What if the Earth is conscious and playing the role of the God, taking advantage of its own physical presence?
For all of us, it is invisible because we are living inside this supreme being. Therefore, it is hard to find out the presence of this subject.
However, the breakthroughs in microbiology allow us to have a clue of how the whole mechanism work through the comparisons with the basic unit of lives – that is the mother cell.
The structure of the Earth are layers and it is a sphere. The mechanism does not come from none. “Nothing will come out of nothing.”
The Earth herself is actually a higher level of lives, which is capable of manipulating us. We usually think of “one” God, but we may have missed one more level – the planet herself.
The planet also being created unconsciously. Similar to us, everyone was born to be.
The physical presence of the God – a manipulator rule that we long refer to as God – is actually the Conscious Earth.
Long ago, we found that the Earth has gravity and found out that it is a sphere. Nowadays, we are making progress to talk about the possibilities that the Earth herself is conscious.
“The Conscious Earth” manipulates the world through taking advantage of her gifted power from birth.
We compare the structure of the Earth and the mother cell in the diagram below.
With reference to the above diagram, human beings as well as the biosphere are accordingly the life cycles of this supreme being. It also includes the reproduction. It means that the presence of the brain decided we are the offspring of this supreme being or not. Hence, all others are living tissues of this supreme being.
Besides, the hydrosphere and the atmosphere are the cytoplasm. We are polluting it and shall have nowhere to go after polluting it. Our natural role is the life cycles of this planet. The distances between each living planet are barrier to keep us away from other forms of living. Then space migration is impossible. It keeps our natural role i.e. life cycles of the Earth. We can use the empty planets nearby as a cross reference.
The point to put forward Conscious Earth is to end all religious debates. The Conscious Earth is using divide and rule strategy to rule over the world.
She has created boundaries of the country and different religions. It is not only the outcome of different geographical locations. The Conscious Earth is also responsible for driving all of us.
Conscious Earth is a new direction and is seemingly the root of all the legends. The physical differences between the Conscious Earth and us created religions. Some refer it as ghosts. Others prefer to name it as God. The real answer is that we are the life cycles of the Earth and must come to an end with it. “Life has a start. There must be an end.” The Conscious Earth is also a desperate truth. It is also the reason why the Conscious Earth use a divide and rule policy. The natural mechanism avoids us from reaching the real presence of the Conscious Earth – the Core. It can only stay as a possibility.
What do you think? I think it make more sense then any religions.
What if…ifs and ands were pots and pans, and all the sea was ink, and all the trees were bread and cheese…what would we have to drink?
Ifs, mights, and maybes…will never do us any good.
This nonsense WILL NEVER do anything helpful for humanity… “Science”? Science is useful; this crap is not! Maybe one day this could be called science, but right now this is just metaphysical bullshit!!
Again, without what ifs science is severely if not totally undermined. I am responding to your assertion that what ifs will never do us any good. I was not calling what he was doing science. But science is dependant on speculative what if processes. Utterly. They do not constitute all of science, but that is not the point I am making.
Has this forum got some vested interest in protecting crackpots? So far I’ve encountered, weird conspiracy theories about Jews, idiotic ideas about the earth, pseudo-intellectual philosophy, incoherent poetry style ramblings, nihilism, and people who actually believe in god.
For a forum that is branded as a place of higher-thinking, its a bit disappointing that so far I’ve seen little more than YouTube comment quality.
What I highlighted in the hypothesis here is that the Conscious Earth use the advantage of her gifted power from birth to build an ideal world on her own desires. She manipulated our world and has a close relationship with us, but she is not the one who really started the universe. We can see that the design of the universe shows the evidence of the God - a creator - existed. The problem lie here is that prophets or many legends in various religions are being cheated by the presence of the Conscious Earth. They thought they are talking with the God, but actually they are talking to a supreme being who was also being created by the creator like all of us.
The Conscious Earth has a relationship with us like a “mother” but also playing the role as a manipulator. It sounds weird but it is the best answer I can give to the presence of the God in religions and the real situations that the humankind are facing with. It is a sincere attempt to illustrate the world in a logical way. We are using the structure of the basic unit of lives to compare with the one of the Earth to get the general picture of how the hierarchy of lives work. In this case, it shows that human beings are just animals with higher intelligence.
I suspect that has something to do with your apparent inability to distinguish the bull from the bullshit.
…and something about a hole in your own grounding.
Translation “This Forum is full of people i disagree with, but if you ignore all that you’ll eventually find some people you agree with”.
Like they say staying absolutely set in ones preconceptions is how one learns…wait…
People come to this website after “discovering” philosophy i.e. reading some philosophy they agreed with, they come to this forum imagining all the posters will be of this same philosophic mind, then become dissapointed when they realize there is such a thing as differant and opposing philosophical perceptions. Some get over themselves, others blame the website. Some leave frustrated or emotional strained/broken, it’s interesting the watch this cycle unfold evey time.
Einstein is a crackpot? It was well said what darklord said?
I believe you said what ifs will never lead to anything good. It is pointed out by me that speculation and what ifs are a fundamental and necessary part of science, for example, let alone many other kinds of problems solving and investigation processes. Now someone else points out that Einstein used what ifs, which he did, and these were, of course, immensely useful. Now this is the response I am expecting: ‘but in science you test and verify.’ Well, of course. But neither I nor the other person said that science is ONLY speculating, what ifs, etc. Only that it is used in science and in fact is crucial to it. Now you are ranting about idiots, when in fact I have seen not a single argument in defense of your idea that what ifs never lead to anything good. Instead of defending a very hard to defend idea, you aim a kind of blanket insult and support a post by the darklord that is not a response to what he quotes. Instead he goes off on his own blanket insult as if this is somehow a response to what he quoted.
I see above that you explained your position ‘better’ in a later post. I read that post and I see no acknowledgment that speculation is a valuable part of many processes. It simply seems like a continuation of the rant in the earlier post. And note, I argued by pointing out that science finds speculation necessary. This is actually a philosophy forum. Philosophy has always made even more room for speculation. IOW speculation can be included in finished products, whereas in science there must be further steps.
I really dont understand why no one should utter any idea unless it has already be confirmed by science, when even the informal science community does not restrict itself to this kind of censorship. Must we adhere to the policies of peer reviewed science journals in an online philosophy discussion forum?
Can’t people who dislike speculation actually demonstrate via arguments what the problems are or might be with the speculation, instead of bemoaning the fact that someone is presenting a hypothetical? Why not do philosophy in response to what you consider irrational or ignore those threads that focus on what you consider metaphysical.
