When Christians use Science to prove Atheist wrong.
Options
Comments
-
PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.
? to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of ? playing in mud.
For science to ? on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.
What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of ? and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.
Science does not necessarily ? on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets ? on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.
Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a ? doing ? things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes
Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in ? than we would without it. -
The Bible nev er says in the beginning there were only Adam and Eve.
Go have a look.
In Genesis 1 ? creates mankind.
Then in Genesis 2 he rests, then after he rested does he create Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve were created on the eigth day, which we know was roughly 6,000 years ago. We know this because the bible gives us Adam's geneaology, but we also know that the earth is much older than that. Thus Adam was not the first man.
The trees in the garden of Eden represent other nations. The Bible explains this to us.
It says for example that the Seders of Lebanon were in Eden.
It says also that the Pharaoh was in Eden. etc. etc.
Ezekiel 31:9
I have made him fair by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of ? , envied him.
Trees do not feel envy
There were other nations on the earth that were not in Eden.
This is where Cain found a wife and built his cities. If yu do not understand the bible it is because the holy spirit has not shoen you the truth.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1747560/pg1
lmao there's so much wrong with this quote....ugh time for work
actually...i read, write and speak hebrew and thats exactly what the bible says in its original hebrew form. both sides are wrong and full of ? . notice the argument is allways about shome ? thats neither here nor there. how things began, age of the earth, meaningless equations etc. but when it comes to solving what is here and now without causeing problems later nobody has ? to say of any substance. religious people and atheist can kiss my ass if they have nothing to say other than ? about a past or future that we have no direct incfluence over or experience with. ? talking about proving this or that. youre ? dumb. you cant prove or disprove ? anywhere but in your own ? mind and heart. all this ? is a waste of energy. what the hell happened to people having a difference of opinion and actuall demonstrating the benefits of what they on? stupid humans really dont get it...... -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.
? to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of ? playing in mud.
For science to ? on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.
What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of ? and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.
Science does not necessarily ? on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets ? on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.
Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a ? doing ? things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes
Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in ? than we would without it.
Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated. -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.
? to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of ? playing in mud.
For science to ? on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.
What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of ? and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.
Science does not necessarily ? on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets ? on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.
Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a ? doing ? things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes
Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in ? than we would without it.
Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.
I don't believe in classical theism. I don't believe you do either. What you and I believe is moreso a higher force or vibration than I higher "being". Something like the Tao in Taoism for example. Correct me if I'm wrong. The stance on a belief in a higher intervening spirit man is what I don't agree with. You don't have any reason to defend his stance if yours also disagrees with it. You're coming from a different perspective -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.
? to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of ? playing in mud.
For science to ? on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.
What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of ? and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.
Science does not necessarily ? on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets ? on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.
Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a ? doing ? things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes
Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in ? than we would without it.
Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.
Sounds like some type of mind elevation or self help stuff to me. Sounds good though.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.
? to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of ? playing in mud.
For science to ? on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.
What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of ? and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.
Science does not necessarily ? on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets ? on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.
Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a ? doing ? things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes
Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in ? than we would without it.
Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.
Sounds like some type of mind elevation or self help stuff to me. Sounds good though.
LOL.maybe so but thats what I got out of reading the bible in its original hebrew form. its different.... -
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.
? to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of ? playing in mud.
For science to ? on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.
What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of ? and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.
Science does not necessarily ? on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets ? on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.
Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a ? doing ? things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes
Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in ? than we would without it.
Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.
I don't believe in classical theism. I don't believe you do either. What you and I believe is moreso a higher force or vibration than I higher "being". Something like the Tao in Taoism for example. Correct me if I'm wrong. The stance on a belief in a higher intervening spirit man is what I don't agree with. You don't have any reason to defend his stance if yours also disagrees with it. You're coming from a different perspective
a "higher intervening spirit man"? u mean like a messiah or christ type figure? my stance on that is there is never just one of those and if they are true their state of enlightment is viral- not to be used as point of worship. my stance is every man has the potential to acheive that state. but att the same time, the usage of this archetype as a magic pill or as an ego defense is in my opinion bogus and supergay. -
-
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »PublicEnemigo1 wrote: »I won't argue for or against the bible, but I think man's arrogance in declaring that their is no being of higher intelligence or even deified intelligence to just be idiotic. We still have yet to discover all there is to be discovered on this one planet, but can declare what is and what isn't for the WHOLE universe.
? to me has be a being of supreme intellect and science and could make the finest mortal minds look like a bunch of ? playing in mud.
For science to ? on religion and vice versa is completely wrong of both, because both disciplines involve a certain amount of faith in order to progress.
What's idiotic about it? Wouldn't you agree it is more idiotic to claim the opposite without observable or testable proof? Based on descriptions of ? and supernatural beings by theists, we can use scientific fact, logic and reasoning to disprove such claims. There may be a higher intelligence, but we have not made any contact with it as far as I personally know.
Science does not necessarily ? on religion. Theism disagrees with science, which is emperical observation. Theism gets ? on, but not purposely. Religion can coexist with Science, and religion does not equal theism.
Science does not use the same "faith" as theism. Theism is for the most part blind faith. Science uses testable theories to arrive at truth or fact. For example, faith in a ? doing ? things is not the same as "faith" in the existance of black holes
Scientific theories, like string theory, help to explain the nature of the universe. We don't understand anything better with faith in ? than we would without it.
Everytime you use your creative potential to some thing from within your higher mental faculties (heaven) into the physical realm (earth) you are in contact with that higher intelligence. its really not that complicated.
I don't believe in classical theism. I don't believe you do either. What you and I believe is moreso a higher force or vibration than I higher "being". Something like the Tao in Taoism for example. Correct me if I'm wrong. The stance on a belief in a higher intervening spirit man is what I don't agree with. You don't have any reason to defend his stance if yours also disagrees with it. You're coming from a different perspective
a "higher intervening spirit man"? u mean like a messiah or christ type figure? my stance on that is there is never just one of those and if they are true their state of enlightment is viral- not to be used as point of worship. my stance is every man has the potential to acheive that state. but att the same time, the usage of this archetype as a magic pill or as an ego defense is in my opinion bogus and supergay.
No I mean like the idea that "? " is a old guy with a beard in the clouds pulling strings and making ? happen -
u mean like a messiah or christ type figure? my stance on that is there is never just one of those and if they are true their state of enlightment is viral- not to be used as point of worship.
This is true though. The Buddha explains how to reach this state of enlightenment, which is Nirvana, thru meditation and applying the four noble truths to personal life.
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »u mean like a messiah or christ type figure? my stance on that is there is never just one of those and if they are true their state of enlightment is viral- not to be used as point of worship.
This is true though. The Buddha explains how to reach this state of enlightenment, which is Nirvana, thru meditation and applying the four noble truths to personal life.
martyr figures shaped after ones ego cloud the view of the second noble truth without which the other 3 cant be fully realized. if u feel someone has suffered for u then there is no need to seek the 8fold path. thereby ones vision is all maya (illusion) and rught view and right intention are aborted there. -
nah bro, not to say they're martyrs because even the Buddha himself said seek refuge in no other man. That you are your own refuge. He himself never claimed to be a ? or savior. What I replied to was your statement on the fact that anyone can achieve that state of enlightenment. Those who do are not to be worshipped
-
Maybe it is just me...but I think that there is a line in which religion and science just cannot cross. Disproving the claims of science doesn't mean it is safe to point to a deity by default...nor does disproving religion through trials and test determines the finality of a deity existing. If science is going to be wrong, then it should be wrong on the grounds of science. That also goes for religion and its grounds.
And I would like to think that the existence of a deity shouldn't conjure up the notion of who is right or wrong. I believe the issue is about life and death especially if that deity is responsible for why there is life. If I am right, then I'm right. If I am wrong, then I'm wrong. However, I would have to be alive to be either one. -
@alissowack.. wtf.. either it's too early for me in the morning right now or you're just not making any sense at all in what you're saying. Science is strictly emperical observation. You can prove a deity doesn't exist by testing claims of the believers in the deity we're referring to. Depending on a believer's description of a particular entity, we can use those descriptions to either prove or disprove its existence. Like for instance, if I were to tell you I believed in a talking plastic water bottle (I don't know... random), you could disprove that because a talking water bottle is illogical and doesn't make any sense by what we know of what goes on around us. If I believed that the water bottle I have sitting right next to me was able to talk to me, I would be wrong. The descriptions of ? given by Christianity, Judaism and Islam for example allow his existence to be disproved because it's logically impossible. however, that doesn't rule out the existence of some other type of ? or godhead. it just rules out the existence of the ? as those religions describe
-
were in agreement. wasn t referring to a specific person as a martyr figure. im saying as in the case of buddha, mlk, jesus- whoever- when people reason that another does their suffering for them then they obscure the cause of suffering and abort enlightment because this ego driven aspect makes right direction and right view impossible. i chop it up with my sifu about this type of stuff all the times. strangely, it enhances my physical traing the more humbling discussions as these are. its a great responsibility and freedom in seeking refuge in yourself. personally i add this truth with my concepts of higher intelligence and tapping into it (the adamic ? -man;made into the image of ? ). whatever works i guess...lolJaded Righteousness wrote: »nah bro, not to say they're martyrs because even the Buddha himself said seek refuge in no other man. That you are your own refuge. He himself never claimed to be a ? or savior. What I replied to was your statement on the fact that anyone can achieve that state of enlightenment. Those who do are not to be worshipped
-
The website and thread itself is fully of stupidity. I swear their logic is ? , ? sure made some ? .
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »@alissowack.. wtf.. either it's too early for me in the morning right now or you're just not making any sense at all in what you're saying. Science is strictly emperical observation. You can prove a deity doesn't exist by testing claims of the believers in the deity we're referring to. Depending on a believer's description of a particular entity, we can use those descriptions to either prove or disprove its existence. Like for instance, if I were to tell you I believed in a talking plastic water bottle (I don't know... random), you could disprove that because a talking water bottle is illogical and doesn't make any sense by what we know of what goes on around us. If I believed that the water bottle I have sitting right next to me was able to talk to me, I would be wrong. The descriptions of ? given by Christianity, Judaism and Islam for example allow his existence to be disproved because it's logically impossible. however, that doesn't rule out the existence of some other type of ? or godhead. it just rules out the existence of the ? as those religions describe
...but, you are assuming that ? is "testable" like that water bottle; that ? can be reduced to a science project. If ? is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that ? exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say ? exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of ? is much bigger than that. -
alissowack wrote: »...but, you are assuming that ? is "testable" like that water bottle; that ? can be reduced to a science project. If ? is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that ? exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say ? exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of ? is much bigger than that.
If you or I (or anyone else) can't observe ? physically or mentally (directly or indirectly) concretely enough to test the theory that he exists, or if we can't rely on the very texts that introduce him to humanity in the first place, why even assume he exists at all? Anything, if it exists, influences or is influenced by something else, either directly or indirectly. Therefore we can observe it directly or through its manifestations or the phenomena it influences.
Not to say that I'm looking for "science experiments" on ? , complete with lab coats and test tubes but just the simplicity of KNOWING that something is there by direct or indirect observation. Again, what benefit do we have in religious faith? Like I said earlier, you don't understand the universe any better assuming there is a ? in the sky than you would understand the universe if you were not a believer. -
were in agreement. wasn t referring to a specific person as a martyr figure. im saying as in the case of buddha, mlk, jesus- whoever- when people reason that another does their suffering for them then they obscure the cause of suffering and abort enlightment because this ego driven aspect makes right direction and right view impossible. i chop it up with my sifu about this type of stuff all the times. strangely, it enhances my physical traing the more humbling discussions as these are. its a great responsibility and freedom in seeking refuge in yourself. personally i add this truth with my concepts of higher intelligence and tapping into it (the adamic ? -man;made into the image of ? ). whatever works i guess...lolJaded Righteousness wrote: »nah bro, not to say they're martyrs because even the Buddha himself said seek refuge in no other man. That you are your own refuge. He himself never claimed to be a ? or savior. What I replied to was your statement on the fact that anyone can achieve that state of enlightenment. Those who do are not to be worshipped
What is your definition of ? ?
-
Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »...but, you are assuming that ? is "testable" like that water bottle; that ? can be reduced to a science project. If ? is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that ? exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say ? exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of ? is much bigger than that.
If you or I (or anyone else) can't observe ? physically or mentally (directly or indirectly) concretely enough to test the theory that he exists, or if we can't rely on the very texts that introduce him to humanity in the first place, why even assume he exists at all? Anything, if it exists, influences or is influenced by something else, either directly or indirectly. Therefore we can observe it directly or through its manifestations or the phenomena it influences.
Not to say that I'm looking for "science experiments" on ? , complete with lab coats and test tubes but just the simplicity of KNOWING that something is there by direct or indirect observation. Again, what benefit do we have in religious faith? Like I said earlier, you don't understand the universe any better assuming there is a ? in the sky than you would understand the universe if you were not a believer.
Observing ? is one thing. Trusting ? is another thing. In most (if not all) religious texts, ? has something to say about life and how people should live. They talk about promises and rewards as well the consequences of disobedience. I like to think that the reason why people believe that ? doesn't exist isn't because ? can't be observed, but because people can't trust the deity that the religious serve; that the promises of goodness, righteousness, and justice that ? supposedly provides for people doesn't exist.
Now if ? exists, we are not just to take heed to form...but we are to take heed to the nature; the essence. -
Anything men serve and obey. Cars are gods, egos are gods, entertainers are gods etc. ? , to me is a generic term. Though they manifest in physical form, they begin as an archetype in the ether. The Elohim, translated as ? in the bible (not LORD..2 diferent things) is the collection of these archetypes or the sum total of all potential consciousness. Adam in the esoteric hebrew understanding is the embodimient of infinite creative potential and originally those archetypes were to work in a cooperative fashion with him. when I say him, i mean Adam as the sum total of human consciousness on the macrocosm and humanity on a microcosm. In the bible you see the word combo LORD ? . This is YHWH Elohim. The elohim ar subservient are rather appengages of YHWH (literally "is/ was/ will/ causes to be") functioning as a membrane between the seen and unseen world. YHWH by itself is unknowable. Man ineracts with YHWH Elohim or solitary or combined aspects of Elohim on a basis of consciousness.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »
were in agreement. wasn t referring to a specific person as a martyr figure. im saying as in the case of buddha, mlk, jesus- whoever- when people reason that another does their suffering for them then they obscure the cause of suffering and abort enlightment because this ego driven aspect makes right direction and right view impossible. i chop it up with my sifu about this type of stuff all the times. strangely, it enhances my physical traing the more humbling discussions as these are. its a great responsibility and freedom in seeking refuge in yourself. personally i add this truth with my concepts of higher intelligence and tapping into it (the adamic ? -man;made into the image of ? ). whatever works i guess...lolJaded Righteousness wrote: »nah bro, not to say they're martyrs because even the Buddha himself said seek refuge in no other man. That you are your own refuge. He himself never claimed to be a ? or savior. What I replied to was your statement on the fact that anyone can achieve that state of enlightenment. Those who do are not to be worshipped
What is your definition of ? ?
-
So the universe is a manifestation of an eternal substance?
-
alissowack wrote: »Jaded Righteousness wrote: »alissowack wrote: »...but, you are assuming that ? is "testable" like that water bottle; that ? can be reduced to a science project. If ? is responsible for why everything exists, then it is not "enough" to say that ? exist because science says so. It is not even enough for me to say ? exist because of any assumptions on what I think the Bible (or any other religious texts) says. The existence of ? is much bigger than that.
If you or I (or anyone else) can't observe ? physically or mentally (directly or indirectly) concretely enough to test the theory that he exists, or if we can't rely on the very texts that introduce him to humanity in the first place, why even assume he exists at all? Anything, if it exists, influences or is influenced by something else, either directly or indirectly. Therefore we can observe it directly or through its manifestations or the phenomena it influences.
Not to say that I'm looking for "science experiments" on ? , complete with lab coats and test tubes but just the simplicity of KNOWING that something is there by direct or indirect observation. Again, what benefit do we have in religious faith? Like I said earlier, you don't understand the universe any better assuming there is a ? in the sky than you would understand the universe if you were not a believer.
Observing ? is one thing. Trusting ? is another thing. In most (if not all) religious texts, ? has something to say about life and how people should live. They talk about promises and rewards as well the consequences of disobedience. I like to think that the reason why people believe that ? doesn't exist isn't because ? can't be observed, but because people can't trust the deity that the religious serve; that the promises of goodness, righteousness, and justice that ? supposedly provides for people doesn't exist.
Now if ? exists, we are not just to take heed to form...but we are to take heed to the nature; the essence.
How can we trust something/someone we can't observe?
I've never heard ? say anything on the topic of morality (or any topic whatsoever). If ? is saying things to us, he must be observable in some way. If ? is not observable, as you agree with me that he is not, then how do we know he has given any advice on morality or made any promises that would give us the idea that we should trust him? -
basically. it just expands and contracts but yeah its made up of eternal substance. believe the people in khemet used to call it the "primordial waters". thats interesting to me because heaven (not afterlife but more like he universe above is hashemayim. water is the word mayim. break down hashemayim and you get ha-shem-mayim= "the names (epithet for YHWH) waters". moses name moshe means "drawn out of waters". just a tangent...forgive me.Jaded Righteousness wrote: »So the universe is a manifestation of an eternal substance?
