God is our witness in quantum mechanics

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

Further, it's ire and seething snarkiness towards any and all arguments in favor of God, and it's contemptuous bias prior to any investigation or consideration, is quite pathetic,

Hey, I'm all for god/God, but when you start throwing things around like "sin" and "hell" it becomes a whole new ball game with its inhumane power tripping.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Math is evidence

Math is abstract.
Visualize the square root of 2. Not so easy.
Visualize zero or infinity.
Abstract

There are articles of faith in math.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: chr0naut

As in the world, there are gods and Gods. We allow them to arise and allow them to decline. For example a Christian doesn't invoke Thor, so depending on the faith of the Christians towards a common goal their god may grant them their boon.

Your definition of God seems dependent on belief, yet any 'creator God' must necessarily pre-exist any believers.

So therefore your definition is not rationally valid.

Many do this, they paint a cartoonish picture of their concept of god (like "sky fairy" or something similar) and then ridicule it. Of course such images are ridiculous. But the analogy does not disprove or denigrate God by any means, it only shows the stupidity of the one who suggests such nonsense about God.

Similarly, all definitions of temporally bound beings as Gods or gods, have fatal flaws in reasoning.

a reply to: chr0naut

At a earlier point in my life I had come to believe that there was a reality more real then what we are experiencing in the here and now . The OP's vid lays it out quite well in a scientific way I hadn't imagined possible but kept looking . Faith or faith is a incredible thing once you are inside it .

a reply to: chr0naut

As you believe so you will receive - keep a closed mind. I'm having more fun with my gods.

I have never considered my god as a sky fairy. I do consider the Jehovah the demiurge however.

Its all good however; god called for circumcision and then Paul the Roman apologist devalued gods word, making it all inclusive, to make the Roman Christian Empire that still controls Christian thought today. St James saw the false teaching,

......God' must necessarily pre-exist any believers. So therefore your definition is not rationally valid.

I could start discussing how we are gods, the Higher Self et al, but it would not really persuade you to look for yourself.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: chr0naut

As you believe so you will receive - keep a closed mind. I'm having more fun with my gods.

No you aren't. You struggle and toil like everyone else, but self-gratification, even in giving to others, is never enough justification for existence.

You are missing out on the potentials that you were specifically created for. You weren't a random accident. You were built specifically to fulfill desires which God has and has planned out for you.

Until you acknowledge your purposes under God, you will never achieve your heart's deepest desires. Your higher purpose (or purposes) are the best you can be. You were made for them.

I have never considered my god as a sky fairy. I do consider the Jehovah the demiurge however.

Even in Gnosticism and Platonism, the demiurge itself is not "the one" or "monad", but, philosophically, is simply another creation, like yourself. It is a little 'g' god and suffers the same rational flaws as other 'creations as god'.

Nor is YHVH a negative and material world linked being such as the demiurge. That philosophy would see the stern disciplining assertions of a parent to a child as unloving and uncaring and is indicative of the childishness of the philosophy.

Its all good however; god called for circumcision and then Paul the Roman apologist devalued gods word, making it all inclusive, to make the Roman Christian Empire that still controls Christian thought today. St James saw the false teaching,

No, Paul never suggested that circumcision of Jewish boys should stop. He suggested that it was not fit for non-Jews to pretend Jewishness so as to appear devout and that such legalistic actions denigrated Christ's sacrifice, as if one could achieve salvation by their own actions.

In fact, it was Simon Peter who first spoke out clearly about un-circumcision of gentiles, not Paul, as recorded in Acts 15: 7-41.

......God' must necessarily pre-exist any believers. So therefore your definition is not rationally valid.

I could start discussing how we are gods, the Higher Self et al, but it would not really persuade you to look for yourself.

We aren't particularly god-like as far as I can tell. Your reasoning has logical contradictions and does not display any more intellect than most people, and I do dumb stuff, and have imperfect knowledge, all the time. We may be god-like in some aspects but we aren't gods by a long shot.

And, in all truth, we are physically mortal. Surely a deity would have more than four score years and ten?

And, in regard to our higher selves, we cannot achieve anything like God can achieve in us. God's plan for us is to become something 'above the angels', with linked minds and spirits, unencumbered by guilt, fear, blame or pain, and definitely more god-like than we now are.

You can sit and meditate (or medicate) forever and you'd die, as mortal as the Buddha.

a reply to: chr0naut

No you aren't.

Yes I am. I don't need a christ for atonement because of some twisted vicarious sin from Adam. I don't need a god to bring meaning into my life. Did the existential stuff when young read Descartes Camus. Read the early church fathers.

I'm sure I wasn't a random accident - in fact my parent's told me they loved me - and if re-incarnation is true I chose this body to be here and argue philosophy with you.

Nor is YHVH a negative and material world linked being such as the demiurge. That philosophy would see the stern disciplining assertions of a parent to a child as unloving and uncaring and is indicative of the childishness of the philosophy.

Of course Jehovah is - bi-polar at least. An untrustworthy enemy of Gods creations. There is YHVH and there is "The Lord" in the Old Testament - 2 distinct characters. Plenty of sources expand on that.

No, Paul never suggested that circumcision of Jewish boys should stop. He suggested that it was not fit for non-Jews to pretend Jewishness so as to appear devout and that such legalistic actions denigrated Christ's sacrifice, as if one could achieve salvation by their own actions.

So Paul didn't want gentiles in the flock? I see we must have studied different bibles.

We aren't particularly god-like as far as I can tell

Its not my place or problem for "far as you can tell." If you have limited experience in other practice or spirituality who am I to put you on another path. Thats between you and your inner guide or higher self.

You can sit and meditate (or medicate) forever and you'd die, as mortal as the Buddha.

You can sit in deep prayer and ask god for clarification as you study your scriptures. Doesn't mean you won't be pleasantly surprised in the next life.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: chr0naut

Yes I am. I don't need a christ for atonement because of some twisted vicarious sin from Adam.

We are not condemned for Adam's sin, that is not Biblical. That is an accusation that the early Gnostics attempted against Christianity and was examined and later rebutted by Iraneus, Cassian and Augustine of Hippo.

In the Bible, where it refers to "Adam's sin" it is usually a euphemism for the sin of mankind in general. As a member of 'mankind' you have your own sins; "We’ve compiled this long and sorry record as sinners ... and proved that we are utterly incapable of living the glorious lives God wills for us". Romans 3:23 (The Message version).

Paul's use of "the sin of Adam" is again clearly as a euphemism for all individual human's sins and this is contrasted against the sacrificial redemption of Christ. As Paul explained it: "Just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive".

Paul clearly states there that all have sinned, they are condemned by their own sin, not by Adam's. But Jesus' redemption was from ALL sin, not just a particular sin (or sins) of Adam or by any other specific person.

The concept of ancestral fault or original sin actually originates in Greek philosophy, not Christianity and was first expounded by Celsus in his work "True Doctrine", which was an attack against early Christianity.

I don't need a god to bring meaning into my life. Did the existential stuff when young read Descartes Camus

You think, therefore you are (you think?)!



Of course this is an invalid line of reasoning because the set of all things that exist has a majority of members that do not think. It is circular illogic to distract you from considering that the statement is meaningless in actuality.

. Read the early church fathers.

I'm sure I wasn't a random accident - in fact my parent's told me they loved me - and if re-incarnation is true I chose this body to be here and argue philosophy with you.

Reincarnation does not imply that you have any choice over who you will be. Karma predicates against that. According to most philosophies that involve reincarnation, you get what you deserve, not what you choose, in a cyclic existence of life forms and personalities.

This leads to further philosophical conundrums as to who or what does determine 'what you deserve'. Surely that requires intellect and a common ethical value system on behalf of the decider but, for instance, Buddhism does not mandate the existence of the very deistic entities it requires to operate its system?

Nor is reincarnation an anti-Christian philosophy. The Bible is full of death and resurrection, even of all humans that have ever existed, describing it in terms of Platonic metempsychosis (or putting an old spirit into a new body).

Of course Jehovah is - bi-polar at least. An untrustworthy enemy of Gods creations. There is YHVH and there is "The Lord" in the Old Testament - 2 distinct characters. Plenty of sources expand on that.

It only appears like that if you hold to the ridiculous documentary hypothesis, which has people redacting sentences over each other's shoulder.

There are many times in the original Hebrew where it says YHWH is Adonai (plural of Lord) or YHWH is Elohim (plural of God), similarly there are places that define clearly that YHWH is a personal name and both Adonai and Elohim are titles which is why "YHWH Elohim" and "YHWH Adonai" are commonly used in the Bible.

The confusion between the titles and the personal name was largely due to translations, such as the King James version, which reduced the words Elohim, YHWH and Adonai down to the English word,"Lord" instead of keeping the original nuances. The reason for this is probably that, during King James time, no one believed that anyone could confuse the what were clearly titles, with the name (for example, they understood that king James was a 'king' in title and was named 'James').

So Paul didn't want gentiles in the flock? I see we must have studied different bibles.

No, Paul was the "Apostle to the gentiles" as described the letter authored by Peter, James and Bartholomew. Paul didn't want gentiles to pretend to be Jewish because being Christian was not a 'national' attribute. Christianity is inclusive and open to all nationalities.

Its not my place or problem for "far as you can tell." If you have limited experience in other practice or spirituality who am I to put you on another path. Thats between you and your inner guide or higher self.

I am not a spiritual schizophrenic and compartmentalized like that.

You can sit in deep prayer and ask god for clarification as you study your scriptures. Doesn't mean you won't be pleasantly surprised in the next life.

I am assured from my study of the Bible that I will be pleasantly surprised in the next life.

a reply to: chr0naut

Reincarnation does not imply that you have any choice over who you will be. Karma predicates against that. According to most philosophies that involve reincarnation, you get what you deserve, not what you choose, in a cyclic existence of life forms and personalities.

That is your opinion. What I have studied and what I have seen and what has happened in my life defines a different reality to me.

I am not a spiritual schizophrenic and compartmentalized like that.

How did you come to that statement based my post's?

a reply to: chr0naut
The sin that every man has is the 'original sin' - which is the first mistake - it is missing the mark (archery).
Every man misses this moment of presence because thoughts cannot speak of this moment - thought is time. Thought speaks and says 'I did this' or I will do that'. Thought misses the fact that now is what there IS.
There is only what there is - which is now - what is happening is what there is.
There is nothing separate. The belief that you are separate is the original sin.

No appearance can appear without the seeing of it. All that is appearing, including the body you believe yourself to be and the thoughts and sensations, are seen at the same time that they are appearing.
The father (the seeing/knowing) and son (the appearance) are one - not two.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: chr0naut

How did you come to that statement based my post's?

Your assumption is that I am somehow disunited into separate components of my current "conscious self", my "higher self" and "inner guide".

In truth, if it isn't me, then it isn't me, it is that simple. I have no issues with 'parts of me' that I somehow don't even know about.

If you have a separate being or beings to your self 'advising you', perhaps they are not your highers self or inner advisor, but are demonic and are deceiving you.

There is much in ancient writings that indicates that this sort of thing is a common occurrence.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut
The sin that every man has is the 'original sin' - which is the first mistake - it is missing the mark (archery).
Every man misses this moment of presence because thoughts cannot speak of this moment - thought is time. Thought speaks and says 'I did this' or I will do that'. Thought misses the fact that now is what there IS.
There is only what there is - which is now - what is happening is what there is.
There is nothing separate. The belief that you are separate is the original sin.

No appearance can appear without the seeing of it. All that is appearing, including the body you believe yourself to be and the thoughts and sensations, are seen at the same time that they are appearing.
The father (the seeing/knowing) and son (the appearance) are one - not two.

The sins that each individual has are those which they alone have committed. That is the truth of what the Bible says.

The idea that someone stands accused of a crime committed by someone else entirely, is unjust as it is un-Biblical.

originally posted by: chr0naut
The sins that each individual has are those which they alone have committed. That is the truth of what the Bible says.

The idea that someone stands accused of a crime committed by someone else entirely, is unjust as it is un-Biblical.

It is just an idea that there is a separate someone. That idea is the 'original sin'.

I am not saying someone stands accused of a crime 'someone' else committed - there isn't anyone. There is only ever what is happening - and what is happening is simply just happening - no separate person did anything.

That which is seeing, is seeing now - that which is seen, is seen now. The seer and seen are one.

Are you saying that 'The Father and Son' are not one?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

originally posted by: chr0naut
The sins that each individual has are those which they alone have committed. That is the truth of what the Bible says.

The idea that someone stands accused of a crime committed by someone else entirely, is unjust as it is un-Biblical.

It is just an idea that there is a separate someone. That idea is the 'original sin'.

I am not saying someone stands accused of a crime 'someone' else committed - there isn't anyone. There is only ever what is happening - and what is happening is simply just happening - no separate person did anything.

Why even suggest that "what is happening" has any distinctness? Surely you can ignore temporality too and suggest that what is, just is?

You see if there is no time, no space, no matter, no personhood, it's all just a dot of meaningless, action-less existence-lessness.

That which is seeing, is seeing now - that which is seen, is seen now. The seer and seen are one.

The object which is seen reflects or radiates photons of electromagnetic energy. These photons traverse spatial distances between the object which is seen and the observer. One cannot 'see' something which does not have a spatial distance between the observed and the detector. A detector that detects itself would be useless because we also know and trust that the detector exists (we have to to trust that it detects). The seer and the seen must necessarily be separate.

Are you saying that 'The Father and Son' are not one?

Firstly, you are mis-quoting from a mis-translation. What was said was that the Father and Son are unified/united or 'of one another' (Strong's Greek: 240. ἀλλήλων (allélón) not a cardinal number '1' (Strong's Greek: 1520. εἷς (heis).

But, by implication if you can smudge out the meaning like that, isn't it like saying that the Father and Son have sinned because they are part of everything else (the sinful world)? And we know that the world is sinful and contains sinful beings because God told us so.

Of course there are specific differences between things. The "all is one" concept is obviously debunked because we can objectively discern differences between things.

Pauli exclusion is one particular statement of the different-ness of things in science.

God, and you, and I, and a house brick, and a chair are all observably different. Different matter, different consciousness (or unconsciousness), different spatial and temporal metrics/coordinates, different intellect, different philosophically, different rationally, different spirit, different soul and different capabilities.

So the "all is one" exists as nothing more than a concept that is immediately disproved by the most trivial means.

a reply to: chr0naut

The object which is seen reflects or radiates photons of electromagnetic energy. These photons traverse spatial distances between the object which is seen and the observer. One cannot 'see' something which does not have a spatial distance between the observed and the detector. A detector that detects itself would be useless because we also know and trust that the detector exists (we have to to trust that it detects). The seer and the seen must necessarily be separate.

So what about when dreaming is happening?
Is the dream and the dreamer separate?
Is there any distance between the seen object and the seer in a dream?

Can it be proven that 'this that is' (what is) is nothing but dreaming (no dream and no dreamer)?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: chr0naut

The object which is seen reflects or radiates photons of electromagnetic energy. These photons traverse spatial distances between the object which is seen and the observer. One cannot 'see' something which does not have a spatial distance between the observed and the detector. A detector that detects itself would be useless because we also know and trust that the detector exists (we have to to trust that it detects). The seer and the seen must necessarily be separate.

So what about when dreaming is happening?
Is the dream and the dreamer separate?
Is there any distance between the seen object and the seer in a dream?

Can it be proven that 'this that is' (what is) is nothing but dreaming (no dream and no dreamer)?

Are you seeing when you dream?

We are creating images when we dream. They exist entirely within our brains and we may mold them to our will (lucid directed dreaming). That is not 'seeing'.

Does a television or computer 'see' what it creates on its display?