Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

"You know, they say that inside everyone, is a little piece of God, and if 
that's true, I hope he likes enchiladas, because that is what he's getting 
tonight." -Jack Handey

Yes, this is true.  I have a part of God inside me.  So I can say that I 
am (a part of) God.

The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of all 
human beeings.  Nothing more and nothing less than that.

-- 
Torgny




-Original Message-
From: Torgny Tholerus 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Mon, Dec 26, 2016 3:06 am
Subject: Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:

> On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:
>>
>> I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my 
>> subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
>>
>> When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious 
>> talks to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons subconscious 
>> is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get answer to my prayer.
>>
>
> Psychiatrist:   "Look--how do you know you're God?"
> Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to 
> myself."
> --- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"
>

Yes, this is true.  I have a part of God inside me.  So I can say that I 
am (a part of) God.

The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of all 
human beeings.  Nothing more and nothing less than that.

-- 
Torgny

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[John Clark]

On Mon, Dec 26, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the
>> word
>> ​
>> ​ [God]​
>> .​
>>
>
> ​> ​
> But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve.
>

​Because the meaning Christians and Jews and Muslims give to the word "God"
is clear and if I had a switch that could make their God appear or
disappear the universe would look very different depending on if that
switch was on or off. Your God does nothing beyond the laws of physics so
it would make no difference if He existed or not. ​


​>> ​
>> It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural power
>> who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.
>> ​
>>
>
> ​> ​
> Really?
>

​
Yes
​ really. "An​
 immortal person
​exists ​
with supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped
​"​
means something
​, so the statement has the virtue of being either right or wrong.​ In this
case wrong. But when you say "God"  it means nothing so it's rather like a
burp,
 it's just a noise
​ and is neither right nor wrong.​



>> ​>> ​
>> Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally don't know
>> what they're talking about when they talk about "God".
>> ​
>>
>
> ​>​
> We use the greek notion.
>

​I'm begging you, please please please stop talking about the idiot ancient
Greeks!​

​

> >
>>> ​>> ​
>>> ​ ​
>>> god is just the big things at the origin of everything.
>>
>>
>> ​>> ​
>> And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you prepared to call
>> that God? Of course you're not!
>
>
> ​> ​
> ?
>
*​!​​*
*​*

>
>> ​>> ​
>> And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want something that
>> is conscious and intelligent and purposeful, not something as mindless as a
>> sack full of doorknobs.
>
>
> ​> ​
> ?
>

*​!​*

​> ​
> I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine is
> Arithmetical Truth.
>

​The set of all false arithmetical statements has as much (or as little)
existence as the ​
set of all true arithmetical statements; without physics and the
computations it allows how can even God tell one from the other? And the
correct multiplication table
​ can't think any better than ​
​an
 incorrect multiplication table
. ​And a God that can't think is a pretty low rent God.

​>>​
>> And speaking of a
>> ​
>> sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a serious
>> theologian and a buffoon theologian?
>>
>
> ​> ​
> The first one personified God metaphorically.
> ​​
> The second one take such personification literally.
>

​So God has a metaphorical mind with metaphorical intelligence and
metaphorical consciousness who does metaphorical things and has a
metaphorical existence.  So God is every bit as real as Batman is. When
seeking an answer to a philosophical question you'd do just as well to ask
the opinion of an expert on Batman comics as you would to ask the opinion
of an expert on God.

​>> ​
>> I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a better
>> understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the sake of argument
>> you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy mindless blob did not exist; how
>> would the universe be one bit different? What could "God" bring to the
>> table that something that wasn't a invisible fuzzy mindless blob could not?
>
>
> ​> ​
> God exist by definition.
>

​You can create any definition you like and when you do so the definition
exists, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the thing or concept that is
being defined exists. I can define "flobknee" as "the integer that is equal
to 2+3 but is not equal to 5", the definition exists but the integer does
not.  ​But my question was not about definitions.
 I want to know how the universe would be different if
​, ​
​an​
 invisible
​amoral ​
fuzzy mindless blob
​ that does nothing to violate the laws of physics and does not hear our
prayers and is indifferent to our fate, did not exist. So what is your
answer, how would things be different?


> ​> ​
> if God did not exist, we would not have this conversation.
>

​I asked this question before but you did not answer it, If physics someday
proved that the quantum vacuum was responsible for existence would you be
prepared to call a vacuum God? I very much doubt it. God must be able to
think or the word becomes a joke.

 John K Clark




>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/26/2016 4:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine 
is Arithmetical Truth...

..

And speaking of a
​
sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the difference between a 
serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?


The first one personified God metaphorically.


Then it's a ridiculously misleading metaphor.  Persons exist in space 
and time and interact with other persons.  They have values and emotions 
and act on them.  The "truths of arithmetic" are not in spacetime, don't 
change or act, have no emotions, values, or goals. So to personify them 
is a dishonest move.  An attempt to appropriate all the religious 
feelings of those raised as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.



The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory when 
it does not conform to facts.


Yes, he changes the theory to a completely different theory - but he 
insists on using the the same "metaphor".  That should make it clear he 
is using the "metaphor" to mislead.


Brent
“People are more unwilling to give up the word ‘God’ than to give up the 
idea for which the word has hitherto stood”

--- Bertrand Russell

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/26/2016 2:24 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:


On 2016-12-26 10:52, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus > wrote:


I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And
my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.

When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious
talks to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons
subconscious is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get
answer to my prayer.


How do you know that your subconscious talks to and affects other people?
--
Stathis Papaioannou

=
I have had several experiences of it. Not so often, only when needed. 
These experiences can be explained away as coincidence and chance. But 
it happens too often to be mere coincidence.


You had a conscious experience of your subconscious?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Brent Meeker]

On 12/26/2016 12:06 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:

On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:


On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:


I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my 
subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.


When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious 
talks to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons 
subconscious is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get 
answer to my prayer.




Psychiatrist:   "Look--how do you know you're God?"
Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to 
myself."

--- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"



Yes, this is true.  I have a part of God inside me.  So I can say that 
I am (a part of) God.


The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of all 
human beeings.  Nothing more and nothing less than that.




I suppose that's as good as Bruno's "All the truths of arithmetic." In 
Dallas there used to be a religious sect that defined "God" as 
everything that was good.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Bruno Marchal]

On 26 Dec 2016, at 09:06, Torgny Tholerus wrote:


On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:


On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:


I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And  
my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.


When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious  
talks to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons  
subconscious is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get  
answer to my prayer.




Psychiatrist:   "Look--how do you know you're God?"
Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to  
myself."

   --- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"



Yes, this is true.  I have a part of God inside me.  So I can say  
that I am (a part of) God.


God is usually conceived as having no part (by neoplatonist). I prefer  
the image that we are god, and we use our body as a locally restricted  
windows, the goal might be in being able to say hello to oneself.





The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of  
all human beeings.  Nothing more and nothing less than that.


Subconsciousness is not well defined, and then, why to limit us to  
humans. I would have said the subconscious of all (universal) numbers,  
which (assuming Mechanism) is much larger than all humans.


The idea that humans have a special role for God is human vanity.
As the novelist Jacques Sternberg said, God made the cat in his own  
image, and created humans to give food, heat, TV and a comfortable  
cough to the cats.


:)

Bruno




--
Torgny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Bruno Marchal]

On 25 Dec 2016, at 03:07, John Clark wrote:


First I want to say ​Merry Newton​'s birthday!

On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with  
supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.


​> ​That's the Christian use​ ​. Why do atheists insist so  
much we use the christian notion,


Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use  
the word​.​



But why chosing the notion from a theory they claim to disbelieve. We  
could say that Earth do not exist, if we decide to use the first  
definition of it.






It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with supernatural  
power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means something.​


Really?



 Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally don't  
know what they're talking about when they talk about "God". ​


We use the greek notion. Whatever is at the origin of consciousness  
and apparent realities/reality. is a thing or a mind? At the start, we  
use only the axiomatic method. If God happens to be a physical  
universe, let it be. But we don't know that yet, so we do research.  
Plato got right a key aspect of theology: some of its content go over  
reason, like all (löbian) machine can understand rationally that there  
must be something which extend reason (and is axiomatized by G* minus  
G, or Tarski minus Gödel, or True minus Provable-by-us).






​As near as I can tell to them the word "God"  means an invisible  
fuzzy amoral blob that does nothing and knows nothing and thinks  
about nothing​ that we can not effect and that does not effect our  
lives​. Why even invent a word for a concept as useless as that?


Indeed.







​> ​god is just the big things at the origin of everything.

​And if that turns out to be the quantum vacuum are you prepared to  
call that God? Of course you're not!


?




And you can protest all you want but it's obvious you want something  
that is conscious and intelligent and purposeful, not something as  
mindless as a sack full of doorknobs.



?

I have made it clear in posts and papers that the God of the machine  
is Arithmetical Truth. You can represent it, conditionally with the  
mechanist assumption, with the set of the Gödel numbers of the  
sentences true in the standard (N, 0,+, *) structures. of course,  
after Gödel, we know that this is a non computable highly complex set.  
But we do have an intuition, which can be mathematically apprehend  
with second order logic, or set theory.










​> ​read serious theologian or philosophers.

And speaking of a​ sack full of doorknobs, how can one tell the  
difference between a serious theologian and a buffoon theologian?


The first one personified God metaphorically.
The second one take such personification literally.

The first one use reason, and verification. he changes the theory when  
it does not conform to facts.

The second one use insult and other violent means.






​> ​My use of God is close to Einstein one, Spinoza, Leibniz, St- 
Anselme, Gödel, Huxley,


I am going to ask a hypothetical question to try to get a better  
understanding of what you're saying. Suppose for the sake of  
argument you're wrong and that invisible fuzzy mindless blob did not  
exist; how would the universe be one bit different? What could "God"  
bring to the table that something that wasn't a invisible fuzzy  
mindless blob could not?


God exist by definition. It is the reality we live and search, and  
that we have to postulated to even just go out of our bed in the  
morning. the term "God", or "One" is used to keep in mind that it is  
not necessarily a "physical universe". So, if God did not exist, we  
would not have this conversation.


Of course the arithmetical truth is not a fuzzy blob. It is a crisp  
set, even if its crispness is beyond the computable. Such a god is  
close to the very first notion of God provided by the Pythagoreans (cf  
"all is number"). That is even more so with the neopythagoreans, who  
found the "five main hypostases (truth, proof, knowledge, observation,  
sensation).


Bruno





John K Clark


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at 

Re: No gravity / no dark matter

[Bruno Marchal]

On 24 Dec 2016, at 14:30, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Well, not to intrude on your privacy, but at some point, it might be  
interesting to read on your own personal view.



OK. My view is that Digital Mechanism (an assumption in cognitive  
science, not physics)  is very plausible, even if the consequences are  
strange, given that the observations lead to the same kind of  
weirdness. I take QM-without-collapse as a confirmation of digital  
mechanism.




Yes, the fellows on this list, will take an axe to your profound,  
musings, on all this. On the maths, as the British term it, I do  
believe that what makes someone great, or even good at math, maybe,  
inheritance of a gift for memorizing patterns, thus, while the rest  
of us fumble, you and your fellow math-heads, soar into the higher  
ends of human thought. It probably how your dendrites are wiring  
together, for effective, pattern memorization.  My distaste is not  
incepted, from from being emotional, rather I may be emotional by  
being incapable. ;=)


Math is for everybody, but not all teachers agree. Cuturally, we use  
math to select people and put insane pressure on it, but like Gauss  
said, math is the simplest domain. now, it is like cannabis and god,  
when people have been brainwashed with wrong assertion since long,  
they close their mind and keep up their prejudices.






Er well. It is not my view, but the universal machine's one, I mean  
those knowing that they are universal. My view is private, and it  
would be confusing if I tried to describe. It is math, and standard  
definition in analytical philosophy.



Like the speculation, earlier this year, that the cosmos is all a  
sim (naw!)


This has been debunked. If we are in a simulation, we are in an  
infinity of simulations, and physics emerge from the computations  
statistics, which cannot be a simulation a priori.




it might be a great thing if we can contact the control program of  
your universal machine.


We can do that partially. usually, we use operating systems, but with  
human universal machine, we use education and reflexion (in the best  
case), and insult, propaganda and terror (in the worst case). History  
of humanity is a sequence of fail attempts by humans to control  
humans. Today, we know or should know, assuming some reasonable  
theory, that this is impossible (and to me that is a relief).




Probably impossible, using the sense that I mean it. By the way,  
much of your commentaries and publications, a capitulated, in the  
writings of Stephen Wolfram, and Eric Steinhart, as you may already  
know.  Steinhart is a naturalist philosopher, also on Evo-Devo, who  
views darwinian evolution, evolving vast computers, which in turn,  
evolve smarter and smarter vast computers, of which you and I are a  
product of.


They have missed the first person indeterminacy, and remains  
Aristotelian in their theology.





On another topic, how are you folks faring in Europe,. given the  
onslaught (my term) of Jihadists?


Not to well. But that is another topic. Imo, as long as we don't get  
rational on health and medication, we will fuel the international  
crimes and terrorism.






My old point is that we need better theologies, not Religions,


by default, I take theology and religion as the same thing. But if by  
religion you mean a special theology + a theurgy, it is OK. Like the  
greek early neoplatonist theologians, I am skeptical on theurgy, but  
why not, as long as the priest can blink (cf Alan Watts).


We don't need new theologies, but a scientific attitude (modesty) in  
the field.




to put forth (here I go again!) plausible, afterlife theories, which  
in the long term, I am convinced, will ameliorate the situation,  
that I perceive upon your continent.  The trick is, it would be  
something we all would believe as well. This must work for atheists  
and agnostics, as well as the deeply religious.


I am OK. I use "god" in the greek original sense, so atheism does not  
exist. We all believe in some reality, and that is "divine-like"  
because nobody can prove the existence of a reality. Is it a person?  
Has it personal aspect? Complex question which needs to be addressed,  
but we are not yet there.





With this in mind, Professor, have a Joyeux Noel, a happy Chanukah,  
a Prosperous Newtonmass, a glorious, Leonard Susskind Day, May,  
Carlo Rovelli guide your wisdom, may, Sir Andrew Wiles, guide your  
chalk stick! May, William D. Gropp, guide your keyboard! Adieu!


Happy Christmass to you too, but let us not accept any terrestrial  
guides but ourselves, because *you* are the real guide and hero in  
this story.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sun, Dec 18, 2016 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: No gravity / no dark matter


On 18 Dec 2016, at 00:04, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:

Well, Doc, you mentioned 

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Torgny Tholerus]

On 2016-12-26 10:52, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus > wrote:


   I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious.  And
   my subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.

   When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious
   talks to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons
   subconscious is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get
   answer to my prayer.


How do you know that your subconscious talks to and affects other people?
--
Stathis Papaioannou

=
I have had several experiences of it. Not so often, only when needed. 
These experiences can be explained away as coincidence and chance. But 
it happens too often to be mere coincidence.


--
Torgny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 25 December 2016 at 19:40, Torgny Tholerus  wrote:

> 2016-12-25 03:07 skrev John Clark:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2016 at 9:56 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>
>> ​>>​ usage says that "God" means an immortal person with
 supernatural power who wants, and deserves, to be worshipped.

>>>
>>
>>>
>> ​> ​That's the Christian use
>>> ​ ​. Why do atheists insist so much we use the christian notion,
>>>
>>
>> Well... at least atheists have some notation in mind when they use the
>> word
>> ​.​ It may not exist but at least "an immortal person with
>> supernatural power who wants and deserves to be worshiped" means
>> something.
>> ​  Theists, at least most of those on this list, quite literally
>> don't know what they're talking about when they talk about "God".
>> ​ ​As near as I can tell to them the word "God"  means an
>> invisible fuzzy amoral blob that does nothing and knows nothing and
>> thinks about nothing
>> ​ that we can not effect and that does not effect our lives​. Why
>> even invent a word for a concept as useless as that?
>>
>
> I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious.  And my
> subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.
>
> When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious talks to
> other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons subconscious is affecting
> this persons behavior, so that I get answer to my prayer.


How do you know that your subconscious talks to and affects other people?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: An invisible fuzzy amoral mindless blob, aka God

[Torgny Tholerus]

On 2016-12-26 00:09, Brent Meeker wrote:


On 12/25/2016 12:40 AM, Torgny Tholerus wrote:


I have found that God is exactly the same as my subconscious. And my 
subconscious is connected to other peoples subconsciouses.


When I pray, I talk to my own subconscious.  Then my subconscious 
talks to other peoples subconsciouses.  Then one persons subconscious 
is affecting this persons behavior, so that I get answer to my prayer.




Psychiatrist:   "Look--how do you know you're God?"
Lord Gurney: "Well, every time I pray, I find that I'm talking to 
myself."

--- Peter Barnes, "The Ruling Class"



Yes, this is true.  I have a part of God inside me.  So I can say that I 
am (a part of) God.


The whole of God consists of the sum of all the subconsciouses of all 
human beeings.  Nothing more and nothing less than that.


--
Torgny

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.