s1eep

To be wise and someone's wisdom are different; one is a path, the other is in the passive; for that reason I assert that wisdom is separate to us but we have the power to control it-- there is the wisest action, and this is how all things move forward. If there was no good in the universe, how would things exist? There must have been some relative optimism in the universe from start to present for it to have produce new things to continue existing; things that worked well together, worked together, and this was by following their wisdom. A flame is potentially infinite; it can reproduce an infinite amount of times; this shows us created wisdom, it is not a lifeless element. Remember, the planet is not cut into separate parts, the core, the mantle, they all form one being, and this being is wise, it controls all parts at once, as we humans are created wise over our bodies. Omnipotence is the answer to everything, if it exists, it is the answer; well, it's the closest to an answer we will ever get. Think of it as a test of spirit, can you think of that much power? And walah, we have the universe. I don't think God is a man in the sky; I'm not someone who believes in fairy tales; I don't even think it should be called God, hence why I made this thread. The God I believe in is real, it's just on a different wavelength to what you think on. You seem to compress things to a singular perspective instead of taking in the whole being; which is why you treat the planet wrong and why innocent people will suffer in the future.

What about nothing becoming wise, gaining a heightened perspective on reality, nothing? You have nothing, then you have wise nothing, and then you have the big bang. Do we require experience to become wise or can we be created wise? Maybe we are already wise but we can become wiser.

You need wisdom, but that is your own godliness I think.

Why is the answer "No?" Wisdom has moral authority, there is an ultimate good, to be wise. It would be the perfect deity that guides morality. All nothing needs to become something is an idea of something to create, all we need to create a big bang is wisdom. In the beginning, Wisdom, then creation. The same principles should be followed in life-- we should have knowledge, experience and good judgement. I suppose all definitions are not 100% stable words, definitions are strings of words that we use to describe something; the real wisdom is probably a little different to the definition. As a scientist, you should be less restricted by the semantics of words and be concerned with the real.

Use the word, instead of reverting back to it's definition. "Is God wisdom?" is a valid question. Is cake nice? Is also an invalid question by your logic. What if in the beginning was wisdom? And what if our wisdom is the present God?

Their dictionary definitions. The creator and ruler of the universe.

We often ask whether life has meaning, for example, there is a thread in the speculations section that asks whether there is cleverness behind the universes creation. Wisdom gives life meaning, if we are wise then there is a certain action for every reaction, an action that we should employ-- the wisest action, and by employing this action, my life has meaning, for I was meant to follow wisdom. I suppose, to be wise is to know such things as 'thyself', your wife or your environment; things we are consumed by. Is the ultimate wisdom greater than the ultimate intelligence? Do we possess the wisdom to know the extents of this universe? I think we are little in comparison to what could be out there, I don't think we have created anything new and have instead delved deeper into the past. Are we lost in ourselves instead of our surroundings? But more to the point, is God wisdom? Because it is what has made things carry on, without the foundation to life, there can be no life, and that foundation was created. Wisdom was created, and is it something we should pursue religiously, our own wisdom? Personally, I believe there was wisdom behind creation, there had to be otherwise how do things move on from one stage to another? The first stage must be consumed for it to move on to the second, thus becoming the second stage in the present time. There has to be some sort of good event for harmony to pertain and things to move on-- this good event is found through wisdom, is wisdom God as it is opposed to the good events it helps us to follow?

"Creationists are crazy" would be a stereotype; people with 'no obvious crazy showing through' is basically a witty way of saying I've met some crazy people, and I imagine he thinks some of the creationists are this crazy he spoke of. I bet he is not qualified to diagnose crazy in someone. What is his diagnosis based on? Nothing? Preferences? There should be nothing in the way if we are being scientific, we should be tackling creationists properly. I have ideas about a creator unlike any God written in the bible and realer than any of them, and I don't reject scientific discoveries. Quick Creationist Idea That Doesn't Conflict With Science: What if outside the vacuum that our universe is in was infinity?

You claim to be an intelligent man but you don't even give a straight answer, you leave us flooded with evidence with no result. Your evidence that creationism is stupid is from a stereotype, you haven't given other creationists a chance to have their say. You use phrases like 'no obvious crazy showing through' showing us once again that you are someone who likes to stereotype. How do you deal with creationists? Shouldn't the scientist say it's the creationists that he's met and not every one, that's a very imprecise argument if not-- you're slacking.

What are you then? There is no complete difference between Man and a dog, each is fulfilled by it's own senses, each has it's own character and enjoys life; sure, on the face of things, within their beauty, they are different, but their special relationships outweigh their differences, You are the same as the dog, the only reason you think you're separate is because you can say it, and that's the only thing that separates us from other animal. You are more alike the animal than you are the word human, you're just too delusional to believe different, but this is probably through years of mental abuse from government funded educators. I imagine you say that you aren't Nature too,

Not true, morals can come from wisdom. If you are wise, you may see it fit to not waste so much so that you preserve your environment, for example. It would be wise to preserve the environment. Thus, it is good to preserve the environment.

Wisdom is an aspect of life that I've followed with great devotion and success; over the last several years I've spent my time alone, using the internet to play online games and seek esoteric knowledge about life. I visited numerous forums about science, philosophy and religion, studying the characters with their own comments and theories, especially those I could understand. After a while, with my new found inspiration, I set out to write my own theories, most on a different route to the mainstream. Today I'm going to write an article about the human ego, with some experiences I've had on the topic. I am a perfectionist, though, I am chaotic, and sometimes random. The biggest annoyance I've come across during my solitary pursuit is the common human and it's ego, and humanity's ego as a whole. People bloat about their social lives, jobs, riches, people upper converge as if they are Godly, and look upon the lower class with upper class hatred; they are not so different to thugs and thieves but with sugar coating-- the ego is but a veil on reality. Human reality is based on the human ego, humans makes the stark assumption that we are different to the original nature, an act of egoism is what separates use from the real world. People would not be able to work so efficiently without their egos, to be somebody is important. An expert should be respected, but his same belief is egotistical; the law should be obeyed, the police are prime examples of the power of egoism. The ego is a major factor of our reality. Knowing this I have tried hard to keep myself away from the mainstream-- I don't trust most experts, but I take note of what they say, and make my own decisions. I act different to what is socially acceptable, and have esoteric beliefs. I've done a lot of personal study on words, I believe that they are a virus and cause us to spread death and destruction to the environment, and our species. I've noticed that they are the only thing that makes us individuals; without labels nothing is individual. A man may believe he is what he sees, then as far as he can see, is himself. This part of him is equally himself as his vessel. His work and his rest, himself. Thus, he and others form one, and not him alone. Without words we are part of a being greater than us, one that's beyond our comprehension. The family or the village is all that is in a wordless world; and knowing the self, it is wise to think for the family or village instead of the individual. The question is, how is somebody, somebody, without labels?

We are only sometimes hurt by nature, the other parts of nature are just as significant, and should be analyzed before coming to the conclusion whether or not nature is worthy of respect. Maybe if you had respected nature more, you would not have been in these disastrous positions you were in when you had your accident. Because people have accidents, what you're suggesting is that, we should be nihilistic in response to nature and worship a wound, because it harmed us sometimes, we isolate all the rest it does for us. If anything, the fact it harms us only shows that it is more powerful sometimes, and should be respected to a degree to harness this power. Also, who do you go to when you are hurt to then heal or even die? It's extremely stupid to not have respect for nature. You, from an empirical perspective, are a word-mammal and not a natural-mammal, you do not conform with nature, you conform to the word. It's insulting to be a word-mammal but that is what you have accepted when you made your case--you have no connection to the environment, let alone most of life. What "reality" do you support? It's definitely not nature, and nature is what reality is composed of. Your blood is significant, it is more nature than it is yourself, "you" would be your consciousness that you have an imaginary word for, one that you believe describes "you", enough for it to make some sort of sense. Your blood is not "you", it's the nature you are a part of most significantly. We live within nature, as nature, and you find ways to avoid having to pay emotionally or maybe even spiritually, for not respecting nature, or simple belief whether or not nature deserves respect-- nature is the most significant factor of life to us.

But a healthy habitat is what we need to survive, why is it even legal to be this stupid with our resources? If we could live differently to support ourselves further, why aren't we? Is our ego really that special if it should neglect natural life? Are we really intelligent if all we do is cause future deaths, and destruction, with most of what we do? I fail to see the Government's aims with education that so ruthlessly plunders nature.

Humans live in a finite environment, but humans waste vast amounts of the available resources. There are over one-hundred million cars on the roads around the world at one time, burning fuel into the atmosphere--not only are we polluting the air, but we are siphoning valuable oil resource that had natural functions; we also waste in other ways. Humans are abstracting the Earth to be using all this resource that powers their reality. Why is nature foolishly overlooked? We deal damage that wont heal and that causes future humans to suffer, the healthy habitat we live in Today is a desolate wasteland tomorrow; in a few hundred years, maybe even less, humans may be forced into cannibalism because of lack of resources. Our resources will run out or the condition of the planet will get worse, so why do we persist in this erroneous wasting?

Science is not successful because it has been correct about things, because it hasn't been correct by any other standard other than it's science; what if your ideology to plunder nature is incorrect, then what science does is not successful, even if it is predicting the truth. Success, to humanity, revolves around the personality--how is it beneficent for humans? What has it done that's been successful for us and not successful because of it's own, sometimes egotistically proclaimed successful, function. It was correct that the Sun will rise tomorrow, but the Sun will rise anyway-- was the knowledge beneficent (because it was true)? And even if in this example it seems so, because it is so common, there are other questions that are answered by science that seem unlikely. Plus, the Sun rising tomorrow is a natural phenomenon that preserves anyway; it's not something that should be accredited to science, but rather the subject itself, and this is to what extent you believe humans should plunder nature. And OT: Heaven is likely because it's a good reason to live fast and die young, thus producing less waste; it would be helpful to provide this promise to everything in the form of dreams. People who instinctively think there is afterlife are more likely to be death defying individuals, and aren't afraid of death as much as others, causing them to live fast and die younger. The ones that didn't get a chance in life, who died immediately as children, they would would be more likely to have a greater hand in the next life, the ones who were evil would be dealt worse hands; heaven would make everything fair for each individual-- it's an idea that can work if we introduce waste output, and then our morals were how beneficent or maleficent we were to nature, that's how we were good or evil in our lives. If we live fast and die young it would pay us for our effort or suffering, it's a good idea. It is all shown by dreams if they are messengers of heaven.

What is a measure of sciences success?

Death is probably not the end of life, it's the end of one life, but life continues. And if the universe was created out of nothing, what's the chances of a second consciousness being created for the same person, out of nothing? It's a great accomplishment and it seems even lesser than universe creation. It could be intertwined.

That's not saying a brain cannot be created by the universe. Of course there is reason to believe that the universe can create dream states, or dream.

My belief in heaven isn't irrational. If I can dream and the universe is greater than me, it can dream. I can never know everything, I will never be able to find out; it is optimistic, and it's ultimately good for my mind, and because it's based on relations between humans and the universe's ability it's rational. I'm taking what I have, what I can do, and then relating them to what the universe can do; I possess faith that me and the universe are connected, and there are special relations between us. It's not irrational faith simply because it is faith. And some dreams are good, so because you don't find dreams great doesn't mean they don't satisfy our wants, thus creating the best life that we could wish for. Which brings me to my next idea, grades of heaven and hell, and you would be reborn in lives that were more heaven or more hell depending on your morality in this life. Some dreams are good, some dreams are bad--you also get nightmares,

Well. I'm not deluded for thinking heaven and hell exists, and I don't believe that all faith is irrational. I "believe" in things greater than myself. EDIT: By your logic, you need faith to understand the universe; you do not know it all; you only know it partially. To say "the universe" with full confidence is a lie, you are unworthy of expressing the term. You have faith.

Why is faith irrational? Definition of rational: "is based on or in accordance with reason or logic". What's illogical about a greater universe producing greater creations?

If you do not know God, and you haven't verified it because you know you do not know, wouldn't verification be 'that which you do not know'; that is the only way God is coherent, or means anything other than stupidity. You need a basis for God to have any kind of argument.

I think the fact that the universe is greater than humanity, and humans can dream, is a foundation for faith; faith in something reasonable, I have reasoned with the universe, I believe it to be capable of things above what I can create, and rational, I have rationalized, I am capable of dreaming, isn't it already evident that something above me in every way can create dreams? It's a rational and reasonable belief with no hard evidence--but dreaming is evident, and the universes greatness is evident, no-one will ever work it all out, it's far too enormous and as I said, great. I guess it takes faith to believe in universal greatness, but it's hardly irrational or unreasonable faith; maybe I didn't reason with you, but I certainly reasoned with the universe.