On 1 June, 11:40, "pol.science kid" <[email protected]> wrote: > so ... who is God exactly?? >
I would define Him as the One entity that actually exists. He is an entity made of energy and has used that energy, twisted it, contorted it and bent it around the various dimensions that exist and has, in the process, created all the that which is in the universe. Of course, like RP, I believe there are many OTHER things that have also been created--things that are, from our dimensional angle, out of our line of sight, yet still extant in "that which is". Putting that last bit in more lay terms, areas such as heaven, hell and any other form of afterlife (or even dreamscapes!) take place in dimensions that are, unlike our 4-D universe, NOT linked to time and are, therefore, eternal. There are areas in this atemporal, eternal space that account for our consciousness as well as the definitions of the ideas that our consciousness uses. The whole of it is much like a macro- scale CPU where this 4-D universe serves as the 'core memory', an abstract plane where ideas are defined and held that is like the 'data space' and consciousness, which serves as the 'bus' that fetches ideas from the 'data space' and brings them back into this 'core memory', in OUR case, through a quantum-level interface set up by our central nervous systems through the key placement of microtubulin molecules that happen to be spaced far enough apart (well, close enough to one another, actually) to allow for a quantum flux between this 4-D space- time and the other dimensions that exist. Note: I work from a 'string theory' paradigm that actually purports the existence of several other dimensions; without these other dimensions, the whole system is not plausible. I base this on the fact that our consciousness MUST be 2-dimensional in order for us to integrate spatio-temporal events into a seemingly flowing stream. The ONLY way that we could perform that mathematical integration is by having more than one dimension to our consciousness. So, I believe what WE have is a 2-D slice of God's overall 3-dimensional consciousness/awareness. If this is the case, then and only then, does our consciousness actually have a physics behind it that can account for how we think. Current "strictly 4-D models" cannot and DO not account for our perception of time flowing or our ability to integrate individual 4-D slices of reality into a 'whole', thus, the current Standard Model and/or Quantum Dynamics still do not offer an answer as to how we perceive a flow to time; rather, only string theory has enough dimensions to actually account for what we perceive. Therefore, I see it as a FAR more likely scenarion, simply because it answers more questions. > On 6/1/10, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > We cannot make something out of nothing but God is the wonder who makes > > everything out of nothing. > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Pat <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> On 29 May, 05:07, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > God is not made of any substance or energy, rather he is the creator of > >> > energy. He is pure spirit , untouched by anything and the source of > >> > everything. > > >> Whilst I've heard that said many times, if God is not made of any > >> substance but 'pure Spirit', what, then, is pure spirit made of? I > >> can only find one thing that exists in this universe...energy. But, > >> of course, that 'form' of energy is unlike any other and I can easily > >> see why you may not understand it AS energy. Yet there is nothing > >> ELSE that exists. IF you believe that energy is 'sourced' from > >> spirit, then energy itself must be another form of 'Spirit'. If that > >> is the case, then energy and spirit are still interchangable like > >> energy and mass. > > >> > On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 2:39 AM, Pat <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > > On 27 May, 20:15, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > The universe came out of nothing. But what is that nothing? It is > >> the > >> > > > Spirit, the Mind, and it is not made of any substance or energy; it > >> does > >> > > not > >> > > > occupy any space and has no attribute except that it is the soul > >> from > >> > > which > >> > > > the whole universe emanates , is governed and reclaimed. It is > >> eternal > >> > > and > >> > > > uncreate. > > >> > > I think it would be very hard to state firmly that Spirit or Mind is, > >> > > in essence, nothing. As nothing is nothing. You can't, logically, > >> > > equate nothing with something and both spirit and/or Mind is > >> > > something. We've found nothing in this universe that isn't some form > >> > > of energy, what makes you think that energy isn't also the substance > >> > > of Spirit? I propose that it is, although a form that is not > >> > > tangible, simply because it doesn't exist in our 4-D space-time. It > >> > > emanates via a physical interface and it is that physical interface > >> > > that we CAN detect. But I will definitely agree 100% that Spirit is > >> > > the driving force behind this universe and that it both governs this > >> > > universe and that our individual spirits will be 'reclaimed' by the > >> > > One. But, as energy is neither created nor destroyed, it then can > >> > > also be described as eternal and uncreated. Rather than 'nothing', > >> > > energy in 'pure spiritual' form was the form that existed prior to any > >> > > 'original', physical creation. > > >> > > > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Pat < > >> [email protected]> > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > > On 25 May, 18:30, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > > > > LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have > >> written > >> > > > > > > something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic > >> alternative. > >> > > > > > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an > >> effect > >> > > with > >> > > > > > > no cause. > > >> > > > > > But that's your presumption, Pat, about atheist belief or non - > >> > > > > > belief ! Whoever said it is without cause. The scientific view > >> would > >> > > > > > be that both cause and effect are the same, only differentiated > >> by > >> > > > > > time. It's One, and it's nature. The same that is both cause and > >> > > > > > effect. > > >> > > > > The standard scientific view is that the Big Bang sprang forth > >> from > >> > > > > 'nothing'. I.e., no cause. Something from nothing. That is, > >> simply > >> > > > > put, absurd. And there is no evidence that anything can come from > >> > > > > nothing. Rather, it is far more likely that 'everything' would, > >> at > >> > > > > some point, appear to be nothing, given a particular geometric > >> > > > > configuration. Science purporting that cause and effect are the > >> same > >> > > > > is bordering on theology. Science (with respect to the Standard > >> Model > >> > > > > and/or Quantum Dynamics) does NOT purport Oneness, so, please, > >> refrain > >> > > > > from stating that it does. > > >> > > > > > > There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any > >> > > > > > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. > >> With > >> > > > > > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by > >> > > atheistic > >> > > > > > > viewpoint). > > >> > > > > > The only purpose is anthropomorphic, as we humans can fathom. > >> And > >> > > that > >> > > > > > should be perfectly acceptable, compared to anything delusional > >> you > >> > > > > > may be convinced of ! > > >> > > > > LOL!! More animosity. Response: yes, perhaps the purpose for US > >> > > > > would be anthropomorphic, but, for any creature, it would be > >> > > > > creaturomorphic, if you can get your head around that. If you > >> think > >> > > > > that delusional rather than objective and egalitarian to all > >> species, > >> > > > > then, I can live with that. > > >> > > > > > > Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is > >> > > > > > > it 'without purpose'? > > >> > > > > > Yes. Much of it, that is ! > > >> > > > > Actually, there is nothing done in this universe without purpose. > >> > > > > Every effect is the purpose of the cause. And, if, as you state > >> > > > > above, both cause and effect are the same, then there could be NO > >> > > > > differentiation as your 'much of it' implies. Rather, it's an all > >> or > >> > > > > nothing. Simple logic without the emotional content. > > >> > > > > > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential > >> outcomes to > >> > > > > > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every > >> action > >> > > > > > > there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you > >> have > >> > > > > > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. > >> However, I'm > >> > > > > > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how > >> > > > > > > ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and > >> no > >> > > > > > > reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? > > >> > > > > > What has the Newton's Third Law do with your delusional talk, > >> Pat ? > >> > > > > > Why are you bringing it up ? > > >> > > > > The third law of motion is for 'bodies in motion'. Newton did NOT > >> > > > > state that those bodies had to be 'physical' and, as he was an > >> > > > > alchemist, I seriously doubt that he really believed that his laws > >> > > > > were bound to the physical; however, of course, a carefully > >> couched > >> > > > > statement as "a body in motion..." covers himself and allows the > >> > > > > reader to make false inferences. And why do you insist that what > >> I > >> > > > > say is delusional? Disprove me! Or are you going to hide behind > >> the > >> > > > > "I don't have to back up my negative statement" argument that is, > >> so > >> > > > > often bandied about by those who have no argument? > > >> > > > > > Yes, the Law works in Newtonian mechanical universe, but perhaps > >> not > >> > > > > > in photonic dimensions, in EM environment ! But, so what ? > > >> > > > > Uh, I think you'll find that a photon in motion will react in > >> > > > > accordance with Newton's laws of reaction to other bodies. And, > >> of > >> > > > > course, you won't find a photon at rest. What are'photonic > >> > > > > dimensions', BTW? Or are you obfuscating on purpose? > > >> > > > > > Stop beating about the bush, Pat ! Just state what do you know, > >> as > >> > > is > >> > > > > > evident. Also, state what you believe, as against know. It's > >> > > important > >> > > > > > for you to segregate the two to eliminate the delusional effects > >> > > > > > heavily settled upon you. > > >> > > > > I'm not deluded. Prove that I am! Just state what you know and > >> > > > > believe...all of it. In 3 lines. LOL!! No, of course I won't > >> hold > >> > > > > you to that, it would be grossly unfair. So why do you insist on > >> > > > > being unfair to me? Rationality? More likely you fear your > >> paradigm > >> > > > > being shifted. Good. Many people will. Others will welcome it. > >> I > >> > > > > expect a spectrum of reactions and yours are well within > >> tolerance. > >> > > > > You have now asked me to 'state what I believe'. Do you really > >> think > >> > > > > I have time to do that? Not even my book will cover all of what I > >> > > > > believe as most of what I believe ( for example, what my sister > >> thinks > >> > > > > about her nephews) is completely irrelevant to what you are > >> enquiring > >> > > > > about. It's important for you that I fit into a compartment for > >> you > >> > > > > so that you can discriminate according to your preconceived > >> > > > > notions...that's one thing that I now believe. I also believe > >> that > >> > > > > you believe that I'm deluded. I'm not. Prove otherwise. You've > >> made > >> > > > > the positive statement that I'm deluded. Back it up. And, by > >> the > >> > > > > way, use as much time and effort as you like. However, if I were > >> in > >> > > > > your position, I wouldn't waste a single moment on it because ANY > >> > > > > amount of time spent on trying to prove me deluded will be, by > >> your > >> > > > > own view, wasted time. > > >> > > > > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any > >> work on > >> > > me. > >> > > > > Why > >> > > > > > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > >> > > > > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want > >> people > >> > > to > >> > > > > enjoy > >> > > > > > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" > >> > > trying > >> > > > > to > >> > > > > > > > > > kiss god's ass? > > >> > > > > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
