God?

Perhaps a new forum regarding God should be created, since it seems all threads end up in a debate on the existence of God.
Click to expand...

It is interesting to note that there are so many discussions about God, Creator etc. and so little on what God might be. I understand that this "what God might be" smells like a "definition" and "real God" would be beyond any definition. This is a vicious circle, to me, that is rather to cause divisions and misunderstandings than to spread understandings.

Personally - I suppress any discussion about existences of God on my discussion group until there is reached a common understanding on what we are actually talking about. (Quite good excuse. Do I need to mention that there is no common understanding in sight yet?)

Discussing anything requires an agreement on what this "anything" is the rest is better left to our personal insights.

Sincerely,

Damir

ps: CAT - I have found interesting your remarks re frequencies. Could you direct me to some sources?
 
Well Damir, you ask me a good question!
And I can tell you that there IS a definition to what G-d is...

There is so much good info in this thread that it merits reading the WHOLE thing!!!

The existence of G-d can be found in Atomic physics... Linear and non-linear systems... Open and closed time like curves/loops... Gravity... Thermodynamics... Engineering systems... Biology... Chemistry... Math... Geometry... Astronomy... Science... History... Laws of nature, consisting of Phi/Fibonacci sequence/Golden Mean Spiral... In every aspect of existence G-d is revealing!

Its been discussed in this thread over and over... It is the continual propagation of <font color="blue"> INTELLIGENT ENERGY [/COLOR] that combines all things and is everywhere at once! The whole mechanism of the universe and all life as we know it can be constituted as G-d!

Some say that science and religion don't mix... I, on the other hand say that religion and all its spirituality was given to us as a way/tool of teaching us a science that is misunderstood...

Damir, I alone can not tell you enough, that we stand on the shoulder of a giant! However, what I can tell you is enough to set you in motion to seek the answers yourself...

ps: CAT - I have found interesting your remarks re frequencies. Could you direct me to some sources?
Click to expand...

Well of course, being that CAT is my name /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif I have an excellent subject on frequencies to guide you to: http://paulapeterson.com/CatsPurr.html Maybe you can see the irony in it?


Enjoy! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
Re: Yes God!

Again Roel, in your opinion - based on someone who has done little investigation and stubbornly refuses to look further than their front door...

It doesn't even matter if "you" personally don't have the need or want of G-d... INTELLIGENT ENERGY IS STILL THERE! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Roel, look into these animations, and keep looking at them... You are getting sleepy, very sleeeeepy... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Maybe you will begin to notice the spiral growth and see some irony and intellegence?

whirl3.gif


whirl4.gif


whirl5.gif


whirl6.gif
 
Re: Yes God!

Re CAT:Oh' shut-up CAT! Your being very rude to the man and there is no call for this.

I do suggest, that you apologize?!

I could well jump on your shoulders, as a wild monkey would. Pulling you hair and screaming in your ears, but I won't!

What about mankind as an on-his own product that can now, or is allowed to travel into space in order to find new homesteads?

What would the definitive rabbinicals intone, at the notion of this, "that any good (delete, TOS rules), is also a (delete) based to Earth-terra, (delete)"?

We's on stale ground and you know that as well as I do?

As I a had said, rather than you attempting to hypnotize us all with design, isn't it that God was part of the manufacting process?And with this say, a few souped up apes, a couple of little aliens, and many a wonder-dog thrown in there for good measure.This is as to how man, was made here on this Earth?

In you, I see a cornerback, in a game full of intellectual bruisers.What is at hand, is that you are wonderfully side-steeping this issue.

I don't know CAT maybe we should let our canine friends run for president, as well as explore space?

Afterall puppydogs, by supposed on man's calendar, when first, sputniked into space.

Was that (delete), or' I'm sorry..... Goldstein?

I'm only kidding here, CAT. But you are,.. throwing a tray of messy cranberries, in Roel's Lap.

Is there a reason for this?Or is this just another play, in the adjustment of your attempted hypnotisms, on all of us, in this thread?

Edited, TOS rules

*Saying for today is&gt;Sure'.. God had to have a sense of humor. After-all, he made us, didn't he? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif /ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
Re: Yes God!

Creedo apologizes for kicking the little (delete tos rules) lady in the shins, but hey' somebody has to do it, or she'll take over the world.

All in good fun, but duck for that second cream filled pie, that's the one that smooshes you in the face?!
 
Re: Yes God!

Again Roel, in your opinion - based on someone who has done little investigation and stubbornly refuses to look further than their front door...
Click to expand...

You really think you know it all, don't you... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

First of all, I do not stubbornly refuse to look further than my front door, but just because you think there's something behind that door doesn't mean there is. Your opinion is just as good as mine. Furthermore, I'm very interested in this matter, so I've done a great deal of investigation. Just because I didn't come to the same conclusion as you, doesn't mean that my conclusions are wrong.


It doesn't even matter if "you" personally don't have the need or want of G-d... INTELLIGENT ENERGY IS STILL THERE!
Click to expand...

No. Again, you think you know it all. At least I'm aware of the fact that there's still a lot to discover. You have already made up your mind, while there's still so much you don't know. All of a sudden Trollfaces' signature makes sense to me: "Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it."


Maybe you will begin to notice the spiral growth and see some irony and intellegence?
Click to expand...

I see, I see... I see dead people /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif


Kind regards,

Roel
 
Re: Yes God!

You really think you know it all, don't you...
Click to expand...

Roel, once again that's your uninvestigated opinion!

Where did I say I know it all? No, I don't know it all... But I've got a pretty good idea about things... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif All I'm doing is trying to share a little of my insight... After all what good is anything I know, if I cant share it? I thought those animated platonic solid designs were thought provoking, fun and cool. They certainly grabbed my attention...

I see, I see... I see dead people
Click to expand...

I don't know Roel, maybe you see dead people because you are spiritually dead?

Re CAT:Oh' shut-up CAT! Your being very rude to the man and there is no call for this.
Click to expand...

Creedo, we're not interested in the views of painted, perfumed gigolos! Cant you go dance the Macarena for nickels outside of your nearest Wal-Mart?
 
Re: Yes God!

Re CAT, I'm glad your so rabbinical intoned that you could qualify as Catholic.
I've got better things to do than to argue with you, I'm busy in another thread.

At least you said your sorry to Roel, who you've really been body slamming as of late.

No' I'm not a pimp, or a gigolo, or even close to this.

To all' you seem to function as both an agent as well as an assassin and should be lucky that anyone outside your own set, considers you a friend?

You said your dad was wizard; well thanks for the kick in the shins?

P.S. Your R.V.ing here and everyone wears face protection in the form of goggles!?
This statment only shows One, your lack of true interpretation of what you see by your R.V.ing and Two, the prejudice that bodily fluids in Whastinon State are emitted, as water does from towns central fountains.

Maybe you need glasses, in more way than one?
 
... and so little on what God might be.
Click to expand...

The Qabalah was brought into this thread a long time ago, and addresses this question. The principle doctrines of the Qabalah are designed to address the following...
1. The Supreme Being, His nature and attributes.
2. The Cosmogony.
3. The creation of angels and man.
4. The destiny of man and angels.
5. The nature of soul.
6. The nature of angels, demons, and elementals.
7. The import of revealed law.
8. The transcendtal symbolism of numerials.
9. The peculiar mysteries contained in the Hebrew letters.
10. The equilibrium of contraries.

The principles presented in this thread were merely the surface of the Qabalah and the Tree of Life. If we are able to isolate the primary essenses of creation, then I believe we could develop methods of time travel, based upon those principles.

When these principles are presented, the discussion of God apparently becomes unavoidable. And my point was that just because texts mention God, doesnt automatically mean the information has no value towards a solution of time travel.
 
But - did you agree on this "definition"?

I admit that I have not been brought up as a believer. But I also find this "definition" (as well as some others) interesting - notably Buddhistic and some others. Their reflection can be senesed in many contemprorary thinking - including quantum theory. However, this does not mean a "literal sense" - at least not as we think now about what thay might have meant to their contemporaries. (Parmenides case of our wishful thinking is quite clear.)

In my experience I have met as many "definitions" of God as many people I met. This is the main reason I avoid to mention God - and emphasise attributes that may lead towards what we call God. (In may vocabulary - I say It.)

The main point is to reach an agreement - regardless of how each of us will call It.

Sincerely,

Damir
 
But - did you agree on this "definition"?
Click to expand...

Definition of terms? Definition of God? Definition of The Tree of Life? Definiton of The Qabalah?Could you be more specific?

In my experience I have met as many "definitions" of God as many people I met.
Click to expand...

Of course. God certainly isn't limited to a single definition. In humanistic terminology, it is beyond mankind to define God specifically. Humanity celebrates God's existence in many different way's, perceiving God differently, yet, when the attempt is made to classify and catagorize God as "we are right" with "our perception of God", then the trouble begins.

This is the main reason I avoid to mention God - and emphasise attributes that may lead towards what we call God.
Click to expand...

Finding God is an individual journey. Whatever "faith" you claim to recognize God/s existence, in essence you would be correct. The purpose of learning the dynamics of( as best as mankind can ) God's attributes is to utilize the discoveries for time traveling. Avoiding the mention of God is difficult to do when speaking of the essences of creation.
 
Re: Yes God!

Where did I say I know it all?
Click to expand...

So you would agree that my opinion is just as good as yours? Or would you rather say that you know things better because you have been enlightened?


I don't know Roel, maybe you see dead people because you are spiritually dead?
Click to expand...

Perhaps... but perhaps I'm better of spiritually dead than spiritually brainwashed



Cant you go dance the Macarena for nickels outside of your nearest Wal-Mart?
Click to expand...

Please, anything BUT the Macarena
 
Re: Yes God!

So you would agree that my opinion is just as good as yours? Or would you rather say that you know things better because you have been enlightened?
Click to expand...

As far as oppinions go, no man will be a martyr for a conclusion... But, he to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: His eyes are closed!

Perhaps... but perhaps I'm better of spiritually dead than spiriually brainwashed
Click to expand...

Roel, I would rather live my life as if there is a G-d and die to find out there isnt, than live my life as if there isnt and die to find out there is!
 
But - did you agree on this "definition"?
Click to expand...
Definitions are tricky things in general, and that is not even speaking specifically of God. This is because what are definitions made up of? Circular references to other phenomenon, described in words, which must have definitions of their own. So is it possible to claim that everyone has ever agreed to any single definition of anything without any contention whatsoever?

Throughout this thread I have attempted to paint (in many different words, which we really cannot get around) what would be a reasonable, scientific "definition" of God. If there is a God (and I am comfortable in my knowledge that there is) then this God must reflect the overarching laws of our physical universe. And what is the single concept that is at the pinnacle of our scientific understanding of the universe? Energy. But the definition does not stop there, and this is why I have had to bring in other words and concepts that are related to Energy: Entropy, Information, Intelligence, and Closed-Loop Processes.

Now, despite the protests of Trollface, it is abundantly clear that Information and Energy are intimately linked. For it is when we apply information within a closed-loop process that we can achieve the same end result with a lower expenditure of Energy. IOW, perform the same act of Creation, however utilizing Information in place of some of the Energy used in a different version of the same Creation.

I think we can see from many religious and spiritual traditions that God is aligned with the act of Creation. In fact, if the premise of an Omnipotent God is focused on being the Creator of all we see, then would not a reasonable definition of God also involve Creation? What I have done in this thread is to demonstrate how the scientific principles we have discovered that permit us to create (Energy, Entropy, Information, Intelligence) could easily be applied towards an understanding of a "potential definition" of God.

RMT
 
I have emphasised agreement for it is the simplest possible "tool" for verification of our own ideas. No opposition should be easily dismissed, for it forces us to look closer at what is causing a disagreement. This is at the core of science and any enlighten discussion.

For example - your relation of energy to information. Matter/energy division disapeared, while the joke that turned information entropy into "information" lost its sense long time ago. What is surprising though, that physicists lately speak of speed of "information" instead of speed of light as they used to. The issue of what is information - is still under scrutiny. (See Kologorov's complexity or my web page on information. I'm just rewriting it to take into account some missing bits and to establish more coherency.)

When we agree on little bits and pieces - then we can try to agree on big pictures.

Sincerely,

Damir
 
Hello Damir,

I have emphasised agreement for it is the simplest possible "tool" for verification of our own ideas.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, as with any tool, it is incumbent upon us to understand the "baggage" (or potential for error) that is inherent to any tool. The problem with agreement is that it relies on an underlying assumption that there is a single form of reality, and that if two or more people perceive the same reality, then this must be "real". In other words, agreement is only as good (or as bad) as our perceptions. And once we understand that agreement relies on perceptions, we have to take into account relativity of one's Point Of View. This immediately calls into question the basic belief that there can only be a single form of reality. In fact, it pretty much esablishes that "reality" is more of an anarchical statement than anything else.

The best example is the classic example of relative velocity as told by Einstein. If you and I are on two trains, and we look at each other through windows such that we have no inertial frame of reference. If the trains experience relative motion with small enough accelerations that our bodies cannot determine if we are the ones in motion (experiencing an acceleration), then does it matter whether or not we "agree" about who is moving and who is not? In fact, if we do actually agree, there is a great danger that we have relied on our perceptions to form an agreement that could be 180 degrees from the ultimate (inertial) "truth".

When we agree on little bits and pieces - then we can try to agree on big pictures.
Click to expand...
And again I will agree that this is the classic method which our societies have tried to grapple with the questions of reality. Yet, in light of the discussion I have given above, we can see that agreeing on the little bits and pieces does not mean said agreement constitutes reality. And here is where I see the human character has been permitted to stagnate. For when scientists agreed on the "bits and pieces" long ago, these agreements took on the aura of authority about reality. There is inertia that acts AGAINST revisiting those agreements when other data calls those agreements into question. In essence, we tend to want things to be "neat and clean", and if we can agree that some things are, indeed, neat and clean, we will not want to resurrect the issue for fear that things may NOT be as neat and clean as we agreed to. Another good example of this is our understanding that universal phenomenon are NOT based in linearity, and that linear phenomenon are really a very small subset of physical reality. I find that this is the "trap of agreement" that our entire human culture is currently locked in. We "agreed" long ago that the universe appeared linear (esp. Time), and now we are getting more and more troubled to find out that linearity does not rule the universe, and in fact non-linearity is the rule du jour.

RMT
 
Hi ReainmanTime,

Since we agree in general - why not to take it a step further?

In other words, agreement is only as good (or as bad) as our perceptions.
Click to expand...

Spot on! I also tend to agree with your "trap of agreement". However - we live in this trap. We were guided into it since we were born. And this includes our concepts of time and space. I call it cultural imprint. It is our blessing and our curse. Without it we simply could not exist - not to mention our cosmogonies, music etc. Basically (almost) all what makes us human.

Since we are already trapped - we need a cooperation of people who are trapped in a different way. Who do not think as we do. You probably heard of "five blind man touching elephant" and then having hard time in agreeing what elephant looks like. (Sometimes it appears that our distant ancestors obviously had more agile grey substance we call brain - than we nowadays.)

I would suggest now that we "lift" the meaning of "agreement" for a degree and say that a synthesis of variety of preceptions outlines a greater whole - we all can agree upon. I would say that this is the only way out of the trap we all are already in.

Sincerely,

Damir
 
I would suggest now that we "lift" the meaning of "agreement" for a degree and say that a synthesis of variety of preceptions outlines a greater whole - we all can agree upon. I would say that this is the only way out of the trap we all are already in.
Click to expand...

Ok, then what is your suggestion for an "agreement" for a synthesis of variety of perceptions that outlines the greater whole based upon what you have read in this Thread?

I agree on what you are saying, and pose a question in the format of your elephant analogy. If a sixth blind man just sat on a near-by rock and was claiming "elephants just don't exist", and was unwilling to "step up" and touch the elephant...how much validity would you give to the sixth blind mans claim?
 
Back
Top