concious intent

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:21:13 PM3/29/10
to
here's something worthwhile noting;

it concerns the accuracy of clocks and
the smallest increment of time measured
by human beings.

here's a bit on the atomic clock ca. 1993

some of the links may be outdated.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm#background

---
http://whyfiles.org/078time/3.html
1993 NIST-7 -- the latest atomic clock --
comes on line, with an accuracy of
five parts in 10^15.
---
===
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/5/8
Optical clocks, however, could meet our needs
for better timekeeping. With frequencies
approaching 10^15 Hz - some 100,000 times higher
than the 9.2 GHz microwave frequency of the
fountain - optical clocks should be stable
to almost one part in 10^15 simply by averaging
over just a few seconds, rather than a day.
With longer averaging times, stabilities
of one part in 10^17 or better should be possible.
===

http://physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2000/Div847/div847h.html


and here's a bit about looking
at a small bit of time pulsed.

--
Clock Measures Attosecond Pulses
http://www.photonics.com/spectra/research/XQ/ASP/preaid.28/QX/read.htm

http://www.photonics.com/content/spectra/2002/September/research/77347.aspx
--

one attosecond 1 x 10^-18 seconds

what's of note is that there is no
accurate clock in the range of anything
smaller than 10^-15-10^-18 seconds

and so, for all practical purposes,
it is not safe to suggest that any
smaller increment of time even exists.

and so, for anyone to make comments
about what may or mat not be happening
at 10^-25 seconds is unwarranted
and purely speculative.

but everyone already knew that, right?

10^-27 seconds doesn't even exist.

so, you can say, as far as you
can demonstrate with experiment,

that there was T = 0 and then
there was T = 10^-18 seconds,
at best.

so what?

so, making referrence to bits of time
smaller than 10^-15-10^-18 seconds
is purely a metaphysical conjecture
and -not- 'scientific discovery.

[that's 10 to the -minus- 18 seconds]
or;
0.000000000000000001 seconds


think about this for a second;

hold your hands about two feet apart
and try and convince yourself that
the material universe was encapsulated
in that space and just sat there
waiting to burst forth in an
expansionary ignition.

now tell yourself why this two foot
area isn't fully collapsed to a zero volume.

say three solar systems in volume,
same thing, why isn't it completely collapsed?

truth is, even considering the universe as
'occupying' the space of only ten of our
solar systems, all atomic integrity would
be lost and you would not have matter
as 'we' know it.

so, you realize that a pre-ignition
material universe occupies no volume.

no volume
no gravity
no electromagnetism
no atomic forces
no heat.

in essence, if you have a blob of matter,
and that blob of matter absorbs energy
from some outside source, that absorption
of energy is coincident with an increase
in the vibration of the harmonic oscillation
in the atoms of the blob.

just like two tuning forks, where
one vibrating fork induces a tune
or vibration in the second fork,
when held in close proximity.

matter can absorb light energies
in the form of an increased
harmonic vibration.

the light is vibrating, passes thru
the matter and induces a vibration
in the atomic structure of the matter.

well, look, in a collapsed non-atomic state
there is no harmonic oscillation to induce
in anything and no interstitial spaces
to even allow vibrations at all
in any manner.

and so, in a completely collapsed
material universe, no such induction
of vibrations is possible.

and this idea of "collapse" is just a model
looking backwards from an inflated material
universe we live in, and noting these
observationally derived datums;

the material universe is not infinitely old
the material universe has a beginning
the material universe is said to be expanding

unreasonable to assume that the smallest
volume of the universe is finite and non-zero.

zero volume completely removes any
possibility of harmonic oscillation
from matter.

now, show yourself that there
is no tuning fork to -induce-
a vibration in anything
else anywhere.

now, what made the material universe ignite?

no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.

there simply is no trigger.

and there is your absolute necessity
for a Creative Personality.

genesis can -not- be an accident.

and that which you can see now,
was brought into being by this
Creative Personality which
you can not see.

otherwise, the material universe
never ignites, it remains static.

The Creator Made the material universe happen.

it's that simple.


now look at these definitions;

----
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mass
Mass
Abbr. m Physics. A property of matter equal
to the measure of an object's resistance
to changes in either the speed or direction
of its motion. The mass of an object is
not dependent on gravity and therefore is
different from but proportional to its weight.
Mass is the quantity of matter in a body;

Matter
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=matter
Something that occupies space and can be perceived
by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical
substance, or the universe as a whole. Physics.
Something that has mass and exists as a
solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
----

so, "in the beginning"

the material universe had no existance at all.

can be no mass with no possible speed
nor possible direction of motion.

can be no material without
space in which to reside.

id est, matter occupies space.

all mass and matter is a void of some
non-definable 'stuff' that is -not-
detectable by any physical method.

and this 'stuff' has no triggering
mechanism by which to suddenly burst
forth in some sort of explosive violence.


now, you may find that some suggest
a definition for 'heat' which is based
on the generic -motion- of particles,

but, the "singularity" has no properties
and is not 'waiting to burst forth'.

likewise, if we extrapolate an expansive
universe which has a beginning back
to the beginning,

there can be no citation of any motion
and therefore, no heat content is
possible in any manner.

whether from the springlike qualities of atomic
structure or some generic motion of particles
contended to have been spewed out of
a motionless singularity.

no matter how you dice it up,

no particles no motion,

no motion no heat

-not- 'infinite heat waiting to burst forth'

you can't cite a springloaded, metastable 'singularity'

'motion' of particles that don't
exist cannot be generating heat.

that would be paradoxical.

you can't say that the motion of particles
provided the heat that resulted in their
own existance.

without citing the motion of particles,
you have no heat content to cite.

it's still the same problem.

at Time T = 0

no motion can be cited.

no heat content.

not to mention that citing the motion of
particles is really just citing a kinetic
-potential- energy as they would not generate
a heat until they hit a wall of some sort.

that would be the statistical
mechanical framework.

a moving partical has kinetic energy.

heat would be generated in collisions.

you can't really say that a solitary
particle that is in motion, is 'hot'

basically, motion, in and of itself is
not 'heat' there has to be some sort
of dynamic interaction.

so, you invent this phantom 'quantum gravity'

that would cause 'objects simultaneously all
moving away from each other to start banging
into each other with no apparent anti-impetus.

anyway, it's all moot,

-no- accidental triggering mechanism.

citation of Creator God is necessary.

a Creator God with concious intent
must be cited as source for
the material universe.


--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:22:11 PM3/29/10
to
but, here's a parlor trick you may see;

the contention would be that at Time T = 0

total universal energy was encapsulated
within an infinitesimal 'space'

and then, in the span of less than 10^(-43) seconds

thats;

{0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001} s


a small amount of so-called 'matter//anti-matter'
had -formed- with a momentum and therefore a
'kinetic energy' which may be described
as a 'heat potential'

you may hear it stated like this somewhere;
--
"and matter and antimatter existed in almost
equal amounts, but they were both dominated
by the background energy of the universe."
--

and now;

-all- of the universal energy can
be described as 'heat energy'

that is, now they may speak of
"infinitely large heat content"

-this- is a parlor trick.

if you do claim that some infinitesimal
amount of matter anti-matter has always existed,

then this would also have an infinitesimal
heat content associated with the momenta
of both types of 'particles' and not some
infinite heat content.

and so, it's a parlor trick to convince
yourself that 'universal energy' may be
reckoned as an 'infinite heat energy'

given the use of the defining attribution
that would ascribe 'heat energy' to the
momentum of particles.

and that, at best, only an infinitesimal amount
of this so-called 'matter//anti-matter' -may-
have existed which would deliver any momentum
which may be described as a heat potential.

albeit, this so-called "matter//anti-matter"
is not quarks and electrons but some sort
of precursor formulation that for all practical
purposes, has an infinitesimal mass and therefore,
no real momentum, or infinitesimal momentum,
and we're back to infinitesimal heat potential
and not 'infinite heat energy'.


basically, if you don't cite a time at which
no matter//anti-matter existed, you lose
some reckoning of the process having
a 'beginning' you have to cite some
phantom repressor technology that
holds back the switchover until
ca. 14 billion years ago.

even if one cites a span from

10^(-150) to 10^(-100) seconds as an actual
interval of time, seeing as how we get to
speak of infinitessimals here,

during this 'period' no matter nor anti-matter
may be said to exist and therefore, we have
no 'heat potential' at all.

and this would collapse to some sort
of reckoning of the state at Time T = 0

even if you will like to claim that
total universal energy is a citable
phenomenon, encapsulated within this
infinitesimal void, there is no reason
to suggest that it is 'infinite heat energy'

and there's just no inanimate,
metastable trigger to initiate genesis

===============

> here's your parlor trick;
> the contention would be that at Time T = 0
> total universal energy was encapsulated
> -within- an infinitesimal 'space'

mind you, in entertaining this
notion of universal energy;

this sort of spacial void for universal energy
is not really relevant, because there's no real
geographic location to point at and say, "it's all there"

but, you can point at some small blob of
so-called matter//anti-matter and say,
"there it is"

and, as such, assign it its -infinitesimal- heat content.

so, as opposed to some immense heat blob cooling,
you have some situation where some seed of
matter//anti-matter accepts a transfer of
energy in some form which is converted -to-
heat in the form of an increased momentum.

but there's really no impetus for
something like this to ever happen.

that is, it's very highly implausible that a
blob of matter//anti-matter was laying dormant
in a sea of universal energy and -not- absorbing
energies and being delivered a momentum.

so, you still get stuck speculating on some
state where no matter in any form exists at all.

or citing some sort of repressor technology.

like God's hand holding it back.


the very fact that there is
all this stuff is remarkable.


why is it very 'cold' in the
space between the sun and
the earth?

there has to be some thing to
'absorb' energy from the light.

and the light passes off and induces
higher frequency harmonic oscillations
to the stuff, and this phenomenon is
'felt' as warmth or heat.

but if there is no thing there to absorb
the energy from the light the light just
passes on thru space and keeps -it's-
oscillating frequency basically as constant.

if the light itself behaved at all as a
heated object behaves then light would
shove off 'heat' to empty space and 'heat'
would simply dissipate from light as it
travels thru space and interstellar
space would be 'warm'

but this doesn't happen.

you can't speak of light
as having a 'heat' content.

the way light can transfer energy
is by inducing oscillating frequencies
in some 'object' that has an oscillating
potential energy state that is the
same as that of the light.

when sunlight makes you feel warm
a particular frequency of light is
being absorbed by material in your
body that has energy levels that
are of the same frequency so as
experience some induced oscillation.

long story short

to speak of infinite heat content in a situation
where you cannot point at any object that would
present itself to any sort of induced oscillation
is unwarranted.

that is, light itself can be said
to be self contained and 'cold'

there's no tendency for light
to dissipate 'heat' into a vacuum.

like there is a tendency for a heated object
to dissipate heat into a surrounding vacuum.

so, for all practical purposes, in citing
this matter//anti-matter blob that increases
in momentum, you have to be going from a rather
cold situation to a much warmer situation as
the blob absorbs energies from the
surrounding universal energy.

like the conduit thru which universal energy
could be transformed to universal matter.

but it has to have a beginning of some sort,

meaning some time when there was no such
matter//anti-matter blob in existance,

or when such a blob had no momentum and yet,
was not being impelled by the surrounding
universal energy,

and still, you are stuck citing a
Creator Being to make that happen.

--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:22:53 PM3/29/10
to
alright anyway, big deal, what you need
someone do is describe the state of the
"universe" at time T = 0.

all the first second bit and physical science
in general cannot rightly make a clear definition
of the situation at time T = 0 so, you have two
choices in your speculative conjecture.

either you cite the existance of some substance
that has no known physical qualities, meaning no
physical qualities that may be measured and
therefore does not exist in the normal fashion,

or, you must cite a beginning from
absolute nothing, and this second
choice amounts to a magic.

a "something from nothing,"

that is the definition of a "magic".

but, if you make any referrence to this
"substance" that has no real physically
knowable qualities, you cite a "thing"
that you can have no physical reckoning of.

for all practical purposes, "science" must
discount the "something from nothing"
possibility as a "magic"

and therefore is confined to the emanation of
physical substances _from_ a "substance" that
has no knowable physical properties of its own.

and so, in referrence to absolute origins,
"science" is "stuck" citing a "thing"
that it can never recognize as "real"

but see, i got something even funnier,

you can't even demonstrate that the universe
by necessity came about in the manner described
in the "first second" manner.

this also amounts to pure conjecture.

so, what you cannot rightly disprove is
the proposition that all things simply
popped out of some such "quantum singularity"
fully in tact. that is, that planets and
suns just blurted out of this thing
already in tact.

which leaves you with another stange thing
and that is, that at time T = 0 there was
no physical reality, and at time T = 1 there
was a star that was "apparently"
6 billion years old.

that is, something like this,

that a "black hole" or "quantum sigularity"
just sort of sneezed and blew apart into
constituent fragmentary, atomic nature,
pieces that were already completely formed.

of course, we don't cite an
uncontrolled accident as our origin.

we cite a specifically ordained
manifestation of mechanical effluence.

specifically directed intelligence made it happen.

as metastability cannot be cited
where no mechanistic forces,
as yet, exist.

that is, we cannot suggest that the
flower pot was teetering imperceptibly
on the shelf, and then fell.

as, in the unity of the All, no potential
differences can be credibly cited.

no oppositional forcework.

only Love

whatever that is.

all you can do is say, "we've never
seen anything like that happen before"

but then, you've never studies a true
quantum singularity in any lab of yours
either, and in fact, you cannot.

so, basically, given that the state of
affairs at Time T = 0 favor uncertainty
and not a certainty of nothing at all,

the idea of an eternal God hanging out in
the "midst" of all that unknowable and not
ever knowable "stuff" loses me no sleep at all.

unknowable to experimental material
physics observation knowable to -that-
"stuff" whatever it may be.

what's funny about "life" -inside- of this
nowhere land is the apparent "sequence of events"
that may take place where no seconds tick
off of any clock.

that always struck me as entirely odd.

and the whole 'place' could be tinier than
the head of a pin or larger than the andromeda
galaxy or both simultaneously and neither
because there's no spacial measurement
possible either.

id est, there's no space, no physical
measuring device can comprehend it.

but yet, something "lives" 'there'.

wherever "there" 'is'

but what it -ain't- is
"something from nothing"

something from something
i can come to grips with.

but, nothing is nothing
and what can come of nothing?

so then, there is 'substance'
to that which can never be 'touched'

now nothing can confound you, any more.

or can't, as the case may be.

anyway, materialism falls under this.

simply because there's a "substance"
that has no knowable physical attributes.

and therefore, is not "material" in any way
that you could can describe based on physical
experimentation and observation.

therefore does not "exist" to physical discovery,

but yet, must exist.

and -only- a being with
conscious intent can
'make a tree'

--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:23:36 PM3/29/10
to
and speaking of genesis from singularity
and lack of any triggering mechanisms;

you have to provide as clear a description
for the state of affairs -at- Time T = 0

it's only much after that that you
can begin to speak of any sort of
atomic material, and any properties
which accompany that stuff.

properties which include heat content,
electromagnetic forces, gravitational
forces, and atomic forces, work and energy,
cannot be credibly cited as 'locked'
inside of any 'singularity' waiting
to burst forth.

no, these properties are
the -consequence- of
atomic material.

and so, in considering a genesis from
a singularity state, no triggering
mechanism can be positted and therefore,
a very absolute requirement for some
sort of concious being to speak things
into existance from nothing
at all is the consequence
with which you are stuck.


so, backtracking from the atomic world..;

you have your little atom,
and you see it like a spring.

just like a little slinky.

the slinky is wah-wah-ing back and forth.

the wah-wah-ing is what's
giving you time space
and temperature.

that is, the vibrational qualities
of the spring carry the attributes
of time space and temperature.

now, you claim you'd like to visit
a 'place' where the spring is compressed
into a void of zero space.

fine, you crush the atomic spring
into an entirely different substance.

well, now that "stuff" has no spring qualities.

you can no longer cite springlike qualities
in regards to this -other- stuff with
any degree of certainty whatsever.

so, you can't speak of concepts like
"infinite heat content" and "infinite density"
with any reasonable understanding.

no, you have vanished those 'springlike'
qualities in favor of some -other-
set of qualities.

qualities that you can never fully realize
from within the constraints of
your "physical" reality.

that is, you have, first, provided the ultimate
necessity for a "substance" that has no 'physical'
reality and now you must divorce yourself from
making a 'physical' attribution upon this "stuff"
that has no springlike qualities.

you -can- convince yourself, quite readily,
that this "stuff" has no "beginning" but you
can not make this broad leap that the qualities
understood in the atomic reality apply, in any
fashion, to this "stuff" that has
no springlike qualities.

you can't even go so far as to suggest that
this "stuff" is "consumed" into becoming
the atomic material.

but you remain stuck citing
a "stuff" that isn't 'real'.

failing to do so it tantamount to lieing.

in crushing the spring out of the atom,

you have an entirely different 'substance'
which is alien to the physical material
composition to classify.

what you can not broadly assume is that
this 'immaterial-substance' has the springlike
attributes of time space and temperature
locked in a void "waiting" to burst forth.

you are not considering a loaded spring.

you are ceding 'substance' to the immaterial.

energy is not present in a non-atomic state.
no mass, no energy in the material sense.
no volume no gravity, no mass.
whatever is the composition of 'it'

gravitational potential energy is lost without mass.
electromagnetic energy is lost without atomic structure.
heat energy is lost without heat content.
atomic energy is lost without atomic structure.


and you have no trigger to push over
any metastable teetering. what you have
is a definition of energy as an ability
to do work and generate heat,

outside of volume, no work
can be accomplished, and without
atomic vibrations, no heat
can be generated.

so, you cannot suggest that heat and work
were trapped, springloaded, in a singularity.
as heat and work -are- virtues of the material.

no trigger.

you can't just say;

"all energy was in the form
of heat and waiting to be
converted to work"

aside from matter you have no heat.

you need matter to generate heat.

without matter and without volume,
you have no heat or work potential.

those things come in to existance simultaneously.

i said;

"infinite heat capacity and
infinite density are unreal
concepts"

inasmuch as 'infinity'
is -not- a 'real' number.

infinity fails as a 'real' number
by additive identities,

1 plus infinity = infinity

infinity plus infinity = infinity


any real number, when you add another
nmumber to it takes to the next successor
and does not return itself.

no real number, when added
to itself, returns itself.

infinity is a "non-real" 'mathematical' concept.

therefore, 'infinite heat capacity'
and 'infinite density' are
meaningless statements.

what you have is some non-material
with no forcework acting upon it
triggered by some intelligent Hand.

physically 'at rest' with
no forcework to jostle
anything material at all.

which is why i liken it
to a matter/energy 'generator'

you can't speak of 'it' being
'consumed' to produce the material.

and you can't demonstrate that 'it'
is not still just as available
'now' as it was 'then'

this immaterial 'device'
is employed by God and
Jesus made use of 'it'

--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Timothy Sutter

unread,
Mar 29, 2010, 6:24:25 PM3/29/10
to
material universe possibilities
given constant material composition;


non-expansive infinitely old burnout

non-expansive young beginning

expansive infinitely old burnout

expansive young beginning


even granting the shadowy 'infinite time'
an inclusion in reality, either we have
a burned out material universe or a
material universe with a beginning.

[note, infinity plus one equals infinity
therefore 'infinity' is not a 'real' number
by some property of additive succession]

we are here to see that
the material universe is
not burned out, therefore
the material universe
has a beginning.


just take this example,

let's say 32 trillion trillion trillion years ago,
the material universe was of similar composition
as it is 'today'

well, given that,
all of its fuel should already be spent,
and we shouldn't be here to ponder its
present state of affairs.

need more time?

45 quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion
quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion years;

it should be spent.

and that ain't even in the
neighborhood of 'infinitely old'


under the presently understood circumstances
for an 'infinitely old' universe to not already
be a burned out cinder 'new matter' must be
emanating from some 'unknwown' -source-.

similar problem as previously stated,

'new' matter requires some impetus
for appearing from no-thing.

to suggest that existing gravitational effects
be responsible for extracting new matter from
no apparent source will require that empty space
be composed of a material substance.

contradiction

therefore, -if- any 'new matter' were
being continuously introduced into the system,
its source can not be it's -own- eternal existance.

'new matter' requires a source, which is
-not- itself, with some -intent- to bring
new matter in to being.


if we are to grant a minimal consideration
to some prospect of an imploding universe,

upon implosion, all atomic material integrity
is lost and we are stuck with the problem
of 're'-genesis from singularity in which case,
all triggering mechanisms are lost and
no self contained impetus for
genesis is available.

not to mention the problems of dissipative
heat loss which may never again accomplish
useful work and so, ...burned out cinder.

to insinuate infinite 'new beginnings'
itself implies 'beginnings' and beginnings
from 'no-thing' inasmuch as an imploded
material universe is no longer composed
of phyical material.

no razor can cut God,
the substance of things not seen,
out of the picture.

regarding such speculations of an
infinite eternal material universe;

[infite mass / infinite volume]

vector analysis forces a -static- universe.

in all directions any object would experience
an 'infinite gravitational force' locking
it in a fixed position for all eternity.

an 'infinite' mesh of evenly dispersed,
very small 'objects', with evenly
dispersed heat content.

this situation can not be made
to agree with our being here at all.

therefore, this situation must be
discarded as self evident falsehood.

universal mass must be finite.

incidental;
all forms of energy, of which human beings
are aware, are generated -from- mass.

at best, human beings have succeeded
in generating energy -from- mass, and
transforming that _mass-born energy_
in to mass. [questionable results,
some call it a 'transporter']

aside from this, human beings have never
experienced a generating of mass -from- energy.

mass ---> energy
mass ---> [work and heat]
no mass ---> no [work and heat]
no mass ---> no energy

finite universal mass dictates
universal burnout given infinite time.
[previous conclusion]

this situation can not be made
to agree with our being here.

infinitely aged, 'eternal', material universe
must be discarded as self evident falsehood.

therefore, this material universe
is finite and must have beginning.


Creation from scratch stands uncontestable.
[previous conclusion]


long story very short;

we are here ---> God

it's really that simple.

no God ---> no us

Us ---> God


here's another problem, the simple fact
that a lab has smashed an atom into smaller
constituents is -not- an indication that these
smaller constituents were ever precursor
structures to the atomic elements themselves.

no lab has ever taken 'quarks'
and -produced- a single atom.

and, we can cite mass spectrometry as a support
for the notion that break down products are not
always to be considered as precursors for
the larger structure.

in mass spectrometry, a molecule is
-esssentially- 'smashed' with a bombardment
of electrons, and fragmentary pieces are
detected by the apparatus.

point being, the fragmentary elements
of the mass spectrometric process are
-not- precursor elements in the
synthesis of the larger molecule.

i can easily support this with details.


so, there's no reason to support
the metaphysical speculation that
heat energy became quarks became atoms.

whole structures may have
appeared in tact from the onset
with some intrinsic fracturing
to allow for wiggle room.

and as such,

any eternal 'substance' that may be said
to exist can only be converted into spacial
atomic material by conscious initiation as
no metastable triggering mechanism exists
which will set off any accidental ignition.

one cannot even go so far as to suggest that
any such "ssubstance" is "consumed" into becoming
atomic material because you lose all ability
to ascribe dimensionality to 'it'.

as far as anyone with a measuring wand in their
hand and a thermometer and whatever other devices
you may employ to analyze the physical atomic
nature is concerned, such devices will not be
relevant to any such non-atomic 'substance'

the atomic materials are a subcategory
of any such 'substance' which can only
be manipulated by the conscious
intent of God.

any such 'substance' is not the sum
total of God's conscious Being.

God maintains God's integrity as conscious Being
before during and after the initiation of genesis
of atomic material from any such 'substance'
to which one cannot ascribe physical
properties associated with atomic materials.

only God, our conscious Being initiator
can deliver the impetus required to convert
this 'substance' into the atomic materials.

and yet, the conscious Being of God is not
altered in any manner and maintains God's
full integrity.

the dimensional nature simply exists as an
idea in the mind of Christ before the onset.

God's full conscious integrity exists today
as it did yesterday and before the onset
of the physical material universe.

God as eternal conscious Being exists
and atomic materials with dimensionality
have a very definite beeginning of time.

God as eternal conscious Being
can be communicated with now.

until one has such communion,
one may simply say that they have
never had such communion with God.


aside from that, i'll go on about my ways,

as none of this continued discussion
about God being has any real meaningful
relevant purpose.

--
http://timothysutter.usafreespace.com/

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages