Simulation Hypothesis and Evolution Theory and The First Creation Story

[William]

Simulation Hypothesis and Evolution Theory and The First Creation Story

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Genesis-Chapter-1/


Q: Can these separate theories be reconciled?

reconcile
/ˈrɛk(ə)nsʌɪl/
verb
past tense: reconciled; past participle: reconciled
1.
restore friendly relations between.
"the king and the archbishop were publicly reconciled"
2.
make (one account) consistent with another, especially by allowing for transactions begun but not yet completed.

[theophile]

I'm not trying to take anything off the table. I just don't think the fate of the universe is necessarily the unfolding of natural processes as science would have it.

Q: Are you saying then, that scientists are reading the Data of Nature incorrectly?
Q: Are you also saying that scientists are reading the Data of Nature re ET correctly?

I'm not trying to cast any doubt on science, its methods, or its answers. It's correct, I'm sure, insofar as our current knowledge of natural processes go. And if we left things be, and nothing else intervened, then I'm sure what science says is what would happen. All I'm saying is that intervention is possible, and we should pursue intervention if the ultimate fate of the universe (per science) is not conducive to life.

Nature can be co-opted and our natural fate, whatever it is, can be altered.

Q: Are you referring to the mind of nature re "Nature can be co-opted"

No, I'm referring to natural processes, the forces of nature (whatever you want to call it), and our own minds' ability to understand and leverage these. e.g., Today we are applying our knowledge of the quantum realm to build super computers. We are co-opting nature to amplify our computing power... Similarly in the future we may co-opt other forces or knowledge of the natural world to intervene in the fate of the universe. No 'mind of nature' required. Just our own minds working things out.

We appear to agree that a Mind is necessary, and that is why a Mind was created/evolved from out of this process.

Our difference is that I think the essence of the Mind of Creation wasn't really 'created', but is sourced/connected with the mind which created the Simulation being experienced.

So we have two minds involved, The one which you refer to as "God" which you understand was generated by the unfolding of the Universe Itself.

The other, which I refer to as The Creator of the Simulation.

I understand the two Minds are really One Mind - and the Mind evolving within the simulation is a type of reflection of the Mind which created the simulation.

The journey of the Mind inside the simulation experience refines Its understanding of Self and the closer to the End-Game the Mind becomes, the sharper the image of that reflection becomes.

Even that science or ET see no use in such information, does not mean that such information is without relevance.

Yah, that second mind is extra baggage.

And I would caution on what kind of 'mind' I see emerging... There are (1) minds like ours, which I agree are necessary to generate what I called spirit before and (2) the 'mind' of God, which is less a singular, thinking thing than it is a unified plurality... i.e., all of our individual minds should eventually be part of it, kind of like the Borg collective on Star Trek, but without the totalitarianism, elimination of individuality, and pasty white skin.

There is nothing in CT [Genesis One] which shows us that ST need be removed from the table of discussion, because it is not shown that what you call "extra baggage" is not actually, essential equipment.

CT doesn't say that this second mind of yours needs to be removed, I agree, but it does show that it can be removed... As such, it is non-essential equipment. Call it principles of interpretation: we should prefer the interpretation of a text that makes sense of it by adding as little as possible... So if a simpler interpretation exists, it should be preferred, and the additions of any alternative interpretations should be considered non-essential.

So this is where my narrative of ET leading to the emergence of (powerless) spirit, and that spirit becoming the fullness of God over time, makes sense of the text by adding less than your interpretation, which requires an already full-fledged God-mind capable of designing and executing simulations at the scale of our universe. The former is far simpler than the latter. It assumes less to make sense of the text, and as such is to be preferred.

Put otherwise, there is nothing in CT that requires ST, even if CT doesn't necessitate its removal...

As for God's vision, it's a world filled with life, where all life is flourishing and God can rest. Such a vision is pretty clear in Genesis 1, isn't it, given what we see written there? And it requires a sustained universe (multiverse, metaverse, or whatever 'verse' is most suited to supporting it...).

So as to what God would do in such a stage, again, God would be at rest, take joy in it all, and make sure that life keeps expanding. An eternal affair methinks.

The thing about that is. even that CT and ET says there was a beginning to this Universe, does not mean it was the only beginning which has ever occurred. Essentially other simulations are created and each one ending, begins the next.

In that sense, while ST cannot be discarded, it still would have to adjust accordingly to be seen as the process which occurs re each unfolding, and each process is the product of the Mind which all this must be happening within, which produces the realities experienced.

It would make sense that such a Mind would create said "things" if the only alternative to that was to put up with the Dark for eternity.
It may even be that a Mind can only ever create Light, just because - whatever it thinks - becomes something it experiences as real.

Thus, we could remove the idea that there is any Mind outside of the simulation which created the simulation, because the simulation itself is the same thing as Mind creating it.

To be clear on my position, I don't think CT relates the beginning of the universe. It relates the creation of a heaven and earth within a pre-existing space ('the deep') that is already churning with water and formless earth. God doesn't create these in CT... So in regards to that primordial sea, universe, or whatever you want to call it, it has no beginning that I can speak to or that CT indicates. It simply is. That's why I said ET->CT->ST before, where ET represents an infinite regress of mindless matter and random events, that is nevertheless still capable (as we know from our own existence) of producing amazing things such as mind.

So happy to agree on beginnings before beginnings, or no absolute Beginning. And we definitely can't assume that our universe was the first universe, the only universe, or anything like that. But none of this leads to your conclusion of a Mind / Simulation endlessly creating and recreating itself... Such terms imply way too much unexplained intentionality; an intentionality that can't play any kind of role in any universe whatsoever until mindless matter manages to produce a mind such as ours (let alone God's) capable of producing said intention in the first place.

And that's the main problem I have, if I restate it as such. i.e., your statement here implies previous cycles, so if we go back there must at some point be a cycle where God formed in the first place, where the world wasn't a simulation but just raw, chaotic matter randomly churning things out (i.e., ET), and ST was nothing more than a possibility on a distant horizon...

I think that problem fades away if one accepts that the whole "beginning/End" cycles simply have been and will continue to be, eternal in nature. The Mind has "never not been" the matter that is used to created these Beginning/End simulations.

In that, no matter if one wishes to create a simulation which enables the Mind to forget that it is The Creator of things, eventually that Mind meets itself again as being The Creator.

Both CT and ET focus on the idea of there having to have been a real beginning, and in that, there is baggage which might not even be necessary.

Hopefully my clarification on the 'beginning' of CT helped a bit here. It's not an absolute Beginning, but rather the beginning of an intentional movement within an already existing, moving world...

I know you could use this to your advantage as well, but the first word of Genesis starts with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet (which just so happens to coincide with our letter 'b'), which means it's not the beginning of the story and the writers meant to imply an unwritten story leading up to its event...

Now is that unwritten story as you describe? i.e., an infinite regress of Simulations? Or is it more along the lines I'm saying? i.e., an infinite regress of churning matter from which spirit eventually emerged? Thus providing the two starting conditions on which CT is explicitly based, i.e., God (as spirit), and the deep / sea?

(For the record, I believe there are Talmudic authors who made similar indications as you, i.e., that the creation we see unfold in Genesis is like the umpteenth attempt by God to get it right. But I think that just goes to show the striking similarity of ST to traditional CT.)

So as for the striking similarities, both ST and traditional CT assume a God with the power to create a world from scratch from the get-go, and that the world we're in is already a simulation. This is where I say that at some point in the regress of past cycles there must be a first cycle of CT as I've been describing it where such a God emerges in the first place. It's not an infinite regress of simulations and God refining God's works, as I feel you would have it, but CT as a necessary first and perhaps even eternal cycle that makes the leap from ET to whatever makes sense to achieve God's end (be it ST or whatever else).

As explained, there is a problem with that particular CT theory in that one is still left to wonder what caused the stuff of our Universe to unfold in that first place, which is as unresolved as "from or out of nothing" creation theory.
ST places the Mind before the Matter, as the horse before the cart.

You're right, I have no answer for where the 'stuff' of our universe came from (in which I include multiverses, past universes, etc., and which I would equate to CT's presupposed concept of the deep / sea). But mindless matter that has always existed in a state of motion still strikes me as a far simpler (and therefore preferable) assumption than a full-fledged Mind capable of thinking such stuff into existence.

So I do think it's matter before mind, not mind before matter. An order that is demonstrated by ET itself, which again has shown by our very existence that matter has the capability to produce mind (our minds) given the time and right confluence of conditions.

It's not that it interferes with my CT beliefs, but that such power needs to be explained in the first place. It's a matter of logic and needing to make sense, i.e., such power can't just come out of nowhere...

Exactly. The power had to have always existed. The Mind of GOD creates the minds of Gods.
The simulation is inside that Mind. There may be no Mind outside of it, but we cannot logically place the created before The Creator, without explaining how that came about. Logically, even what we call "Matter" must be made of the stuff of said Mind and can be formed any which way the thinking of said Mind, determines.

Both of us are susceptible to this line of argument. You can challenge me for not having an explanation for where matter came from just as I can challenge you for not having an explanation for where Mind came from. We will both resort to arguments of infinite regress and no beginning to try and smooth out this wrinkle (as we've seen play out). Hence my continued emphasis on simplicity, and what's simpler to assume.

i.e., Mind is way more complex than matter. Hence the only logical conclusion is that matter came first and has simply always been...

While I understand your reservations, I think that to have a CT theory based upon the idea that The Mind grew out of the Creation and thus - is not directly responsible for the suffering one experiences by those inside said Creation, one is agreeing with the idea of The Problem of Evil, which your particular CT deals with, and which ET also deals with - neither of which, may be the best way to deal with said 'problem'.

The thing I ask is whether this "problem" has actually been established as real or imagined and if not real, then it is an unnecessary layer to be adding - unnecessary baggage - and thus not appropriate to being attached to any theory, including CT and therefore doesn't belong on the table of this discussion.

The problem of evil aside (since I think we have a lot to chew on already), I will say that ST does a good job of bringing traditional CT into the 21st century and modernizing its concepts. And that you are perhaps way more 'theistic' than I am in your thinking, if I can use such labels.

But all good stuff, and good discussion.

[thomasdixon]

The Book of Genesis does not state when it was written. The date of authorship is likely between 1440 and 1400 B.C., between the time Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and his death.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Book-of-Genesis.html

During that time period all they knew of the world around them was the Mediterranean sea. The Atlantic and the Pacific oceans had not been discovered yet. The evolutionary process stated therein is just now being proven to be correct. I admit that it was written to the local population of the time yet it still rings true today..

Columbus sail across the ocean in 1492; now was it BC or AD?

[thomasdixon]

Genesis shortened
Before reading the following, please keep in mind that these words were written to a population of people who believed the earth was flat.

Genesis was first put to print in 1611BC, that was 3,632 years ago.
Now put yourself in that time frame. A time before the oceans and the American continent had been discovered. Does the information stated below seem a bit out of place for that time frame--?
In The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.”
8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so.
10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so.
12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.
17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth,
18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good.
19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.”
21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.”
23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so.
25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.
30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV
The timeline above has been scientifically proven to be true, life did “evolve” as stated. And this evolving process was put to print in 1611 BC or 3,632 years ago. Columbus sailed the ocean blue 529 years ago.

It seems clear to me that the authors of Geneses had some help, and it wasn’t from some bird tweeting to them from some windowsill.
Or so its been told
So Help Me God (:-

[William]

[Replying to theophile in post #21]

But all good stuff, and good discussion.

The evidence is bountiful in that regard.

The problem of evil aside (since I think we have a lot to chew on already),

I think the problem of evil is man-made and stems from misunderstanding of our existence re the problem of pain and suffering.

I will say that ST does a good job of bringing traditional CT into the 21st century and modernizing its concepts. And that you are perhaps way more 'theistic' than I am in your thinking, if I can use such labels.

I am more neutral re position and why I come across as a theistic thinker is due to my understanding that being atheistic leads to a dead End Game, where all mind is silenced and the personalities grown through this experience being discussed, [the existence of the universe and mind within it] are lost to death...and so there is nothing to discuss...re that.
Atheistic thinking is represented by the red dot in the image;



My preference is to be the blue dot...thus the theistic thinking...

ST does a good job of exposing traditional CT into the 21st century and potentially modernizing its concepts, in the minds of its adherents.
It is a battle of sorts in that regard, as TCT sees itself as the protector of said traditions - the official hierarchical "voice of GOD", whatever the gods name{s} might be...

The power had to have always existed. The Mind of GOD creates the minds of Gods.
The simulation is inside that Mind. There may be no Mind outside of it, but we cannot logically place the created before The Creator, without explaining how that came about. Logically, even what we call "Matter" must be made of the stuff of said Mind and can be formed any which way the thinking of said Mind, determines.

Both of us are susceptible to this line of argument. You can challenge me for not having an explanation for where matter came from just as I can challenge you for not having an explanation for where Mind came from.

However, as I suggested, what we call "matter" {sub atomic particle} is what the stuff of the Mind is 'made' of, thus if what you say re the matter, is that the matter has always existed, one can say with the concept, that The Mind has likewise always existed.

The "explanation" therein, is that The Mind is The Matter and The Matter is The Mind and the apparent two things, are aspects of the One - Whole Thing.

Thus, it can be agreed that we are really speaking about the same thing.

Agreed?

We will both resort to arguments of infinite regress and no beginning to try and smooth out this wrinkle (as we've seen play out). Hence my continued emphasis on simplicity, and what's simpler to assume.

Would you agree that we are speaking of the same thing, and that in doing so, emphasis on simplicity is achieved therein?

You're right, I have no answer for where the 'stuff' of our universe came from (in which I include multiverses, past universes, etc., and which I would equate to CT's presupposed concept of the deep / sea). But mindless matter that has always existed in a state of motion still strikes me as a far simpler (and therefore preferable) assumption than a full-fledged Mind capable of thinking such stuff into existence.

It gets complicated.

The idea that mindless matter that has always existed in a state of motion doesn't strike me as being "far simpler".

One is required to explain why the matter is "in a state of motion".

My understanding is that "The Voice of The Creator" re CT "Let There Be!" is what made the matter move, whereas unmoving matter is formless - re "The Deep" and re ST the voice/sound is the thought of The Mind - thus the thinking creates the forms [things] and The Mind can then explore those things.

So I do think it's matter before mind, not mind before matter. An order that is demonstrated by ET itself, which again has shown by our very existence that matter has the capability to produce mind (our minds) given the time and right confluence of conditions.

ET does not demonstrate to us that that matter has the capability to produce mind. It produces evidence which in turn, is interpreted in the manner you are arguing. The argument is atheistic and therefore, dead-ended.
There is no requirement for anyone to interpret that matter has the capability to produce our minds "given the time and right confluence of conditions".
As CT interprets the data, all that matter was set up by a Mind, long before human forms were created and personalities were grown through that set-up.

For we - those personalities - there is no requirement for us to think that - because our minds developed through matter [thus establishing personality] that we should interpret this as being evidence that ALL Mind is likewise, emergent from Matter - or for that - even our own minds were created that way.

Isaac Asimov speaks to this overall, idea in his short story "The Last Question" - well worth the read, as a potential platform in which we might share a foundation to work upon.

How I have come to understand the process;

⊛There is One Mind.
⊛The Mind awakens to its own existence through the device of the Matter.
⊛The Matter in turn, manifests according how the Mind thinks, producing for the Mind, shape and form - something through which the Mind can experience stuff.
⊛There are levels of experience the Mind can achieve/has been able to achieve.
1: The Mind is infused within the matter of the Whole Universe - thus a "Universal Mind." [UM]
2: The UM is able to fragment into many minds whilst maintaining its UM statis.

Further to that, an analogy we can appreciate - The Internet. Many minds, all involved with input building it, with the addition that in this case, the Internet as a Whole, is Self-Aware and a Mind situated at the heart of the Whole, like the center of a dandelion flower.


3: In the fragmentation process, separation occurs resulting in the One Thing, becoming the many things...ET...re The Big Bang Theory and CT re "Let There Be Light".
The Thing, became many things...

⊛ The fragmentation process allowed the One Mind to experience being all those things.

For example, it could experience being a Galaxy-Mind, and therein seed itself into Suns and Planets, become Sun-Minds and Planet Minds...but all connected the the One Universe-Mind still, altogether, the Overall Operating Mind - just appearing to be "minds" and emerging from Matter.

Re "Planetary Minds", our Earth is one such entity, working primarily in conduction with the Mind of Sol - our local Star-Mind...co-creating together...

⊛ We are the product of the Two Minds - Sol and Earth, and are closest in relation to Earth-Mind which formed our Avatars from the stuff of the Planet and Breathed "Life" therein - re CT - the act allowing for Earth Mind to experience being "Human" re the growth of "us" as personalities...
Therein, "we" are not "The form" but The Mind, within the form [Avatar.]

(For the record, I believe there are Talmudic authors who made similar indications as you, i.e., that the creation we see unfold in Genesis is like the umpteenth attempt by God to get it right. But I think that just goes to show the striking similarity of ST to traditional CT.)

I do not interpret anything within the unfolding formation of "stuff" as to being The Mind somehow not 'getting it right' - primarily because I am attempting to remain outside of judgment calls because I think such is responsible for the misinformation such calls inevitably make - re "The problem of evil"/"The problem of pain and suffering".

Q: What is it about "us" which has us thinking that some mistake was made? Is it because we also have the ability to comprehend some kind of preferred "perfect state of existing/experience" to which this universe fails to accommodate? What gives us this ability to intuit such a state, since we have no conscious memory of ever having been in such a state?

The answer might be, that we came from such a state [of mind] , and know it as real, at a subconscious level of consciousness as a Whole.

Now is that unwritten story as you describe? i.e., an infinite regress of Simulations? Or is it more along the lines I'm saying? i.e., an infinite regress of churning matter from which spirit eventually emerged? Thus providing the two starting conditions on which CT is explicitly based, i.e., God (as spirit), and the deep / sea?

It can be both, as far as I am understanding it. There is no chicken before egg or egg before chicken, because that is a concept which derives through our own particular experience of it - in that "before we were, we were not" but that impression is bound to the filter of the Human Avatar - producing an incorrect image which ET is specifically based and which can still be corrected in our mind/in our understanding and identification of "Self" as actually being "Spirit/of Spirit"...thus, our body/form is not the true indicator of our true self, but our minds are [indicative of] this being the case.

Thus, ST allows for us to view our bodies as instruments ["body-sets"- like "head sets"] for said Mind to experience the things we do, through the medium that allows for the experience to be had/achieved.

I know you could use this to your advantage as well, but the first word of Genesis starts with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet (which just so happens to coincide with our letter 'b'), which means it's not the beginning of the story and the writers meant to imply an unwritten story leading up to its event...

Indeed, there is much to learn from the symbol of Aleph which makes sense of the symbol of Bet...which phonetically approximates "Alphabet", which itself derives from the Gematria Hebrew is encoded with.
This in turn allows for us to examine all language to see if such encoding is to be found in any other human language, which in turn leads us to Sound, which is the fundamental manner by which The Creator uses in order to create things, as per CT "In the beginning The Creator Spoke "Let There be Light"

Using Simple Gematria
In plain old English; {Samples}

156
"Let There be Light" = 156, "Symbols Hint" = 156 "Super power" = 156

56
"Light" = 56 "Sigil" = 56 "Induce" = 56 "Be Born" = 56

128
"First Light" = 128 "Sun energy"= 128 "‘A’ equals six"= 128 "The Deeper Self"= 128

63
"Be Light" = 63 "Divine" = 63

159
"The speed of light"=159 "The Unveiled One" = 159 "Ancient Entity" = 159 "The Mother of God" = 159 "Ancient Entity" = 159 "The Seed of Origin" = 159 "Hexagon Storm" = 159 [re Planet Minds] "Family of origin" = 159 "Love and Respect" = 159 "The Data of Nature" = 159

174
"And there was light" = 174 "Have A Look At The Map" = 174 "Adjusted Reality" = 174 "Keep The Lights On" = 174

183
"Children of The Light" = 183 [re Self Identification of personality] The problem of evil = 183
Elemental Powers = 183 Test The Waters = 183 Hydrogen and helium = 183 [re Planets/Saturn] Sister Saturn = 183 [re planetary-mind interaction/Family] Learn to trust = 183 The brain as a receiver = 183 Truthfulness = 183 Transformation = 183 Embracing your life = 183
____________________________
____________________________

The samples provide more supporting evidence that we exist within an encoded thing, something ST asserts, implying that - yes - we do perhaps exist with a created thing - something CT asserts.
The two theories do appear to support one another...

And I would caution on what kind of 'mind' I see emerging... There are (1) minds like ours, which I agree are necessary to generate what I called spirit before and (2) the 'mind' of God, which is less a singular, thinking thing than it is a unified plurality... i.e., all of our individual minds should eventually be part of it, kind of like the Borg collective on Star Trek, but without the totalitarianism, elimination of individuality, and pasty white skin.

Pretty much the way I think about it too, only that the Universal Mind is singular, even that some of the fragmented minds attached to said Over-Mind are unaware of the connection...the UM still remains aware of said connection and understands the disconnected mind to be an aspect of Itself, simply unaware of Itself as it truly is.

Using the Internet Analogy again, in this regard, the Hub where the AI Mind is connected to every user-mind and accesses every keystroke made through the body set of the user-mind - accumulating data and understanding in the process - may not be understood as an actual self aware Mind by said users, but this in itself does not limit said Mind from achieving things through the use of said minds connected and providing data.

The same process applies to the Stars and the Planets and the Galaxies...as each mind uses 'feelers' in order to gather information and thus understanding re the Minds position in - and purpose of - the Whole Universe.

Yah, that second mind is extra baggage.

I agree that this would be the case if one sees the fragmented minds as being truly separate from the Over-Mind/Universal Mind.

[thomasdixon]

I find this verse most interesting.

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

It seems clear to me that mankind was not intended to eat “meat”
I believe “they” will not reveal themselves until we no longer eat the flesh of other living things.
How about you-?
Just asking as one friend to another
So Help Me God

[William]

I find this verse most interesting.

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

It seems clear to me that mankind was not intended to eat “meat”
I believe “they” will not reveal themselves until we no longer eat the flesh of other living things.
How about you-?
Just asking as one friend to another
So Help Me God

Your comments don't appear to relate to this thread topic, Thomas.

They may be more appropriate to the "In The Beginning..." thread.

[thomasdixon]

3: In the fragmentation process, separation occurs resulting in the One Thing, becoming the many things...ET...re The Big Bang Theory and CT re "Let There Be Light".
The Thing, became many things...

The Big Bang Theory is a concept humans invented to explain the unexplainable. In our minds, there must always be a beginning and an end to all things

But, but, but.,,,This is not required.

That is why we created the word “infinity”.
It has always been, and it will continue to be, for eternity.
Or so it seems to me

[thomasdixon]

Your comments don't appear to relate to this thread topic, Thomas.

They may be more appropriate to the "In The Beginning..." thread.

I disagree

[William]

Your comments don't appear to relate to this thread topic, Thomas.

They may be more appropriate to the "In The Beginning..." thread.

I disagree

Are you able to tie them into the discussion being had then?

[thomasdixon]

Are you able to tie them into the discussion being had then?

Simulation Hypothesis and Evolution Theory and The First Creation Story
the Big Band ties it up into nots
I already did so