Newsflash - Energy is THE Truth!
In the end something good will come out of this.
Oh, I totally agree! I learn a lot from these back-and-forths as well, and I'd be stupid to deny otherwise. In fact, human interaction (exchange of energy) is the prime reason for existence.
Here is more evidence regarding a point I was trying to make to Trollface: Information is yet another form of Energy. Scientifically, we know this from Shannon's discovery/definition of information entropy and its relationship to classical thermodynamic entropy. But there is even more practical evidence that "stares us in the face" every day we use the internet. It is easy to see that two humans who are interacting in a face-to-face, physical encounter are exchanging energy. Whether it be through touch, expressions, or speech, each of these represent expeditures of energy...for the purpose of conveying information from one to another. But even when we interact in a virtual encounter, such as this forum on the internet, we are still exchanging ENergy. The physical energy is represented by the electrons that flow as I hit the "post" button and my message goes out to the board, and as the electrons do the same when one accesses the post and the message flows to them over the internet and onto their computer. But even in this virutal environment of Energy exchange, the primary basis of it all is still
Information.
I simply do not believe there is a god. I also don't believe that the universe was created. Don't you agree that these two statements are quite the opposite of what is mentioned in Genesis or Sepher Yetzirah?
I suppose so, but I am not sure I know what you mean. You are obviously one of many beings who holds the power of Creation. This I know you will not argue with. Genesis and Sepher Yetzirah describe that power of Creation. Whether you associate it with God (or even believe in God) does not change the technology of Creation. So you are telling me you don't wish to understand the technology of Creation more fully? I just find it interesting that you wish to cut yourself off, and draw a line of distinction between yourself and the rest of the universe. It is as if you are saying "Yes, I can see that I am a being that has the power of Creation, and that I am self-aware. But I do not believe that the supersystem context that I am immersed in is the same as I am in this regard." When in reality you
ARE the universe, and the universe
IS you. The only distinction between the two is the fallacious one we infer from our (limited) senses.
I am. You are. We are. The universe is.....all the same thing....we call it Energy.
The simple fact that they had more knowledge of astronomy and physics does not validate their spiritual believes.
True, but the fact that their scientific and spiritual beliefs are intermingled in their mystical texts would be considered significant, especially since we in our day have chosen to forcefully keep these two separate. And so, as our "secular" establishment of science continues to validate that the universe works in ways described by these ancient mystical traditions, we progressively validate that link between science and spirituality that the ancients held firmly as part of their culture.
In fact, I was under the assumption that the Egyptians worshipped more than one god?
And I worship a God that can be One and at the same time Three.... and more. In fact, God is the Infinite and Unknown. And so Infinite encompasses all numbers. Now weren't you the one who was arguing that mankind invented the concept of number? If so, then God does not submit to such classifications. And that means that no matter how many "numbers" of gods one worships, the true form of the Infinite and Unknowable God integrates all of these numbers, and indeed trascends them. I'd say that this statement of yours shows that you have really not grabbed the deeper significance of the 0=1 concept as giving birth to all things.
I think it's more probable that ancient cultures encountered aliens instead of god(s).
There you go throwing around probability again. Are you willing to rigorously back up that statement with mathematical analysis?
Still, I actually agree with you the ancient cultures did encounter aliens. But whether the ancients worshipped these aliens as God, or whether the aliens simply taught the ancients about God (universal Energy)...the jury is still out on that. Our preachers and clerics teach us about God, but we do not worship them as if they ARE the totality of God. At least those people who understand the nature of God do not do this. Weaker minds (those who have not ascended in their understanding) do fall prey to worshipping something physical as if it were the totality of God.
I guess you like the idea of henotheism?
Yeah, maybe. But even that is too limiting for what I believe. If you had to classify my spiritual beliefs (which I usually seek to avoid), the better word to use for me would be to say I like the idea of pantheism. It is in our own minds, souls, and spirits that we resolve (integrate) the individual aspects of God into One, single God, the Monad... who is also None.
This is the essence of the integration of science and spirituality. Your senses tell you that there are a lot of separate "things" in the universe. The reality (outside our limited existence and senses) is that there is really only One "thing", and that is Energy. We simply describe Energy as being multiple parts...hence: Mass, Space, and Time.
Perhaps after millenia of worship and faith in "the one supreme" it's time for something new?
Oh I vigorously agree! But it seems like you do not see that what I am talking about (integration of science and spirituality) as being something "new".
I think this is clearly where you misunderstand my message. In point of fact, the "old way" is the way we have lived since the Church first decided to keep science and spirituality separate from each other. The "new way" is to resolve this split-dyad. And what we will find when we do is that the "real old way" (which had these two forms of searching integrated) was more true to the nature of the universe and our consciousness.
Again it sounds logical, but it isn't necessarily true.
So then prove it wrong. Falsify it. But I don't think you can for the very fact that what I am talking about completely aligns with what the cutting edge of science is discovering about Energy. "One God in Three Forms" is borne-out not only by Einstein's E = mc^2 (which actually defines Massive SpaceTime), but also by our recent discovery of the 3 forms of Energy (Dark Matter, Baryonic Matter, and Dark Energy). I'd say I am in pretty good company!
Yes, apes can count if you teach them. They can understand the numerical system that was created by humans.
And yet, from your statement of belief about the ancients probably being in contact with aliens, you cannot even show that this statement of yours is true. What if the numerical system was never created by humans, but rather
GIVEN to us by more advanced, extra-terrestrial cultures? That would kind of throw a wrench into your belief that humans created the number system. I imagine then you would just shift the focus of your belief and say "OK, so then the aliens created the number system." The problem is one of infinite regression...it could have always come from some other source, and if it did, then the concept of number always existed.
I have posted elsewhere my suspicion about the "coincidence" of AT&T Bell Lab's "invention/discovery" of the transistor in 1947 coming literally 3-5 months after the Roswell incident. From the stories related about advanced technologies witnessed in that wreckage, I do not think this is a coincidence. I am also suspicious of this connection because my father was at Bell Labs during that time, just beginning his career with AT&T. He knows something about what went on back then, but he is not telling. I am hopeful he will confide in me prior to his passing, as he is both aware and supportive of my work on the Tree Of Life. There is more there than meets the eye!
Uhm, no... well I did, but only because I think it's insignificant.
The structure of the energetic shell of atoms is insignificant??? I pretty much think every physicist in the world would disagree with you there, Roel. Given we are made of nothing but atoms (which are dense forms of Energy), you cannot escape the fact that it is HIGHLY significant. You saying it is insignificant is another example of how you refuse to see what it staring you right in the face.
Of course these numbers can be made significant in a certain context, but the number itself is not significant.
You are again not addressing what I am talking about. The number 7, by itself, is not significant. But how it manifests as the 7 energy levels of the electron cloud
IS. No amount of your denial that this is significant will make it any less significant to how the universe is put together and how it exhibits phenomenon. It is almost funny that you cannot see this. Digging your heels in, are you?
I bet you can think of a million of other things that match the model of the Tree Of Life.
Indeed, I can. But none of them would be anywhere close to the major significance of the fact that is matches the information model (DNA) and resulting physical form for our species! If you agree with the Massive SpaceTime premise that each of us is the center of our own universe of awareness, then the structure of your physical shell is significant to how you "process" your universe. The fact that the blueprint for humans matches the Tree Of Life is a clue to look deeper. Scientists are looking deeper, but it appears you don't wish to, as you think it is insignificant.
Also, do you know how many binary sequence numbers there are?
Yes, I do, infinite. But they do not match the configuration of the human body (and mind), now do they? The question for you is: Do you understand the significance of each binary sequence number in terms of differing constructs of life in the universe? 2^5 is connected to the human form of existence (five senses anyone?). Are you aware of how 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^4, 2^6....2^N is related to other, varying forms of existence? If you are not aware of this, studying the mystical texts of Qabalah would help you become aware. Again, it gets back to the recurring theme of the binary 0=1 nature of everything in our universe.
What if modern science hadn't discovered human amino acids? You wouldn't be able to match it to the TOL, now would you?
Dealing with "what ifs" that counter established history are of no use to us, now are they? Whether the amino acids were discovered or not does not change the fact that they are there, and that they match the TOL, now does it? It's the same message that OvrLrd is trying to get across with Blue Boy. If a being Creates something and purposefully hides something in the structure of that Creation, whether or not you ever find it absolutely does NOT have any bearing on whether it is there or not. The Creator knows it is there because He put it there. So it is with God.
I can think of no reason, aside from mathematics, why the triangle is more prevalent than any other shape.
And mathematics, of which geometry (or more generally topology) is one of the more useful forms, is exactly why one who is curious about the universe should seek out explanations for their prevalence. It is not "by accident", but rather "by design".
If only these "truths" were described in the bible literally and not in the form of somekind of secret code that will only "confirm" every scientific discovery.
I refer you to OvrLrd's discussion of what happened to scientists who openly described what they knew. Being so open about what they knew was true (through observation/experimentation) didn't exactly make Copernicus' and Galileo's life a bed of roses, now did it?
In fact, there is plenty of "blame" to lay at the feet of science, just as there is to lay at the feet of certain spiritual traditions. Part of the problem of science is continued branching and specialization. This reinforces the fallacy that each form of science is different. A chemist will tell you how chemistry is nothing like solid mechanics. And a mechanical engineer will tell you solid mechanics is nothing like electrical mechanics. And a thermodynamicist will tell you that thermodynamics is nothing like information....but wait! We now know that this is not true! When science allows, encourages, and enforces specialization, rather than integration, it is tantamount to a specialist saying "this is my sandbox, it is nothing like your sandbox, so your rules will not work in my sandbox, so don't bother coming and trying to play in my sandbox."
Rather, there is one, simple thread that ties all of science together. Energy. I tell you this: If our science continues to specialize and avoids integration towards that single, simple thread, we will surely destroy ourselves. There is no doubt about it.
but if you insist on calling me closed-minded, I can only pass the same judgement on you.
That's fine. I am certainly not hurt or otherwise deterred from my path because you do. This whole thread is about "evidence" of God. OvrLrd and I are telling you some highly structured sources of information where you can find that evidence. The fact that you keep your eyes glued shut, so to speak, and do not wish to examine this evidence is simply a reflection of how you appear to not wish to understand the evidence for That Which Is.... The I Am.
I do not refuse to look. I just look in different places.
Is that perhaps because you think you can reach the same answers of Truth in an easier manner? It is evident from science that the "easy" path not only does not provide all the answers, but it can result in incorrect anwers. For example, g = G*m1*m2/r is the "easy" answer for gravitation because it only deals with the effects of two bodies. But is it correct? Technically, no, because to get the whole story you must take into account ALL bodies. In fact, this "easy" form of gravitation is on its last legs in the days we live in. I can confidently say that anti-gravitating Dark Energy is going to put this "easy" model to rest in the not-too-distant future. Oh sure, it will still be sort of accurate for mundane applications, just as F=ma is still good for mundane mechanics. But for the more exotic things we wish to accomplish in our universe, like interstellar travel and time travel, the "easy" methods of yesterday will be as useful as a computer is to my dog Chili! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
However, I think in time science will provide a more accurate description of how the universe came to being.
And are you aware that, right now, some of the greatest minds in theoretical physics are strong in their understanding that an accurate description of the universe cannot be divorced from the force of consciousness? Folks such as: Misner, Thorne, Wheeler, Bohm, Sarfatti... the list stretches all the way back to Einstein. He knew this was true, but did not have the data to "prove" it that the men of today have at their disposal.
You might want to check out the work of Jack Sarfatti and Ken Shoulders. They are on the cutting edge of Dark Energy and Exotic Vaccuum Objects (EVOs).
RMT
