Who Is Gawd?

[Xicano]

What I believe:

Gawd is not some mythological super being in the sky and there is no such thing as the Devil. Gawd is universal consciousness. Everything in the universe is made up of energy, and, all energy has spirit (consciousness). Matter (here in the physical dimension) is simply large amounts of energy densely condensed to the point where its perceived as solid even though the majority of it is empty space.

So everything, every little speck of the universe is energy and all energy has a form of spirit. Therefore Gawd (the Creator) is the sum of all consciousness. This means Gawd is both positive and negative, good and evil, dark and light. Christians, IMO, contradict themselves when they separate their idea of God from their idea of the Devil and then turn around and proclaim themselves as monotheistic. Christians are not monotheistic they are henotheistic. There are other examples as written in their Bible using plural terms in the context of henotheism, but, that's a different subject.

Where does your spirit reside if it doesn't reside in any one or group of molecules which make up your body? If you believe it does reside in your body's molecules, then, how do you explain that not one atom in your body today was there ten years ago, and, every atom which was in your body ten years ago is not there today?

Your consciousness is not inseparable from your body. Your body is just a solid vehicle to provide a place for your developing consciousness. The physical dimension is the equivalent of a placenta for developing consciousness. Given that your consciousness is not inseparable from your body allows experiencing the higher dimensions (the spirit world) through transcendental states of consciousness. There are various means to achieve this state. Hallucinogenic drugs done properly are but one method capable of sneaking a peek.

Break on through to the other side. Have a nice trip...

[donco6]

1. And don't forget, it still hates gay people.

It's the universal constant.

:)

Just teasing - actually, I'm pretty close to you.

[Toasterlad]

22. +1

[Mari333]

2. re8d this....

'Trying to understand the atom, physicists built quantum mechanics and found, to their embarrassment, that their theory intimately connects consciousness with the physical world. Quantum Enigma explores what that implies and why some founders of the theory became the foremost objectors to it. Schrödinger showed that it “absurdly” allowed a cat to be in a “superposition” simultaneously dead and alive. Einstein derided the theory’s “spooky interactions.” With Bell’s theorem, we now know Schrödinger’s superpositions and Einstein’s spooky interactions indeed exist.

Authors Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner explain all of this in non-technical terms with help from some fanciful stories and bits about the theory’s developers. They present the quantum mystery honestly, with an emphasis on what is and what is not speculation.

Physics’ encounter with consciousness is its skeleton in the closet. Because the authors open the closet and examine the skeleton, theirs is a controversial book. Quantum Enigma’s description of the experimental quantum facts and the quantum theory explaining them is, however, undisputed. It’s interpreting what it means that’s controversial.'







http://quantumenigma.com/

i just re8d it.

[Xicano]

13. Thanks for the link Mari333

:toast:

[Mari333]

16. k /r

:hi:

[teranchala]

18. Thing is, most esoteric physics (beyond F=MA) is pseudoscientific bullshit.

It gives a few people with a gift of gab, a smattering of actual knowledge and a vastly overinflated sense of self the chance to sound erudite...and of course nobody can challenge them because those nobodies don't know the zecrets.

99.99% of it is imagination, 0.01% is rational.

[Mari333]

23. .......

Bruce Rosenblum is professor of physics and former chair of the Physics Department at the University of California at Santa Cruz. For a decade before coming to Santa Cruz he was a researcher and research manager for a large electronics company. He has consulted extensively for government and industry on technical and policy issues. His research has moved from molecular physics to condensed matter physics, and, after a foray into biophysics, has focused on fundamental issues in quantum mechanics


Fred Kuttner

After a career in industry that included two technology startups, and a second career in academic administration, Fred Kuttner devotes most of his time to teaching physics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. His research interests have included the low temperature properties of solids and the thermal properties of magnets. For the last several years he has worked on the foundations of quantum mechanics and the implications of the quantum theory.













http://quantumenigma.com/about-the-authors/


solid .

[teranchala]

24. Indeed. He is in the .01%

No disagreement here. :D

[Xicano]

33. How do you explain the double slit experiment?

The experiment where electron particles are fired one at a time at a double slit, but, besides being particles, produce a wave interference pattern when the experiment is not being closely observed and produce a non interference particle pattern when the experiment is being closely observed?

What is your explanation on how is it the mind and its very act of viewing could completely change the outcome of this experiment if its thoughts (like everything else in the universe) are not made up of this universal energy?

How can thought have an effect on matter? Under traditional physics this should be utterly impossible, but, yet, there it is for all to observe in a laboratory experiment. How do you account for this with traditional physics?

I am only asking out of curiosity not facetiousness. I am curious as to what your rational is for this experiment.

[Silent3]

41. First of all, a lack of explanation doesn't mean...

...that you get to fill in whatever we don't know with whatever fear or fancy you want to use as filler material for the gaps in human knowledge.

Secondly, you don't need a human directly "observing" the double-slit experiment for the interference patterns to show up. Set the experiment up, leave the room, and come back hours later, there the interference pattern will be. And it will be there regardless of whether the person walking into the room even knows that two slits were open instead of one while the experiment was running. How is this supposed to be the human mind "creating reality", or some such nonsense?

You could say that there's a complicated system of wave functions which doesn't "collapse" until a person walks into the room and checks the results, but you could also say that the first person who enters the room is just another set of uncollapsed wave functions and the system doesn't collapse until another person asks her what she saw. Or another person asks that person. And so on and so on.

You can imagine that you are the center of the universe, and nothing at all happens one particular way or another until YOU find out about it.

And even if you buy that unsupported wild speculation, there's still nothing to support the idea the your particular thoughts have anything to do with the outcome, and certainly not in any systematic way that translates the human import of particular thoughts to outcomes.

If you could control the flip of a coin by firing an even number of neurons in your brain for heads, and an odd number for tails, would you have any idea what to think about the control the coin? Is there any particular reason that thinking "HEADS! HEADS! HEADS!" would fire the right number of neurons?

Sure, QM leads to plenty of interesting philosophical questions. It doesn't, however, lead to any particular philosophical answers. QM certainly doesn't support, doesn't come anywhere close to supporting, anything like the idea of the mind being separate from the body, immortality, psychic phenomena, or any other wooery that plays off QM with no experimental validation to back it up.

[Xicano]

34. A few books I enjoyed:

[laconicsax]

43. That pseudoscience has led to some pretty impressive things.

A good example would be the computer you used to make your post.

Quite an achievement for pseudo-scientific bullshit. :eyes:

[annabanana]

32. just sent for my copy. . . . n/t

[timeforpeace]

3. Or an excuse for human beings to do horrendous things to other human beings and blame it on a being

that lives in the sky. Either way...

[kentuck]

4. Heavy...

Sounds so.....Buddhist. :-)

[asdjrocky]

5. Dude. Hit, then pass.

[flamin lib]

6. The Flying Spaghetti Monster works for me, but then

I know I'm wrong. Whatever floats yer boat as long as it doesn't hurt you or the people around you is fine with me.

It's only when people have an absolute lock on truth that they do damage to humanity.

[TexasObserver]

7. The word is "GOD." Why are some reluctant to use it?

What is it about the word "Gawd" that makes it better?

Isn't it silly to refuse to use the word that means GOD?

I don't know if there is a God or not, and neither does anyone else.

God is a word used to describe things that one cannot yet understand as science. I'm always amused, however, with those who presume to understand and explain God, if there is one.

[angstlessk]

10. because the word 'God' give you* an immediate indentity to your deity

by using a foreign word it does not give you an automatic place from which to retrieve your definition of YOUR gawd.

*by you I mean anyone who has a preconceived idea of their own religious God

[TexasObserver]

14. GOD means the same thing as GAWD. It's an imaginary character the writer employs.

Given that there are many, many beliefs of what constitutes GOD, depending on the emotional needs or delusions of the speaker or writer, using the term GOD is hardly constrictive.

There may be a God or Gods, or there may be no God. Changing the spelling is silly. It seems to be used by those who have some superstition about using the term GOD.

[Xicano]

15. Thanks TexasObserver

Yes, you're correct. Another way to see my spelling of the word Gawd as opposed to using God is simple. Why do rightwing nut jobs spell California as Kalifornia? Why do we Democrats spell Bush as Shrub, Bushco, Bushler, etc?

For one of the same reasons why I spell my DU name Xicano instead of Chicano. Its to un-identify one's self with a system or construct one dislikes and/or disagrees with.


:hi:

[TexasObserver]

36. Ok, but I haven't heard anyone use Chicano in a long time.

Hispanic or Latino/Latina being favored these days.

[teranchala]

26. It's like how people say "gosh darn it", assuming Jebus won't have a clue what it actually

means. Or would if he hadn't been dead for 2000 years...


:eyes:

[TexasObserver]

38. That's the one that I perceive to be in play, more often than not.

[Iggo]

25. I've always seen the spelling "gawd" as a deliberate...

...attempt to ridicule the stereotypical TV preachers of my youth. You know the ones. They say jesus with like four syllables. Je-EE-zus-uh!

Anyway, that's how I read the word "gawd". And it pleases me to do so.

[TexasObserver]

37. That makes sense. Je-EE-zus-uh approves this message.

[dorkulon]

8. Wow, your unfounded mystical claptrap is much more convincing than the traditional variety!

I am persuaded! Sincerely, a moron.

[Odin2005]

9. God is Dead.

YAWN

[cynatnite]

11. I'm sure hallucinogenic drugs will make you see anything you want. n/t

[teranchala]

27. Indeed...and some you don't want to.

;-)

[Xicano]

12. Oh, I forgot to add:

Its a little off topic because I don't mean for this to be a snipe at someone else's beliefs. So my apologies ahead of time if this offends you. Its not meant to.

It is of my opinion that the Christian religion is inherently an evil religion. The reason is because thoughts like everything else in the universe are made up of energy, and, on a conscious level positive energy attracts positive energy and negative energy attracts negative energy. So since Christianity is based upon fear (God fearing Christians), and, since fear is a negative energy. Christianity, therefore IMO, is a religion based on negative energy - and thus inherently evil.

[RagAss]

29. Yup.... I think I knew that inherently at age 12 !

[Thickasabrick]

17. Cool picture. Interesting theory. n/t

[orwell]

19. God is a vegetarian shoe salesman in Yonkers...

...and boy is she pissed.

[Toasterlad]

20. Get a Haircut!

[Iggo]

21. Yer mom.

At least that's how it was at my house.

[Fire1]

28. This is in the wrong forum. n/t

[timtom]

30. +1

[Meshuga]

31. Bible containing henotheism does not make Christianity henotheistic

Henotheistic nature is a record of what the religion of the Hebrews once was. Nothing more than that. Judaism moved to the idea of oneness and Chritianity have the Holy Trinity.

Henotheism is not something practiced to call it Christian. It is just something that once existed and transformed to what we see today.

[Xicano]

35. Just the very notion of believing in God + Devil is henotheistic

Not to mention about Gods (plural) in the book of Genesis. Like "We" created man in "Our" imagine, etc.?

Some people might like to point out that Genesis is old testament or that Judaism moved to the idea of oneness, but, this isn't true if Christians and Judaism still use the book of Genesis which they both still do. And since in both religions the Bible is considered the word of God and that God is perfect. Then they cannot cherry pick out texts they dislike and only keep the ones they do like and still consider themselves Christian or Judaism, nor can they consider their God as perfect.

Either they have to admit that their book is not the word of God and why it isn't perfect which then makes them one out of many cults, or, they have to accept their book as being the word of God which then means they are not monotheistic and probably living in sin with respect to their religion because they probably do eat pork, work on Sundays, fornicate, etc, etc. :)

[JerseygirlCT]

39. Couple of things:

In Christian theology, the "Word of God" refers to Jesus, the Christ. The Bible certainly contains teachings of Christ, and much more. But Christians who have turned to worshipping a book have missed the boat.

And not all Christians believe in the devil, or even in the idea of hell. Just so you know.

[Meshuga]

40. I agree with the devil part

Christianity may have the Devil and I agree that is henotheistic. But you would have to attribute that to a Christian who believes in the Devil, angels, demons, or whatever. There are those who don't believe in the Devil.

Judaism does not use the book of genesis as a historical account of anything and it does not take the words of it literally for belief. Genesis is part of Torah and Torah is a guide for Jews to follow mitzvot and not to tell them what to believe. Except when it comes to believing in one of the explicit commandments in the bible which is a commandment "to believe in the one god".

If you pick up a chumash (that has commentaries) you see the acknowledgment that perhaps there was henotheism in one form or another on the part of the ancient Hebrews. But what was believed then is foreign to Rabbinical Judaism which gives focus to the twofold law. Not to belief.

[ZombieHorde]

42. "Gawd is universal consciousness."

What do you mean by "universal consciousness?"

"all energy has spirit (consciousness)"

So, if I turn up the thermostat in my home, do I increase the consciousness in my home since heat is energy?

"So everything, every little speck of the universe is energy and all energy has a form of spirit. Therefore Gawd (the Creator) is the sum of all consciousness. This means Gawd is both positive and negative, good and evil, dark and light."

We all ready have a word for this, that word is "everything." Why confuse the issue by calling everything "Gawd?"

"Where does your spirit reside if it doesn't reside in any one or group of molecules which make up your body?"

If you are using the word "spirit" in place of the already established word "consciousness", then I would say that conscious is the result of specific chemical reactions. Conscious is not an object, it is a result.

[TheCentepedeShoes]

44. The singing/dancing

frog in the WB cartoon