lmao!!!


Inanna was the first diety worshipped as a GODDESS


back in the days when god was a woman 35,000BC


hey Miguel!! good work!!

Congrats, Miguel!

Innana banana!!!!

the walker is a zombie now

‘Solid, as in solid matter?!?!?’


‘massage’ wrote:

1. “… When I claim that something doesn't exist, I prefer to have in mind a specific concept of what it is which doesn't exist. Finally we are getting to the meat of yours, which is:

2. >>> Solids were constituted in our understanding of it, as separate and 'distinct' entities. Exclusive and well boxed separates so to speak.

3. If this is what it takes for something to be 'solid', then the universe is full of solid matter!”

‘Massage’ you quoted my line (2) out of context. It is not describing MY definition of ‘solids’, but quite to the contrary describing how we humans as a whole, currently think of solids, as separate, culturally founded on incomplete and inaccurate observations (illusions), and thus ‘we’ common mortals, collectively subscribe to an inaccurate orthodoxy and perception, through which we conceive ‘our truth’ of ‘our world’ as separate, which is unverifiable and most possibly false.

Looking for solid matter at micro physical scales, no solid matter (particles) were found.
Intermittently 'cloud-like' flashing electron instead, and distinct only in their identifiable distributed probability.

Philosophy first, then science arguing for the ‘separate’ notion of the universe to be arguably FALSE, or not verifiable.

‘MASSAGE’, you further wrote:

‘…I think its sloppy speaking, which can lead to sloppy thinking, to making such a sweeping statement "No such thing as solids."

Given that it might have been directed at me (almost being labeled a charlatan for suggesting that ‘Solids don’t exist as solid matter…’ close to being burned at the bush as a heretic for going against the orthodoxy :) , I submit the following, against my better judgment, to satisfy your ‘highjacking’ insistence :) :

Quantum mechanics, first as a hypothesis and later as a theory, has proven to be extremely successful in predicting experimental results, hence the high degree of scientific confidence placed in it. Many scientists have reason to believe that it is an incomplete theory, though, as its predictions hold true more at micro physical scales than at macroscopic dimensions, but nevertheless it is a tremendously useful theory in explaining and predicting the interactions of particles and atoms.

Electrons in atoms exist in “clouds” of distributed probability, not as discrete chunks of matter orbiting the nucleus like tiny satellites, as common illustrations of atoms show.

This radical view of electrons as imprecise clouds at first seems to contradict the original principle of quantized electron states: that electrons exist in discrete, defined “orbits” around atomic nuclei. It was, after all, this discovery that led to the formation of quantum theory to explain it.

‘… How odd it seems that a theory developed to explain the discrete behavior of electrons ends up declaring that electrons exist as “clouds” rather than as discrete pieces of matter.’

However, the quantized behavior of electrons does not depend on electrons having definite position and momentum values, but rather on other properties called quantum numbers. In essence, quantum mechanics dispenses with commonly held notions of absolute position and absolute momentum, and replaces them with absolute notions of a sort having no analogue in common experience.

Even though electrons are known to exist in ethereal, “cloud-like” forms of distributed probability rather than as discrete chunks of matter, those “clouds” have other characteristics that are discrete.
Any electron in an atom can be described by four numerical measures, called the Principal, Angular Momentum, Magnetic, and Spin numbers.
Individual electrons around an atomic nucleus seek unique “states,” described by four quantum numbers: the Principal Quantum Number, known as the shell; the Angular Momentum Quantum Number, known as the subshell; the Magnetic Quantum Number, describing the orbital (subshell orientation); and the Spin Quantum Number, or simply spin. These states are quantized, meaning that no “in-between” conditions exist for an electron other than those states that fit into the quantum numbering scheme.

Solid as a descriptive concept, like love, to describe a particular ‘cloud-like’ arrangement of say, water (liquid), versus a distinct ‘cloud-like’ arrangement of let’s say, wood (solid), or hydrogen (gas). But not a verifiable ‘solid’, as in observable separate solid matter.

Hopefully, we will get back to the essence of this conversation :) :
'WHAT IS TRUE',
... given that what we have been holding as true: solid, separate, is being demonstrated as false, and,
... what we have never considered as physically ‘real’, being one and unified ‘in’ the universe with all and everything, is arguably true. Again, I suggest this is our contemporary ‘flat-earth’ dilemma!!!

Voil,

You are absolutely correct that I have 'hijacked' my own thread, and I make no apology for that. I -do- emphatically apologize for any failure on my part to not be clear about the domain and purpose of my conversation with you: I do support your unification view on the whole (without reference to physics), and I agree, as you said earlier in the conversation that:

>>> The evolution of 'solids' through science as physical matter with constituting particles, has helped revisit our acquired truths about what 'solid' is.

Your own deeper point and original purpose regarding the consensual nature of what we deem 'true' is undeniable. You are correct. In the course of making that point, you made a casual comment about the beliefs of modern physicist - a comment that I see as unintentionally misleading. I know you are sincere, and I emphatically do not accuse you of being a charlatan!

Thank you for quoting those selected paragraphs of material which was written with greater care, thought, and research than anything science-related written in this thread.

( Miguel, you mentioned taking notes - for the purpose of understanding science (vs philosophy), I would put more attention on that source, rather than this thread -
http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_3/chpt_2/2.html)

The description of "quantized behavior of electrons" is exactly what I was speaking of in describing the separateness of electrons. As this text states, location and position are irrelvant to this kind of separateness. Fermions, unlike boson, in general recognize each other as separate, and respect each others separate energy states. Anyone who is interested in science for science sake will simply accept that modern physicists believe electrons follow the Pauli exclusion principle - people who have a deep commitment to interpreting scientific beliefs to support a particular ideology might not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle

Of course, the electrons can also 'jump' over energy wells, if the distance is small enough - showing once again that our macro-scale concepts of solidness does not apply to matter on that scale.

>>>Solid as a descriptive concept, like love, to describe a particular ‘cloud-like’ arrangement of say, water (liquid), versus a distinct ‘cloud-like’ arrangement of let’s say, wood (solid), or hydrogen (gas). But not a verifiable ‘solid’, as in observable separate solid matter....... given that what we have been holding as true: solid, separate, is being demonstrated as false, and,

You are right, and have been since the beginning of the thread, that there have been things which were held as true, and which were demonstrated as false - like the billiard ball model, and many other models. Thankfully we have moved forward into an explicit statement of the model using probability clouds of electrons (the same model which forms the basis of the electric field interaction theory for our -experience- of the 'solidness' of matter) . I consider this to be a solid step forward - this may be a 'mere semantic issue' to others, but its a serious conceptual issue that means something to me personally. Thank you for elevating the quality of discourse with those quotations.

As far as the notion that science is 'weighing in' on a 'pro unification' stance - you propose a 'flat earth' style paradigm shift in our models of physics can and should be tied to an 'analogous' paradigm shift in our way of relating to each other and the cosmos, right? I hold that it has always been a good idea to consider the possible unity of the cosmos, and unity amongst human beings - regardless of scientific models for reality. Further, I am not so sure its a 'good idea' to tie those notions to closely to the models used by physicists. When it comes to science, old models will continue to get torn down, new models will continue to be constructed - Artgurl's analogy will stand as long as there are people to share the idea.

did you know that there are studies that PROVE that our minds LIE to us? that just because we see and hear things with our own two eyes and ears...we can be deceived.

there was a study done with alternating sound-bursts, given in threes. high, low, high. the groups were sped slowly...high, low, high coming ever quicker. eventually, you hear the lows grouped, with the high not being heard as even a part of the group...your mind automatically groups the like sounds, even though they are NOT together.

having heard this myself, it's quite disconcerting.

and also forgiving

Eljay wrote:
“That God is an inept God to me, and much too small. My idea of God is much too large to fit within the confinds of the universe”

My response to that is simply that you are necessarily jumping to unwarranted conclusions about the nature of the universe. I put no restraints on the universe. That’s entirely your idea. We apparently not only view god differently, but we also view the universe quite differently as well. I put no restraints on the universe.

Eljay wrote:
“However we differ radically in our perception of God.”

Yes we do.

And I certainly have no desire to change your view. I’m simply sharing my views for anyone who might find them interesting. I’m completely comfortable with my holistic view of god and the universe, and I don’t put any restraints on that picture. I have absolute no desire to consider exchanging it for a separate external, and necessarily egotistical, deity. I’ve examined that scenario in more depth than I care to elaborate on and I find it extremely unpalatable and problematic. To me, that is the picture of a god is the one that is full of restraints.

If your happy with that view that’s great. I personally see no attraction in it at all, neither logically nor aesthetically. That picture of a separate fully-conscious being with a master plan for every single individual seems to me to be a very restrictive idea of a god. Moreover, such a god is necessarily a proven failure. A total uncompassionate klutz on more than one occasion. At one point he had to drown every single person that he had plans for and start all over again from with a rag-tag family in a boat full of animals.

I mean, seriously Eljay, to me that picture is so totally pathetic I seriously don’t even wish to discuss it. Such a god would necessarily need to be a complete bumbling idiot. If things were getting out of hand, why not step in early and nip them in the bud? Why wait until the whole world was corrupt and then drown everyone save for one man and his family? It makes no sense at all. That’s my stance on that, and I can assure you that it won’t change.

My view of god is far above anything that has been depicted in folklore. The gods of folklore are terribly restricted in my view. In my view they are nothing more than stories created by the limited imaginations of men.

That’s how I feel about it, and like I say, I’m not going back there. That’s all water over the dam to me.

Your claim that my picture of god is too “small” and "inept" is absurd. It’s completely without merit. If you want to talk about an “inept” god, I think the god depicted in folklore has been proven to be quite inept.

Sorry if this is off topic MT, but when someone suggests that my view of god is too small and inept I feel a need to set the record straight.

There are no limitations placed on god in a pantheistic view. Pantheism encompasses everything that exists without bound. No limitations at all. No artificial boundries or separations. All is one, one is all.

Eljay wrote:
“That God is an inept God to me, and much too small. My idea of God is much too large to fit within the confinds of the universe”

Come on 'Eljay', be a big boy and admit it:
... that wasn't one of your better lines!!!

But, I'm sure Abra has forgiven you, and would agree to give you a chance to redeem yourself I'm sure.

Just rephrase it all, and have your view stand by its big own self.

For me, it is past situations. In a miracle, someone took a rifle and shot point blank at me and miss me and popped off 3-4 seconds later in an angle near me. How can science answer that? Or, when a parent's friends' husband put all his weight on me with a pillow for a whole minute(age5) and I am still alive. Thank Jesus Christ!

Very good point 'Lulu',

We are very ineffective perception machines. Illusions we must sort through for the most part.

... and yet a whole bunch of us go around suggesting
... 'I' KNOW THE TRUTH!!!

Now: 'disconcerting' you say! I find it rather refreshing and encouraging. Sort of reminding us that the 'certainty' auto pilot, killing all presence to life, doesn't cut it for those interested in experiencing and being present to life!!!

I listen to my heart.....First instinct is usually the correct one.

disconcerting in that...no matter how much we pay attention, no matter how open we are to the truth...our perception can STILL be warped.

i've done psych experiments with people...and even primed for observation, there were MANY differences in what each person thought they saw.

however, if we take that and use it to keep an even MORE open mind...and go for data...maybe then we'll dig even deeper into the realm that is truth.

Abra;

If your happy with that view that’s great. I personally see no attraction in it at all, neither logically nor aesthetically. That picture of a separate fully-conscious being with a master plan for every single individual seems to me to be a very restrictive idea of a god.
>>> Yes - I totally agree with you. This "God" that you describe is not the God of the Christian faith. I don't see individuals on this earth as pawns in a giant chess game which is the analogy I am associating with your statement. I don't begrudge you deciding for yourself whatever you want your God to be - that's your call. But what I don't accept is your attempting to define the God that I believe in your terms.

Moreover, such a god is necessarily a proven failure.

*** Of course it is - because to me - the God of this perception doesn't exist. To state that God has a master plan for every individual is to say that He is controlling that individual - which excludes the parameter of free will. God doesn't make the choices for us - He is simply already aware of the choices that will be made.

A total uncompassionate klutz on more than one occasion. At one point he had to drown every single person that he had plans for and start all over again from with a rag-tag family in a boat full of animals.

*** Now - if you were to draw exception to God's having influences over hurricanes - sunami's -tornado's, etc. Than I would have to give pause to consider the concluison to a statement of such. But at the time of the flood - he gave man a way out - then caused it to rain for 40 days and 40 nights. So who was at fault here - the people who laughed at Noah as he built his Ark - or the one who said "Listen up everybody - I feel like covering the earth with water now. Start building your boats"? There's man all over for you - blaming on his boots the fault of his feet.

I mean, seriously Eljay, to me that picture is so totally pathetic I seriously don’t even wish to discuss it.
*** No surprises here. But I'll say it again - you are drawing conclusions about the God I believe in based on your own moral parameters. What I believe I see is your blaming God for man's inability to make the right choices when needed. To me - THAT is a controlling God. And the conclusion I draw is that the pantheistic God that you claim to believe in has all of the attributes of the God you distain. So - I'm not trying to change what you believe - I merely defending the God I believe in from your unsupported bias.

Such a god would necessarily need to be a complete bumbling idiot. If things were getting out of hand, why not step in early and nip them in the bud? Why wait until the whole world was corrupt and then drown everyone save for one man and his family? It makes no sense at all. That’s my stance on that, and I can assure you that it won’t change.
*** So - please tell me - what your God would have done? Change the rules a little so everyone would be happy?

Voil;

"“That God is an inept God to me, and much too small. My idea of God is much too large to fit within the confinds of the universe”

Come on 'Eljay', be a big boy and admit it:
... that wasn't one of your better lines!!!

*** Yeah.... not my best - was it. So let me re-fraz. Since God is spirit - and the universe is "materialistic" - or made of matter - however one wants to define it - liquid - gas - solid - solid but not really solid (oops other thread) the universe is never going to "overtake" God in size, stature, or whatever semantic can be agreed upon for a definition of what "The God" should be were we all to sit down and list the attributes each of us feels God should have. Here too - matter degenerates. Spirit - by it's definition is constant, and eternal. Thus - my statement. Perhaps I might have been expecting a little too much to think my original statement should have been interpreted that way.

I'll stick with my belief that a pantheistic God is too small though. Just what I believe. I understand the concept - because I once thought of God in this way, and made different choices for myself over the years that caused me to abandon this concept.

No wait - it is this thread. The solid almost but not quite being solid.

Eljay wrote:
“What I believe I see is your blaming God for man's inability to make the right choices when needed. To me - THAT is a controlling God.”

I don’t blame god for anything. I simply don’t believe in that kind of god. For me, that image of a god is nothing more than man-made folklore. However, should it happen to turn out to be true it seems to me that god would necessarily be a very unpleasant deity indeed. You easily put the blame on man, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that god created man. In my mind, the engineer must take responsibly for what he designs. You also never addressed the issue of nipping it in the bud. If god wants humans to be a certain way why wait until they are all totally corrupt before acting? If this god of yours is all-powerful without limitation why not deal with the situation early on and help people rather than just waiting until they all go rotten and drown them. I don't like the idea of a personal god that is playing games with us like as if we are some kind of pawns in a game that we neither fully understand nor gave our consent to play.

Eljay wrote:
“And the conclusion I draw is that the pantheistic God that you claim to believe in has all of the attributes of the God you distain”

That’s simply because you don’t understand the pantheistic view of god, and this is highlighted by your next comment.

Eljay wrote:
“*** So - please tell me - what your God would have done? Change the rules a little so everyone would be happy?”

A pantheistic god is not an “individual ego”. No a “Santa Claus” in the sky. The pantheistic has no ego, no central personality, no individuality. So asking what my god would have done is a meaningless question. It merely displays your lack of knowledge of the concept.

You’re simply dragging your view of a separate controlling deity into the pantheistic picture that god is the universe. You can’t let go of the “Big Daddy” image of a god. You think of god as having human attributes and having an individual personality (ego) with feelings, emotions, etc, etc, etc. None of that applies to pantheism.

God is spirit no ego. This is a totally differnet concept of god altogether. The pantheistic god is beyond human comprehension. This is the essence of pantheism. Pantheism doesn’t put god in a box. God is spirit. Not an egotistical personality with plans, agendas and goals.

In pantheism all this is dealt with from an entirely different perspective. You are the spirit, the spirit is in you. However, you are also in the human form, you have the illusion of being an ego. Let me point out here that I am using the term “ego” in the philosophical sense. It simply means to have a well-defined sense of self, and feeling of being a separate entity in your own right. Its not meant in a derogatory sense.

You think you are your ego. Or to state that another way, you think your ego is you. You believe that you are an individual self. Separate from all other living entities. This is the illusion of the ego. And your physical brain sustains this illusion and constantly pervades you with this perspective. You believe that you know who you are. But you are merely falling prey to the illusion.

There’s nothing wrong with this. In fact, that’s the whole idea. The purpose of life is to live it. Life is the answer to its own riddle. The universe exists for the purpose of experience. The illusion of many. Life *is* god’s master plan. This is it. This is heaven. This is hell. This is where its at. And you control it by how you perceive it and pass judgment on it.

Did you have a good day today or a bad day? It was your choice. If you say that you had a bad day and that it was beyond your control to change that all you are really saying is that you chose not to like the things that happened that day.

There are no judgments outside of the judgments that you make. You are it. You are in control.

You chose to fantasize about a heavenly father that will take you to an happy peaceful eternal place when you die. That nice. That’s your choice. I chose to believe that I will live forever. Not my ego. Not who I am today, but the essence of who I really am. I am spirit. I can neither be created nor destroyed. I am this universe. You don’t like that picture, and that’s fine. I’m not enthralled with the picture of a judgmental egotistical heavenly father who has self-proclaimed to be a jealous entity. To each their own.

Whatever will be will be. Que sara sara

Eljay wrote:
“I'll stick with my belief that a pantheistic God is too small though. Just what I believe. I understand the concept - because I once thought of God in this way, and made different choices for myself over the years that caused me to abandon this concept.”

While I’m here I’d like to respond to this as well. I hold that you can’t possibly understand the concept of a pantheistic god because of your following statement.

Eljay wrote:
“*** So - please tell me - what your God would have done? Change the rules a little so everyone would be happy?”

If you truly understood the nature of a pantheistic god you would no that asking what it would have done in a give situation is a meaningless question.

You must have been trying to imagine a universe with an ego. A pantheistic god does not have an ego like the God of the Bible has. The god of the Bible show emotions, and makes conscious decisions, and is very human-like in it’s personality.

“Thou shalt not have any other gods before me for I am a jealous god!”

The god of the Bible is clearly a jealous egotistical god with emotions. That’s a given, in that god’s very own words. True confessions of a self-centered deity.