Supreme or Humans first.

Listen to this while your reading. Romanticism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhMSKdCgVYQ
for lee, fermi, etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPnM0Rxcl44

Just like the old question, did the chicken appear first, or the egg first? Did the Supreme being come first, or human being first? Did the purple level of the pristine humans slowly create the Supreme Being with their rituals, and their belief in the supernatural that is out there? Imagine those dudes like cyanobacteria in the ocean, slowly spewing out oxygen(belief, essence, pure thoughts) into the atmosphere. After giving there is enough essence, the Supreme Being forms, and then resupplies us with the essence in the database. Which comes first? Homo Saps or S. Being.

Just a random thought: but for the people that agree with the Supreme Being as 1st, dont you think the Uni Being is a bit unfair? They created the human species female dominant, look at our XY XX. Same as nipples.... men do not have a use for them, yet we still have them... isnt that unfair?

Also, reading long posts can be tiring, so people who are so kind to post on this thread, would you mind if you sometimes use less words, not saything long detailed paragraphs are bad, but my eyes kinda hurt after Michael's. TY


http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=386863#post386863
http://www.successconsciousness.com/cgi-bin/forum/sc/Blah.pl?m-1243600913/

hm...I would say the Supreme Being came first, even though Emerson said it's grounded on the aboriginal self. the two mightve later created an interdependent relationship, but the Supreme Being came first. The S.Being isnt limited to Homo Sapiens, so before humans can about, it still couldve existed throughout nature, just not analyzed/studied and stuff, like how we kinda do to it.

If you want to compare the S.Being as the oxygen produced by cyanobacteria and that is created by humans through their rituals..I kinda forgot, did the Earth start off with absolutely no oxygen or was there a bit, just not a significant amount? anyway, the S.Being is slowly built as more "oxygen" is created, and once a certain amount is created, the S.Being is made? that sounds a bit weird. What's the "oxygen" before the critical mass is reached?

how dominant are females? ok, so the X chromosome is prevalent in everyone, but it's the male that determines the gender of the offspring. is that not in a way a compensation?

If you want to compare the S.Being as the oxygen produced by cyanobacteria and that is created by humans through their rituals..I kinda forgot, did the Earth start off with absolutely no oxygen or was there a bit, just not a significant amount? anyway, the S.Being is slowly built as more "oxygen" is created, and once a certain amount is created, the S.Being is made? that sounds a bit weird. What's the "oxygen" before the critical mass is reached?

I would think that the supreme being is more like nitrogen - it was there in huge amounts before we came to live, and its still here, making up most of our atmosphere. If we developed the universal being after we became humans, then would the universal being be not made up of the same "components"? We'd be all different, and if we were to share a local knowledge then we would have needed to originate from the same place, which would be the supreme being. This could possibly mean that we share one soul, only that we each have a fragment of it!

But I *think* I kind of get the cyanobacteria metaphor - there is a bit of essence that is to begin with, and as these bits of essence somehow create/reproduce to include more bits of essence, the bits of essence slowly come together to form this huge central power source - the Supreme being.

how dominant are females? ok, so the X chromosome is prevalent in everyone, but it's the male that determines the gender of the offspring. is that not in a way a compensation?

LOL to Joyce!

Hi bradley, it's me again
first off, i listened to your music and i got distracted from your question, lol. can you please explain how the music (the first site) connects with your question and romanticism?

Major question: is the Supreme Being the same as God? Well, if it is, and if you're arguing that homo sapiens came before the Supreme Being, then you're basically going against every single religion in existence. Basically, it's impossible for the homo sapien to come before the Supreme Being. You do realize that the Supreme Being (aka essence, God, spirit) also created nature? Because based on transcendentalist and romanticist ideas, the essence permeates through all of life - including the natural world, be it plant, animal, or fungi. Ok so, the homo sapien came into existence millions of years AFTER plants, and dinosaurs, and squirrels, and giant squids.............

so SOMETHING had to create that right? Something had to create the unique designs and patterns in nature [that would seem to indicate intelligent design] right? So that something probably is the Supreme Being.

Despite all that, i like how you think. It is an intriguing idea if humans really DID create the Supreme Being with all their rituals and traditions. However, my hypothesis is that humans did NOT create the Supreme Being - they only added superfluous additions to it, such as the myriads of rules and restrictions of the church and temple and mosque. (no offense to the religious people here :S, just saying) beneath Christianity, Islam...etc is the BEING.

Oh and if you're saying that the cyanobacteria (people) spilled oxygen (essence) into air, and in return, the Universal Being was created and resupplied us with essence, what created the cyanobacteria (people)? where did its essence (oxygen) come from?

.........lmao before editing this post, i actually took the cyanobacteria metaphor literally -_-

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't life unfair?
In response to your question about the female body part: The Universal Being created everything as unfair - why did the Being give males brains if they don't use them? JUST KIDDING.
my real question is...well i have quite a few rebuttals to your comment about fairness. Why is it the females that have to go through the pain of labor? Why did the Jewish people get prosecuted for millenniums while other groups lived in prosperity? Why are you here living a comfortable life in Taiwan while millions of children your age are dying in Africa? These are just a few of the billions of questions out there regarding fairness.

If everything is fair, the world would be even more chaotic and dark then it is today. People would be like robots, living a dull and dreary life day after day. You can say that unfairness is what creates an active and prosperous society. But you can also argue that unfairness is only an idea created by the ego-mind so that it can survive.
However, everything is unfair. you cannot escape it. just like you cannot escape your ego mind.

sorry if this post is painful to your eyes :O

HAHA, oxygen=essence, good AP bio appliance brad

OK, i think that the universal being comes first, but it gave rise to the egomind and the self. Since we are all part of one and are interconnected, it sounds more reasonable when it is that the universal being, like mitosis and cell differenciation, we individuals differenciate and although different but all have a underlying universal connection.

TO your side question, i don think that the universal being gave rise or designed our appearance such as nipples= =. I think that this is the work of the natural selection, and just who we are. How do u noe that they have no use? Maybe they do carry imporance, just that you donno what its importance is..

oygen = essence is just a metaphor lah fiona (i remember you made a metaphor on another thread and bradley questioned it too). but i like how you think, joey, maybe it would be more appropriate to modify the metaphor to be nitrogen = essence

Fi, the question is, as I told you on MSN, is whether or not God really is the S.Being. That was my initial reaction, but the more I thought about it, the more weird it seemed, unless me definition of God is off. We say that the S.Being is found in everything, its unity/interconnectivity. I'm not too sure if that's the case with God (or, as I said earlier, I might be totally wrong). But I honestly dont know. I'd understand how God is the Universal Reliance, but isnt the Universal Reliance and S.Being the same thing? And then Emerson said how the Universal Reliance is grounded upon the aboriginal Self. How much is God dependent on us? So I came up with how God and the S.Being are two different things. How they coexist beats me.
But this is just my speculation.

hm.. that's a really interesting concept youve present, Fi, about unfairness. It adds flavor to our world in general and differeniates us. Life is unfair, that seems to be something we come to learn and accept. Of course we still fight for equality in some cases, but how much fairness is going too far? very interesting...

LOL bradley i'm going to follow on to your post because it's so AP Bio related. i don't care if you're annoyed by me

i'm gonna answer to the life is unfair thing. is it really? or is it the egomind that's telling you that it's unfair? because really, we have vestigial structures that serve no purpose for us either, right? but aren't we still the supposedly most-evolved species here on earth? i agree with joyce's statement; females have the dominant sex gene, but it is the males that determines the gender in offspring - it's all about compensation right? and why do you want a use for your nipples -_-? unless you feel like every single bodily structure has to have a purpose. but then again we have this useless thing called the appendix that don't do anything for us - in fact it can even be harmful if it develops appendicitis right? would you claim unfairness to the animals that dont have this structure or have it and use it? hmmm.. so maybe fair is a matter of perspective (just as everything else seems to be). I really think it is the ego mind that's telling you something is unfair in this world - fairness is really only an idea that our minds came up with to help us deal with the world, right? and i do think that we all have a purpose here, that there's a reason you're you and i'm me, and a reason that i'm not you and you're not me. That's why emerson said envy is stupid right?

to your main question... well i think the supreme being came first - since it's present in each and every individual out there. slowly our brains developed so that we can better cope with the world - and that's why humans, the most advanced species out there, have one of the biggest brains right? (with all our prefrontal lobes and "new brain" ) the other "less developed" animals out there have a smaller brain, but they still possess the Supreme being in them, since the supreme being is in everyone; it makes up everyone and is the reason for the underlying connection between all of us

btw i really like your topic =D

Isn't the Universal Reliance reliance on the Universal Being that we all share? Or am I mistaken? o_o

In what ways are the Supreme Being and God different? I'm very interested - and I suppose there isn't a definition for God other than what you give it.

And as for Fiona's fairness comment, I have to say that's true. The only reason there's still movement in the "system" that's our universe is because the scales are always more or less tipped to one side. That way there can be a possibility of spontaneity rather than a continuous cycle of sameness. Perhaps the only reason we can grow as a human being is because we are always at odds with something in our Universe - it's like getting candy for not touching the stove or actually touching the stove when you're already warned. I would say the burning would stick better than the candy.

As to Annie's comment, it really leads me to wonder how in the world our ego-minds came up with the concept that the world is unfair. Since the ego-mind became aware of themselves? Actually, this is kind of like the question in Vicky's topic,

hm..but doesnt everything happen for a reason, annie? so then there should be a reason our body has a certain structure (the body acquiring such a structure happened for a reason)?
but fairness being a matter of perception, that's a good one, annie

hey!
I agree with Joyce that the Supreme Being comes first. Doesn't the Supreme Being supposedly create everything? This is more a question regarding whether one is a believer or not. If I believe in say, God, I would believe that God really does exist and that therefore the God who created everything must exist before the homo sapiens to be able to create them right? However, if I am a non-believer, I may believe that God doesn't exist and therefore he is but a figment of mankind's imagination and therefore the homo sapiens came first. BUT if the Supreme Being did not exist first, what brought life?

about Annie's comment that fairness is a matter of perspective...it might be. But is it also a matter of morality? Because looking at the treatment that slaves had to go through, can we really say that it is a matter of perspective? shouldn't it be unfair from every perspective? hm...
But regarding Bradley's comment on useless body parts or whatever - that is MOST CERTAINLY CORRECT

Interesting group in here tonight. Bradley, good job with the post, and thanks for the youtube relaxing videos, highly original, as you, my dear, do so tend to be. Thank you very much.

but er, you need three forum links where you've posted your topic, right?....

yeah.

i will not comment on the second comment josh left on bradley's comment.

BRAD, lol youre weird just kidding, but i meant that youre inteeresting cause youre so different from everyone else = = so i decided to comment on your question even though i already did another topic

ANYWAYS,
like most other people, i do agree that the Supreme being came before all else because it is like the universal connection between all things - the origin of all things. And because it believed in like the unlimited potential of all thigns, maybe it created humans and other species for a reason.

but then again,
it could have been that humans were created then because we wanted to believe in something higher, something to guide us, WE created the supreme being - "god."

However, if that were true, then where did the humans come from? well thats why i think the supreme being came frist because it does not need a creator, IT IS everything. wow i just went back and forth like three times, but my final conclusion is the supreme being. and aobut it being fair? well as joyce said, everyone was created for a REASON. and i think guys and girls are balanced. i mean we might have some things that guys dont but you guys have things we dont eitehr. The supreme being gave us what we needed and are balanced one way or another, it depends on teh different POV.

hey there bradley. i understand long posts bother you, but there wasn't a whole lot I could do to size this one down.
i did add a tl;dr (too long;didn't read, basically meaning summarized version) of one of the paragraphs. hope it helps.

first off, here's my response to the question.
To make my explanation clear, I must first point out a number of things. First, depending on whether you believe in the supreme being or not, it may or may not have come first. If you do believe in it, then by definition, it should come first (as one of the parts of believing in the supreme being is believing that we originated from it, that it is the base of the universe). If you do not believe in it, then it is no different from any religion - just another set of beliefs thought up by a number of people to explain the mysteries of the universe.

So yes, believing in the supreme being is rather like believing in a religion.

Personally, I believe in it, and thus I believe that it comes before humans. As an agnostic, i don't tend to like to stick to religious beliefs, yet I find a different feeling from the theory of the supreme being. The theory doesn't seek to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe, it simply states that the universe works a certain way and leaves it at that. This is why it doesn't actually feel like a proper religion, as it lacks all powerful figures such as God, prophets, etc. The other part of this belief that makes me find it hard to deny is the fact that many people working alone have come to similar beliefs from studying our world. With most religions today, though the basis may be strikingly similar, there are always variations in the areas where they seek to explain why the universe functions in the way the claim it does, for example Christians say that God is the creator of everything and all the universal functions are results of his choices, whereas Muslims credit Allah for the same thing.

tl;dr, The belief of the supreme being doesn't seek to go into specifics, and that is why it seems the most plausible to me.

To answer the second part, I will pick out similar ideas from Fiona and Joanne's posts. Though we all come from the same origin, and are supposedly all equal beings, we differentiate and become individuals at the physical domain. I wouldn't say we are exactly unfair. Instead, I would put it this way:
The universe needs to maintain a balance, while simultaneously we need to maintain our individuality. The result is vast differences between each individual, to the point that it may seem "unfair." But our differences all work to balance out the scale of the universe, the same way predators work to keep the population of other species in an ecosystem in check. In terms of environmental science, we are a negative/positive feedback loop.

However, my hypothesis is that humans did NOT create the Supreme Being - they only added superfluous additions to it, such as the myriads of rules and restrictions of the church and temple and mosque. (no offense to the religious people here :S, just saying) beneath Christianity, Islam...etc is the BEING.

I agree with this, and just to add a little bit more, I think the churches and the religious rituals do not equate the essence; rather, it is a means by which we humans, with our dulled senses of perception, can connect with the underlying connection beneath everything. Or so we think. But then again, there was probably a reason for these rituals being created - after all, isn't the Universal Being the source of all original action? And then because ppl may have over-relied on the technical stuff of these rituals that slowly the meaning may have dissipated from the actual rituals themselves, which may make it seem meaningless to the atheists out there. MAYBE. Which is why there was a shift in thinking and people realized that everyone can experience God for themselves right? instead of only certain church leaders i mean.

How do u noe that they have no use? Maybe they do carry imporance, just that you donno what its importance is

I completely agree Josh good open-mindedness. perhaps there is a reason for us having shrunken appendices and tail bones =D i mean, there is still a lot of things that humans don't know, right? Maybe one day we'll discover that the tail bones are actually critical for the normal functioning of our thyroid gland or something (NOT SAYING IT IS THO).

the question is, as I told you on MSN, is whether or not God really is the S.Being. That was my initial reaction, but the more I thought about it, the more weird it seemed

i'm not religious, but it always seemed to me that God is ubiquitous; it is present in each and every one of us - that is why we can all experience God for ourselves right? And the Secret talked about God and energy - or was it potential? - being the same things. For me it seems like God IS the SBeing

Perhaps the only reason we can grow as a human being is because we are always at odds with something in our Universe

Reminds me of something that came up in class discussions today; the pendulum won't just keep swinging back to the same positions. like it wont be the same problems being debated over and over again (as i recall the question was whether it's the responsibility of males to attract females or vice versa). With each swing we are growing, and the newness is fueling the swing, which makes each destination of the pendulum at least a bit different from where it was in the previous swings. The newness perhaps fuels the swing, which allows us to grow with every swing. We're ascending into the next tier =D

But is it also a matter of morality? Because looking at the treatment that slaves had to go through, can we really say that it is a matter of perspective? shouldn't it be unfair from every perspective? hm...

Aren't fairness and morality all concepts and ideas that our brains thought up to help us deal with this physical reality that we seem to be in? i know it sounds cruel, i'm not denying it, but do you think other animals feel remorse when they kill each other for food? survival of the fittest, right? so maybe sometimes it's the animalistic instincts in us. Then again, the holocaust was a terrible thing that happened, there's no denying that. However, didn't we all learn something from it? Could it be that it happened for a reason? Could it be that it was a lesson learned the hard way? Did we not grow from it? And i'm sorry those people had to sacrifice their lives for this lesson to be learned, but maybe that was the best way for the lesson to be taught. Maybe.

One last thing - bringing up the nonlocal domain. The nonlocal creates the quantum, which creates the physical, and in this case i would relate the supreme being to the nonlocal domain and the egomind to the physical, which would mean that the sbeing came first. again, our egominds could've probably just named this thing "s. being" to better communicate with each other about it.

sorry for the long post hope your eyes are okk

The belief of the supreme being doesn't seek to go into specifics, and that is why it seems the most plausible to me.

I feel the same way actually - it leaves room for you to manifest this belief of urs in your own way instead of having to follow a set of rules set down by people before. it leaves room for newness to come in and change, it allows you to be spontaneous.

many people working alone have come to similar beliefs from studying our world.

isn't that why romanticism focused on the past? to draw out this similarity in beliefs from people of before, which may very well lead to the essence of things?

The universe needs to maintain a balance, while simultaneously we need to maintain our individuality. The result is vast differences between each individual, to the point that it may seem "unfair." But our differences all work to balance out the scale of the universe, the same way predators work to keep the population of other species in an ecosystem in check. In terms of environmental science, we are a negative/positive feedback loop.

I like that idea =D it's really a matter of perspective, right? the lynx may see it as fair for it to eat the hare to survive, but the hare might not. it's really just individuality, and the whole "everyone is special and unique" concept, no fair or unfair there. and life is all about balance, isn't it?

interestingly enough annie, i was just reading your earlier post and noticed the vast number of similarities.

I like that idea =D it's really a matter of perspective, right? the lynx may see it as fair for it to eat the hare to survive, but the hare might not. it's really just individuality, and the whole "everyone is special and unique" concept, no fair or unfair there. and life is all about balance, isn't it?

to build on this thought, take in the saying that "everything exists for a reason," which you did mention in your own post.
despite how different and useless some things may be, we should never assume that they are absolutely useless. Every once in a while I ask "is there a species that the world can go without?" I'm not exactly sure, despite the vast amounts of times I kept thinking of cockroaches and mosquitoes. Even viruses may have a purpose, which is generally the same as the predators. To keep the human population from overshooting too far up, viruses emerge, and cut the population down by the millions every few years. Morbid as it may seem, it is like a mercy killing, which is the basis behind the concept of the negative feedback loop.

Wiki entry on the negative feedback loop for more info.

Bradley you know, i like the way your mind works! This is absoultely outstanding critical thinking and also is super interesting. After reading all you people's posts, i just want to stop thinking--it's so twisted and complex and it's kind of discouraging me that we're going to come to a conclusion because i can counter like every post made. sheesh.

First off, JOSH-- PLEASE CLARIFY WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE UNIVERSAL BEING GAVE RISE TO THE EGO MIND. that really contradicts what Ms. Kay has been teaching us this whole year. I'm definitely confuzzled about this.

OK, to your question Bradley-- The Universal Being and the Supreme Being. The Universal Being meaning the connection of the essence within all living things. we all share some sort of connection with each other and we all have the same roots? after all, we're one human family right? The Supreme Being... like Fiona asked, do you mean GOD? Ok, people, i think the God you guys are referring to is the Christianity God, from what I'm hearing. To me, God can be simply just a higher Being, as some people call it, the Universe. But on a basic level, God= Higher Being (clear our common stereotype or bias that God is only the Christian God, or that whoever believes in God is Christian) ok, now having that out of the way... like Kathy said, we can argue that the Supreme Being came first because, like Em said, It created human beings, us. It is our creator. But we can also argue that Homo S. came first, and because human beings, evidently so different from other organism on this planet, because we have the human mind/brain--or perhaps the ego mind. Because we have a mind, it MAYBE allows us to seek a higher being--resulting in the creation of the Supreme Being. (thoughts creating reality, thought=Universe, God, Allah etc --> reality) So which came first? I'm sorry but i don't know yet. My thoughts of this as of right now would be that people, humans need spiritual guidance: for us to control our ego mind--spiritual growth. For us to find satisfaction--spiritual growth. For us to be happy--spiritual growth. For us to grow--spiritual growth. So some of us need a spiritual guide, so we feel safer and more secure. I think that's why religion is so important to many of us. I guess my conclusion leans more to the Homo S. before Supreme Being side. it's definitely arguable though. (I'm not speaking for myself, trying to be as objective and third person as possible)

Yeah, i agree that men and women aren't equal. But this is what keeps this system running and not turning into absolute chaos, like Joyce pointed out. HOwever, Bradley, why would you say that females are more dominant? Returning to the previous levels of the spiral dynamics, returning to our primitive and instinctive selves (old brain) there's the hunters and gatherers theme right? Aren't males the more dominant gender? Males are the hunters--we have higher expectations for males, and they have to provide security and defense, also males fight more and are usually the leaders right? (from history) I think by nature, men and women are somewhat balanced, but as humans go up the spiral, we develop our minds, and our minds grow creating customs, cultures, traditions, societal conditioning/ ideology that make it seem like we're unequal.

What came first, the supreme/the universal orgin or humans.
Ok first off, there has to be a reason why the essence is also called the Universal being, the Universal Origin. Might be because it is the origin of life. Well, if we persue the question of if the egg or the chicken appeared first, sadly, no one was there to whitness it.

Tizzels Theory
I suggest a theory, without life, without essence, there can not be humans, there can not be life. Without humans billion years ago, without living organism exept for organic gasses in the atmosphere, oxygen, carbon, and hydrogen, i suggest there was still essence. Essence appeared day one when the earth was created, before humans, before apes, before cynobacteria. The Earth is the origin, the earth is the spirit, the earth is this supply of supreme power. The earth is nature, the earth is everything we need and we live for. In conclusion, the math equation can be satisfied when written by the following

If living organisms exist, then essence exists.

People might think, how about the other way around.

If essence exists, then living organisms exist

This is fairly false in this theory. There was no life day one on earth, although essence, the origin, the universe, and the potential for life were present. Thus when organisms appeared, they all contained the origin within them because the supreme power was already present.

steph,
you're saying that because humans need spiritual guidance, the supreme being came into existence?
okay then let me ask you this - what made the human need spiritual guidance, but not the other animals? why specifically homo sapiens? what gave humans the mind? the most plausible answer is that the supreme being gave the humans the mind, so this has to mean that the supreme being came before humans.

JTizzel,
you say that essence appeared day one when the earth was created. what about everything the secret has been talking about? that we have the power of the UNIVERSE in our hands? that this essence permeates through the celestial heavens? so the universal being or essence is not restricted to just the earth. there might be extraterrestrials out there connecting with your essence, you just don't know it.
you state that there has to be a reason why the essence is also called the Universal Being. well, universal = universe. :]
just saying.
but otherwise, i completely agree with you.
"Thus when organisms appeared, they all contained the origin within them because the supreme power was already present."

I think what you mean is a logic (which is still math) equation:
(these two equations are just a clarified and extended version of what you're trying to say)

If living organisms exist, then essence exists.
Living organisms exist,
Therefore essence exists.

If essence exists, living organisms don't necessarily exist,
Living organisms don't exist,
Therefore essence (still) exists.

from these, we can see that in both situations, the essence still exists.

wow you guys are confusing well I think that we should ask ourselves if Supreme Being means essence completely or if Supreme Being is more than just essence. Supreme Being, I think, is the ONE essence...like the big whole we are all part of. So our essence sort of comes from it...Could it be possible that something created essence as well? Perhaps the Supreme Being? This is a really hard question because we have no evidence of what could have come first into existence. Or if there was ever a time that it didn't exist? wow...a concept that mankind cannot fathom. must there be a start to everything? like the circle of life! what's the point that starts the circle? To stay on topic, I think that I have a bias due to being religious...and even after reading the arguments I still think that Supreme Being came first...

to add onto Fi's stuff about stephsquared's:
you stated that humans created the S.Being because we wanted guidance. how do you know the S.Being didnt exist before and we just so happened to label it the S.Being? like we just so happened to call upon the exact thing that gives us guidance, but because we labelled it, we think we create it. We might be just classifying something that existed before we existed and we only know of it because our minds have created the classification for it. but not having a label for something doesnt mean it doesnt exist (as in before we wanted guidance, the S.Being couldve still existed)

@fi: I agree that JT's theory should expand to fit the whole universe, but I feel like that's the direction he was going in anyway, just wrong words. and what he labels as a math equation can still be considered "math" (if P, then Q, etc. yes, that's logic too, but I think it was this he derived his "if living organisms exist, then essence exists." statement from.)

@em: So then it's like we're trying to find out how God (in Christian terms) was created. yet we learned that God has no beginning. but yeah, I agree with you.

Replying to Bradley's initial question, I don't think that there's a definite answer to which came first but I believe that these are simultaneous happenings.

According to my previous forum discussion, I came to a general conclusion that there is the Infinite Energy which is just a big pile of....energy. So it is from this energy in which the souls are produced, much like how God produces everything. You know how everything has its own vibration and frequency? It's because the souls have come from a source of energy, and scientifically speaking energy is in the form of vibration and waves. Connect it together. Moving from this, the Infinite Energy, which we often term it as God, will not be existent if the souls weren't, vice versa. In terms of these ideas, the Supreme Being and humans won't have a linear description of which came first. In fact, they are simultaneous and spontaneous.

Someone in another forum talked about nonlinear time -- which means that everything is nonlocal and not following time that only moves forward and not backward. This may be useful to this discussion in a way that if everything is actually belonging to nonlinear time, then there is no point of asking whether the Supreme Being or humans came first.

stephsquared wrote:
Yeah, i agree that men and women aren't equal.

how so? Are you sure you mean "equal," and not "the same?" They're different things, make sure you distinguish between the two.

stephsquared wrote:like Kathy said, we can argue that the Supreme Being came first because, like Em said, It created human beings, us. It is our creator.

Steph: You, as well as probably Fiona (though I may be mistaken here), are arguing the wrong way. Sorry to be direct, but simply put, we can not argue that the Supreme Being came first based on that quote. How are you sure that there is a supreme being that came first? Furthermore, how are you sure it created us? It is a theory, not something we know for sure.

(ANYONE SCROLLING DOWN THE PAGE RIGHT NOW, STOP AND READ THIS PART OF THE POST)
This discussion can not be argued on terms of absolutes, since there are, frankly, no absolutes regarding the subject at hand. You can only state personal opinion, you can not overrule any side of the argument, except make one side look more plausible than the other.

so please, argue in terms of theory and opinion, not fact. make sure your posts are valid arguments guys, thanks.

however, I will restate that part of your argument for you (from my perspective).
It is highly unlikely that the universe came into existence spontaneously, and for no apparent reason and by no apparent force. Taking this into perspective, it would seem that there is a higher being, a force that exists and created the universe.

like we just so happened to call upon the exact thing that gives us guidance, but because we labelled it, we think we create it.

that's what I said too =D Just because we only labeled something later doesn't mean it didn't exist before right? Just because we only named a kingdom "archaea" doesn't mean the organisms under it didn't exist before right?

I agree that JT's theory should expand to fit the whole universe, but I feel like that's the direction he was going in anyway, just wrong words.

yeah that's what I thought too, that's why I didn't bother correcting him. But yeah no harm in being specific I guess.

despite how different and useless some things may be, we should never assume that they are absolutely useless. Every once in a while I ask "is there a species that the world can go without?"

Haha that reminds me of the trophic levels in bio, which might have shown up in APES too, i'm not sure? to non-apbioers, trophic levels are the levels that make up a "food hierarchy", so with the autotrophs (plants) at the bottom, and the herbivores (plant eaters) on the second as primary consumers, then the secondary consumers (herbivore eaters), then the tertiary consumers (carnivore eaters). Each level would affect other levels. The secondary consumers may function to keep the amount of primary consumers in check; its extinction could cause an overpopulation of primary consumers and endanger the tertiary consumers, who'd havel ost a food source.
about the virus thing.. cruel as it sounds, what if the holocaust was also another way to keep the humans from overpopulating our planet? why the Jewish population, then, you might ask? well, if we're all equal, that might just be due to chance that the central intelligence chose them as targets. actually if we're all equal, then would it matter if it were Jewish people or Catholics or Muslims or Hindis? i'm NOT trying to diminish the respect that is owed to the Jewish population or make the holocaust seem less horrible. i'm just putting an idea out there.

In response to Rosa's reply:
Hmm that's an interesting idea... what if this chronological order we're trying to determine is only part of a huge cycle, like two nucleotides on a bacterial DNA? Either could be true depending on which way you look at it. Or they might as well be the two complementary strands of the DNA - they could complement each other and were both created at the same time? hm but in the physical domain time runs in a linear fashion, and the "human beings" that we perceive are perceived at this physical level, right? and so then there probably is an order to "supreme being" and "human being", and, as i still see supreme being as the nonlocal domain, i would still argue that the supreme being came first - based on what we learned inthe packet. nonlocal domain determines what is manifested in the quantum, which in turn determines what occurs at the physical, which would maen taht in a way, humans are a rseult of some sort of activity by the supreme being at the nonlocal domain, which would mean that the sbeing came first. But this is based on the theory from the "mind matter and spirit" packet, so still very open for debate.

my stance would still be that sbeing came before hbeing, but it would be a different matter if we were arguing nonlocal domain vs physical domain (or let's just add quantum domain to that equation for that matter). In that case, I think all three are "cocreated" at once, concurrent with each other, becasue in the end everything boils down to the theory that "we are all one." that would mean that all three domains affect each other because in a sense they are all each other. if that makes sense O_o. Is there even a beginning to all this or is this just like a mobius strip - no beginning, no end, it just is?

To Henning:
Thx for that helpful reminder! I agree that we all seem to forget that humans dont know everything and that we're arguing based on theories here. which would mean that we'd all have to be very open-minded her or be very diplomatic.[quote]despite how different and useless some things may be, we should never assume that they are absolutely useless. Every once in a while I ask "is there a species that the world can go without?