the
potential, within existence, for the annihilation of existence.
Another question quickly follows as to whether, even if there was a
potential within existence for the annihilation of existence, would it
ever be used.
Human history has recently gone through a prolonged period has been
commonly labelled as being the cold war. It has to be admitted that
it did get quite frosty at times but, in truth, it wasn’t really a
war. No missiles were fired. And why was that? Well, it might be
interpreted that the Warsaw pact was not a suicide pact and it may
even be interpreted that no one really liked the idea of mutually
assured destruction. Nobody was that daft – or depressed.
But the question may be proposed, it seems, as to whether existence
contains the potential for its own annihilation in retrospect. Can
existence, someone might ask, pop out? Well, the concerned individual
that seriously asked this question may also hold onto the hope that
God never has a really bad day.
John Brockbank
My understanding of the current cosmological opinion (bad grammar but what
the heck, we are talking about big stuff here <g>) is that the equations and
current theory do not allow for time zero. In other words according to
current theory and equations, in the beginning when the universe began it
was already one unit of time old (a Planck length of time).
It is impossible for anything to be younger than one planck length of time.
That is why thinking about 'before' and musing that it is circular are
nonsensical. This might be annoying to a person looking for simple answers.
Think of it in the same way as 'absolute zero temperature' which is also
impossible. A thing at a temperature less than one planck does not exist.
Think of a line getting shorter and ever shorter until it is so short that
there is just no line left. How long is the line really though? There is
no length because it doesn't exist.
Of course it is damn obvious that something caused the universe to suddenly
be slightly old, but we don't know what it is. When people study more and
find much more about the universe, some clues might be found.
Why do you think that a non-existent thing (i.e. a thing with no time,
energy, mass, size, temperature, thought, absolutely with no attributes at
all) can not cause the universe? Suppose this non-existent thing has
potential. Suppose it is 'potential' - i.e. that is the only word we have
to use. That could 'cause' anything, including nothing.
However, before that point we have left science behind, and when you do that
you can just invent your own explanations and answers, but best to remember
that they do not mean anything, like the turtles holding up the Earth.
Pete Barrett
<consu...@divinism.net> wrote:
>That's a key point. Nothing can exist outside existence.
>
>People often talk about the beginning of the universe and yet this
>fails to take the question to its full extent. The key question
>relates to the beginning of existence. Does existence contain a
>situation that might be, according to interpretation, classified as
>being a beginning.
>
That is indeed a rather important question.
>Then the question would come, if existence contains a beginning
>situation, what could cause this beginning? Anything that could cause
>the beginning of existence must, by necessity, exist. Existence could
>only have been caused to begin by something within existence and this
>means that, if existence had a beginning, a circular dynamic is
>required. Existence can only have a beginning if there is a
>possibility, within existence, to go back to an initial situation of
>existence within which it all could have begun.
And here you've implicitly answered it. The fact that you've
implicitly answered it, rather than doing so explicitly, suggests to
me that you haven't yet considered whether the concept is even
intelligible. I can't see any intelligible meaning to 'the beginning
of existence'; if you can, you'll have to say what it is before I can
understand the rest of what you want to say.
Jon Skinner
> > > I don't personally consider that i
> >
> > that you......?
> >
> > Oh dear. Greg seems to have popped out of existence mid sentence there.
> >
> > --
> > Jon
>
> Whoops
> I guess that I inadvertantly added or failed to delete that final i
> with the effect of raising the question as to whether or not I exist.
> Well, at the very least I must have had a momentary existence of some
> sort and can only thank you for having these thoughts in mind.
Truth is, I was thinking of an Arthur C Clark story called "The Billion
Names of God". And perhaps a bit of Douglas Adams. Beware! Delve into
these things too deeply and you might vanish in a puff of your own
logic.
>
> I, presuming that I exist, keep getting a message that says "We were
> unable to post your message" and then another chance to validate the
> message. Does anyone else have this problem.
Try a dedicated newsreader like Forte Free Agent or similar. Pick a free
one from here: <http://www.tucows.com/software.html?t2=1989>, and bypass
google altogether.
--
Jon
John Brockbank
"Jon Skinner" <jskin...@dodo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1j5slqd.ncsam61ecty27N%jskin...@dodo.com.au...
I reckon from memory that it was the Nine Billion Names of God. However,
slightly more relevant to Divinism, regarding that as the future affecting
the past, is the same author's book Childhood's End, which I reckon you will
have read, so I don't need to spell out the reason by inserting a spoiler.
GregKaye
Just to say thanks to Jon and John for your various inputs
and to ask for any further comments on the site.
I have recently added an A-Z listing of creator identities that may be
of interest to some of you.
http://www.divinism.net/en/a-z_creators.htm
come on chaps --- you must be able to believe in one of them!
I have also given the site a little bit of a makeover. Being a bit of
an ecomentalist the background is still black but comments related to
accessability etc will also be welcome.