Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know about causality, right? That events happen, and they in turn cause other events to happen?
This is called the causality paradigm, and for the most part it works. But let me tell you a story.
Well, I had a strange conversation tonight.
1. They were going to a Glen Miller concert. I joked and called it an Alan Miller concert. I was thinking of Arthur Miller, from Death of a Salesman. But I got the name garbled, I thought.
2. Then later, I was talking about Thomas Kincaid, and how he "inspired" Maxfield Parrish. We think of causality as fixed in on direction, but I contended that it was possible for someone in the past to inspire someone in the future. I called this a reverse paradigm, before researching what the hell a paradigm was. My dad called it "stuff and nonsense."
So tonight, I read a book anthology. 13 Short Science Fiction Novels, it said. I read the first mini-story. I skipped the second because it didn't seem interesting. The third one "For I Am A Jealous People" had a character on about the third page named... Alan Miller.
I turned out to be right. It was a reverse paradigm.
A paradigm is a pattern of reality which governs thought. For example, a person seeing alot of coincidences, may in turn believe in chance or luck.
The buzzword "paradigm shift" means to shift your pattern of thinking, to come up with new ideas (or it is used by people who like other people to be brainwashed). In the above example, this is when you stop believing in luck. You stop noticing it thereafter, and this means you stop attending areas like racing courses, where it tends to happen. Changed pattern creates changed thought.
But let's instead talk about what a reverse paradigm is.
A reverse paradigm is a thought which governs a pattern of reality. That is, you are not using an idea from the way you are thinking. You are thinking, and it creates something new.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 10-22-2016 at 07:45 PM..
Figures you would use synchronicity is an explanation. But it's a principle without a real explanation here. There is no logical explanation for how a random turn of phrase can occur prior to a reference point. I had not opened this book prior to mentioning this name. And I randomly skipped to a precise chapter that contained this very name. On the same day I would have actually remembered saying this.
Synchronicity is also paradigm. It relies on the idea that events follow from a system of thought, that the mind is for intake (learning) from this system of thought. This was nothing of the sort, it was more like using my mind to "find" something that I seriously almost made up.
I honestly don't know what to call this, but coincidence or synchronicity is not an adequate definition. Those things rely on patterns (such as hanging around areas of interest, where similar people are experiencing similar things). I bought this book yesterday, at random. Turned to the page at random. The book was sort of boring, I was likely to stop at chapter 2, had I not decided to skip. And I was feeling more like playing video games than reading. There were too many chance variables for this not to have been caused by something.
So, how does this relate to religion and not philosophy? Mwahahaha, I thought you'd never ask! (Oh wait, you didn't. Nevermind I will tell you anyway)
Two things:
1. Holographic universe.
2. And the notion of "what created God?"
Let's do number two first. Or maybe skip #1 because it's in my head but I can't explain it properly aside from depicting the universe as a sort of virtual datastream where thoughts and feelings are like code that can alter the program. But I have only an hour before this thing locks, so we'll skip a better explanation. The point is the universe we see isn't necessarily real. So our ideas can take form as inventions.
So, number two. We discount the causal chain of God, because it seems to be infinite regression. Some other God created God who created God, making it -> then -> then -> etc. So, some people take God out of the equation. The problem with this is that it is now a 0 + 0 = 1 equation. Nothing used nothing to create something. Right.... So, let's revise this formula. The material objects that are alive have the ability to thing, and all material objects are subject to forces. Matter, energy, laws of motion, causation. These exist and are perceived by the thoughts of all that exists. This is paradigm. But in turn, all of this are caused by Thought and Existence. This is reverse paradigm. The thing always existed in dormancy, and things came from the same source that now sees the effects. This model here loops back on itself but does not necessarily contradict. Kinda like this ∞, which is the symbol for infinity and eternity, and by analogy also divinity (a divine thing is assumed to be both eternal and infinite).
The rule is, jam to-morrow and jam yesterday—but never jam to-day."
"It MUST come sometimes to 'jam to-day,'" Alice objected.
"No, it can't," said the Queen. "It's jam every OTHER day: to-day isn't any OTHER day, you know."
"I don't understand you," said Alice. "It's dreadfully confusing!"
"That's the effect of living backwards," the Queen said kindly: "it always makes one a little giddy at first—"
"Living backwards!" Alice repeated in great astonishment. "I never heard of such a thing!"
"—but there's one great advantage in it, that one's memory works both ways."
"I'm sure MINE only works one way," Alice remarked. "I can't remember things before they happen."
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards," the Queen remarked.
Edit: are you trying so say that you saying the name Alan Miller somehow caused the writer to choose that name for the character at an earlier point in time? i'm not understanding how you see causation between the two.
Last edited by L8Gr8Apost8; 10-22-2016 at 10:02 PM..
I'm saying that a day or two ago, I bought the book, not even opening it. Today, I mentioned the name Alan Miller, mistaking it for Arthur Miller. Also today, I read from this book, this chapter, those two words. I have no explanation besides this one. That (a) either I somehow sought out this exact book from the bookstore (precognition on a huge scale, which is fine, if you want to believe in psychic stuff instead of God), or (b) we have a causality loop. Or (c) I, like other humans, can create things with my mind (see A, plus human-centric divinity).
Similar to the world who simulate their cultures from demonic spirits ideas , and adopt the demon ways as most people are influenced by the evil spirits in the world who will abide on most people , where people will mimic the demon spirits who people cannot see in their spirit....................... So God comes from the opposite direction which is based on goodness and selflessness , and could put God`s Spirit on people who are interested , and tells them to resist the selfishness of their consciousness which will be influenced by demonic spirits , and go a follow God , and His values for sinless ethics , so the goodness of God can abide on people who resist the demons ................. So the demonic influenced people will say that God is brain washing them to change their ways , but little do they know that the demonic spirit has brain washed the world already for the selfish ways of pride and the such ......
Figures you would use synchronicity is an explanation. But it's a principle without a real explanation here. There is no logical explanation for how a random turn of phrase can occur prior to a reference point. I had not opened this book prior to mentioning this name. And I randomly skipped to a precise chapter that contained this very name. On the same day I would have actually remembered saying this.
Synchronicity is also paradigm. It relies on the idea that events follow from a system of thought, that the mind is for intake (learning) from this system of thought. This was nothing of the sort, it was more like using my mind to "find" something that I seriously almost made up.
<<<nipped for space>>>
kinda like when I learned about a cells distribution of material. The more you learn and find out, it changes how I think. I don't really use the term "reverse paradigm", because when you learn, you change. Like when I learned about the cytoplasm's membrane(I think thats what its called), motor proteins, and f0f1 pumps. I was around when they didn't even know they were there and as they were shown to me I had to change how I thought. I don't have the luxury to ignore observations for personal emotional need like some.
god is not dismissed because of infinite regression. As soon as I hear that argument I know what i am dealing with. Regression can be dealt with by just saying our universe is the first. then just talk about what we have. Infinite regression is based on what we don't know. why use it?
god of the bible is dismissed because of what we see going on around us. That god is not how the universe works. Its actually those "traits assigned to god", but thats another lesson.
I'm saying that a day or two ago, I bought the book, not even opening it. Today, I mentioned the name Alan Miller, mistaking it for Arthur Miller. Also today, I read from this book, this chapter, those two words. I have no explanation besides this one. That (a) either I somehow sought out this exact book from the bookstore (precognition on a huge scale, which is fine, if you want to believe in psychic stuff instead of God), or (b) we have a causality loop. Or (c) I, like other humans, can create things with my mind (see A, plus human-centric divinity).
Also, good night everyone. Pleasant dreams! Don't get too disturbed.
I get it. Look at the actions of the all the atoms of your body. "they" are "you living". The events around us look awful close to those events. It wouldn't say "causal loop", I would feedback systems for life. lol, I guess they are the same thing.
I also do not see any omni-dude type of god causing these events.
on the other side, sorry, I am bound by all observations, not just ones that make me feel good inside. Why some atheist want this type of thinking suppressed is beyond me. maybe mord would like to try and explain why he is so afraid of it. Oh wait, he can't, he has an ax to finish grinding. Maybe when he is done.
Similar to the world who simulate their cultures from demonic spirits ideas , and adopt the demon ways as most people are influenced by the evil spirits in the world who will abide on most people , where people will mimic the demon spirits who people cannot see in their spirit....................... So God comes from the opposite direction which is based on goodness and selflessness , and could put God`s Spirit on people who are interested , and tells them to resist the selfishness of their consciousness which will be influenced by demonic spirits , and go a follow God , and His values for sinless ethics , so the goodness of God can abide on people who resist the demons ................. So the demonic influenced people will say that God is brain washing them to change their ways , but little do they know that the demonic spirit has brain washed the world already for the selfish ways of pride and the such ......
Uhhhhh... What? Have you been listening?
Belief in spirits/demons and belief in God being based in goodness and selflessness, there are presuppositions. Ideas we learn. Paradigms.
A reverse paradigm is something like this. A spellbook that has weird writing in it that activates spells (Zatch Bell, sorry). Naturally, if spells are unlocked, we think that the book unlocks spells as the person develops. Because this seems to have happened, as a reward for magical growth. Then you realize the reason those spells aren't there is because you haven't written them.
We are thinking of things in terms of "If I do this, this will happen based on what I have learned." But God isn't a dude that hands out rewards and punishments all day. The definition God actually gives us is not "I am God" or "I am perfect" or "I am good/selfless." He says, "I am who I am." God exists from a state of pure potentiality. It's up to us to decide what we want out of this life. Do we want to be angry, or let the demons win, or walk around with a chip on our shoulder? Do we want to have peace, kindness, and gentleness in the Earth? God gives us what we want inside, even if what we want at the moment is just to pick a fight because it feels like our life isn't giving us what we really want. This is not granting wishes. This is granting expectations. "Things have always turned out bad, why should this be any different?" You will most times get this exact expectation. This is why the concept of Jesus exists, as a way of changing expectations. Of telling people, "you're worth it."
If you live according to the laws of "If I do this, that will happen" you get locked into a mindset that creates its own misfortune.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
