plaetton:

@Pasor AIO:

No one can give an all-encompassing definition of energy or consciousness.
The study of both are still a great work in progress.
But we are allowed to make general statements based on the little we know so far, and we all stand to be corrected and upgraded whenever know knowledge becomes available. thats is the great difference between science, philosphy and religion.
I think That is ok.
Yes we use observable differentials to explain the interaction of energy. That is the only way we can. We have meters to show us how much electrical energy is moving through a system at any given point. we dont have isolate the electric current in order to validate its existence.

when we examine an atom, we can hardly see anything aside from the atomic particles, but when we spit the atom, just imagine th amount of energy released. can we say that energy is not real and is just a concept?

Definition: Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential energy, electrical, or other forms.

Deep Sight: ^ He is a confirmed pantheist, , , ehen, where was I

Uyi Iredia: You digging it, right

Logicboy03:

Still not into deism though

Uyi Iredia:

You are. You just don't know.

UyiIredia:
This thread makes me nostalgic because in it I was trying to present 2 ideas. That thought/nous/mind/emotions/intellect (even what is called energy or God) is infinite, immaterial, self-existent, conscious and obviously intelligent. Second, that this energy which is conscious, immaterial and intelligent gives rise to matter.

The mystery is how so ? The answer: Necessarily so, because they are 2 different aspects of the same being. I then state that one is thinking strictly in materialist terms of our physical world wherein which a material body is required to affect another material body. The 'impetus' or 'force' to do this is not material. This is why force is defined using instances of objects. There is no one object called force. Zeno's paradox could be said to illustrate this. Consider the paradox of the rabbit racing the tortoise in which the tortoise is placed ahead of the rabbit. The tortoise is placed ahead of the rabbit. The race starts. You see the rabbit pass the tortoise . . . no, Zeno insists. Before it can get to the tortoise it must cross half the distance, you agree, and another half-distance, he says, until an infinitesimal distance which can't be crossed is. What has happened is this: Zeno reduced the material event of the race (moving rabbits and tortoise) to the concept of distance, infinity and impossibility.

Furthermore, when the materialist insists that physical events create intelligence he fails to note that: it is an observation unprecedented in our world, that matter on its own lacks intelligence, that matter having intelligence is contradicted by the fact that there is no object called intelligence. It is an abstract that is commonly best understood by humans.

sonOfLucifer:

I honestly don't get this.