Q: To ATS' Christian Protestants of ALL types, denominational or not...

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

I really don't think there is a high probability that we are going to see a "miracle" in our lifetime or even multiple lifetimes where we suddenly all grow a new brain by way of some supernatural manifestation LOL. But I could be wrong....

However many lifetimes it takes does not detract from the responsibility to engage the process in this life, the one we have now and are sure about, regardless of what exactly may lay ahead otherwise.
By me saying that, I am not implying that I think you don't know that but mean it for also a larger audience, meaning whoever else besides me and you who might run across this for whatever reason.

edit on 24-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)

Mmmmm, 'k, you be sure about life and reality, the jury is still out for me. I still maintain this is a very complex virtual reality and our purpose in it is still an unknown. That being said, there is no way to engage an unknown process, it's like trying to prove a negative amongst an infinity of non-zero probabilities. We all just do what we think we do and the control over the things we do is simply an illusion. None of us have free will and you can prove that very easily. I imagine you think you have control over your own mind, but a stray electron or neutron, or a large biomolecule can easily change your thinking process. You have no control over those events, they come from outside your body or are processed within your body resulting in neurological change. If we had real control over every facet of our molecular structure, if we could make the subatomic particles that bind us together into complex organic robots dance to our step and tune, then we might have a chance at free will. So saying that we must responsibly engage the process of this supposed life to me, is orthogonally opposed to my ideology, since we cannot do what we have no control over. We are riders on a meat bus.

You do know I am a cynic right? Maybe even somewhat agnostic. You ever hear the agnostics prayer?

"Oh Lord, if their is a Lord, save my soul, if I have a soul"

Now, if someone can prove to me, that the brain is simply an organic robotic control mechanism that allows for some kind of communications tethering to what we really are and that the effects of casual systems and events at a molecular level in this virtual reality do not effect our thinking processes, then hey, I'm game, I'll even admit that there is free will. I expect you understand what I am saying in the above question that requires proof, that the brain is not the mind, the brain or our imagining the brain, is simply an interface into this reality for the mind, which is someplace else outside of this virtual reality. But again, it comes down to proof. It's like the queen of england says she was appointed by God, well, show me God's signature, prove it's God's signature and show me the document outlining the appointment, thank you very much.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

. . . an interface into this reality for the mind, which is someplace else . . .

What is your proof of the existence of a "someplace else"?
That was the issue that caused my widest divergence in thinking recently.
The realization that there is no someplace else.
That forces us to deal with the here and now, which is reality, and everything else is the illusion, or rather, the hypothetical.
Persons, people, gods, spirits, all are in this same place and can't go anywhere else.
Whatever existed before existence no longer "exists", because it was the nothingness which was displaced by the somethingness, otherwise known popularly as the universe.

Morning, folks.

I'm still getting coffeed up for the day, and a bit foggy, but this interaction between you two is very interesting. Thanks to both of you for contributing.

That is all. For now.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

. . . an interface into this reality for the mind, which is someplace else . . .

What is your proof of the existence of a "someplace else"?
That was the issue that caused my widest divergence in thinking recently.
The realization that there is no someplace else.
That forces us to deal with the here and now, which is reality, and everything else is the illusion, or rather, the hypothetical.
Persons, people, gods, spirits, all are in this same place and can't go anywhere else.
Whatever existed before existence no longer "exists", because it was the nothingness which was displaced by the somethingness, otherwise known popularly as the universe.

edit on 25-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

Well, Bell's theorem, "spooky interaction at a distance" from the experiments I have run show that symbiotic relationships (information exchange) occur orthogonally between "like" particles with zero propagation delay, meaning that we can tunnel information through quantum emulations of ER/EPR solutions through some manner of external layer. This indicates the presence of an underlying reality that is a part of, yet separate, from this "virtual" reality. This separate layer allows the movement of information at speeds which defy the allegedly known natural limits of the universe. At first, I thought this was simply wormhole type communication at an almost Plank level, but it's not since the quantum functions can be emulated at classical levels using very specific geometry based communication tools (my work is in the university here).

I fell across this discovery when I was monitoring activity between two specialized sensors I designed that I was using to measure gravity waves by temporal proxy. Gravity waves can be so large (trillions of miles to parsecs) that they cannot be measured directly but they do produce temporal distortions that can be measured by passing signals "outside the system." As you might imagine, a gravitic change on orders of magnitude to the size of our solar system would fully encompass our solar system. All measurement tools with physical dimensions would undulate in accordance with the gravity wave which would produce equal measurements due to identical changes in size and the speed of light. So any measurement inside the system produces no change even though there might be the passage of a gravity wave. It all falls back to my interferometry work using lasers.

What was interesting, was that I found "other" communications forms during the experiments using an adiabatic reactor (government funded) whose field system was operating at 1.05C (C speed of light). Those communications forms I found, were envelopes containing what appears to be structured data with timing periods that all resolved to non-real number based wavelengths which were too consistent with intelligent origin (wave period, envelope period, repetition period, etc.), but I couldn't decipher the messages. So, since I was seeing rather strange measurements I looked for artifact production as a reason and could find none. I placed all of the sensory and measurement equipment and different measurement equipment as well, inside Faraday cages and still came up with the same results. So I am very convinced that the signal, the communications and the process are originating outside of this system of reality.

I took it one step further though, to try and rationalize the big picture and how this could all work, and performed some logistical experiments in the nature of reality and how these signals could possibly originate inside "reality." After a couple of months of working through the process I came to the conclusion that what we perceive as reality is simply a four dimensional movie. It has a beginning and an end and the projection system which I originally though was specifically the event horizon of the universe, is actually the interference points controlled via this underlying communication layer from outside the event horizon. Every event in the "universe" is predictable based on the ability of something outside the "universe" to monitor interference points and their past/present/future interactions. That being the case, there cannot be any free will if the system is predictable. Further to this, it would indicate that we are simply travelers playing roles in our little meat puppet bodies and any control or free will that we imagine is illusory.

As to the purpose of the "universe" or life in general, I have no idea. It could be a training simulation, it could be history or civilization simulation or it could be something else, but obviously it has some importance to whatever created it, since it still seems to exist.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

As to the purpose of the "universe" or life in general, I have no idea. It could be a training simulation, it could be history or civilization simulation or it could be something else, but obviously it has some importance to whatever created it, since it still seems to exist.

According to: Complete Illustrated Encyclopedia of Magical Plants, "Carrying sesame seeds in a purple velvet pouch while you are hunting for treasure will ensure you of success."
If that was true (big "if"), it would be because of some sort of physical law that we can't figure out, but know it is there because of the testimony of treasure hunters who had gotten fabulously wealthy by following this prescription.
People who did not believe in that law would be poor the rest of their lives because they failed to follow the known key to success. They might console themselves with the thought that they were fated never to find treasure, as the reason for their poverty, rather than their failure to just somehow get a purple velvet bag.
I am not trying to argue against fate but I think it is important to differentiate between what is directly fated, and what is not. Fate in my hypothetical scenario would be: everyone who does not carry a purple bag with seeds will never find hidden treasure. Not fated would be: some people will get purple bags of seeds and carry them while treasure hunting, and some will not. Some things are fated in a general way while some things are not specifically fated on an individual bases.
As for your observations on apparent anomalies in the fabric of the universe, I think that sort of thing should be expected. I mean a piece of cloth looks like a solid covering from the intended distance of observation, where when observed more closely, there is an apparent warp and weft. So it is fabricated? I think this is what religions believe.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle
I think what you are saying is that there is a bigger, real universe outside this one, that has its own set of laws, while we are only aware at present, of this smaller one, except where evidence of the bigger gets through though in a way that is incongruous with how ours normally works.
What I think is that there are not somehow laws (out there somewhere) that would offer too much freedom and would destroy the boundaries of our sand box that we are allowed to play in.
I don't think that is the best way to think of the universe, as compared to the ancient knowledge that has been passed on to us through traditions. I mean what was considered ancient to the people we consider today to have been the most ancient in history, so things prehistoric.
What I get as a conclusion from that sort of thing is that we have at the disposal of the universe, all the best laws possible, and that everything that is possible to happen with those laws, are happening everywhere in the universe. The problem is that even with the best resources, things do not happen instantaneously, but rather take time as they go through a process. The downside is that if there is an ideal, a perfection, which is the goal of all these processes working out, then obviously we are not in a current state of perfection.
That goes against the Old Testament but with the New Testament, where the OT had everything perfect, then it degenerated. A pessimistic view that was necessary considering their political circumstances. That was this mythological ideal with the wise king, Solomon, then a complete reversal of fortunes, having their country overrun and the best people taken captive and deported.
The NT says, 'Yes, I admit that there is this fallen condition we found ourselves in, but it has been like that for like as long as we know, but things are changing for the better.'
There are a couple of ways to reconcile the discrepancy between what is and what should be, either an incremental approach (more realistic, especially considering the basic nature of the universe and how things work in it), and the sudden replacement of the universe with a better one (not realistic and really the sort of thing of fairy tales which are ok as long as you understand that is what they are).

reply to post by jmdewey60


But I was not arguing for a better universe instantaneously created by way of fairy tails or any other process. I was stating that I am of the opinion (a fairly well researched opinion) that what we perceive as reality is in fact a virtual reality, possibly one of many, in which all of time-space we perceive is "sitting" within a possible "real" reality where it can be "played" like a video/movie or game. The "real" reality has a few control functions that we can pick up on at subatomic levels, as determined by the "plot" of the virtually reality in which we reside, in which case we are meant to see these subtle threads of communication for some reason. We have about as much free will as the images generated from a DVD or video tape into a TV or monitor ;-) Which is part of my point. We don't define those images as being "fated" to speak those lines or make this or that move, so why say we are fated to do what we do? We simply play a preordained part for some purpose which we are presently incapable of understanding.

The other part of my point is that we "reside" within the boundaries of a literally perfect mathematical construct, so I would postulate that there is a creator and it is both a mathematician and a programmer. I actually don't see how anyone in this virtual reality can prove me wrong in this theory, unless said "creator" somehow popped into our "reality," came up to me and said, "Hey buddy, I'm actually a plumber playing Sims on my new-fangled quantum computer." And even then, I would need some proof.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

But I was not arguing for a better universe instantaneously created by way of fairy tails or any other process.

I didn't think you were. That was a sort of informational addition for use to differentiate between different religious expectations, so was meant for a potential wider audience.

. . . all of time-space we perceive is "sitting" within a possible "real" reality . . .

Sounds like a high-tech version of Greek mythology with Olympus and the gods being real, and us on earth being viewed as an image on the surface of water in a basin.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

But I was not arguing for a better universe instantaneously created by way of fairy tails or any other process.

I didn't think you were. That was a sort of informational addition for use to differentiate between different religious expectations, so was meant for a potential wider audience.

. . . all of time-space we perceive is "sitting" within a possible "real" reality . . .

Sounds like a high-tech version of Greek mythology with Olympus and the gods being real, and us on earth being viewed as an image on the surface of water in a basin.

edit on 26-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

Well, maybe sort of like a high tech version of Greek mythos, but it is based on empirical evidence and pretty solid theory in experimental quantum entanglement. In my limited three dimensional perception, I would think of the universe like a classical level emulation of a quantum "ball" hovering above some "guy's" desk.

It's like the problem with visualizing wormholes, none of the shows or movies seem to have it right, Sliders has some weird circular vortex, Stargate has a watery disk, etc. Of course it would be pretty boring if Person A walked into Ball A, you see no transition or travel and then Person A walks out of Ball C (you don't get to see Ball B), if matter could even be transitioned across space-time (I haven't figured that one out yet but I don't think it can). I forgot to mention that communication is orthogonal, or inverted in three dimensions, so two communication transitions are required to reproduce the original "image." Fortunately that is not a requirement for simple communications as opposed to matter. In simple communications we invert the signal electronically once it's outside of the "sensor" system. Imagine the hell that would be played out on "living" organic matter through this kind of system, I don't know if I would even want to test something like this on "living" matter due to the possibility of turning things "inside-out" and maybe even multiple times.

Then there is also the problem of the number of transitions during entanglement. One transition, or one entanglement between two quantum emulations is stable. When a third quantum emulation is introduced, the wave function collapses. Therefore, the probability of creating a matter transitioning system is non-zero or very low. I would think this would also apply to a transitioning system between our virtual reality and a real reality as the functions would become even more complex in five dimensions.

Back to 3D transitions... A true wormhole would have to be spherical in order to maintain its event horizon, there has to be a barrier that prevents one section of the universe from being literally "sucked" into another. When we performed our experiments in non-local communications, our transceiver sensors were totally isolated, electrically, magnetically and another way as well from what we perceive as reality and were contained within spherical barriers that could support standing wave generation (classical emulation of quantum structures, for obvious reasons I don't want to give too much information away as this is my "baby" and has been since 1992 when it was funded by NSERC along with my reactor).

I think the same "sucking" (pressure differential) would apply to this virtual reality and a real reality, except that rather than a spherical event horizon for 4D communication, the physical expression would probably have to be five dimensional. Then we come to additional problems in proofs of external realities in that you can only move information via quantum entanglement, rather than the actual "bits" (the problems with matter as I said earlier) through the wormhole, which means that it is improbable that one can move matter through a 4D wormhole, if such a construct even exists. Then there is the problem of a three dimensional virtual reality being, if transition could occur, trying to rationalize or understand a four dimensional real reality once there, that's a hard one.

So the firewalls that the "creator" (mathematician/programmer) has put up between this virtual reality and a real reality are quite complex and at present very hard to understand or visualize. It is interesting work however and can really stretch the limits of understanding especially when the results of experiments in quantum entanglement show the negation of ANY expected speed-of-light propagation delay during communication, which of course supports the theory.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

. . . pretty solid theory in experimental quantum entanglement . . .

I am not trying to ridicule anything in your posts.
I am impressed with it and was doing a very animated "dramatic" reading from your posts on my internet radio show yesterday trying to put across the feeling of how astounding all of this is, meaning your experience of finding these things, along with your conclusions.
I had a guest caller on (Bob from Cincinnati, who has his own radio show, Occult Empire) who I was trying to impress with the caliber of some of the posters on the forum, along with wildtimes, of course.
Anyway, a little off topic, but he said, 'because my name is Bob, I recognize the user name coming from an old saying, "Bob's your uncle", meaning something like, "That is just the way it is"'.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

. . . pretty solid theory in experimental quantum entanglement . . .

I am not trying to ridicule anything in your posts.
I am impressed with it and was doing a very animated "dramatic" reading from your posts on my internet radio show yesterday trying to put across the feeling of how astounding all of this is, meaning your experience of finding these things, along with your conclusions.
I had a guest caller on (Bob from Cincinnati, who has his own radio show, Occult Empire) who I was trying to impress with the caliber of some of the posters on the forum, along with wildtimes, of course.
Anyway, a little off topic, but he said, 'because my name is Bob, I recognize the user name coming from an old saying, "Bob's your uncle", meaning something like, "That is just the way it is"'.

edit on 27-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

I didn't take "bobs_uruncle" for that reason LOL I took it for the sake of small amounts of anonymity. Things may or may not be the way we perceive them even if we gather empirical evidence that we think is real according to our perceptions of our environment.

We cannot know for certain how "it" all works since we cannot validly apply virtual reality based analytical tools, logic and rational to a real reality from within a virtual reality, everything becomes supposition when it comes to the reality outside of the virtual reality.

It's like your sitting inside an opaque ball under zero gravity conditions in perfect darkness and you can reach the edges, feel them, but you can't see outside. So the limits of your knowledge of your environment is what it is, a sphere. There is no way to tell that just outside your system/environment, the grass is green or the sun is shining because you don't know what grass is or what light is, you've always been trapped inside the sphere.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

So the firewalls that the "creator" (mathematician/programmer) has put up between this virtual reality and a real reality are quite complex and at present very hard to understand or visualize.

I realize I am doing nothing but repeating my earlier stated opinion, but I believe that what you are describing is more like a "firewall" against the nothingness.
Everyone's presence has been transferred into the somethigness, once there was someplace to go, then "removing" the nothingness, which never "existed" in the first place. We can actually be someone when we are in the somewhere. When there wasn't a somewhere, we really could not be beings in the classical sense of the word.
I would compare it to something like the plot to the movie Forbidden Planet. You have a world on the surface of the planet, and then this place that might as well be another dimension, that is an underground city with not a soul living in it. When there was people living in it, they created a beast, but now there is not this collective mind anymore which created it, being all gone for whatever reason, and you have this father and daughter living on the surface that can do nothing but to describe the basic circumstances they find themselves in.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

So the firewalls that the "creator" (mathematician/programmer) has put up between this virtual reality and a real reality are quite complex and at present very hard to understand or visualize.

I realize I am doing nothing but repeating my earlier stated opinion, but I believe that what you are describing is more like a "firewall" against the nothingness.
Everyone's presence has been transferred into the somethigness, once there was someplace to go, then "removing" the nothingness, which never "existed" in the first place. We can actually be someone when we are in the somewhere. When there wasn't a somewhere, we really could not be beings in the classical sense of the word.
I would compare it to something like the plot to the movie Forbidden Planet. You have a world on the surface of the planet, and then this place that might as well be another dimension, that is an underground city with not a soul living in it. When there was people living in it, they created a beast, but now there is not this collective mind anymore which created it, being all gone for whatever reason, and you have this father and daughter living on the surface that can do nothing but to describe the basic circumstances they find themselves in.

edit on 28-9-2012 by jmdewey60 because: add Bible quote: "For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God." Romans 8:19

Well, at least we can sort of agree to agree on the firewall aspect, but agree to disagree on what it is keeping out or keeping us from "seeing." Good banter back and forth, I don't find that often without the shills and trolls jumping in to stuff up the subject matter of a thread. However, this is pretty deep thinking-wise and the trolls are usually pretty superficial LOL.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by wildtimes
I was raised in the High Episcopal faith, which is the original "Protestant" church (as a child of the Church of England -- though there is a slight difference between Anglican, High Episcopal, and Episcopal).

Seriously? And here I thought the Lutheran Church was the original protestant church starting in 1517. Not that Episcopal wasn't far behind, but Luther based his objections to Catholicism on theological grounds in his 95 theses, including the selling of indulgences. That was the start of Protestantism.

Henry the VIII just wanted a divorce.

Originally posted by schuyler
Seriously? And here I thought the Lutheran Church was the original protestant church starting in 1517. Not that Episcopal wasn't far behind, but Luther based his objections to Catholicism on theological grounds in his 95 theses, including the selling of indulgences. That was the start of Protestantism.

Henry the VIII just wanted a divorce.

Another way to look at it is that Luther's Reformation (and that which surrounded him,) was a religious one, with political overtones, while Henry's was a political one, with religious overtones.

reply to post by bobs_uruncle

Good banter back and forth . . .

We have entirely different approaches, where yours is practical experimentation, and mine is examining literature, like Plato's Timaeus and Aristotle's Metaphysics.

In my personal reading of the bible I honestly don't understand why this particular topic gets the discussion that it does. It would seem that if a person were to follow the christian faith that the "do I have to do this" to be saved is a moot point. It seems pretty simple from what I have read. Believe, be baptized, and don't be a douche. It's more than sad that people need to follow a form of religion in order to actually want to help others that need it. Or even worse that they do follow a religion and have to wonder if they need to do good things in order to reach the prize at the bottom of the box. If you practice the christian faith then yes, works are part of it. Is it necessary? Sure it is.

You see different examples of salvation in the bible. The dude on the cross didn't do any good works but yet was told he would be saved. Why, because of the circumstances. He was hanging where he was going to die he had no time to do anything. If I have the time in my life from acceptance to death why wouldn't I feel obligated to do good things when I could. Compassion and love are big points in this text so why would one think it isn't a requirement. Just doesn't make any sense to me at all.

I harbor no beliefs. I simply live life the way that feels right. I am a good neighbor to anyone that needs it. I don't care if I loan someone money and they buy drugs with it. I'm still happy to help anyone that asks. I get asked why I don't care and the answer again is simple. If one person out of fifty rests easier because of what I was able to do then the other 49 are irrelevant. I went from moderately wealthy to living on the street to where I am now, just able to get by. But, my life is beautiful and it got that way simply by not worrying about life anymore.

Winter is coming soon. There are a variety of drug addicts and alcoholics in the surrounding mountains near me. Yesterday enough cattle sold at market to cover my main expenses till around march. There is enough left over for gas to clear some trees for firewood for these families off the mountain behind me. It's coming out of pocket and given to them for free knowing they are going to be spending money on crap thats bad for them. But it doesn't matter. They haven't figured life out yet. They may never get it straight and thats ok too. It's just another person that needs something. It should be simple to understand for a christian or any of faith. It's just as simple for me without that faith.

reply to post by drivers1492


I believe your heart understands the idea perfectly. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Very eloquent and touching.

If I can stop one heart from breaking,
I shall not live in vain;
If I can ease one life the aching,
Or cool one pain,
Or help one fainting robin
Unto his nest again,
I shall not live in vain.

--Emily Dickinson

That ^^ is how I see it, religion and faith notwithstanding. To live one's life with compassion and generosity, and thus reflect whatever Divine dwells within and around us, does not require either faith, nor religion, in my view.

reply to post by schuyler


Yes, Schuyler, you are correct, Luther did make noise; but actually, Luther wasn't the first one, either. The Orthodox were the first to split off from Rome in the 11th century.

The name "Anglican" means "of England", but the Anglican church exists worldwide. It began in the sixth century in England, when Pope Gregory the Great sent St. Augustine to Britain to bring a more disciplined Apostolic succession to the Celtic Christians. The Anglican Church evolved as part of the Roman church, but the Celtic influence was folded back into the Roman portion of the church in many ways, perhaps most notably by Charlemagne's tutor Aidan. The Anglican church was spread worldwide first by English colonization and then by English-speaking missionaries.

The Anglican church, although it has apostolic succession, is separate from the Roman church. The history of Christianity has produced numerous notable separations. In 1054 came the first major split from Roman administration of the church, when the Eastern Orthodox church and the Roman split apart.

The conflict of authority in England between church and state certainly dates back to the arrival of Augustine, and has simmered for many centuries. The murder of Thomas a Becket was one of the more famous episodes of this conflict. The Magna Carta, signed by King John in 1215, contains 63 points; the very first point is a declaration that the English church is independent of its government..

anglican.org...

I'm sorry for not being more careful with my terminology. Thanks for pointing that out.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Good banter back and forth . . .

We have entirely different approaches, where yours is practical experimentation, and mine is examining literature...

Yes, our approaches are different, whether they yield the same results are questionable. Although I do enjoy books for the examination of other people's ideas, they are still coloured by the author's interpretations/perceptions (which is fine) and/or the victor's demands (which must be recognized). I wrote a book about military and government corruption, that doesn't mean it is factual even if it is, just because it's on paper (or papyrus/vellum/cow skin) or even if all the evidence exists (which I might not be able to show for legal reasons).

It comes down to proofs and credibility, in this case proof of history and/or proof of "reality." I would prefer to have a good idea of the way things are based on what I have personally analyzed rather than what a book will tell me to believe. As far as credibility, most mainstream "religions" have none, however, I would say Buddhists are pretty credible as they generally practice what preach, self awareness, self enlightenment, respect everything, harm nothing and try to achieve inner peace. Seems a better way than how these mainstream churches extort money through imagined fear and simply being a bunch of hypocrites breeding a bunch more hypocrites. I could tell you some personal stories about the hypocrites as well LOL.

But in the end, it all comes down to personal preference since there is no objectivity in a subjective virtual reality.

Cheers - Dave