Could the Universe have Created Itself?

[wsm]

wsm

Where did evil come from?

Satan might be beautiful but he is still a burnt spirit. What did you think happened to the light sound that was lost out of Heaven…it burst and was burnt, creating the concept of Hell. Satan therefore is lost in is own Hell as he is destroyed.

What Scientists never realized is that One God means 1 body of sound light was lost. This light was originally used by our Father in his own Heaven to create his own light angels, where only HIS LOVE creates SPIRIT. Satan is therefore only sound IMAGES.

Father controlled the activity of Satan and its release from its 1 body as it was being destroyed in the space cell creation, as Satan’s fallen Heaven CREATED ITSELF, but is CONTROLLED by our Light Father.

Scientists altered the 1 God, which was the total sound cell of the Universe that was created from out of the 1 light lost body, forming 1 space cell holding within it the lost spirit sound.

Therefore Father controlled a 1 to 1 situation which Scientists altered by causing a massive fallout by converting URANIUM and Satan’s sound that was created throughout the space cell began to drop out huge amounts of demonic bodies.

Hence for a Scientist who believes in a beautiful Lucifer, now you know you destroyed it. For you to reverence Lucifer proves to Scientists that this was the greatest mistake you ever made, reverencing “so called beauty” that was a destructive act and IT NEVER WAS a spiritual angel.

By doing what you have done you altered Father’s creation act and in doing so humanity are now going to suffer the results of your own self deceit.

The Christ holy act in the atmosphere as the OXYGEN content altered and our spiritual advises from the Heavenly sound began to fall. As I said just as Scientists conferred we belong to a string theory…all sound is connected and communicates throughout the space cellular body itself.

Scientists placed a huge amount of radiated signals in our atmosphere sent by the Sun throwing out sound balls, causing the Satanic fallout activated by the breaking of the ATOM and then they destroyed this signal by causing the radiated frequencies to burn out of their cells in the outside level of our atmosphere when they converted the dust of creation Uranium. Satan, placed in the dead stone cells of the Earth began to convert as converSION is part of the act of SION.

The Earth began to lose her stone bonds as she has over heated by the loss of uranium and was placed back into the original Sun attack that had destroyed the first Earth life and she began to crack again (Carpenter-tectonics). Earthquakes began as a constant and UFO bodies as the bonds of stone are breaking began to be released, burning Satan in the outside atmosphere and making it fall out.

Human beings began to lose important cellular data via lost oxygen pathways, the HOLY CHRIST (OX) and we began to be attacked by altered DEMONIC presences (radiating signals) that became alien sound images.

We may get BURNT by the evil spirit, but we are the HOLY SPIRIT of the Christ and we do not convert into an evil cell we get attacked by it, our Father gave us his light spirit that converted into the HOLY BLOOD of human cells/flesh.

You might crucify us Scientists, but you do not convert us into Satan and nor does possession or death by possession change the HOLY SION truth that our life may cause us to suffer as the CHRIST VALUES, but when we die we go into the Light Heaven as we are the REAL SPIRIT.

Our holy blood relying on OXYGEN as the Holy Christ ACT has also changed our cellular data proven in the alien incidences reported worldwide, THE CHRIST STIGMATA gave us the SIGNS of the unholy act of altering Earth’s Heaven, which had been demonstrated to the Catholic Church. The Christ stigmata ACT also then changed and became EBOLA.

How much proof do you need to be advised that the Bible is real, that the incidences are real incidences, that our Father is indeed in the Light as our Spirit Creator and that Scientists are wrong. We do go to light at death, that human reported spiritual advises have happened non stop worldwide trying to report to Scientists that our spirit is a light spirit and the Church is wrong.

Just because we may choose to act with evil intent, does not make us the evil spirit, as your own teachings profess, all were forgiven because of the Christ Sacrifice. We were meant to be taught the truth so that we could live our life on Earth as loving and caring human beings, understanding why we were born into such intense suffering when we are all innocent. Father made the mistake in light himself by causing his angelic family to become level with his own light self in sound and it pushed us away from him.

Why did the holy Brotherhood of early Catholic Christ brothers change? This was because greed got the better of you and you were persuaded to believe in the Luciferian teachings and seemingly are arguing amongst yourselves as to who is correct regarding Father’s Creation Act. Those who identify we are being attacked because of demonic presence belong to the old order and then there are those who believe that Lucifer created us and followed Scientific pursuits that altered our Father’s natural creation.

Why does the Church take a stand against spiritual advises that have arrived on Earth given to any denomination? Do you honestly believe that only the Catholic faith holds the truth, and that Father’s children do not belong to his OWN HOLY ORDER, the given Christ stated to be acted for all humankind or have you yourself been deceived into believing that everyone else is evil because we challenge how you yourself have changed from your earliest teachings?

 

[wsm]

One’s identity hardly defines one’s body. A body is just a created physical object. God is the creator, not one of the created. Also, to creat the laws of physics, he has to be immaterial.
Also, please use sensible grammar, because I have absolutely no idea what the second part of your sentence means.

Identity does define body, this identity is what Scientists at NASA have been looking for in their illegal occult science research program via satellite streaming.

Not materialized is just a statement of fact, that as a human being speaks and thinks then they try to describe what our Father is, without description.

Yet to discuss Father you use description, which is your own ego trying to give itself values that it proposes it understands who our Father is.

Why don’t you just get over yourself and understand that you have an ego problem when you are trying to advise yourself that you can explain Father.

 

[mytruepower2]

Not if the successive addition goes on for an infinite amount of time.

No, I think David Hilbert has effectively proved that even this is impossible. No matter how many moments of time you add, or how many events you add through successive addition, more can always be added, and therefore, such a thing as this kind of countable infinity is just an abstract idea; not something that exists in the physical world.

The brain doesn’t process intellectual information.

The brain is not -the source- or intellectual information, but I was referring to thought impulses, which clearly have an effect on your brain.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

wsm:

Identity does define body, this identity is what Scientists at NASA have been looking for in their illegal occult science research program via satellite streaming.

Um, no, it doesn’t. This would mean that one’s identity (which is about the soul, not the body) would be rooted in some quality of the body, and therefore nothing immaterial could have identity.

wsm:

Not materialized is just a statement of fact, that as a human being speaks and thinks then they try to describe what our Father is, without description.

Yet to discuss Father you use description, which is your own ego trying to give itself values that it proposes it understands who our Father is.

Why don’t you just get over yourself and understand that you have an ego problem when you are trying to advise yourself that you can explain Father.

This is not ego, it’s a lack of contradiction. In saying God is comprehensible, you contradict yourself because then you couldn’t know that he is incomprehensible.

mytruepower2:

No, I think David Hilbert has effectively proved that even this is impossible. No matter how many moments of time you add, or how many events you add through successive addition, more can always be added, and therefore, such a thing as this kind of countable infinity is just an abstract idea; not something that exists in the physical world.

Consider: are there more whole numbers or decimal numbers? Surely decimal numbers. Yet are not both infinite?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Consider: are there more whole numbers or decimal numbers? Surely decimal numbers. Yet are not both infinite?

If both are infinite, there could not be “more” of one than another, just that they are “clustered” differently. There are huge issues with trying to quantify and compare infinites. Hilbert’s Hotel demonstrates that much.

youtu.be/faQBrAQ87l4

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Peter Plato:

If both are infinite, there could not be “more” of one than another, just that they are “clustered” differently.

If intended as an argument rather than a defense, this is circular.
Here’s my argument:
Both sets of numbers (counting only the positive ones, which shouldn’t affect their relative sizes since we are leaving off half of both sets) start at 0. They also both end at . In short, they have the same two endpoints. Thus, the two sets span the same distance on the number line. And in any given distance on said line, there are wayyyy more decimals than wholes. Therefore, there are more decimals than whole numbers. In short, not all infinities are equal.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If intended as an argument rather than a defense, this is circular.
Here’s my argument:
Both sets of numbers (counting only the positive ones, which shouldn’t affect their relative sizes since we are leaving off half of both sets) start at 0. They also both end at . In short, they have the same two endpoints. Thus, the two sets span the same distance on the number line. And in any given distance on said line, there are wayyyy more decimals than wholes. Therefore, there are more decimals than whole numbers. In short, not all infinities are equal.

That is precisely the issue brought up by Hilbert and others. Take an infinite number and subtract 3. You still have an infinite number so you haven’t made the infinite set any smaller since it is still infinite, which doesn’t make sense since you did make the set smaller by subtracting 3 from the original set. Yet, it’s still infinite. Holbert’s solution is that actual infinites are incoherent or indeterminate and therefore not possible as actual quantities, which defeats your claim.

Along a determined sequence of numbers there are more decimals than integers, but along an infinite sequence they cannot be compared because the actual quantities of the two sets are indeterminate.

 

[Phil_Marinus]

Maybe some people take Star Trek a little to seriously !

 

[mytruepower2]

Consider: are there more whole numbers or decimal numbers? Surely decimal numbers. Yet are not both infinite?

This is only a -potential- infinity, not an actual one, and it’s not formed by successive addition, even if it were actual.

Suppose, for example, that an immortal person in an immortal world were counting from one to infinity? At what point would he say “Phew! All done!”

The fact is, he would never say this, because no matter how many actual numbers he counted, he could always continue to count more. On beyond a googleplex, googleplex, he would just find that one more could always be added, and so he would never reach “infinity” by successive addition.

David Hilbert was himself a mathematician, and he addressed this in his presentation before a congress of the Westphalian Mathematical Society in Munster. This is only an abstract notion; not something that could be replicated physically.

However, since past events are not mere abstractions, but are real, we should therefore agree that infinity can’t be formed by successive addition.

 

[epan]

Some modern physicists think the answer is yes. However there seems to be no evidence that this is so.For those who may be interested, there is no evidence for the assertion that there are experiments showing this universe creating something. This is pure hyperbolic speculation, it is not even known what ( if anything ) has been observed. If, indeed, some form of matter appeared where there had been none, it can only have come from some form of prior existing matter.

But besides this, is it possible that the universe could have created itself and that it sustains itself in existence?. There are lots of highly speculative theories to that effect Fr. Robert Spitzer of the Magis Center of Reason and Faith has some very interesting presentations about some of these theories. You can watch them here.
magisreasonfaith.org/spitzer_videos.html

Thomas Aquinas has demonstrated philosophically that only God can cause anything to exist, only he can create anything and sustain it in existence. He discusses this in the Summa Theologica, Part 1, Qs 44-45, and 103-109. You can read it for yourself.

Linus2nd

the first cause argument is circular. either you apply logic, and go round and round, or you invoke faith and subscribe to the idea of a creator. it really is as simple as that, regardless of how it is dressed up or convoluted with argument or discussion.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

the first cause argument is circular. either you apply logic, and go round and round, or you invoke faith and subscribe to the idea of a creator. it really is as simple as that, regardless of how it is dressed up or convoluted with argument or discussion.

That is often asserted but never proven. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate just exactly how the argument is circular?

Linus2nd

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Peter Plato:

That is precisely the issue brought up by Hilbert and others. Take an infinite number and subtract 3. You still have an infinite number so you haven’t made the infinite set any smaller since it is still infinite, which doesn’t make sense since you did make the set smaller by subtracting 3 from the original set. Yet, it’s still infinite. Holbert’s solution is that actual infinites are incoherent or indeterminate and therefore not possible as actual quantities, which defeats your claim.

Along a determined sequence of numbers there are more decimals than integers, but along an infinite sequence they cannot be compared because the actual quantities of the two sets are indeterminate.

Your premise is that infinity - 3 = the same infinity, which is what I have just disproven. Also, you have provided no grounds for Hilbert’s “solution”.

Linusthe2nd:

That is often asserted but never proven. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate just exactly how the argument is circular?

I agree that the argument is not cirular, but I don’t think we should discuss it, given the atheism ban.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

.

I agree that the argument is not cirular, but I don’t think we should discuss it, given the atheism ban.

I don’t see how it would violate that ban. I don’t see how it would involve a discussion of atheism.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your premise is that infinity - 3 = the same infinity, which is what I have just disproven. Also, you have provided no grounds for Hilbert’s “solution”.

So, you have PROVEN that an infinite quantity (infinite number-3) is NOT the same as an infinite quantity (infinite-0)? So an infinite number is NOT an infinite number? How could an infinite quantity not be an infinite quantity? Shall we repeal the law of non-contradiction?

I think Hilbert’s view that “infinite” is not a possible actual quantity is correct. An actual infinite is simply not a tenable possibility. “Infinite” is merely a placeholder for “undeterminable” and cannot be an actual or realizable possibility.

Actual infinites are not possible is the correct view of this.

 

[SentinelofTruth]

Linusthe2nd:

I don’t see how it would violate that ban. I don’t see how it would involve a discussion of atheism.

It would be about an argument against atheism. I think that’s relevant enough that we shouldn’t discuss it.
Peter Plato:

So, you have PROVEN that an infinite quantity (infinite number-3) is NOT the same as an infinite quantity (infinite-0)? So an infinite number is NOT an infinite number? How could an infinite quantity not be an infinite quantity? Shall we repeal the law of non-contradiction?

Here are my responses:
When we say “x is an infinite number”, we mean “is” in the sense of “is one of”, not “is equal to”. If you think the latter is the only possible usage of the word “is”, consider: is a car a vehicle? Yes, a car is a vehicle. Every car is. But this does not entail that every vehicle is a car.

• It is actually you violating the law of non-contradiction. If infinity + 1 = the same infinity, then one could subtract infinity from both sides and validly prove that 1 = 0.
• You have yet to find a flaw in the logic or premises of the argument. This, even if valid, would be a flaw in the conclusion, whichi is impossible unless the logic and/or premises are also flawed.

I think Hilbert’s view that “infinite” is not a possible actual quantity is correct. An actual infinite is simply not a tenable possibility. “Infinite” is merely a placeholder for “undeterminable” and cannot be an actual or realizable possibility.

Actual infinites are not possible is the correct view of this.

Isn’t God an “actual infinite”?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It would be about an argument against atheism. I think that’s relevant enough that we shouldn’t discuss it.

You still have not explained why defending the First Way would be picking a fight with athiests, that is what is not allowed. 'We can certainly defend our own terf. And if someone offers a challange, we can certainly answer. A challange has been raised and if it is not defended, then we can assume that the challange is groundless, that someone is just pulling our leg. It is not wrong to point that out.

Linus2nd

 

[yppop]

I believe that Hilbert is being misrepresented. Hilbert, who was a strong advocate of Cantor’s theory of infinite sets (transfinite numbers), proposed the hotel paradox merely to illustrate the counterintuitive result of a valid argument that Cantor’s theory entails. I never came across anywhere in the literature were Hilbert commented on an “actual infinity”. I would appreciate a reference, if anyone has one.

The amazing thing about infinity is that you can add an infinite number of guests to the hotel without running out of rooms. Simply move every guest in an odd number room to the next even number room. Then put a new guest in each of the empty odd number rooms because in a hotel with an infinite number of countable rooms (each room is numbered with an “whole number”) there are as many odd number rooms as there are total rooms.

Regarding the number of whole numbers vs. the number of decimals. If the decimals are associated with “rational” numbers ( the integers plus the ratios of integers) then the number of whole numbers is equal to the number of decimals. If the decimals are associated with the irrational numbers, there are infinitely more decimals than the whole numbers. The rational numbers define the first transfinite number aleph(0); the irrational numbers are defined by the second transfinite number aleph(1).

aleph(1) = 2^aleph(0). The “^” means exponentiation.

Yppop

 

[mytruepower2]

Isn’t God an “actual infinite”?

In answer to this question; no. When we speak of God being eternal, infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, infinitely good, etc…, we don’t mean that God has an infinite number of units of finite power, or an infinite number of finite units of wisdom or goodness. These are infinite in -quality,- not -quantity,- and so the mathematical difficulties associated with quantifiable infinities simply don’t come into play when dealing with God, who’s fundamentally simple.

In other words, God is infinite in power in that he has all power. God is infinite in wisdom in that he has all wisdom, etc… In fact, in a certain sense, God -is- these things (such as power, wisdom and goodness,) in their purest form. But he’s not an example of an infinity being formed by successive addition.

 

[mytruepower2]

I believe that Hilbert is being misrepresented. Hilbert, who was a strong advocate of Cantor’s theory of infinite sets (transfinite numbers), proposed the hotel paradox merely to illustrate the counterintuitive result of a valid argument that Cantor’s theory entails. I never came across anywhere in the literature were Hilbert commented on an “actual infinity”. I would appreciate a reference, if anyone has one.

The amazing thing about infinity is that you can add an infinite number of guests to the hotel without running out of rooms. Simply move every guest in an odd number room to the next even number room. Then put a new guest in each of the empty odd number rooms because in a hotel with an infinite number of countable rooms (each room is numbered with an “whole number”) there are as many odd number rooms as there are total rooms.

Regarding the number of whole numbers vs. the number of decimals. If the decimals are associated with “rational” numbers ( the integers plus the ratios of integers) then the number of whole numbers is equal to the number of decimals. If the decimals are associated with the irrational numbers, there are infinitely more decimals than the whole numbers. The rational numbers define the first transfinite number aleph(0); the irrational numbers are defined by the second transfinite number aleph(1).

aleph(1) = 2^aleph(0). The “^” means exponentiation.

Yppop

The difference is that numbers and sets are abstractions, while physical events and moments of time are real/physical, and on -that- score, Hilbert was quite clear when he said…

“We have already seen that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality, no matter what experiences, observations, and knowledge are appealed to.”
-David Hilbert-

 

[wsm]

Um, no, it doesn’t. This would mean that one’s identity (which is about the soul, not the body) would be rooted in some quality of the body, and therefore nothing immaterial could have identity.

This is not ego, it’s a lack of contradiction. In saying God is comprehensible, you contradict yourself because then you couldn’t know that he is incomprehensible.

Consider: are there more whole numbers or decimal numbers? Surely decimal numbers. Yet are not both infinite?

Light is its own body and love the spirit in that body being the spirit of Creator, our Father.
This is how another body of light exists in light itself and this body is incomprehensible because we only learn love, we are not love. We are a consciousness aware of this part of our conscious and it cannot be explained and the holy documents have always stated the same.

How would I know this fact, because our human incarnated spirit came from out of this light source. Hence we have a light body in the light as our guardian who interacts with our Father. Our Guardian is our conscious self, the self that learns how to love, care and apply both. This has been proven to be correct, when a human being who originally could not communicate to us was given communication and proved how loving, caring and intelligent they were. That just because the body does not allow communication it does not mean that the same spirit presence is there with the incapacitated body.

Incapacitation therefore proves that the information for life has nothing to do with Creation and does not come from the created act but interacts with it, we are from the spirit who created us and we die with the purpose of this spirit being lost from out of light as the sacrifice into an incarnated cell.

I am loving and caring because I was born innocent. Many are not loving and caring because they are born innocent but are abused. You heal the abuse and then can demonstrate love. You can be a murderer and learn how wrong you are and become love…we are learning the truth of our self. Everyone has a higher self, it is whether you apply it that is important or not. Therefore the higher self is proven through its innocence, and the Christ is the innocence. Are you going to imply that the Christ story is not real?

The Bible explained that the human beings in the first incarnation were in a different Earth Heaven and had to leave it because they were tempted by Knowledge and applied it. It also describes that unlike us they were not incarnate, meaning not a breathing human being with red blood, interacting with oxygen. The Bible also details that the Christ act caused us to be incarnate and cast out of the Paradise we once lived in as first Earth and the sacrifice of the Christ cause OXYGEN (Ox in Hebrew literature) to be created in the Heaven/Earth fall and we fell into pain and suffering because of it because we changed the creative act.

This is why I have written about the archaeological proof that humanity once existed on Earth in a pre history that has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. Isn’t this the type of proof the Church has been looking for regarding this spiritual dispute? Jewelry in a coal bed is an observation. The first Earth Nature was turned into coal. Planet Earth died in this event and when she was hit by the falling stone bodies, her body erupted and she re-formed an atmosphere via the gas release.

Holy men on Earth have displayed the ability for a human being to apply transformation, and this itself identifies that the angelic light beings came directly out of light into Nature and stayed on the Earth until the human life was re-established, and when they left, we became incarnated…we manifested into an organic red blooded cell and began breathing.
This is why so many phenomenal statements and accounts of actual embodied angelic beings have been witnessed coming into Earth from out of light.