IAMRCx wrote:
I do not believe that the macrocosm does expand, but that it recreates itself. Physicists are saying this as well. When we speak of our expanding universe, we are speaking of bodies of energies drifting away from each other (the way that galaxies are drifting away from each other)

If energy could be created, it would be necessary for an energy to create it, thus there is one form of energy transforming itself into another form of energy. :)

Peace my friend
IAMRCx :)

Morrigan wrote:
If it is looked at as...

what is outside ourselves is a direct correlation of what we are in essence, it seems clear.

Regardless of our understanding of why... energy IS. We see it, feel it, ect.

Energy does not end but changes forms see...physics.

Physics explains the macrocosm well as far as human thought has developed.

Science is not fact.None of it.It is theory...and for a good reason.

As our knowledge grows, so does our understanding of these things.



Things of a spiritual (not necessarily religious) nature..

inspires us to look inward to the microcosm.

To the essence of self (as defined by the individual) which too, where knowege is always developing.



Both are real;

we see (macrocosm) and we feel (microcosm);

and not mutual exclusive.



Truly creation is magnificent...

That two things seemingly far apart are reflections of the same...

All is One.



In Love and Light,

Morrigan

IAMRCx wrote:
The complex nature of even the simplest structure overrules chance, therefore leaving only an intelligent beyond all understanding energy.

I’m not trying to rain on any parades. Really. I do believe in god and in our ongoing participation in creating god’s universe.
But I (and no doubt others whom you might hope to persuade) am not at all convinced by the above arguement.
One "definition" of infinity would be that given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of monkeys, we could expect that at some point in that infinity of time, a monkey would compose Beetoven’s Ninth. In other words, a simple structure with a complex nature does NOT overrule chance. Unless, of course, by "complex nature" you mean...?

jeff wrote:

IAMRCx wrote:

The complex nature of even the simplest structure overrules chance, therefore leaving only an intelligent beyond all understanding energy.



I’m not trying to rain on any parades. Really. I do believe in god and in our ongoing participation in creating god’s universe.

But I (and no doubt others whom you might hope to persuade) am not at all convinced by the above arguement.

One "definition" of infinity would be that given an infinite amount of time and an infinite number of monkeys, we could expect that at some point in that infinity of time, a monkey would compose Beetoven’s Ninth. In other words, a simple structure with a complex nature does NOT overrule chance. Unless, of course, by "complex nature" you mean...?

Do you really think that I am making this post to impress or persuade anyone in this group?

I have heard of the infinite number of monkeys story. I believe it was called "The 100th Monkey Effect". It was originated by Lawrence Blair and Lyall Watson. The story (theory) was discredited.

Atoms show a form of consciousness and know which atoms to join with and which atoms to reject in order to form different structures, coupled with the awareness to sense when it is being observed. I am writing about consciousness at the quantum level. It seems that when broken down, even the atom is made of other "particles" or forms of energy, which could be broken down again and again into infinity. There does not appear to be any point where consciousness starts, only that the effects of consciousness is observed at every observable point. At some point there is an Intelligence that directs this energy, that gives this energy the intelligence to form physical structures out of non-physical energy. I call this God.

With Much Metta
IAMRCx :)