The Truth Concerning What Humans Worship As God

reply to post by NorEaster


Do you think there is no greater collection of consciousness/knowledge/awareness/understanding of reality then humans on earth?,. if so, how can you say there are not ways consciousness can be much greater? that can come up with the idea of molecules/elements/light/patterns, color, basically I believe there is no sufficient excuse to think a human can understand the universe how/why/what it truly is, thus far

that is not to say a human or conscious identity cannot feel right at home and think life quite neato.

I also think the strangeness of the physical universe can be looked at as a whole separate case
then biological life, the reasons why and possibilities of knowing how and what life is, are also
impossible, thus far, but it seems to be a highly complex and sophisticated system, a stem of seedling ideas, evolve into all biological plant and animal, each successor created by luck, chance, faith and hard work, brought into this world by seed and nourished to a knower of the land, to act out a battle royal for sustaining ones own, and ones others energy,

i think any full belief in a continuation of a personal soul identity is nothing more then a hope, if God is good he'd let you be apart of reality again,


the universe as we know it could have been created trillions of years after conciousness formed somewhere somehow, or the first signs of change, attraction, motion, sense, were forshadowed between energies, or vibes,
dude.

What you've just described in rather scientific terms is what a person experiences when they "awaken," either as an "image" of God (Christed,) if secular, or "Being One With The Creator," if not.

Amazing isn't it? Imagine a Perfect Image unconditionally duplicating itself (knowing that Before, none of any life-form ever conceived of would ever exist, if it didn't.)

And now, through Pure Appreciation of this fact, beings, can appreciate and look-upon the "Face of God," even as they look upon themselves and all of creation, a wonderful and truly beautiful experience.

Totally, Life is to be experienced, even something as small as a blade-of-grass, a tree, or the heavens confirms this fact and changes one's perspectives of the universe forever, and that has to "connect" back to somewhere to empower others to see the same thing?

Amazing at how our awareness is increasing almost exponentially.

Now if someone followed that model in this dimension, and unconditionally gave-of themselves, I wonder what would be the result. Would it be appreciated in-as-much the same way?

Being that we are "images," Beholding the "Image."

Many Blessings,

Trek

reply to post by ButtUglyToad


What is your thoughts on the ringing of the ears? You said the sound comes from the mind and I agree since it is what creates our world.

What do you think is causing this ringing? Energy being released?

Peace to you.

reply to post by Buford2


Tinnitus, possibly, perhaps raising of awareness of the auditory senses combined with other senses which have awakened allows one to "hear" what is unheard. Perhaps why certain people have lately been able to "hear" the electronic sounds of devices when powered-on, and find them rather unnatural or disturbing to some degree?

Perhaps we are all "awakening," and those "dull of hearing," need one to teach them the first principles of the oracles of God," again?

I think those sounds are "signs" or "trumpets," or "other physical" sounds possibly-related to ELF or the Schumann Resonance frequency raising up to 13 Hz. It's happening, you know.

reply to post by trekwebmaster


Nice!

What a treasure of a post in its own right!

You grok dude!

And so do I.

It's starting to get scary, what might be unleased, maybe even, happiness..and helpfulness, and God at last coming to the hungry in the form of food.

Everything's up in the air now.

Welcome to the century of the human being!

Originally posted by trekwebmaster
reply to post by Buford2

 

Tinnitus, possibly, perhaps raising of awareness of the auditory senses combined with other senses which have awakened allows one to "hear" what is unheard. Perhaps why certain people have lately been able to "hear" the electronic sounds of devices when powered-on, and find them rather unnatural or disturbing to some degree?

Perhaps we are all "awakening," and those "dull of hearing," need one to teach them the first principles of the oracles of God," again?

I think those sounds are "signs" or "trumpets," or "other physical" sounds possibly-related to ELF or the Schumann Resonance frequency raising up to 13 Hz. It's happening, you know.

I have read that info about the Schumann Resonance. A great number of people are starting to feel the effects of this change. I feel our vibrational energy we will rise along with the earth. Do you feel the change will be gradual for humans to adjust to the vibrational increase? It seems that if the earth was vibrating faster than we would have raised our vibration at the same rate.

I can feel a lot of Chi energy throughout my body. I do exercises to increase my Chi and each day it seems to grow stronger. The energy keeps me balanced knowing we are more than just slaves. I believe we are very powerful and this latest change will open many peoples eyes.

Peace to you.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

We like the new word you are using-" gawd" and it shall be used in the new era of StarWorld Earth.The era of gods(gawd] shall cease together with the end of this era in the history of this planet. There is no place for gods in the new Universe that is emerging. The word god means that they are beings that you should kneel to and worship and there should not be any beings regardless of how high they are or in what plane of existence they are in.
The word g_o_d_ stands for some words but in its shorten form it has been misused.No beings should have the right to induce others to worship them for help or protection.All guidance,help must be given in a humble,compassionate basis.
This is what a TrulyFree existence and Universe is and it shall be manifested and energised into existence.
Start doing some Soul searching and awaken to evolve into beautiful universal beings.

reply to post by NorEaster

Incapable of true and factual discernment, the PCH perceives this overwhelmingly familiar manifestation and immediately recognizes what it knows/suspects about itself reflecting back, as it peers deeper and studies what exists before it. It "sees" that this wondrous entity seems to radiate with intelligence, humanity, limitless patience and a fully realized wisdom tempered with what must be pure compassion...
For the secularly inclined PHC, this segment of the Informational Continuum will most likely be viewed as being God. For the non-secularly inclined PHC, it will be viewed as being whatever that PHC allows it to be - The Universal Consciousness, The All, The Great Spirit, or whatever fits

Holy cow. This is finally sinking in after months of studying it.
I'm almost ... proud of myself.

I only have one question at this stage NE, and then hopefully I can build on from there ... that is ... if you come back.

Do you think it possible with an encounter between the PCH and The Residual, that the latter can acknowledge the PCH? However brief that acknowledgement may be?

Note: I do think it is possible that a particular PCH encountering the IC will NOT see it as "a conscious and dynamic intelligent supreme being" but just rather something that "is".

reply to post by NewAgeMan


I totally "Grok" what you are saying, friend.

We are "One," brother. I totally, "get" that.

(From "The Way To Eden," Star Trek the Original Series.)

Yes, I do, and yes, it is!

reply to post by NorEaster


Absolute Tripe! God isn't self aware? Garbage!!!

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Feel free to compare these two statements:

The initiator of our reality has that same logical relationship with this reality. It simply can't inhale its own author.

One comprehends Everything One can render while passing through Every occasion of the Universe.

I don't really see anything in the 2nd statement that relates - in any way at all - to the 1st statement. In fact, I can't really say that I understand the core notion of the 2nd statement. Maybe you can make it more clearly defined. Maybe it's the usage of the word render? Maybe it's the capital letters in the wrong places?

RENDER
ren·der1   [ren-der]
verb (used with object)
1. to cause to be or become; make: to render someone helpless.
2. to do; perform: to render a service.
3. to furnish; provide: to render aid.
4. to exhibit or show (obedience, attention, etc.).
5. to present for consideration, approval, payment, action, etc., as an account.
dictionary.reference.com...

Solid

Take Xtraeme's suggestion very seriously. Sit down with a psychiatrist. It would do you a great deal of service to chart MPD. The fact is... MPD is inherent to consciousness whether we're focused on it or not. The methodology our brains group/ categorizes "units" in response to stimulus/ experience of "action" is the only diagram required to wind down some of the pretentious language you've used in the attempts to steer Truth.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by trekwebmaster

 

Nice!

What a treasure of a post in its own right!

You grok dude!

And so do I.

It's starting to get scary, what might be unleased, maybe even, happiness..and helpfulness, and God at last coming to the hungry in the form of food.

Everything's up in the air now.

Welcome to the century of the human being!

A breath of fresh air does the body good!

reply to post by NorEaster


Well if you're looking for people to rip your book apart rather than providing critical feedback that isn't hard. I'm glad you're at least willing to admit, "Especially since the "headline" itself - and the overwhelming implications of that "headline" - was not even mentioned. If he'd read it, he would've led off with that bit of controversy." This is why I attempted to gently comment, "[Post-corporeal Human Consciousness] can be translated into the notion that self-awareness and human consciousness is separate from identity. Identity is something that's built based on experiences in an environment ... it doesn't tell us anything about the nature of something more grandiose like the concept of god or God."

Definitely if he'd wanted to school me by way of a detailed analysis of what my premise asserts.

I personally prefer constructive dialogue. I wasn't trying to "school" you on anything. Reading many of your comments it appears in most situations you prefer to brawl. So when you pout and wonder aloud, "Maybe this isn't the right community to bring this premise to? It presents itself as a gathering place of people seeking new breakthrough information, but as much as I try to see anything progressive in the majority of posters here, it's become fairly impossible to view anyone here as being open to anything new or revolutionary." Perhaps you should consider most people don't enjoy engaging with a person who has a confrontational attitude and an inability to think outside their own somewhat ludicrous zoo of acronyms. Heck you yourself admit on page 128, "Lets face it using the term human being - with all the subtle implications it could impose - would do nothing to keep the waters clear as we moved ahead. Just keep in mind that you are HTEC, or actually, your brain and corporeal body are HTEC, where as the real you is the Intellect that HTEC (your HTEC) generates." So what did we gain with this acronym? Not much.

The truth is that I didn't recognize any of what he described.

I was simply trying to share that it might be easier to get some of your concepts across by analogy, and to also impart that your OP leads most people to believe that God is the full informational continuum as an undifferentiated totality and that's that ‒ end of story (somewhat mimicking your allegory of the C# note in the greater symphony). This is problematic in that the majority of people believe in a personal God with positive characteristics, being all loving, all powerful, all knowing, and so on and so forth. Obviously the qualities vary by culture, but that's why I mentioned the Greek pantheon. Axioms of "God" as an all powerful personal entity are held by most people to be as implicitly true, yet you never bother to address these beliefs. This why you're seeing contrary remarks. You won't get past the average person staring at you blankly (or angrily) till you address other peoples underlying assumptions.

I'm wondering if he might've confused my book with someone else's book.

If you need a refresher on my original comments. Here's the original feedback:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You read my book? And you understood it?

As much as is possible without having a conversation with you to confirm whether we're on the same page. Though based on my understanding from a single reading of the book, I disagree with some of the lemmas. So I'm not sure that I agree with many of the conclusions (for instance your IDI "Life after Life" sub-chapter, I'm not sure if I buy it). While I appreciate you borrowing from the pantheistic model. I said it before and I'll say it again, that you veer in to the realm of conjecture when you make the statement that our existing as information necessitates man continues to exist post-death. Sure the information that describes us will continue to exist, but that doesn't mean the information is self-aware or conscious. Also there's no way to test the hypothesis. So, unfortunately, it's the realm of theosophical speculation.

Despite these disagreements, I can still appreciate what you've put together. Trying to formulate a model for what would bootstrap reality requires some pretty far out there thinking. I would say many of the phrases you put in bold need thicker definitions. For instance you refer to "absolute logic" determining "absolute truth" and this resulting in "absolute reality." Is absolute logic represented by lower predicate calculus as a formal system? If so, why not just say that? What defines absolute truth? All the logical connectives and the resulting truth table? And if so then how is that any different from absolute logic in terms of constant folding? Absolute reality, as you describe it, seems to be anything that's not a contradiction. (continued ...)

I imagine this is why you reason that the negation of the contradiction of nothingness was the start of everything. So you're defining "absolute reality" then as non-contradiction?

What is the primary difference between TEC and HTEC and what was the fundamental requirement that brought that difference into physical manifestation?

So you're asking me to describe your ideas on how "The Circumstantial" (which is a horrible phrase to denote an operation or "unit of causation") pushes for survival?

Actually, I'm going to take a moment to gripe about this terminology.

Circumstantial usually implies secondary or incidental not a unit of causation. I have a hard time making this jive with, "The reason I chose the term Circumstantial is that it suggests activity and change." A "circumstance" is often a series of happenings that loosely relate to an event. Hence why circumstantial evidence being based on inference is often considered a poor substitute for direct evidence in a legal case. Not all circumstances are causal or contingent for making a person or object what they are or become.

Rant aside I agree with the idea that "a unit of causation" (I'll refer to it as a "causon") is capable of generating a self compounding and complexifying emergent structure. What you skip however in your book is *how* this happens. You should probably read something like Wolfram's book "A New Kind of Science," to provide a more rigorous model using something like rule-110 to back up your assertion that something like this is even possible. Actually, in general, you should probably attempt to reference other works. Your complete lack of a bibliography probably explains why your work is largely ignored. Working in complete isolation means you reinvent ideas and terminology that others have already worked out and explored.

As for your idea about the "The Epitome Circumstantial" or TEC. I completely disagree with this part. You completely anthropomorphize atomic inert aspects of reality. For example on page 119, "The [causons] only hope for permanent existence is to create its own version of permanent concrete existence that will -- like each matrix organizational whole since the dawn of [causal] existence itself -- enables the identity of all the [causal] units that gathered to create it survive beyond the instant. This genius of sheer will to exist, that eventually resulted in the amazing elemental complexities that we find in even the most basic building blocks of physical mass, inevitably drives the [causon] to a point where a true and conscious capacity for information generation -- achieved by an organized matrix structure of causal trajectory -- becomes a fact of reality." The fact is there is no "will" in atomic or high energy particles. They're not fighting for survival. They merely exist and react with one another.

The emergence of the TEC is basically the same thing as saying the emergence of self-directed consciousness (albeit primitive). While, yes, this happened, your book doesn't really provide any insights as to how or why or when this occurred and under what circumstances. A lot of what's in the book is just new phrases to redefine old concepts. It would be a lot better if you attempted to try to use a computational terminology like operator (Circumstantial) and operand (Concrete) since you're trying to present larger truths in terms of what you ultimately see deriving from a logical structure.

reply to post by Americanist

The methodology our brains group/ categorizes "units" in response to stimulus/ experience of "action" is the only diagram required to wind down some of the pretentious language you've used in the attempts to steer Truth.

And what is "Truth"?

You know - I've rarely, if ever done this before but I'm gonna stick up for the OP here, whatever it costs me. And this is for all of you.

NorEaster talks that way - read his post history - get used to it.

Imho he is not pretentious - he is just writing as his personality see's fit to deliver such a subject as "what God is".

His is an enigmatic, kinda, weird scientific brain trying to explain his theory of "God" in a perfectly fitting forum and all you blokes can come up with in response is Schumann Resonance and Tinnitus?

Damn.

NE is the kind of poster that I come here to learn from, and while it is expected that this kind of thread will generate some debate, I'm kinda shocked at the negative reactions.

I'm not gonna say that his style is user-friendly or even understandable - but you know what? Read him long enough and it will start to sink in.

Have you had an OBE Mr Americanist sir?
Are you talking from experience?
Is anyone?

I now humbly bow out for the night. I am a normally a quiet hermit but I had to speak up for this one thing.
This is important I feel.

K - cheers - and yes - I grok it all.

Eh - just saw that ^ above.

My post will get lost in all that. That's ok. I'm kinda done-for anyway.
Just wanted people to appreciate the work that has been done by the OP.

Cause really, for myself, I don't care about the 'physics' of "God" rather than what it means for ME.

Which is a human trait afterall isnt it.

Originally posted by Netties Hermit
reply to post by Americanist

 

The methodology our brains group/ categorizes "units" in response to stimulus/ experience of "action" is the only diagram required to wind down some of the pretentious language you've used in the attempts to steer Truth.

And what is "Truth"?

You know - I've rarely, if ever done this before but I'm gonna stick up for the OP here, whatever it costs me. And this is for all of you.

NorEaster talks that way - read his post history - get used to it.

Imho he is not pretentious - he is just writing as his personality see's fit to deliver such a subject as "what God is".

His is an enigmatic, kinda, weird scientific brain trying to explain his theory of "God" in a perfectly fitting forum and all you blokes can come up with in response is Schumann Resonance and Tinnitus?

Damn.

NE is the kind of poster that I come here to learn from, and while it is expected that this kind of thread will generate some debate, I'm kinda shocked at the negative reactions.

I'm not gonna say that his style is user-friendly or even understandable - but you know what? Read him long enough and it will start to sink in.

Have you had an OBE Mr Americanist sir?
Are you talking from experience?
Is anyone?

I now humbly bow out for the night. I am a normally a quiet hermit but I had to speak up for this one thing.
This is important I feel.

K - cheers - and yes - I grok it all.

Read carefully. I didn't say he was pretentious although that might be the case here... I referenced the language being somewhat of an exaggerated importance. God? Hardly. In summary... The OP touts MPD, and it's not difficult to explain in context to Universal Consciousness and Ultimate Principle.

Path to higher consciousness begins with childlike innocence.

Promote action to gain various types of understanding.

Condense units of such understanding to council.

Integrate this council into a single director.

Utilize director to reach out to others.

Reach out to others via sacrifice.

Become sacrifice to expand.

Expand to unite as "One."

Truth is the choice to sacrifice and learn from it. Truth is the system put in place to allow for such a choice to be made and become expansive in the process. Truth: "Love moves from image to frontier."

Yes,
Yes,
And surely...

I'm fairly reserved too, so we'll see how well we connect.

(A take on Romans 1:20) For from the World's creation the invisible attributes are perceived, being understood in the hearts and minds of the articles made, both eternal power and divinity, so as to render each and every inexcusable.

reply to post by NorEaster


Thanks for the reply, and the corrections in my reading of your original post.

I still consider your findings stimulating, despite the complexity of language and concept contained within (it does take a few readings for it to sink in, but maybe that’s just me…), and have to admit that they do, somewhat, correlate with my own – purely speculative – opinions of existence which are based on nothing more than logic though are far, far less defined.

Therefore, I applaud you and your explanation of Deity, as it makes (unfortunately) perfect sense. It rationalizes eloquently the complete lack of intervention. However, I’m not entirely comfortable with your (or my very meagre) conclusions as to what can be perceived as God.

I’d like to think we differ in opinion as, after all, without solid authentication for your (or my) views – which are, at the end of the day, the connection of disparate concepts that have themselves, I’m sure you’ll agree, been created by deduction - conceptual evidence - rather than the discovery of inarguable material – that’s all they are.

View-point, estimation, conviction. Worthy and arguable, but nothing more.

Why, you could almost say that you are acting on faith – faith in your research and the veracity of the information gathered - that you are correct. That it drew you to a logical conclusion doesn’t really come in to it, as – and please excuse the analogy – some people believe Star Wars to be real and they base this on the effect it has on the awareness of the world that surrounds them.

That you have reduced (delineated?) God – this “Informational Continuum” – to nothing more than a “mindless”, factual representation of consciousness rather than an all powerful being/force/creator is brave, but not – in these times of growing discontent with religion – unexpected.

However, many, many people have tried to be the one who can – successfully and persuasively and, dare I say, authoritatively – display the mind of God to the masses, whether it be via the dictate of religion or intellectual interpretation. None as yet have been able to convince the entirety of Humanity. And I wonder why?

As I said, I can equate with your opinions to a great extent, but will offer my own, completely unfounded, addendum: we’ll all be witness to the truth in the end. And, in the absence of any wholly reliable submission to the contrary, it may surprise some greatly.

A full-on thread hijacking. That's okay, none of you were offering anything worth a damn in response anyway. Hopefully someone benefited from the opening post. If not, then that's okay too. I did what was required here, and that's all that really matters. No sense in spoiling the fun with any more responses. Maybe you folks can make this a double-slit experiment debate thread? signature:

reply to post by NorEaster


I sure didn't "mean" to hijack your thread OP, where were you? I even messaged you to get a clearer understanding and you vanished. Still.....no reply from you. While I understand there is life to attend to outside this forum, you did create a thread and I believe we all hoped you would return soon and while waiting we continued the conversation about "Truth concerning God" and I do believe that is what this thread is about.

As for us "not offering anything worth a damn anyway". How rude of you to say, yet you hope we benefited from the opening post because what you had to say in the opening post was sooooo important, yet you vanished and left us all here to ?? what continue to post to you and get a reply back today? Well....you got some of us to thinking and we didn't go away when you left. We continued the conversation without you. Sorry you did not benefit from our thoughts.

I like your thoughts, but your attitude stinks. I won't be coming into anymore of your threads in the future....would hate to spoil anything or take away from your genius thoughts.

Originally posted by MamaJ

To answer your question, my being was first a thought and said thought manifested.

Out of pure interest MamaJ, what do suppose that first thought was......?