It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The God Theory

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:30 PM

The God Theory

"The God Theory" by Bernard Haisch

Haisch is an astrophysicist whose professional positions include Staff Scientist at the Lockheed Martin Solar and Astrophysics Laboratory, Deputy Director for the Center for Extreme Ultraviolet Astrophysics at the University of California, Berkeley, and Visiting Fellow at the Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. His work has led to close involvement with NASA; he is the author of over 130 scientific papers; and was the Scientific Editor of the Astrophysical Journal for nine years, as well as the editor in chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

an excerpt

If you think of whitte light as a metaphor of infinite, formless potential, the colors on a slide or frame of film become a structured reality grounded in the polarity that comes about through intelligent subtraction from that absolute formless potential. It results from the limitation of the unlimited. I contend that this metaphor provides a comprehensible theory for the creation of a manifest reality (our universe) from the selective limitation of infinite potential (God)...
If there exists an absolute realm that consists of infinite potential out of which a created realm of polarity emerges, is there any sensible reason not to call this "God"? Or to put it frankly, if the absolute is not God, what is it? For our purposes here, I will indentify the Absolute with God. More precisely I will call the Absolute the Godhead. Applying this new terminology to the optics analogy, we can conclude that our physical universe comes about when the Godhead selectively limits itself, taking on the role of Creator and manifesting a realm of space and time and, within that realm, filtering out some of its own infinite potential...
Viewed this way, the process of creation is the exact opposite of making something out of nothing. It is, on the contrary, a filtering process that makes something out of everything. Creation is not capricious or random addition; it is intelligent and selective subtraction. The implications of this are profound.

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

Next, by Ervin Laszlo

Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything, 2004

And, his other seminal work
Science and the Reenchantment of the Cosmos: The Rise of the Integral Vision of Reality

Ervin Laszlo is considered one of the foremost thinkers and scientists of our age, perhaps the greatest mind since Einstein. His principal focus of research involves the Zero Point Field. He is the author of around seventy five books (his works having been translated into at least seventeen languages), and he has contributed to over 400 papers. Widely considered the father of systems philosophy and general evolution theory, he has worked as an advisor to the Director-General of the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in both 2004 and 2005. A multidisciplinarian, Laszlo has straddled numerous fields, having worked at universities as a professor of philosophy, music, futures studies, systems science, peace studies, and evolutionary studies. He was a sucessful concert pianist until he was thirty eight.

In his view, the zero-point field (or the Akashic Field, as he calls it) is quite literally the "mind of God".

Naming Hal Puthoff, Roger Penrose, Fritz-Albert Popp, and a handful of others as "front line investigators", Laszlo quotes Puthoff who says of the new scientific paradigm:

[What] would emerge would be an increased understanding that all of us are immersed, both as living and physical beings, in an overall interpenetrating and interdependant field in ecological balance with the cosmos as a whole, and that even the boundary lines between the physical and "metaphysical" would dissolve into a unitary viewpoint of the universe as a fluid, changing, energetic/informational cosmological unity."
an excert from Science and the Akashic Field, an Integral Theory of Everything

Akasha (a . ka . sha) is a Sanskrit word meaning "ether": all-pervasive space. Originally signifying "radiation" or "brilliance", in Indian philosophy akasha was considered the first and most fundamental of the five elements - the others being vata (air), agni (fire), ap (water), and prithivi (earth). Akasha embraces the properties of all five elements: it is the womb from which everything we percieve with our senses has emerged and into which everything will ultimately re-descend. The Akashic Record (also called The Akashic Chronicle) is the enduring record of all that happens, and has ever happened, in space and time."
Laszlo's view of the history of the universe is of a series of universes that rise and fall, but are each "in-formed" by the existence of the previous one. In Laszlo's mind, the universe is becoming more and more in-formed, and within the physical universe, matter (which is the crystallization of intersecting pressure waves or an interference pattern moving through the zero-point field) is becoming increasing in-formed and evolving toward higher forms of consciousness and realization.


According to James Oroc's experiences (Tryptamine Palace), when the ego is dissolved in consciousness through the temporary formation of a type of neurological "Bose Einstein Condensate", there is no real dilineation or distinction between individual consciousness and God-consciousness or the universal "akashic field" (Lazslo) aka Zero Point Field.


Let the insanity begin (on both sides)..

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:35 PM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:54 PM
I believe.

If true, the implications, particularly for us for we ourselves as intentionally evolved beings in the creation, are utterly astounding because it would mean that our true place and stature isn't that of an insignificant nothing, but intrinsic to a very significant process even standing next to the very Godhead. Furthermore, even if we do inhabit a non-localized, holographic type universe, and mind (see the works of David Bohm and Carl Pibram), then by God LOCAL MATTERS!
It means everything, and it means everything that it means everything, at least to me it does, as I can't speak for anyone else, who may hold to the opinion that life is absurd and meaningless and without a standard, even a universal standard of truth and justice and that they inhabit a small sphere inside their scull (forget about the heart) quite literally in isolate consciousness or completely and utterly separated from both the world (creation) even from some people, from their authentic and freely self expressed relationship to others, including themselves - but what if that's altogether the wrong paradigm? the one we've been living in and into because that's how we were taught because it's how we take the world or assume it to be - what if IT is absurd and ridiculous, and the ALL-IN-ALL as love and forgiveness and inclusion and an eternal process (eternal life?) of reintegration the actual process within which we are already emersed, where at the end and in the final analysis, seeking finds what it's seeking at the end of seeking (which is what it was seeking all along ie: the end of all seeking!) - or the beginning of real knowledge and understanding where the only real knowledge is the knowledge of experience and of increasing degrees of awareness, including self awareness and self knowledge ("the kingdom lies within"). What some have called, including myself the humor of understanding. Jesus likened it to finding the buried treasure or the truth that sets you free or if you happen to be an industrious merchant in fine things, the prescious pearl you've been looking for all your life! (Jesus was funny, I'm convinced of it).

"The unexamined life is not worth living."
~ Socrates

Oh no, did I say Jesus?

Now I'm in trouble with the science buffs, or maybe not, because the new paradigm reveals something rather extraordinary about the true nature of the human being as a self aware and evolving being, even one that is capable of evolving spiritually or psychologically.
I know there's not much value in looking back (unless it's of value), but great value in hope and bright optimism for something infinitely better by comparison, where what's gone before, for the most part, being unreal yet taken for reality, is nothing but the comedic material of a lifetime and the brunt of much future humor in the light of reason and self knowledge.

Mods: If this topic ought to be moved feel free to move and edit out this line, but it just seemed to me to be in alignment with modern science and technology and I dind't know where else to put it. Thanks, NAM.

edit on 19-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: edit

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:22 PM
Went over my head but S+F.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:25 PM

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Went over my head but S+F.

You must be American. (but please don't take offense to that comment as I'm just kidding around sort of).

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:45 PM
Re: God, Jesus, and the Human Being at the Leading Edge of a Cosmic Evolutionary Process. (ie: Next to the Godhead.)

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Jesus Christ is the Phi Ratio Son of God

The Golden Proportion is analogous to God’s relationship to creation

The Golden Section, or Phi, found throughout nature, also applies in understanding the relationship of God to Creation. In the golden section, we see that there is only one way to divide a line so that its parts are in proportion to, or in the image of, the whole:

The ratio of the larger section (B) to the whole line (A) is the same as the ratio as the smaller section (C) to the large section (B):

Only “tri-viding” the whole preserves the relationship to the whole
And so it is with our understanding of God, that we are created in His image. Not by dividing the whole, but only by tri-viding the whole does each piece retain its unique relationship to the whole. Only here do we see three that are two that are one.

The Book of John begins with these words that capture the essence of this:

In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

Jesus, in John 14:9, expressed a similar thought:

Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father.


The human Jesus (the Son of Man) is to the divine Jesus (the Son of God) as the divine Jesus (the Son of God) is to God (the Father or whole).

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:47 PM
We're all singing the same song. God/Allah the one of every name and no name said it. If you understand what you have posted then why flaunt it? The many eyes, ears, mouths, the dressed and undressed, they don't need the feedback, they need the original story. If you have a piece of the puzzle why hide it away?

NAM I do appreciate your writings but sometimes you hold that old adage of swine and pearls too close to your heart. Throw it all away, there is plenty more.

Keep up.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:51 PM
Cool post. I have never heard of this guy before. The idea of the universe being the result of "filtering" the infinite is an interesting metaphysical concept for me. I like it

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:52 PM
Amazing thread. Gonna finish reading and watching the videos. Thank you.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:54 PM
reply to post by usernamehere

Changed my signature back to share more openly without holding back. You're right that the supply of new information is bountiful and people want to know, see, hear and then integrate what they will and discard the rest, that's only fair and I have faith in people's evaluative skill level, so even the naysayers don't bother me too much because they also help advance the conversation, and it's high time we started having these conversations, so that we can begin to discover together what our true nature and identity really is, especially in Christ as the pattern and the mould.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:08 PM
Romans 1:20 tells us, "Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:13 PM

Brilliant Disguise: Light, Matter and the Zero-Point Field

by Bernard Haisch

Is matter an illusion? Is the universe floating on a vast sea of light, whose invisible power provides the resistance that gives to matter its feeling of solidity? Astrophysicist Bernhard Haisch and his colleagues have followed the equations to some compelling — and challenging — conclusions.

"God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light."

It is certainly a beautiful poetic statement. But does it contain any science? A few years ago I would have dismissed that possibility. As an astrophysicist, I knew all too well the blatant contradictions between the sequence of events in Genesis and the physics of the Universe. Even after substituting eons for days, the order of events was obviously wrong. It made no sense to have light come first, and then to claim that the Sun, the moon and the stars — the obvious sources of light in the night sky of the ancient world — were created only subsequently, be it days or eons later. One could, of course, generalize light to mean simply energy, and thus claim a reference to the Big Bang, but that would, to me, be more of a stretch than a revelation.

My first inkling that the deceptively simple "Let there be light" might actually contain a profound cosmological truth came in early July 1992. I was trying to wrap things up in my office in Palo Alto so that I could spend the rest of the summer doing research on the X-ray emission of stars at the Max Planck Institute in Garching, Germany. I came in one morning just before my departure and found a rather peculiar message on my answering machine; it had been left at 3 a usually sober-minded colleague, Alfonso Rueda, a professor at California State University in Long Beach. He was so excited by the results of a horrifically-long mathematical analysis he had been grinding through that he just had to tell me about it, knowing full well I was not there to share the thrill.

What he had succeeded in doing was to derive the equation: F=ma. Details would follow in Germany.

Most people will take this in stride with a "so what?" or "what does that mean?" After all what are F, m and a, and what is so noteworthy about a scientist deriving a simple equation? Isn't this what scientists do for a living?

But a physicist will have an incredulous reaction because you are not supposed to be able to derive the equation F=ma. That equation was postulated by Newton in his Principia, the foundation stone of physics, in 1687. A postulate is a law that you assume to be true, and from which other things follow: such as much of physics, for example, from that particular postulate. You cannot derive postulates. How do you prove that one plus one equals two? The answer is, you don't. You assume that abstract numbers work that way, and then derive other properties of addition from that basic assumption.

But indeed, as I discovered when I began to write up a research paper based on what Rueda soon sent to Garching, he had indeed derived Newton's fundamental "equation of motion." And the concept underlying this analysis was the existence of a background sea of light known as the electromagnetic zero-point field of the quantum vacuum.

To understand this zero-point field (for short), consider an old-fashioned grandfather clock with its pendulum swinging back and forth. If you don't wind the clock , friction will sooner or later bring the pendulum to a halt. Now imagine a pendulum that gets smaller and smaller, so small that it ultimately becomes atomic in size and subject to the laws of quantum physics. There is a rule in quantum physics called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle that states (with certainty, as it happens) that no quantum object, such as a microscopic pendulum, can ever be brought completely to rest. Any microscopic object will always possess a residual random jiggle thanks to quantum fluctuations.

Radio, television and cellular phones all operate by transmitting or receiving electromagnetic waves. Visible light is the same thing; it is just a higher frequency form of electromagnetic waves. At even higher frequencies, beyond the visible spectrum, you find ultraviolet light, X-rays and gamma-rays. All are electromagnetic waves which are really just different frequencies of light.

It is standard in quantum theory to apply the Heisenberg uncertainty principle to electromagnetic waves, since electric and magnetic fields flowing through space oscillate like a pendulum. At every possible frequency there will always be a tiny bit of electromagnetic jiggling going on. And if you add up all these ceaseless fluctuations, what you get is a background sea of light whose total energy is enormous: the zero-point field.

The "zero-point" refers to the fact that even though this energy is huge, it is the lowest possible energy state. All other energy is over and above the zero-point state. Take any volume of space and take away everything else — in other words, create a vacuum — and what you are left with is the zero-point field.

We can imagine a true vacuum, devoid of everything, but the real-world quantum vacuum is permeated by the zero-point field with its ceaseless electromagnetic waves. The fact that the zero-point field is the lowest energy state makes it unobservable. We see things by way of contrast. The eye works by letting light fall on the otherwise dark retina. But if the eye were filled with light, there would be no darkness to afford a contrast. The zero-point field is such a blinding light. Since it is everywhere, inside and outside of us, permeating every atom in our bodies, we are effectively blind to it. It blinds us to its presence. The world of light that we do see is all the rest of the light that is over and above the zero-point field. We cannot eliminate the zero-point field from our eyes, but it is possible to eliminate a little bit of it from the region between two metal plates. (Technically, this has to do with conditions the electromagnetic waves must satisfy on the plate boundaries.) A Dutch physicist, Hendrik Casimir, predicted in 1948 exactly how much of the zero-point field would end up being excluded in the gap between the plates, and how this would generates a force, since there is then an overpressure on the outside of the plates. Casimir predicted the relation between the gap and the force very precisely. You can, however, only exclude a tiny fraction of the zero-point field from the gap between the plates in this way. Counterintuitively, the closer the plates come together, the more of the zero-point field gets excluded, but there is a limit to this process because plates are made up of atoms and you cannot make the gap between the plates smaller than the atoms that constitute the plates. This Casimir force has now been physically measured, and the results agree very well with his prediction.

The discovery that my colleague first made in 1992 also has to do with a force that the zero-point field generates, which takes us back to F=ma, Newton’s famous equation of motion. Newton — and all physicists since — have assumed that all matter possesses an innate mass, the m in Newton's equation. The mass of an object is a measure of its inertia, its resistance to acceleration, the a. The equation of motion, known as Newton's second law, states that if you apply a force, F, to an object you will get an acceleration, a — but the more mass, m, the object possesses, the less acceleration you will get for a given force. In other words, the force it takes to accelerate a hockey puck to a high speed will barely budge a car. For any given force, F, if m goes up, a goes down, and vice versa.

Why is this? What gave matter this property of possessing inertial mass? Physicists sometimes talk about a concept known as "Mach's Principle" but all that does is to establish a certain relationship between gravity and inertia. It doesn’t really say how all material objects acquire mass. In fact, the work that Rueda, I and another colleague, Hal Puthoff, have since done indicate that mass is, in effect, an illusion. Matter resists acceleration not because it possesses some innate thing called mass, but because the zero-point field exerts a force whenever acceleration takes place. To put it in somewhat metaphysical terms, there exists a background sea of quantum light filling the universe, and that light generates a force that opposes acceleration when you push on any material object. That is why matter seems to be the solid, stable stuff that we and our world are made of.

Saying this is one thing. Proving it scientifically is another. It took a year and a half of calculating and writing and thinking, over and over again, to refine both the ideas themselves and the presentation to the point of publication in a professional research journal. On an academic timescale this was actually pretty quick, and we were able to publish in what is widely regarded as the world's leading physics journal, the Physical Review, in February 1994. To top it off, Science and Scientific American ran stories on our new inertia hypothesis. We waited for some reaction. Would other scientists prove us right or prove us wrong? Neither happened.

At that point in my career I was already a fairly well-established scientist, being a principal investigator on NASA research grants, serving as an associate editor of the Astrophysical Journal, and having many dozens of publications in the parallel field of astrophysics. In retrospect, my experience should have warned me that we had ventured into dangerous theoretical waters, that we were going to be left on our own to sink or swim. Indeed, I would probably have taken the same wait-and-see attitude myself had I been on the outside looking in.

An alternative to having other scientists replicate your work and prove that you are right is to get the same result yourself using a completely different approach. I wrote a research proposal to NASA and Alfonso buried himself in new calculations. We got funding and we got results. In 1998, we published two new papers that again showed that the inertia of matter could be traced back to the zero-point field. And not only was the approach in those papers completely different than in the 1994 paper, but the mathematics was simpler while the physics was more complete: a most desireable combination. What’s more, the original analysis had used Newtonian classical physics; the new analysis used Einsteinian relativistic physics.

As encouraged as I am, it is still too early to say whether history will prove us right or wrong. But if we are right, then "Let there be light" is indeed a very profound statement, as one might expect of its purported author. The solid, stable world of matter appears to be sustained at every instant by an underlying sea of quantum light.

But let's take this even one step further. If it is the underlying realm of light that is the fundamental reality propping up our physical universe, let us ask ourselves how the universe of space and time would appear from the perspective of a beam of light. The laws of relativity are clear on this point. If you could ride a beam of light as an observer, all of space would shrink to a point, and all of time would collapse to an instant. In the reference frame of light, there is no space and time. If we look up at the Andromeda galaxy in the night sky, we see light that from our point of view took 2 million years to traverse that vast distance of space. But to a beam of light radiating from some star in the Andromeda galaxy, the transmission from its point of origin to our eye was instantaneous.

There must be a deeper meaning in these physical facts, a deeper truth about the simultaneous interconnection of all things. It beckons us forward in our search for a better, truer understanding of the nature of the universe, of the origins of space and time — those "illusions" that yet feel so real to us.

Bernhard Haisch, staff physicist at the Lockheed Martin Solar & Astrophysics Laboratory in Palo Alto, California, is a scientific editor of The Astrophysical Journal and editor-in-chief of the Journal of Scientific Exploration.

edit on 19-9-2012 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:44 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

I agree with that completely. Couldn't have said it better than that. And you say let the insanity begin? OK then.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

The first thing that occurs to me is, the two folks you quoted don't even agree with each other.

Regarding Lazlo being the greatest scientific mind since Einstein, I don't know about that, but since you mentioned Einstein, he had yet a different concept of how God=Nature.

It seems to me that what is being argued here are varying forms of Einstein's concept of God=Nature (apologies to Einstein for oversimplifying his religious beliefs).

In some sense this is ultimately logical because we are ruled by nature and natural laws. Jump off the roof of a building and try to flap your arms to fly, and you can quickly find that you are ruled by the natural law of gravity. Up to this point, I can see the logic.

Now the question is, what is the point of making this conclusion that God=Nature? Specifically, look up God in the dictionary and the various definitions include things like supreme being worthy of worship.

So lets talk about worship. What does that entail? Are we supposed to pray to the zero-point field?
Let's talk about the "supreme being" part. Is the zero point field a supreme being? Is it a being of any kind? Being implies consciousness and does the zero-point field have consciousness, and if so, how do we know this?

It seem like some semantics games to me. If we mean nature, let's say nature. Should we be in awe of nature? That's an individual choice, but I certainly am and think everybody should be, though I won't twist anybody's arm too much to make them believe that.

But does this make Nature = God? I think the answer to this question lies in the definition of God. If it means some kind of supreme consciousness we are supposed to worship, where is the evidence for this consciousness, and what specifically are we supposed to do to worship it? If your definition of God doesn't entail those things, where are you getting your definition of God, and are you hijacking a word that's already defined and trying to make it mean something else? Do you really mean to say Nature?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Did you write all that, are you plagiarizing it, or forget to use the EX tags?

No Quote/Plagiarism - Please Review This Link.
External Source Tags - Please Review This Link.
edit on 19-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:20 PM
Good thread.

I see absolutely no reason why a belief in God cannot be looked at as a valid scientific theory. It has as much or more evidence for it, over many other scientific theories.

Trouble with scientists is they refuse to see that and shun those ideas. This makes them pseudo scientists that do not conform to scientific practices of open minded objectivity.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:44 PM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Did you write all that, are you plagiarizing it, or forget to use the EX tags?

The EX tags makes posts unreadable by condensing them into
one paragraph without any indentations or spaces.

Nobody knows what anything is.
You can know about things.
But you cant know what anything is.
So the scientists are finally arriving at that
point. It is all mysteriously arising as Consciousness which
is God.
All the theories are just a contraction of energy
in the mind.-Adi Da

If the stars do not move by themselves how is possible this
body breathes, this heart beats, this mind thinks, if it is not
God who breathes this body, God who beats this heart,
God who thinks these thoughts.- Melville.

edit on 19-9-2012 by RRokkyy because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 11:55 PM

Originally posted by RRokkyy
The EX tags makes posts unreadable by condensing them into
one paragraph without any indentations or spaces.
The EX tags don't do that.

Misuse of the EX tags does that.

I put multiple paragraphs inside EX tags all the time. Just leave the "Text" there when you add the tags, and replace the "text" with your multiple paragraphs, works great.

But yes, if you try to paste directly it does mess up paragraphs, so don't paste directly. Also, you can just type the tags out...I do that sometimes if it's easier.

There's no problem with the EX tags. There is a little bug with the way ATS implemented them when you try to paste multiple paragraphs after clicking the "EX-TEXT" button. But remember, ATS doesn't expect people to be posting tons of stuff from external sources anyway, just small snippets. The link I posted covers this.

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 01:54 AM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

ANYTHING testable in this, or is it just woo?

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:35 AM

If the Absolute is the Godhead, and if creation is the process by which the Godhead filters out parts of its own infinite potential to manifest a physical reality that supports experience, then the stuff that is left over, the residue of this process, is our physical universe, and ourselves included. We are nothing less than a part of that Godhead - quite literally.

I'm glad that a friend of mine tossed this thread to me. I was getting set to launch a thread about whether there are any reputable scientific theorists who actually claim that infinity exists as more than just an abstract concept that theorists have informally agreed to use as a placeholder, but I think that this thread may be a place to examine that question.

Especially since the base notion here involves the professed existence of a being with infinite physical characteristics

In my own determination - given the evidence (mathematical and actually proven via material application) that's been solidly connected to the base tenets of quantum physics in general - infinity, as a material/physical quantity does not and cannot exist. I'm very comfortable with this determination, and the fact that infinity (as a concept) represents an Absolute being state gives me additional confidence that it (infinity) can't exist within a holon structure with anything (like corporeal or informational physical manifestation, which is what we are) that exists in a Relative being state. After all, being state is the primordial existential delineating qualifier. That which is Absolute can grant that which is Relative comparative identity, by providing a perfectly disengaged contextual contrast determination, but it can't become physically associated with the Relative being state in the manner that this thread suggests. The two states are simply not compatible at any level whatsoever.

That which is Absolute certainly can't "fragment" itself into Relative pieces. The infinite can't become a pile of finite segments. The logical implications are pretty obvious.

Now, my question for you is, who are the legitimate scientists (not philosophers, since they're a flippant bunch at best) that embrace the notion of physical infinity? I'm trying to finish a presentation on debunking infinity, and I'm beginning to think that there's no actual need to debunk it, since no one actually believes in it.

Oh, and as far as God is concerned, if such a being existed, it could never even perceive, since perception involves the compare/contrast of that which is perceived versus that which is not perceived, so that what is perceived is wholly delineated at a perceptible level. Such an infinite being would - as a direct result of its all perceiving infinite nature - perceive all that exists equally and constantly. There'd be no possible contrasts with which to work one existential whole against another; the net impact being a complete and indecipherable wash of presence for this hapless creature. Hell, even its own self could not be differentiated from that which it isn't, since there'd be nothing that it isn't if it were infinite.

It certainly could never pull itself apart. Where would the initial separation exist? And where could that separation progress to? If this God thingy were infinite (as is the basic premise of what God is) then nothing else that isn't it would or could ever possibly exist. Nothing would or could ever exist to contain it and provide a contextual capacity that it could ever divide itself into. That "environment" could never exist, since this God being would be the only thing that exists. Let's see if I can explain why this is.

Juxtaposition immediately exists when there is one existent thing that is part of a comparative relationship. Even if that relationship involves that one existent thing and an existent lack of anything else, and definitely if there is a holon relationship between two or more existent things - as is suggested with this God fragmentation theory. In this sense, juxtaposition requires - at the very least - a third existential emergence; that being the contextual environment itself. We can call that Reality, since that's a perfectly usable term, and while it's a bit of a loaded term, it's accurate to a certain extent. Without Reality, as a superseding hosting quantity, juxtaposition is not possible. Without juxtaposition, the comparative/holon relationship is not possible. Without the comparative/holon relationship, your God theory is not possible. And yet, with the existence of this infinite, Absolute God, Reality - as a superseding hosting quantity - is not possible. Basically, the specifics here cancel themselves out.

And. so there you are.

You can embrace this theory as faith, but you can't embrace it as science.
edit on 9/20/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 20 2012 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by NewAgeMan

Star nd Flag
cool read,
without light we would see nothing lol,

very interesting thread topic, as a classic science/religion comparison/reinterpretation.

off to read some more

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in