No pat you did not insult my intelligence as it is hard to insult someone who is, I actually have that in my profile here, Title; Working Slob... I must say that you are a true character, Yahoo, LMAO! I always thought it might be pronounced Yaowee, as in if you had touched a hot stove! Consequently, most people after doing so, scream, hollar and shout profanity while invoking the Lord's name as well. Having had this thought in my head for some time, I have developed quite a tolerance for pain and most times remain silent. lol!
On Apr 30, 5:44 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 29 Apr, 14:55, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I am a working slob, Pat but not an unlearned one! I did, in fact, > > know this about the name יהוה > > The pronunciation, however, is probably incorrect! More likely Yahwee > > than anything else but hard to tell since the language has evolved so > > much through the years. The pronunciation "Jehova", is likely to come > > from the names of the characters that form the name which are; Jod, > > He, Vau an He. > > Sorry, I didn't intend to insult you intelligence; but, there are > other readers that may NOT have known, so I feel obligated to take > them into account. The pronuciation of "Yehovah" (really sounds more > like Yaa-hoe-vah [and DON'T forget to pronounce that final 'H' as it > has a 'dagesh' in it {a dagesh is a small dot in the centre of the > letter that, in some letters, completely changes the pronunciation. > For example, the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, 'Bet' is > pronounced like a 'V' without a dagesh but, with the dagesh, is a 'B'} > that, when present, demands the speaker to actually finish the word > with an aspiration!]) was the result of adding the vowels associated > with the word "Adonai" (ADNY with the vowels: short 'a', long 'o', > short 'a'; the word Adonai means "Lord" or, when used colloquially, > "my Lord", as the final 'Y' is the suffix that connotes the first > person singular possessive) and adding them to the letters YHVH. That > was done after the REAL pronunciation was lost. Personally, I've > always hoped that the REAL pronunciation was 'Yahoo' and that the > search engine of the same name has led the world to commit the sin of > 'taking the Lord's name in vain' to the point of common parlance. > 'Twould serve us right. ;-) > > > > > On Apr 29, 8:54 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 28 Apr, 17:07, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Pat, I am very impressed by your commitment and fortitude. I look for > > > > ward to your forthcoming book! I woner if you will be employing 11 > > > > dimensional M-teory to explain these concepts pertaining to the "One" > > > > or God as I like to call it? > > > > Actually, I'd be happy to spoil that one for you by telling you now. > > > I'm opting for the very first 26-dimensional pure bosonic string > > > theory as the most likely. That way, using only bosonic fields, the > > > various fermions are, in essence, illusory resultant products of the > > > interactions of the underlying bosonic fields. Thus, with the > > > original 26-dimensional theory, all 4 bosonic types (EM, Gravity, > > > strong and weak atomic forces) stem from one generic force and can > > > account for all that exists. My proposition is that 16 of those 26 > > > dimensions act as the 1 extra dimension of M-Theory, the remaining 10 > > > are the 4-D space-time and the 6-D Calabi-Yau space in which > > > consciousness exists (in 3 of the Calabi-Yau dimensions) and, in a > > > Platonistic way, where and how the underlying abstract concepts we use > > > are defined (in the remaining 3-D area of the Calabi-Yau). It is my > > > proposition that that 1 extra dimension of M-Theory is, in fact, a 16- > > > D reticulum that acts as the medium through which the other 10 > > > dimensions expand. > > > > Thus, I can have an M-Theory approach, but actually employ the > > > original, most mathematically complex 26-dimensional theory and > > > explain how consciousness works and where ideas are 'kept'. My > > > reasons are that I need to not only explain our 4-D tangible space- > > > time, but also be able to explain 7 heavens and 7 hells and how THEY > > > can expand (which is alluded to in various scriptures); and only with > > > the original 26-dimensional theory can both 'the seen' and 'the > > > unseen' be explained in a way that matches what God said He did. And > > > it matches perfectly...but only by using 26 dimensions. I'm not sure > > > if you knew or not but the ancient Hebrew name for God, YHVH (commonly > > > pronounced as 'Jehovah'), has a numerical value of 26...and I really > > > don't think that was by chance. > > > > > On Apr 28, 10:10 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 14:16, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Energy is something whereas God is the source of something. You > > > > > > cannot > > > > > > explain God as he is above explanation. All attributes are manmade > > > > > > and > > > > > > useful only for our understanding which is limited. Omnipotent, > > > > > > Omniscient, etc. are meant for our finite understanding so that we > > > > > > can > > > > > > grasp an image of God. It is not good to bring any religion in this > > > > > > discussion as what we are trying is an exercise of logic and not a > > > > > > matter of faith. Religous people don't argue so much, they believe > > > > > > in > > > > > > what the scripture says and pray according to their faith. Some > > > > > > religions don't accept arguements and frown on such activities. I > > > > > > suggest that you close this topic here as it is too much above us > > > > > > and > > > > > > we may keep on arguing and yet yielding no mutual acceptance. > > > > > > Well, I bring religion in because I view it as a form of evidence-- > > > > > open to us all. Whilst you can close this topic easily enough, it is > > > > > my life's work to answer these very questions and, I'm afraid that I, > > > > > personally, cannot close the book on it until I've written that book. > > > > > And that will be done. You and many others believe that God is so far > > > > > above and beyond us that we can never hope to understand Him. In the > > > > > very face of that obstacle, I will persue it to the very end simply > > > > > because others don't or won't. It's my obligation, as no one else > > > > > dares. They say that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, well, > > > > > I rush in where fools fear to tread. Some may think that, then, > > > > > incredibly foolish, yet I view it as my office and obligation. I'll > > > > > never fill in all the fine details, but I will pin down enough that > > > > > the concept (of God) will be known and will be discussed, because it > > > > > is my firm belief that God is NOT so transcendant as to be completely > > > > > beyond our comprehension, rather, His immanence gives Him a closeness > > > > > to us all that we, each of us, can hold on to and learn from within. > > > > > All that is needed is a roadmap and a few guideposts and I'm working > > > > > on them. > > > > > > I do agree with you that "energy is something and God is the source of > > > > > something". I agree with that through extending that energy back TO > > > > > its source. Essentially, God is a multi-dimensional object of stringy > > > > > energy that is twisted and contorted in such a way as to produce all > > > > > that is in this 4-D universe as well as everything in any heaven and > > > > > hell and many other places, as well. This, God does by extending > > > > > Himself through those dimensions and using the ends of those > > > > > extensions to interact with one another to produce all that exists. > > > > > It is His obligation to do that, as there is nothing ELSE that can. > > > > > > > On Apr 28, 4:43 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28 Apr, 11:55, RP <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > God is not made of any substance or energy, rather everything > > > > > > > > emanates > > > > > > > > from him. He is above all attributes and the source of all. > > > > > > > > I would completely refute that. To date, we have discovered > > > > > > > nothing > > > > > > > that exists that is not comprised of energy. It is energy that > > > > > > > exists. If you can find something that is NOT energy, then, > > > > > > > please, > > > > > > > do so and take the Nobel Prize in Physics. If God does not > > > > > > > consist of > > > > > > > 'something', then He must consist of 'nothing' and nothing can > > > > > > > EVER > > > > > > > come from nothing. Rather, God must consist of some substance > > > > > > > and, > > > > > > > the only underlying substance we have ever discovered is energy, > > > > > > > albeit in countless 'forms'. Nothin could emanate from nothing. > > > > > > > So > > > > > > > that statement, too, I refute. Rather, everything emantates from > > > > > > > (or, > > > > > > > as I would term it, everything is an extension of) God. He has > > > > > > > many > > > > > > > attributes, 99 according to Islam. I can use just three to > > > > > > > derive the > > > > > > > rest from. If He is completely beyond attributes, He can do > > > > > > > nothing. > > > > > > > Therefore, if you state that He has no attributes, then He is NOT > > > > > > > omnipotent, as omnipotence is an attribute. Without > > > > > > > omnipotenece, He > > > > > > > is impotent. And, even Impotence would be an attribute. But it > > > > > > > would > > > > > > > be no attribute of an effective deity. He cannot be the source > > > > > > > of all > > > > > > > if He is, in fact, nothing (made of any substance or energy), as > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > suggest. Do try to re-think this one. I would bet every soul on > > > > > > > my > > > > > > > statement that God is an entity of energy (and that is a very > > > > > > > heavy > > > > > > > bet, indeed). Are you that sure of your statements, as stated, > > > > > > > above? > > > > > > > > > On Apr 27, 4:50 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 26 Apr, 22:48, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everybody! > > > > > > > > > > This thread for me is just great, as it seems to describe > > > > > > > > > > God in a way > > > > > > > > > > that even the atheist may accept and it is more or less > > > > > > > > > > just as I see > > > > > > > > > > God. Just to say my own personal views I am going to > > > > > > > > > > describe my God > > > > > > > > > > for you thus: > > > > > > > > > > God may well be the positive-life-energy that exists in the > > > > > > > > > > whole > > > > > > > > > > universe; therefore, God is life and life is God himself > > > > > > > > > > and one > > > > > > > > > > cannot exist without the other. We should believe in God, > > > > > > > > > > because if > > > > > > > > > > God is not there, there is no life and we are all dead. > > > > > > > > > > What do you > > > > > > > > > > think? Do you think I maybe right about it? > > > > > > > > > > My regards to everyone > > > > > > > > > > Manfraco > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's a bit more complicated than that. If we equate > > > > > > > > > energy (be > > > > > > > > > that positive or negative or matter/antimatter) with 'the > > > > > > > > > substance of > > > > > > > > > God', that is, the 'stuff' that God is made of, then > > > > > > > > > everything that > > > > > > > > > exists is made of that God-originating substance. That is my > > > > > > > > > view on > > > > > > > > > it. If we deny that energy exists, we're idiots, because it > > > > > > > > > does. > > > > > > > > > The question is: Is that energy somehow joined and, if so, > > > > > > > > > how and > > > > > > > > > where? These are the bases for my theory and I show how and > > > > > > > > > where the > > > > > > > > > energy is joined. Once that energy is 'unified' or, more > > > > > > > > > precisely, > > > > > > > > > shown to be undivided, then we can discuss that energy as a > > > > > > > > > 'whole'. > > > > > > > > > And that 'whole' is everywhere energy is, throughout all of > > > > > > > > > space- > > > > > > > > > time, therefore omnipresent. That energy is, because it is > > > > > > > > > joined > > > > > > > > > (or, rather, never divided in the first place!), only one > > > > > > > > > entity made > > > > > > > > > of energy. That entity is the only actor in the system and > > > > > > > > > is, > > > > > > > > > therefore, omnipotent. Irrespective of the exact mechanisms > > > > > > > > > involved > > > > > > > > > in consciousness, if there is only one, indivisible actor in > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > system, then ALL consciousness is retained by that entity, > > > > > > > > > therefore, > > > > > > > > > that entity is omniscient. Thus, the entity is omnipresent, > > > > > > > > > omnipotent > > > ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
