God?

[RainmanTime]

Your thought processes are very welcomed in this thread, Damir.

I also tend to agree with your "trap of agreement". However - we live in this trap.

Do we? Or is it an illusion? I'm not being argumentative here, but rather using your words to potentially take us deeper into the world beyond the looking glass. I assume you are of the type fo inquisitive mind that you'd be interested in going along! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

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.

Ahh yes. We were quite "perfect and pristine" at the time of our births, weren't we? Where did we go wrong? Why did we permit the cultural imprint? Have our parents really done us a service by indoctrinating us into the linear paradigm, and restricting our beliefs to this shared-agreement form of reality? I don't know about you, but didn't "reality" seem a WHOLE lot different back when we were children than it does now? Did WE change, or did our beliefs (and agreements) about reality change? Your words leads us into some interesting, deep areas of contemplation, Damir!

Without it we simply could not exist - not to mention our cosmogonies, music etc. Basically (almost) all what makes us human.

Let me tweak your words ever so slightly, and see if you agree: "Without it we simply could not exist in the form and manner that we see ourselves existing now." Fair enough? And if this modification of your thought is amenable to you, where do you see it taking us?

Interesting that you mention music, as I find it to be a major key to cracking "the larger reality". Not just music, but all frequency effects which have harmonics and dissonance. Our treatment of light, and beauty in what we see, is another frequency-based venue. It is my belief that the "beauty" we find in things like music and visual phenomenon are "clues" that are calling us back to the true, single source of a much larger reality. My examination of these phenomenon has revealed something amazing: We all don't like the same music, or the same visual stimulation. IOW, we don't always "agree" on what is beautiful. It would appear that we are drawn to a different source. Or, could it be we are drawn to the same source that is expressing itself across a broad spectrum of realities?

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.

I would say that it is "one half" of one means to escape the trap. Just like there are many different routes from A to B, so it can be understood that there is always more than one way out of a trap. McGyver taught us that, didn't he?

But I heartily applaud your call for a sythesis of variety of perceptions that outlines a greater whole. In fact, I have found, in my research on the melding of science and spirituality, that the goal of "being all different points of view" is one of the roads out of our trap. If I could, in the same moment, experience ALL points of view made possible by our "trap of agreement", then I would be approaching that greater whole that you speak of. Interestingly enough, this calling to "be all points of view" is synonymous with the spiritual path that so many ancient (and modern) adepts have called us to.

I'd offer this: It is our experiencing and sharing of experience with others that is key to escaping the trap of agreement. Not necessarily agreement in and of itself.

Let's keep these thoughts moving. I am liking this exchange!
RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Yes God!

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!

In that case I'm glad to inform you that my eyes are wide open.

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!

Well, to each its own. I do not wish to believe in a supreme being "just in case". Even if anyone ever finds a way to convince me that there actually is a god, I don't think I'd ever worship him.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Yes God!

Hi Roel,

How's the new apartment going? Settling in nicely, I hope!

Even if anyone ever finds a way to convince me that there actually is a god, I don't think I'd ever worship him.

I'd agree with this logic completely. And perhaps this is some of the "charge" that goes along with the belief of a supreme being, or what past "religions" have claimed is necessary if you accept the concept of a supreme being. While you might not think the following is true from my vehement arguments: I do not WORSHIP God. Because from what I know about this Source, God does not require worship. It certainly is not going to change His situation one way or the other, so I would say that "worship" of a being who is omnipotent really does not make sense, unless you consider that God has an ego that needs stoking. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

However, while there is no need to "worship" an ultimate Creator, would you not agree that it is at least a good idea to "respect" such a being, and would it not make sense to try to get close to, and understand, such a being?

I think the mandate of worship that so many of our tired, old religions have foisted upon us is an outdated, linear paradigm. The analogy that I would use would be that I do not think it is appropriate to "worship" the team of engineers and mechanics that designed and assembled my new Toyota Tacoma pickup. But I certainly do respect the hell out of them, and want to understand their process, since it has resulted in an amazing creation that serves me very well!

RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

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?

The others should take the blind man by the hand and have him touch the elephant. Either the elephant is there, or it isn't. But what if the 5 blind men were in fact talking about an omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent elephant that you can't touch, smell or hear. How are they going to convince the 6th blind man that it really exists? Why should the 6th blind man have faith in these men?

 

[Roel van Houten]

Your thought processes are very welcomed in this thread, Damir.

Well, pretty much every thought process is welcomed in this thread. However you seem to have a preference for thought processes that are more compatible with your own. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Of course I share the same deficiency, but it looks as if I'm the last of the mohicans.

Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

However you seem to have a preference for thought processes that are more compatible with your own.

Yup. I guess this is the manifestation of the "trap of agreement" that we are discussing, eh?

But I am not so sure that Damir's thought processes are in agreement with mine that there is a higher-level creative being. In fact, if I would hazard a guess, he might be more in your "camp", Roel, than he is in mine.

RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Yes God!

However, while there is no need to "worship" an ultimate Creator, would you not agree that it is at least a good idea to "respect" such a being, and would it not make sense to try to get close to, and understand, such a being?

Well, yes and no. I'd respect such a being and I'd even try to understand it as it starts to communicate with me. But as of yet this being has made no effort to get close to me, so why would I want to get close with it?

I think the mandate of worship that so many of our tired, old religions have foisted upon us is an outdated, linear paradigm.

I think the new religions are just as insistent and linear as the old religions. As long as people don't at least accept the possibility that god doesn't exist, they can't possibly claim they're thinking in a non-linear fashion.

 

[Roel van Houten]

I guess this is the manifestation of the "trap of agreement" that we are discussing, eh?

Yes. In my opinion we have to stop thinking that everything is just an illusion. Like I said before: if everything turns out to be an illusion, then the illusion is an illusion in itself. I agree that - in a way - we are caught in a "trap of agreement", however there's a certain irony in that statement.

In fact, if I would hazard a guess, he might be more in your "camp", Roel, than he is in mine.

Perhaps /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Again, pretty much all thought processes are welcome here

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Yes God!

But as of yet this being has made no effort to get close to me, so why would I want to get close with it?

Well, let's make sure we are fair to God here, huh? /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif You are not AWARE of any effort that God has made to get close to you. But just because you are not aware of such an attempt does not, in a linear-logic sense, mean that no such attempt was made. If God is omnipotent, then He should feel no compulsion to try to communicate with you in a manner that you are comfortable with. In fact, by trying to communicate with you in means that "test your boundaries of belief", it could be said that He is attempting a much more effective means of stirring your soul.

I think the new religions are just as insistent and linear as the old religions.

If you agree that there is a difference between "religion" and "spirituality", then I woudl agree with you. By my own interpretatio of what constitutes a "religion", I would also reject any such demand that I approach an understanding of God ONLY in the manner that they prescribe. However, there are many spiritual movements out there these days that do not demand a certain form of spiritual seeking for God. Such organizations are primarily interested in helping other people experience the connections that lead to God that so many others in their group have experienced. But if any organization demands that I must "do it their way", then I would label this a religion, and not a spiritual philosophy.

RMT

 

[RainmanTime]

I agree that - in a way - we are caught in a "trap of agreement", however there's a certain irony in that statement.

Yeah. It has a sort of circular, closed-loop nature to it, doesn't it? As I have expressed before, it is my belief that when one encounters what seems to be a paradox, it does not mean that the concept needs to be rejected. Rather, it means that futher, deeper consideration of the connectedness of all things is required in order to understand how reality permits a manner for this paradox to be resolved.

In terms of time travel, I do not think there is such a thing as a "Grandfather Paradox". However, I DO think that our understanding of Time is limited in such a way that this paradox can manifest itself as a paradox. Changing our view of how reality "works" could erase the paradox, and then it would have never been a paradox, but merely a misunderstanding of how the universe is structured.

RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Yes God!

How's the new apartment going? Settling in nicely, I hope!

Hehe, thank you for asking. I was so focussed on the rest of your post that I forgot to answer the question /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The apartment is coming along nicely. The walls are almost finished and they're installing my kitchen next wednesday. Still a long way to go though /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Yes God!

The apartment is coming along nicely. The walls are almost finished and they're installing my kitchen next wednesday. Still a long way to go though

You're a fun guy, Roel. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif Would you be willing to post some pics of your place once it is "complete"? I am always looking for good ideas for my own home from people that I respect.

Hope you have a joyous and fulfilling December Solstice Celebration!
RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Yes God!

Well, let's make sure we are fair to God here, huh? You are not AWARE of any effort that God has made to get close to you.

An omnipotent god can't possibly make an effort without succeeding. Also, if god is sincerely interested in communicating with me, he should just do so instead of testing my boundaries.

In fact, by trying to communicate with you in means that "test your boundaries of belief", it could be said that He is attempting a much more effective means of stirring your soul.

Don't you think that's a pretty lame excuse? Also, "he" isn't stirring my soul in any way. If only "he" would try to stir my soul I'd have reason to believe that there is a possibility that "he" actually exists.

If you agree that there is a difference between "religion" and "spirituality", then I would agree with you.

Well, I agree that people can be spiritual without conforming to a specific religion or even without believing in god. On the other hand I think that if one unthinkingly accepts the existence of god, it's impossible to think in a non-linear fashion.

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Yes God!

Would you be willing to post some pics of your place once it is "complete"?

Sure, I'd appreciate it if you'd do the same /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

I think my apartment won't be a "closed loop system" until the end of january though. Unless ofcourse, we find a way to travel through time in a less linear way

 

[Damir]

"Without it we simply could not exist in the form and manner that we see ourselves existing now." Fair enough?

Not really. A calf runs around few hours after birth, while human baby needs more than a year to start with first hesitant steps. This is a significant shift from the transfer of accumulated knowledge by genes (almost excusively) to the transfer by cultural means.

The interplay between our genes and culture is very complex - and we need both. However - we can change our cultural imprint. Here, we need to make a distinction between a cultural imprint that is entraping us and another that is not.

First of all, as we grow up into a culture - we more or less conform. Some to a such degree that throughout their lives they very rarely experience a discomfort. Some end up on another side. This is not necessarily positive since it promotes a rejection by society and this might lead towards criminal behaviour. (Not so simple.)

As we grow older we do experience occasional discomfort and may decide to do something about it. In other words - to change our cultural imprint. As we start doing so we might notice more and more oddities surfacing until we are faced with a really hard task of transfer.

It is important to note here that it is much easier to "invent" our own "philosophies" than to have them accepted by others. And this is where our own contribution starts.

I'd offer this: It is our experiencing and sharing of experience with others that is key to escaping the trap of agreement. Not necessarily agreement in and of itself.

I'll accept this although I had something similar in my mind as a second "lifting" of the meaning of agreement.

I have replaced word "love" with "togetherness" long time ago. It simply better expresses the meaning that overused and misused "love" does. It is interesting to observe an evolution of two Is of a young couple into a single "us". However, such togetherness can also evolve in a basketball team, for example, where one can pass the ball to another without looking. Of course, there is planty of training together behind - but in essence reflecting what you named "being different points of view". We could also say that our "single point of view" is based upont miriads of points of views our cells might be having.

However, growing a sense of togetherness with practically everything is quite demanding, especially in our often to rigid cultures. Sometimes it is much easier to be alone and feel as one with forest than to get other people to share their feelings and experiences. Here we have quite a task for generations to come.

Further on togetherness and music - see my web-pages:

Cause & Effect
Complexity
Orchestra
Music

Sincerely,

Damir

ps: I left the camps behind. They are to bussy fighting each other anyway to enjoy the walk and scenary.

 

[CAT]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

I think the Bible is scientifically sound!

Herbert Spencer received a Nobel Prize for the Five Nullibles. Everything fits these categories (1. Time 2. Force 3. Action 4. Space 5. Matter). The Bible had it first in the first verse of the entire Bible: In the beginning (Time) G-d (Force) created (Action) the Heavens (Space) and the Earth (Matter).

The World is round - Job 26:7

Rotates on it's axis - Job 38:14

First Law of Thermodynamics (conservation of mass and energy) - Ecclesiastes 1:9 & 3:14

Hydrology (not understood until the 1700's) - Is. 55:10

Wind is a continuous cycle - Eccl. 1:6

Evaporation - Job 36:27,28

Precipitation - Psalm 135:7

Condensation - Job 26:8

Ocean Reservoir - Psalm 33:7

The universe is endless - Job 22:12

Stars are different (a more recent discovery) - 1 Corinthians. 15:41

Earth's orbit is in a fixed order - Jeremiah. 31:35,36

The sun is in a circuit from one end of the universe to the other (it spirals at about 17,000 miles per hour) - Ps. 19:6

The moon is not a luminous body. - Job 25:5

The Earth is balanced. Is. 40:12; Psalm 104

The world was known to be round (day and night at the same time) - Luke. 17:31

Gravity - Job 26:7

Air has weight - Job 28:25

The life is in the blood. - Genesis 9:4

The Pleiades was discovered in the 19th century. It is the brightest star and is the center of gravity in our galaxy. Pleiades means, "a hinge", "pivot", or "an axis on which things turn." - Job 38:31

Space is a vacuum - Job 26:7

 

[CAT]

Re: Sound creates and organizes...

Sound creates and organizes...

The 5 platonic structures that I talked about earlier are all part of the geometric and multidimensional patterns of form and sound which predate written history. Just about all of our creation myths find the birth of the universe stemming from a vibrational source...

The forms of snowflakes and the faces of flowers may take on their shape because they are responding to some sound in nature, in fact everything in nature such as crystals, plants, insects, animals and human beings may be, in some way, MUSIC that has taken on visible form!

Sound in its many forms reaches into us in more than any other source from the natural world, for not only do we hear with our ears, we listen with every pore of our body. Everything is in vibration and everything is giving us INFORMATION and knowledge...

researchers working with subatomic particles have come to the conclusion that there is a similarity between cymatic pictures and quantum particles.

http://bel.150m.com/pics/cloud.gif

http://bel.150m.com/pics/200.jpg

http://bel.150m.com/pics/200-ts.jpg

(Copy and paste these addresses into the address bar and a picture will show)

There is striking evidence that the atom structure is a standing wave , but how to describe in terms this new concept, each observable conventional particle and picture how the real atom looks like. Its known that the atom has a high density core at the center surrounded by a cloud of electrons. However, even in the case of atoms with a single electron, we still see a cloud, and never has anyone been able to track any electron orbiting around. We have also seen that no orbital electrons exist. In this theory there is no room either for a particulate nucleus or anything else described as particulate matter within the atom. The whole atom is a standing wave in three dimensions, and all known effects have to be described by electromagnetic standing wave geometry. In both cases that which appears to be a solid form is also a wave. They are both created and simultaneously organized by the principle of pulse/vibration.

This is the great mystery with sound, there is no solidity! A form that appears solid is actually created by a underlying vibration. In an attempt to explain the unity in this dualism between wave and form, physics developed the quantum field theory, in which the quantum field, or the vibration, is understood as the one true reality, and the particle or form, and the wave or motion, are only two manifestations of the one reality, VIBRATION... /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

P.S. I will be absent from the forums for awhile... Wishing everyone a happy holiday season!

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

I think the Bible is scientifically sound!

That's the best joke I've heard in years. /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The World is round - Job 26:7

That's a pretty wild interpretation, care to share it with us?

No matter which translation I pick, I can't find anywhere that Job 26:7 states that the world is round.

Rotates on it's axis - Job 38:14

Excuse me? Where does it say the earth rotates on its axis in Job 38:14?


Kind regards,

Roel

 

[creedo299]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

on links http://bel.150m.com/pics/cloud.gif

I get when keyed in , (A Hotlinking Error Has Occured!)

 

[nicknack]

Re: Scientifically sound Bible...

Hi guys! I'm back! I have been reading this book about what spaces tells us about the existence of God. I find that discussing about the Judeo-Christian God is going to take very long and it is going to be perpetually dicussed with never an answer until there is some kind of proof or somewhat.

This book talks about the creation of universe and life out there. I can't specfifically bring out the whole text from the book, that would be ridiculous. But just think for a moment, the universe cannot be created by chance, can it? Everything is so balanced even the microwaves from the big bang are so uniform. The earth's crust is not too high or too low. It is not too far or too near the sun. Neither is the sun too big or too small, too hot or too cold. It is just right to support life, which is US! That is kind of amazing since we have no evidence of extraterrestial life out there either, meaning, for the time being we are the only life in this big big wide solar system. Now we couldn't just buy any chance just be here by random or chance, can we? There has to be a Creator no matter how hard we try to believe there is not. Christian God or not, there is a creator. I can't really go into detail because I'm not done with the book and I'm a tad lazy to post out from the book and it's going to be due at the library soon ):

There are several theories of the creation of the universe out there, for examply the plasma theory and many others that try to make believe that the universe is eternnal but there was always something wrong with the theories. Even Einstein made mistakes, he allegedly try to add a fudge factor to make the universe theory eternal, but there was a miscalculation somewhere. I can't remember, but hey, even he admitted finally that the universe had to have a Creator!

Well, that's about it. See you guys soon. I'm really glad to be back!