The Tree of Life and Darwin

The Tree of Life in the Genesis account reveals an eternal life or inner life. 


What is interesting is that there is a another tree of life...this tree is not a manipulation or hijacking of the tree of life from the Bible. 

This is Darwin's Tree of Life revealing biological life. 

This was called a tree not because of the Bible, but because when one literally diagrams biological life one literally draws a tree. 

This diagram could have taken any shape, but it does not. 

A TREE shape then is very significant in understanding the PHYSICAL layer, but also the SPIRITUAL layer. 

Layers to Reality. How many do you think there are?

I tend to think there are many layers to reality.

I would say the one we dwell in and experience most is the Physical Visible layer. However there is a Physical Invisible layer underneath this layer which includes molecules, atoms, sub-atomic particles, quantum particles, virtual particles.

Underneath this layer I think there is a Spiritual Visible layer and underneath this the Spiritual Invisible layer.

Above the Physical I think there is a Conscious Visible and then a Conscious Invisible layer.

Above the Conscious Invisible layer I think there is a Soul Visible Layer.

7 layers in total.

Sometimes consciousness experiences the other layers and sometimes not.

Soul Visible Layer———————-immaterial

Conscious Invisible Layer———immaterial

Conscious Visible Layer———immaterial wrapped in material

Physical Visible Layer————-immaterial wrapped in material

Physical Invisible Layer———immaterial

Spiritual Visible Layer——-immaterial wrapped in material

Spiritual Invisible Layer——immaterial

I think that reality is born out of the absence of (random/chaos/darkness) and existence of (non-random/order/light) the Spiritual Invisible Layer, and gushes outward like a geyser gushing of water forming all the other layers.

*Because of the absence of the Spiritual Invisible Layer (when it closed) the random/chaotic/dark physical world emerged and is an EXTERNAL quality. This is the illusion of Separateness, externally.

*But because of the existence of the Spiritual Invisible Layer (when it opened) non-random harmony/order/light manifested within the physical. An INTERNALquality. This is the truth of Oneness, internally.

I think the Spiritual Invisible Layer closes and opens like breathing.

I think that the spirit existed prior to all the other layers. However the soul exists because of the consciousness layer. The Soul Visible Layer then circles back around to the bottom or the Spiritual Invisible Layer, where it once again becomes invisible and unites again with the spirit.

For myself, highest consciousness like that of a human (scientists say biological life can not become any smarter than we are now based on the fact of energy needs) can connect to the Spiritual Invisible Layer and in that sense we also have a Spirit (umbilical cord) to the One.

All animals (consciousnesses) in my view have a soul, however only humans have a spirit.

This reality is then linear and circular.

Consciousness Visible is the layer where we see the brain and the actions and words of a living animal. The Consciousness Invisible is the harder problem, the energy/image formed from the brain’s chemistry/electricity/memory/experiences/choices…which in my view form the Soul.

The Soul Visible layer is where we find ghosts. But they always return to the Spiritual Invisible layer.

The Spiritual Invisible layer is where everything is ONE, the grand mystery. To where everything returns and gushes. This is "God". This is the "System of Energies", which I think has ethical values embedded into the very fabric of being. This is more of a pantheistic view of things.

However, the Spiritual Visible layer is where we might see “God”, or a “prophet” or “an Angel” or “Messiah” or a Miracle. It is the manifestation closest to the Oneness and therefore most truthful, most loving, most hopeful.

Because the soul manifests from the consciousness which manifests from the physical, our own soul is trapped in this physical world for as long as we live and therefore can become disillusioned, weary and deceived or denied. The soul is our horizontal walk where as the spirit is the vertical walk, direct contact to the Oneness.

In answer to a blogger's question of why Genesis has stars, sun made after the Earth

Because this blogger rejected my comment to leave on his post in answer to this guy's question, I have posted it here instead. Apparently, to most Christians my ideas are still witchcraft and I shall be burned at he stake. 

http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/2010/09/stephen-hawking-proves-the-existence-of-god-2/

zuma August 4, 2013 at 8:48 am

Big Bang timeline contradicts Genesis 1.

In accordance to the Big Bang timeline, stars and galaxies were formed approximately 12 to 15 billion years before the present and yet the sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago. The earth was subsequently formed approximately 4.54 billion years.

The following is the sequence that has been laid out by the scripture:

a)The heaven and earth were created prior to any substances:

Genesis 1:1, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” The word, earth, in Genesis 1:1 gives the implication the earth was created the earliest as the same as heaven. Yet stars were formed prior to the earth’s formation in accordance to the Big Bang timeline.

b)The creation of sun:

According to the scripture, the sun was created after the creation of the earth:

Genesis 1:3-4, “And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness.” Even if one would consider the creation of sun on day four, it would still fall after Genesis 1:1, the creation of the earth.

As the creation of sun, Genesis 1:3-4 was placed after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:1, it implies that the sun was created after the creation of the earth. Yet in the Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse and that is the sun was formed 4.6 billion years before the earth, 4.54 billion years.

c)The creation of stars:

Genesis 1:16, “And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also.”

The phrase, [he made] the stars also, in Genesis 1:16 implies the creation of stars.

As the creation of stars in Genesis 1:16 was placed after the creation of the earth (Genesis 1:1) and the sun (Genesis 1:3-4), it implies that stars were created prior to the creation of the earth and sun. Yet in Big Bang timeline, it shows the reverse since stars were formed in approximately 12 to 15 billion years ago before the formation of the earth, 4.54 billion years, and the sun, 4.6 billion years.

The discrepancies as mentioned above between the Big Bang and the scripture have placed the reliability of Big Bang theory into question.

How could Christians engross in Big Bang theory then?

I think Christians come in three groups. One is the group where they take the moral teaches, but don't read many passages literally. The other group takes the moral teachings and the passages literally superficially (which is what you have done above). The other group takes the moral lessons and the passages literally with deeper understanding.

I fall in the last group, but I would also call myself a Buddhist, a Jew, a Sufist, a Hindu, a Kabbalist, and a Naturalist as well as a Spiritualist. I think there are truths in many teachings and BS as well.

For the explanation, I will give summed up version of what took me four years of study and of which I consequently wrote a book about entitled The Ancient Genesis. Now, the book could have been inspired by a higher power, by just men or be complete rubbish. I will not argue that point. What I will say is that when one reads, one needs to read carefully, be it of any literature to understand context of culture, context of history and context of intention.

Basically the jist is this. Learn some Hebrew and Phonetician and also ancient and modern day Hebrew culture.

When you do you will understand these basic principles:

1-Yom which is defined as a day in Genesis can mean A Period of Time. (There is a lot of references and support for this in my book). Further common sense might lead one to ask how is a day defined before the Earth or Sun are said to even exist...in Day 1 and Day 2, and some of Day 3.

2-Bara is for spiritual creation only in Genesis 1. Period. This word is translated in the English as created (s). After much much study I have come to realize this to be the true case. This occurs in Day 1 when the building blocks of everything arose. This occurs in Day 5 for the life of water animals. This occurs in Day 6 for the life of humans. (There is further understanding of why it only happens for water life supported in my book and notes, but basically land animals evolved from water life and so what was given to them in Day 5 eventually evolved into the land animals in Day 5 later.

3-Asha is for physical processes in Genesis 1 only. Period. This word is translated as made in English.

4-What Asha means than is to take the parts and build. Example. I have a hammer, nails, and wood. I now can build a house. There are scientific mechanisms that can explain every Asah process, because Asah is a physical process.

5-God does bring about many things in Genesis 1 Without the use of made or create, without the use of Asha and Bara.

Why use Asah and Bara then if God's words alone can bring about plants from the ground, etc. This is because those words give us more insight, more information, into what is actually happening. The focus is not that something is coming ....or has come, but  how and its relevance.

So, with some basic understanding let us go back to your question....

Why is the sun and stars mentioned in Day 4 when the Earth is mentioned in Day 3, clearly a day earlier.

Not only does that not make sense in terms of cosmological evolution, it doesn't make sense in terms of common sense. If a day is in fact the sun going up and down in accordance to the Earth, which clearly these people would see ....then how can you even have  day in Day 3 for the Earth BEFORE the appearance of the sun?

So, either the writer was very stupid, or he did this deliberately. I chose to think the later.

The basic answer is because before the Earth, the stars and sun did not have relevance, they would not have been seen. The word MADE which is actually Asah brings additional understanding as it means to give purpose, to give direction to give .

It means  natural processes used to guide, form, make, command, and direct information...using, guiding, preparing, maintaining, making

What the *intention* of this passage is is that: In this period of time, the sun and stars were now given purpose and relevance to the Earth, are being maintained in relation to the Earth.

*It does not mean that the sun and stars were created from nothing spontaneously and instantly in this moment and appeared suddenly right after the Earth.*

The rabbi Nahimandies (he lived 500 years ago so is not informed by modern day science) calls asah, ‘creation by in-formation’ and he calls bara ‘creation from nothing’. (As seen in his commentaries and in the back of my book)




Where did our numerical symbols come from?

Does anyone else find the symbol of numbers fascinating?

The shape of the zero was very clever indeed. When you draw it...it starts as nothing, becomes a point and then takes a shape and then the point returns to nothing, the point at which it came. The numerical shape returns to itself, returns the shape of zero, returns to nothing.

Now, I find it confusing that eight uses the zero doubled up. That number really should have been another symbol.

I find it more confusing that the number ten, twenty, and so on use the number zero at all. There is no zero involved in ten or twenty. There is a one involved in ten. One row of ten. There is a two involved in twenty. Two rows of ten. But why zero?

Then we have infiniti. The horizontal figure eight. This makes sense as it is zero. It is nothing, becoming something and returning to nothing again. But because it is infinite, it does it again. Like a cycle. This makes a lot of sense.

So, who was behind the symbol of zero and infiniti and who was behind the symbol of eight and ten, and twenty, and so on?

Well, as it turns out the symbol we use today for zero came from the Hindu symbol of zero. This is interesting, because their concept of nothingness is still relevant today, especially given the new developments of what nothing means in quantum physics, in the true reality of nature.

Hindus only, within the context of Indo-European, have consistently used a zero.

But we can see that the Hindus did not use the two-zero format for the eight originally. That evolved later during Medieval times. I have to say that was a mistake. The symbol doesn't make sense.


What about ten, twenty and so forth?
Even though it doesn't make sense to me to use a zero, because there is no zero in the number quantity, of course this makes sense so that place values are used and therefore we can write any number using just ten symbols.

But it may have been better to isolate zero as its own symbol, and use a different symbol for ten, twenty. Perhaps like this 1~ or 2~ to mean ten and twenty. 11~ would mean one hundred and ten.

I just don't like the combination of something and nothing I guess. But, the place value was an important step.


What about infiniti? The symbol apparently came to us by John Mallis in 1655.

Wallis did not explain his choice of this symbol, but it has been conjectured to be a variant form of a Roman numeral for 1,000 (originally CIƆ, also CƆ), which was sometimes used to mean "many", or of the Greek letter ω (omega), the last letter in the Greek alphabet.(wiki)

How did Morality happen?

Morality is not absolute in detail because it is not the same for all living things. We see morality altering from species to species in how they behave. But, some kind of morality evolved to sustain life.

It may be an absolute part of a conscious being, but varies in its detail.

Can energy achieve higher order without life? without consciousness? without morality?

Was morality an accident that let us survive? or was it inevitable so that we would survive, into higher consciousness... so that energy could reach fuller entropy? 

Is Consciousness Inevitable?

Consciousness, is it inevitable?

When we look at energy we see it runs toward entropy and likes to take the fastest path there. So, from that we have determined that energy goes into order and higher organization in fact to reach the fastest path to entropy. More energy will be used up. 

However- this seems to mean that high organization of particles is inevitable then. Though you can say this accident happen or that random thing...it seems eventually the higher organization will occur. Then, Consciousness occurs in this higher organization of things...consciousness is like a by product of this higher order of particles....and it seems inevitable to me because nature goes from random to non-random and chaos to order and because nature keeps moving forward building upon itself and is persisting toward the fastest path to entropy. But then it is also inevitable. So, my question now is on one hand consciousness seems inevitable and on the other hand there are many 'accidents or random things that occur' before it happens. So it is like an inevitable accident?

Or perhaps the game is set up to allow for random and accidents, but in the end consciousness will eventually prevail.

Are morals independent or absolute or what?

Morality is an independent reality?

Morals don't exist for an individual. They are a Collective. Just like particles interacting with the environment do so as a collective. Then they conform.

 Morality and ethics are a collective. If you take any group you look at you cannot then look at it with you on it from an external force onto an inward one. You have to see how the people in the group feel and think . From the inside to the inside. If those people are feeling oppressed or hurt or they feel pain about this sacrificing of children then for that group it is not good. If no one in the group had any feelings or care about a sacrifice of a child, even the child itself then is it morally wrong for the group? If they were say robots with no care of their death? For them then that would not be immoral. But that is because morality is contingent upon the collective. Nature works as a collective.

I then came across this article which seems to think somewhat like  I mentioned:

"Law instead follows from collective behavior, as do things that flow from it, such as logic and mathematics. The reason our minds can anticipate and master what the physical world does is not because we are geniuses but because nature facilitates understanding by organizing itself and generating law." -http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/laughlin.cfm

I would add this law comes from the collective, how the parts work together and this is really how morals and ethics evolve as well.

Of course this is Laughlin who Kruass criticized, but I agree with Laughlin here. 

I completely disagree that without science you can't have morals or ethics. Compassion and how you feel, empathy and being selfless has nothing to do with science. You might be able to understand better what it is or where it came from...but yes you have to understand consequences to have some judgment of it, but you don't need science for that either. You simply need reason/logic/understanding a sequence of events. This is not science. Again science may help us understand what logic and reason is or where it came from, but it is not science itself. Reason and emotion determine your ethics and morals. Science simply helps us understand how and why of all of it.

As a mother Bonobo looks at her baby, she follows her instincts and her compassion and the level of teaching of care giving from her small community. She knows nothing of science. She is merely following her emotions and level of reason.

As an outside judgment of humans we can look at them and judge, but they are judgers of their own culture and own behavior. What they have deemed acceptable will pass and what is not will not in their group. That is their moral and ethic code.