I agree that E and M are not the same. in the materialistic world, but in the non materialistic world, once the speed of light has been cancelled out due to non material energies ( thoughts etc spiritual) having similar characteristics as the speed of light, (once they have been acted on) then Mass appears as energy.
This is where I see the importance of the Higgs Boson. From what I understand the boson is credited with being able to slow down non matter (thought, ideas). I extend this idea in that the boson is therefore causing the ideas projection to match the speed of light, effectively cancelling speed out of the equation. E and M are then effectively the same.
I suppose that technically E and M are still not the same just as steam is not the same as water, but their identities, foundations, are the same despite one being invisible and the other materialistic.
I see no reason why Creation cannot be working on similar lines, Divine ideas getting turned into matter which we interpret as life.
Okay - I assume you mean the thoughts of a/the creator creates life. I see that if I believed in a creator, which I don't, that might make sense.
Okay - I assume you mean the thoughts of a/the creator creates life. I see that if I believed in a creator, which I don't, that might make sense.
It is true that one has to believe in a structured plan for creation to be accepted. I have yet to be convinced that a plan of sorts is not in effect. I have read of many proposals in favour of a divine presence. Most people I feel have been influenced by superstition and have seen too many Hollywood spectaculars, but never the less a Divine influence is still the basis for my reasoning's.
However I cannot remember coming across a constructive argument against creation. To me even Darwin's evolution species had to have been created. Even the arguments that all the wrongs in the world are "Gods" fault fail if analysed.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'Darwin's evolution species' - and why do they have to have been created?
I have never seen any convincing evidence for creation.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'Darwin's evolution species' - and why do they have to have been created?
I have never seen any convincing evidence for creation.
It is that there seems to be two distinct beliefs. One being creation, and man being created as he is now by a creator and the other belief that we evolved to our present form from a lower state like monkeys. Both these beliefs however can be seen to be correct if creation is interpreted from the "spiritual" rather than from the material.
As for convincing evidence for creation. No there probably is not any definitive proof, but if we analyse the situation I can't see any other alternative to the idea that something started all this off and that to me is creation. I personally accept the big bang theory, and I can relate creation to that event. There may have even been prior big bangs, and creations, who really knows.
Okay. I think the quote that
we evolved to our present form from a lower state like monkeys.
indicates an odd view of evolution.
Can you explain to me what 'creation interpreted from the spiritual means'?