Does an ordered universe mean a created universe?

Author: janesix ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 54
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,496
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    That's my question.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,190
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    i would say so
  • janesix
    janesix avatar
    Debates: 8
    Forum posts: 1,496
    2
    3
    3
    janesix avatar
    janesix
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    why?
  • PressF4Respect
    PressF4Respect avatar
    Debates: 9
    Forum posts: 3,131
    3
    8
    11
    PressF4Respect avatar
    PressF4Respect
    oh boy, this again?

    An ordered universe means a created universe
    Argument from incredulity. Done.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,190
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @janesix
    well does this come from
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @janesix
    As a system of physics and mathematics, yes, the order of the universe is a created thing. As we continue to learn more of the universe's function, it is more ordered than chaotic, and such a progression toward order is not a random function of chaos, but it follows ordinal sequence. This was known to DaVinci's good friend, Fra Luca de Pacioli, who declared that the language of the universe; the language of God was mathematics.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,415
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @janesix
    The universe is what it is.

    How do you differentiate between ordered and unordered?
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,415
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    Humans developed mathematics and the universe corresponds with human mathematics....Or vice-versa.

    This is just the way things are?

    This may also indicate an underlying universal principle... God if you like...Though not to be confused with other popular and more recent god myths and tales.


  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,331
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    This was known to DaVinci's good friend, Fra Luca de Pacioli, who declared that the language of the universe; the language of God was mathematics.


    OH well, it just has be true then doesn't it? I mean, if DaVinci's good friend, Fra Luca de Pacioli said so, there is nothing to question then is there? 

    I read about Galileo Galilei 's claim concerning the movement of the earth around the sun. He was tried by the Catholic Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", by Catholics and forced to recant. He spent the rest of his life under house arrest.

    "In 1992. the Vatican formally and publicly cleared Galileo of any wrongdoing. The Church eventually lifted the ban on Galileo's Dialogue in 1822, when it was common knowledge that the Earth was not the center of the Universe".

    That was benevolent of them, wasn't it.  In 1992!! didn't hang about did they?  They was so quick to clear this mans name that they forgot an  apology I notice.  



    I wonder,   did "DaVinci's good friend, Fra Luca de Pacioli" -   without relying on the supernatural, ever prove that a god created the universe?
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    what makes you think humans created mathematics?
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @janesix
    Does an ordered universe mean a created universe?

    Well it depends on how you look at it and what you're willing to accept because after all the answer is in the interpretation of that question there is no black and white proof other than common sense and logic. I associate order with only that which is capable of understanding how a methodical arrangement, sequence or pattern could exist. I don't believe an inanimate universe or that lifeless dead materials could develop such things, lifeless materials and inanimate forces don't have minds to be able to formulate processes or know how things should work that's obvious. Concerning correlation there is good reason to at least suspect an association between order and intelligence. Basically, a created universe would like what it looks like now, one with order, arrangements, patterns, sequences, processes and desired outcomes and results. It would unfold in such a way where things make sense and could work and the evolution of processes in relation to each other. A created universe is directly associated with intelligence. 
    The very definition of order requires the understanding of how things fit together and how arrangements need to be organized for a particular purpose. IMO a mind (intelligence) is required for that to occur period, at least that is my interpretation. Nothing else makes sense to my rational mind therefore the conclusion is pretty solid.

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,415
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    Good question.

    So, all that we are fairly sure of, is the universe is as it is, in so much as the laws that govern it are seemingly consistent ….So this allows for the implementation of a similarly consistent analytical system, which the human species was able to develop and referred to as mathematics.... We can therefore apply our mathematics to the study of universal systems.

    No humans...Still a consistent universe....But no mathematics.

    So I would conclude, that although the potential was always there, the development and application of mathematics was always reliant upon the existence of an analytical species.


    Chance or purpose is the real question?
    And despite my overwhelming scepticism of certain fantastical hypotheses, I still nonetheless err on the side of purpose. But unless we can actually know and understand a purpose, we can only be aware of mathematical potential rather than directly attribute the purposeful development of analytical systems to a higher authority.




  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    No humans...Still a consistent universe....But no mathematics.
    What's God; an aardvark?


     the development and application of mathematics was always reliant upon the existence of an analytical species.

    An analytical species: humanoid gods.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,415
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    What's  god?
    An assumption.


    Though as I always say....A god principle is nonetheless a realistic hypothesis... Though naively interpreted and represented in the fictional/mythological stories found in the bible and other archaic religious tomes.


  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @zedvictor4
    What's  god?
    An assumption.

    Lol is your assumption about God being an assumption an assumption??

    A god principle is nonetheless a realistic hypothesis...

    Whatever the "God principle" is you wish not to explain, but if its a realistic hypothesis how would you ever know whether or not any religious sources naively interpreted or represented it? if they did, how would you know what a legit interpretation is?

    Ever thought about the possibility that religious sources can be studied as a wide range of facts and insights as a whole? and that not any one source is perfect but they all have something of value? in other words "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." After all it is the available body of facts and information as it specifically deals with the nature that we are studying/inquiring.

    Now I would assume your response is going to be something along the lines of "well they all contradict one another", or "how can they all be right".
    My response is no they don't all contradict one another, some things are contradictory but not all things and yes, many of them can be right or at the very least contain information that can be used. Not just one of them need to have accurate or useful information, information can be derived from all or most of them to help us put the pieces together about what it is we wish to understand, and we use information that is useful and discard what is not useful.

    Creation and the reality of God is a massive scale operation, many societies exist beyond the small enterprise of Earth and so one thing to get out of the way, or one thing we as humans need to get over is that there are going to be many interpretations and varying facts and information about this Reality. That will be reflected in mans observations of a transcendent reality, meaning there will be many variations of a single proposition which man will one day realize is actually a very good thing.

    So we want to gather useful information and be open to the possibility that we are dealing with a very dynamic existence, if pantheism and panentheism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Native American spirituality, Judaism  and a host of other sources and propositions are correct then Omnism (as in Omnist) is an intelligent approach to an array of religious concepts and observations. If many Gods do in fact exist, so do many various cultures and societies which equal many interpretations and experiences which means we can utilize all useful information, facts and insights to paint an accurate albeit massive picture.

    Remembering that just because many forms of Gods exist does not mean there isn't a singular Platform out of which all forms originate. This would fall into such categories as the Hindu conception of Brahman, as well as pantheism and panentheism, spiritism, Eckancar, factions of Buddhism ect ect...what this basically entails is that you have this....(not that you really care or anything but since you ARE on a religious part of the forum)

    Platform (Omnipresent, universal singular original Source)
    Gods (creators and the like)
    Creation
    Overlords
    Demi-gods
    Souls (as in you and I)
    Incarnations
    Creatures
    Animals
    Humans
    ect ect

    And BTW, for those who wish to label me a heretic or anti-Christian, I may be considered a heretic but certainly not anti-Christian. I support the Gospels and Christianity but my beliefs happen to extend beyond just that interpretation. My foundation is Christianity, that society and culture along with their Heaven or Kingdom do in fact exist. So while I am not considered a fundamentalist I am a Christian in the sense that I have been applying those teachings all my life. So I'm not against the Bible per say, I'm against the misconception that creation is limited to that one interpretation. I don't want this to be an argument on whether or not I qualify as a Christian because I don't personally care, but I do support the Gospels. And as you can see I like to ramble!



  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    a valid, and clever argument. You'll pardon my objection and disagreement, but I know your stand and justification, and respect it.
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,415
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @EtrnlVw @fauxlaw
    Yep....My assumption was definitely an assumption and I'm happy to admit that.

    What exactly is the god principle?....I don't know, (though I do have some basic ideas)....But a god principle is that which I assume gives purpose to the universe.

    Certainly in some very basic respects I share an idea with all that afford the universe purpose. Though I do not share the fantastical ideas offered by popular religious conditioning, these are just  unnecessary tales based around  naïve notions of  imaginary humanoid or animal creators or overseers.....So we can perhaps attempt to update these archaic hypotheses,  and make them more relevant for today, but the fantasies still have a tendency to persist.....That is not to say that I am against the bible either, the bible is a good insight into the recent development of pseudo-scientific and more rigorous scientific knowledge and also a good indicator of how conditioned information (Christianity for example) was and still  is, transferred from generation to generation.... Also I do not doubt that the bible probably contains a good deal of historical fact, somewhere amongst all the fantastical embellishment....Hence, I often refer to the bible as a mythological pseudo-hypothesis.

    As I see it: 
    The development and transference of knowledge is the key to understanding and achieving the purposes of a god principle. (No deistic worship required) 
    The sequence of creation and the ongoing ability of matter to evolve and develop into information and knowledge enhancing, bodies and systems. (Which may or may not exceed the capabilities of organic bodies and systems).
    The purpose of which may simply be the perpetuation of a universal sequence.... In so much as the ultimate knowledge is the god principle which we assist in the creation of, which consequently facilitates the rebirth/re-initiation of a new universe.
    We create a god that recreates us.
    No worship required, because the god principle is... A. Not something that requires worship.... B. Something that has not as yet been achieved.
  • Soul_Doubt
    Soul_Doubt avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 7
    0
    0
    0
    Soul_Doubt avatar
    Soul_Doubt
    --> @janesix
    An "ordered universe" is a very loose term
    For example, there are some people who could see order in three stones dropped on the ground ("derrr, like, if you draw a line between those stones, you get a triangle, now that's no coincidence, is it") 
    Then you get most people who would tell the former "to stop being silly and lay off the dope."

    The universe is no different in that it comprises objects randomly dispersed according to the natural laws of physics, nothing more, nothing less. 

    If there were say, cube-shaped planets that defied the laws of nature one could reasonably raise the issue of creation.

    But as the universe stands, there is absolutely nothing about it that indicates anything to do with creation. Anyone who chooses to make patterns out of randomness to suit his or her preconceived beliefs is either being stupid and/or has too much time on his or her hands and should take up something more intellectual such as basket-weaving or number plate stamping.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    Not ignoring you, just want to think on a response. thanks.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 951
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Soul_Doubt
    The universe is no different in that it comprises objects randomly dispersed according to the natural laws of physics, nothing more, nothing less. 
    "Random" is an operative, and debatable condition. Is it "random" that a planetary system of planet and orbiting moon[s], and semi-captured rogue bodies typifies a solar system of star or [binary] and planets,  and semi-captured rogue bodies typifies a galactic system of a center [black hole?] and orbiting solar systems , and semi-captured rogue bodies? Doesn't seem so random to me, just as Darwin said of biological systems that "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." [On the Origin of Species]

    That's not so random, either. Yes, in number of variant types of forms, it may appear random [2 legs, four legs, six legs, more], but at a systemic level, it is not random at all. There are set forms, like planets, moons and stars, just as there are legs, and they vary in number, but always in sets of even numbered pairs or none at all, etc..


  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @zedvictor4
    Yep....My assumption was definitely an assumption and I'm happy to admit that.

    Okay, but I'm not assuming anything especially related God or creation. I base what I share from observation, experience, cross referencing and the best possible conclusions based on gathered information from many sources. My question to you would be why assume that God is an assumption rather than a legit, thought out or even experienced phenomenon? That's partly what makes the confrontation between Theists and non-believers frustrating is that it is always assumed we know what we know because we have assumed it for whatever fill in the blank reasons or that it's because our mommies told us. Why can't it be based upon an intelligent well thought out observation based on facts?

    What exactly is the god principle?....I don't know, (though I do have some basic ideas)....But a god principle is that which I assume gives purpose to the universe.

    Just wondering why you are coupling God with "principle". Nothing wrong with it but curious of your intention using it. How about we just use the term Creator? to me it makes the most sense plus I love Native Americans lol.

    Certainly in some very basic respects I share an idea with all that afford the universe purpose. Though I do not share the fantastical ideas offered by popular religious conditioning, these are just  unnecessary tales based around  naïve notions of  imaginary humanoid or animal creators or overseers.....

    I repeat my question to you then, how do you know what are naïve notions about God? not that I particularly disagree depending on what we are discussing specifically but the problem arises, how do you know where to draw the line between good information and facts and what you label imaginary?
    Remember that a Creator wants to create and experience every role possible, Gods and overseers play a role in all of this. 

    So we can perhaps attempt to update these archaic hypotheses,  and make them more relevant for today, but the fantasies still have a tendency to persist.....That is not to say that I am against the bible either, the bible is a good insight into the recent development of pseudo-scientific and more rigorous scientific knowledge and also a good indicator of how conditioned information (Christianity for example) was and still  is, transferred from generation to generation.... Also I do not doubt that the bible probably contains a good deal of historical fact, somewhere amongst all the fantastical embellishment....Hence, I often refer to the bible as a mythological pseudo-hypothesis.

    But what are the fantastical embellishments? anything related to God lol? come on man, I hope you answer the above question....I always state there is good information in Holy books and there is information that can be discarded, but I've spent the majority of my life applying, studying and observing this arena so I'm inclined to know the differences, but are you?

    As I see it:
    The development and transference of knowledge is the key to understanding and achieving the purposes of a god principle. (No deistic worship required)

    How do you know what to look for is the question? to you anything outside atheism or materialism could look stupid or foolish. You have to understand when you bring a Creator into the equation everything changes, the dynamics change drastically and even the suggestion of fantastical ideas are a potential. With a Creator as a Reality anything becomes possible and there's a reason for that. It's not because the God idea is magic, not at all it's that the limits of what God can bring into existence are sky high, we are talking about an eternal creative Being (Genius) not Pee Wee.
    The very nature of consciousness as distinct from a limited form is in itself dream-like, imagination if you want to use that term. It is the nature of consciousness that is extremely creative, the only thing that stops humans from creating a fantasy on Earth is our current limitations. But as technology advances look how our imaginations in what we produce advance. Now imagine an eternal (forever-existing!) Creator that does not have those limitations in place!

    Worship could be a subjective experience but really all it means is reverence and adoration for a thing or person. Certainly having reverence and adoration for God could be a natural thing, perhaps you just don't like the idea of it being forced worship and I would gladly relate to you on that. But what is it about the concept of adoring a Creator that you don't like? what is wrong with that scenario? you have relationships with others that you probably adore, why not with God?

    The sequence of creation and the ongoing ability of matter to evolve and develop into information and knowledge enhancing, bodies and systems. (Which may or may not exceed the capabilities of organic bodies and systems).

    But they don't just develop information and knowledge along the way, that's looking at it azz backwards. In process, the information and knowledge was there at the beginning, that's what enables a process to occur and unfold and produce what was intended.

    The purpose of which may simply be the perpetuation of a universal sequence.... In so much as the ultimate knowledge is the god principle which we assist in the creation of, which consequently facilitates the rebirth/re-initiation of a new universe.
    We create a god that recreates us.

    Maybe you're missing the point a bit. For there to be a creation of the universe that requires an intelligent factor. From there it is obvious that God is a Being, and if God is a Being then God is also sentient. In other words there is no way you could deduce that God is a thing rather than a type of Entity. If the Creator is a type of Entity then we can relate to God on a level that resembles our relations with other beings and entities. In other words there is no real reason to depersonalize God. You, I and everyone else come out of the heart of God, that is where you originated as a soul. While you are lesser being in a limited form the very core of you is identical to that of God. You can be nothing else, you are made from the same attributes or nature of the Creator. You don't know it yet lol, but you are one and the same. The only thing that distinguished you from God is your individualized forms in creation.
    In that light the idea of worship may seem a little strange but not really because right now you are restricted and confined by your own perceptions and experiences/knowledge. So admiring the origins of the Higher state of knowledge and wisdom from a lesser state of knowledge and wisdom is perfectly natural. You look to God as the guiding light and greater Ruler of yourself, in other words the relationship between the soul and the souls Maker.

    No worship required, because the god principle is... A. Not something that requires worship.... B. Something that has not as yet been achieved.

    I'm not sure you know what it is you're talking about. I'm sure you have ideas, but I don't see how you could know or understand from a place of complete ignorance. You look at God as an assumption from what I can tell, you've never given in to the notion that there is an objective applicable reality, without participation I don't see how any of your presumptions about this are relevant. You should be asking questions, as from a state of ignorance which you basically admitted. I'm not being mean either, I'm being serious and objective. 
    Even if all religions were incorrect (which is a ton of information BTW) that doesn't negate the fact that God is not a Thing, the Creator can only be a sentient, intelligent Reality. Basically the truest form of God doesn't change only the forms of embodiments. So even at Gods most formless state God is still a Being not a thing, a pervasive omnipresent conscious Entity so no matter how you look at it you cannot rob God of that attribute and if you were to, the term God becomes no longer relevant because you're talking about some other thing entirely.
    Even though you're used to looking at conscious beings within form, God is more like a conscious ocean (which creation exists within)....in other words a you without any embodiment. Most people from what I've seen can't conceptualize that but it's not that hard. You are a conscious being without any embodiment every time you dream or imagine something. You might be confined to a material body currently but just imagine yourself with no body by closing your eyes and observing, that is basically what God is or the state in which God exists in.  


  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 13
    Forum posts: 2,415
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @EtrnlVw
    Wouldn't you agree that all our ideas regarding this subject, are just speculation?

    I will get back with a fuller response when I have a bit more time to digest your last post.

    Regards.
  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @zedvictor4
    Wouldn't you agree that all our ideas regarding this subject, are just speculation?

    No sir.... no speculations and assumptions needed with such an objective reality, a lot of this is not just ideas but observations. Not all, but many Theists can argue their thoughts and concepts from experiences and observations. I mean we could argue about what "firm evidence" is but the fact of the matter is that religious propositions are not ideas people just made up lol, these origins are from those who have witnessed things. And in post #15 I explained why there are so many variations of testimonies and religious concepts/cultures.
    There's lots of ways to prove or at least have solid evidence when considering religious propositions and one way is cross referencing. But with cross referencing it's always better if you actually have your own experiences to collaborate with. The thing about spirituality is that it's not just right in your face, you have to participate in different ways to be able to have experiences or observations. You can't just sit back and do nothing but judge others and expect to get anything out of it, that's not how this works.
    So I cross reference my own observations and experiences with spiritual sources that way I'm not just banking on my own encounters or my own witness. This is more powerful than you realize because you have the witness of yourself (first hand witness) and the witness of others or better yet many others.

    And when you have a culture like the Hindus or the Native Americans for example, who base their whole lives around spirituality you better believe they have something of value to add. Because it is like anything else we put value and trust in, for example do you want to go to a Doctor related to your problems or concerns from someone who has never yet had hands on experience or from someone who's been in the field working with people for many years? or would you learn how to play the guitar from a beginner or someone who has been practicing for many years?

    The same thing applies within the arena of spirituality, you want to take notes on those who have the experience. Not all spiritualists are loonies, and some are the most grounded intelligent people you will ever meet....you have to be willing to at least consider those who have put the time in and can articulate knowledge in meaningful ways, albeit they are few in relation to all others. Jesus would be a great example as well, someone who had the passion and first hand experience and who paid their dues and put the time in to know what the hell they are talking about. Because I've spent so much time in this field of knowledge I know how to spot the good ones, the teachers that have become Masters. I know and confirm what they teach based on my own observations, and sometimes I have to listen and apply and be a student too. I could recommend Teachers and sources whom I feel are the most efficient and accurate and worth considering and while each has something unique to offer they all have the same qualities as teachers I look for.

    But to answer your question spirituality is not based on speculation or personal ideas, rather it is based on experience and or observation and there are many levels of this. So remember that when approaching the subject don't just assume this is all about someone's imagination running wild. Spirituality is much more objective than people realize even though it covers such an incredibly vast range of information, knowledge and facts. And that's because Theism IS such a vast reality so one has to be prepared for that.

    Just to add, spirituality and or Theism is also based on things that make sense, things that are logical and things that work. But you have to remember the dynamics involved, so no one has to accept absurdities or stupidity or things that just don't make sense. Spirituality is incredibly dynamic yet it still has a logical reasonable basis. So in other words there might be some wild ideas or concepts but they work in the broader sense, they fit together and they follow logic and commonsense. So if you have yet to have your own experiences follow logic and commonsense when considering what someone is saying even if it sounds fantastic. It will click with your rational mind so to speak. So never throw out ideas that come across as far fetched but make sense just because you're an atheist, never assume everything is crazy just because you're a materialist ect ect.
    Remember that like many fields of expertise there are Masters of the trade, those who have put the time in to bring you facts


  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @zedvictor4
    A good thing to consider as well is that you came from that Reality (God), nothing is kept hidden from you that you can't obtain or know. It's more about your willingness to let go of your presumptions and conditioned ways of thinking, all the information and facts are there for you to have.
    It is your right to have everything that God has and to know everything that God knows you just have to get your hands dirty and when dealing with the Creator you always have to position yourself, you can't hold onto things if you want to gain new things and if you want new experiences you have to apply new things as well. If you want all of God you have to be willing to give all of yourself it is a give and take relationship. I'm  not talking about brainwashing yourself either, I'm saying you have to empty your cup. This is not conditioning the mind rather it is more accurate to say you are emptying the mind, loosening the grip that the conditioned mind has on you. 
    You are essentially trading what you have for something much more real, much less inhibited and more truly what you are and where you come from. In this sense spirituality is more of a cultivation and application which is why I impress upon you  that this isn't based on speculation or assumptions. 

  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,211
    2
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @zedvictor4
    I will get back with a fuller response when I have a bit more time to digest your last post.

    Yeah sorry about that, believe it or not I try and tighten up my posts as much as I possibly can. Its just that some of these things need a lot of clarity, I'm not trying to overwhelm anyone with monotonous posting.