My God hypothesis of God based on Hawking's work.

[Amergin]

Attn: Thomas and Wil

Dr. Hawking tells us about 11 dimensions calculated mathematically but not perceivable to us. I have heard of the Fourth Dimension often, but I have never seen an actual 4 dimensional figure.

I have seen the Fourth Dimension in a wall full of mathematical equations. I could follow the math from beginning to the end. But I have no idea what a 4th dimension is. Same for a 5th or 11th dimensions. Here is how I look at it. We live in a 3 dimensional universe. All our concepts are essentially based on three dimensions height-width-and thickness. Even our 2 dimensional pictures and paintings are representations of things we assume to have three dimensions.

Suppose there is life form in the 2 dimensional universe. Philosophers call it Flatland. They are essentially figures drawn on a sheet of paper with height and width but no depth. So if there is a square next to a circle, we can tell the difference because we are looking in from the third dimension. But if you were an intelligent circle and I were an intelligent square in Flatland, you would only see a line when you look at me the square. I would only see a line when I look at you the circle. Because we see each end on only. If you hold a really thin gold ring exactlyperpendicular to your eyes it will look like a gold stick. You have to turn it to see the ring shape, but then you are using third dimension.

If you and I were two dimensional we could only see each other as a line and we would not be able to see someone perpendicular to the page of paper. Looking from above Henry would be invisible to us. If he pushed his nose against the paper we would not see Henry but a line where his nose spreads out on the paper. Are you still with me? The Flatlanders cannot even conceive of our three dimensional universe. So I would expect that we cannot comprehend the 4th dimension, the parametres are not set in my brain. As one goes higher, the 4 dimension weird looking chap would not comprehend the 5th dimension but he may easily look into our simpler third dimension.

This leads to the philosophical proposition that God is a being that spans all of the dimensions. And ifhumans see God at all it is only the partial and inaccurate third dimensional view of an 11 dimensional being. Since you can look at things in the 2nd Dimension and even the first (a single dot or line). So might God be a 11 dimensional being of which we can never hope to understand or a visual conception.
.
This is why I feel the Christian Trinity God is merely a human concept of something far different from humans.

So I never rule out a real God but consider the Christian God a human invention with human characteristics and personality traits. My God is what the Cree Indians call the Great Mystery. God may not think in the way we think. God is not he or she. God may not have any measurable size. Weight, height, width, and thickness may not apply to an 11th Dimension being. I hypothesis with only mathematical reasons for assuming that we cannot conceive of the 4-11th dimensions because I can't conceive of the 4th even with many days spent on the mathematics showing the fourth dimension. I know it by math not from visual, auditory, or tactile senses.

I must warn you that this is my own maverick theory and genuine physicists would say I am full of faeces. But this view fits my understanding and I see no contradictions in it. This basic cosmic structure may account for the quantum observation of sub-atomic particles seeming popping into existence out of a pure vacuum. This may be something from a higher dimension poking through to ours like Henry mashing his nose against the paper sheet of two dimensions.


That is why I am an Agnostic. I just don't know what God is, but keep open many possible forms of God. In reference to the Anthropomorphic (Man like) gods such as the Christian Trinity, Allah, Brahma, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, or Dagda, they CAN'T EXIST. A real God bears no resemblance to the Trinity or to the very fine man, Jesus.

Amergin

 

[iBrian]

If I may interject, I was under the impression that the 4th dimension was time. Width, breadth, length, as the former three - the dimensions of an object in space, with the measure of that object in time being the description of the 4th dimension.

Or do I mis-remember my physics?

 

[wil]

While there are some 4 dimension viewers out there....we are looking at them in 3d so they don't make much sense as the shapes roll around and through themselves.

Also in flatland when looking at a square, or circle or star, we'd still be able to recognize each other unless we only had one eye as well and had no depth perception...of course if my square had an eye....

Beyond all that I think we have what I am more and more often terming a Spong v. Ehrman issue. Both Bishop Spong and Bart Ehrman were devout Christians who independently discovered, researched all the foibles and issues with the Bible. (both new and old testament). How if falls apart if we think it historical, literal, accurate, scientific, or anything other than spiriitual text. So the two of them, learned men, spiritual men, believers, with a cadre of people to help them research and review the information available came to the same conclusion....but with different results. One became agnostic if not atheist and lost his religion, the other became more enamored with the text and the mystery and his beliefs.

Amergin, I'm the same way with the info you've provided.... Of course I can't see or understand fully or explain the concept of G!d in 3d when it exists in all dimensions.

Of course you'll have to come to grips with the fact that I don't believe in "He" or "Father" or "Gaia", but G!d as impersonal principle.....

 

[Thomas]

Hi Amergin —

This leads to the philosophical proposition that God is a being that spans all of the dimensions. And if humans see God at all it is only the partial and inaccurate third dimensional view of an 11 dimensional being. Since you can look at things in the 2nd Dimension and even the first (a single dot or line). So might God be a 11 dimensional being of which we can never hope to understand or a visual conception.

Well I would say a couple of things:
The first is that I view God as Creator of all, so the cause of all dimensions ... all universes, and so on, but not bound or conditioned in any way by them.
The second is that, by virtue of every evidence we have, the universe we know, and those we posit, are rational, that is intelligible to the human intellect, in the sense that they are governed by laws which we can, again, posit mathematically ... so creation (at least this one) is rational, intelligible and communicative. By implication the theist position then is God wills it so, so from every evidence we have, God would have to be (at least) rational, intelligible, etc. Beyond these, most certainly, but not irrational, chaotic, etc.

This is why I feel the Christian Trinity God is merely a human concept of something far different from humans.

Yes, it is a concept, but it is founded on Revealed data ... but yes, when one speaks of the Trinity, one is speaking analogically, as the reality transcends human comprehension.

But we are not speaking of 'humans', rather we speak of 'persons' as defined in the classic sense: 'an individual substance of a rational nature' (Boethius) ... but again, we are talking analogously.

So I never rule out a real God but consider the Christian God a human invention with human characteristics and personality traits.

One should not rule out the idea that God 'indwells' those words, formulae, sacraments, as a means of making communion with God possible. So man speculates on the nature of God, and God accepts those speculative forms as acceptable, and 'graces' them, and they become sacraments.

Both views — that God is knowable and unknowable — exist sided by side in apophatic and cataphatic theology.

My God is what the Cree Indians call the Great Mystery. God may not think in the way we think. God is not he or she. God may not have any measurable size. Weight, height, width, and thickness may not apply to an 11th Dimension being.

Same with us.

I know it by math not from visual, auditory, or tactile senses.

But maths is just a construct, physics is just a construct, founded on the data of the senses. Same with the belief in God ...

Think about it, most people's concept of electricity moving along wires, like water flowing down a pipe, is as naive as a belief in an old grey-beard deity ... the point is however that the image renders the word intelligible.

As I understand it, Newton 'discovered' the law of gravity, but then everyone knew that apples fall from trees, and Newton defined the law as 'attraction at a distance' or something, which is wrong.

I must warn you that this is my own maverick theory and genuine physicists would say I am full of faeces. But this view fits my understanding and I see no contradictions in it. This basic cosmic structure may account for the quantum observation of sub-atomic particles seeming popping into existence out of a pure vacuum. This may be something from a higher dimension poking through to ours like Henry mashing his nose against the paper sheet of two dimensions.

I think Quantum Physics is already proving the point that true scientists must be metaphysicians, and that the views of a Plato or an Augustine, Aristotle or Aquinas, is far more 'accurate' to the quantum world, that post-Enlightenment positivist empiricism ...

A real God bears no resemblance to the Trinity or to the very fine man, Jesus.

Well, as I've said before you don't really understand the Christian Trinity, and nor do Christians think that God looks like Jesus — but there is nothing to prevent God being immanently present to the world in the person of Jesus ... in fact Quantum Physics supports the idea.

I don't think Elvis is alive and well, but according to Quantum Physics, he is. I think one cannot say what can or cannot be with absolute certainty at the moment.

Thomas

 

[farhan]

That is why I am an Agnostic. I just don't know what God is, but keep open many possible forms of God. In reference to the Anthropomorphic (Man like) gods such as the Christian Trinity, Allah, Brahma, Ahura Mazda, Zeus, or Dagda, they CAN'T EXIST. A real God bears no resemblance to the Trinity or to the very fine man, Jesus.

Amergin

Christian and roman Gods are very much anthropomorphic, but other "models/concepts" of God arnt. For example, Brahman (not Brahma who is the creative aspect of Brahman) is considered to be a feature less being from which all come out. Allah (and YHWH too) are considered to be inconcievable & unique entities by the followers of Islam And Judaism. Quran says,"No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision. God is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things" (6:103)

God by definition cant be an 11 dimension being, because that will restrict him into these dimensions. God has to be both transcendent and immanent, in order to remain unrestricted by both beingness and non-being ness. He is the one who is immanent in 11 dimensions & transcendent from them, then only he becomes God.Other wise "11 dimension" will be the supreme entity, not him.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

It's interesting that God, of itself, is inconceivable, yet the variety of conceptions of God which are propounded as ultimate Truth seems endless. Idolatry of analogy it would seem. And people are willing to kill for their pet analogical construct. How very odd. Another poster some time back proposed that God is essentially a marker for an unavailable x-factor needed in the sewing up of incomplete cosmo-systemic modeling. It stands in for the top turtle in the turtle stack that no one can rise high enough to see. I can see that from an inside-looking-out perspective, but I'm not sure that a reality of God isn't at least metaphysically available for inquiry. I think that the essential limitation may be that there is no baggage transfer between that expanded dimension and this one. IOW, you can go visit God, but you can't take any baggage and you can't bring back any souvenirs. All you can do is silently dig It.

That said, it seems to me that Logos is a much more accessible construct. Terrestrial Logos or Logoi, as opposed to universal that is.

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Hi Chris —

Do remember that Hawkings in trying to sell books, and that God comment got him more publicity than any discussion of the actual content of the book ...

It's interesting that God, of itself, is inconceivable ...

According to certain classical systems, such as the Ambrahamic, Daoist, etc., but others posit a comprehendable deity.

Having said that, i think we can assert some things — God is rational, because if not, all theology, all science, all structures, are pointless.

Every experience, however, tells us the universe is rational.

yet the variety of conceptions of God which are propounded as ultimate Truth seems endless...

Shows just how inventive man can be ...

Idolatry of analogy it would seem.

Not really ... depends how aware the language is of its analogous nature. I would say this is more the fault of cultural education, than the language ... everyone has access to language, but few actually understand what they're saying.

And people are willing to kill for their pet analogical construct. How very odd.

Amen to that!

Another poster some time back proposed that God is essentially a marker for an unavailable x-factor needed in the sewing up of incomplete cosmo-systemic modeling.

Nah ... 'God-of-the-gaps' — probably means that person doesn't know or understand a given metaphysical paradigm and language.

but I'm not sure that a reality of God isn't at least metaphysically available for inquiry.

If man can say 'what is ... ?' then God is.

I think that the essential limitation may be that there is no baggage transfer between that expanded dimension and this one. IOW, you can go visit God, but you can't take any baggage and you can't bring back any souvenirs. All you can do is silently dig It.

Therein lies the rub.

The mystic, the sage, or the philosopher say, 'sees' God and preaches a message of bliss, which translates into the material realm as a moral philosophy of social justice ... trouble is, people want the reward before they do the work ... everyone wants to be a mystic today, nobody wants to put in the moral asceticism to achieve it ... so the message goes down the toilet.

An oracle or prophet, and you're in to a whole different order of thing.

That said, it seems to me that Logos is a much more accessible construct. Terrestrial Logos or Logoi, as opposed to universal that is.

As above, so below ... the particular is meaningless as a model if it does not conform to a universal model.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[bananabrain]

i've been horribly busy on a big project for a couple of months, but i saw this discussion and wanted to contribute:

I have seen the Fourth Dimension in a wall full of mathematical equations. I could follow the math from beginning to the end. But I have no idea what a 4th dimension is. Same for a 5th or 11th dimensions. Here is how I look at it. We live in a 3 dimensional universe. All our concepts are essentially based on three dimensions height-width-and thickness. Even our 2 dimensional pictures and paintings are representations of things we assume to have three dimensions.

the sefer yetzirah, a 2000+ year-old mystical text speaks of precisely this issue, dividing the humanly-knowable universe into five dimensions, "world", "year" and "soul", the first being the three physical dimensions, the second being the fourth dimension of time and the fifth dimension being that of good and evil; r. kaplan, in his commentary, does some of the maths, in that points in the 5D universe can be rendered in a 5D hypercube with 2^5 apexes, 32, the number of "paths of wisdom" and the sum of the first and last letters of the Torah, lamed-beth, which together spell "LeBh", heart (traditionally, the seat of the intellect, not the emotions). the way i tend to understand it is that you can draw a rock in 3 dimensions, describe its movement path over time in 4 dimensions and then whether it was a good idea to drop it or not in 5. clearly if you're standing underneath it at the time gives the 5D space a moral dimension. now, it would stand to reason that there are dimensions not detectable to humans, but still detectable to G!D. suppose there are, for the sake of argument, 11 dimensions - wouldn't that then mean that things go on from the perspective of 11-dimensional G!DSpace that don't make much sense in our 5D universe? it would certainly explain a lot of what we don't understand.

Weight, height, width, and thickness may not apply to an 11th Dimension being.

or they may be rendered meaningless by the inclusion of the other 6 dimensions.

I know it by math not from visual, auditory, or tactile senses.

that is certainly the kabbalistic approach used by the SY.

This may be something from a higher dimension poking through to ours like Henry mashing his nose against the paper sheet of two dimensions.

as that great mystical atheist douglas adams once said, "earthman, they may appear to you to be mice, but they are in fact the the extrusion into our universe of vast hypergalactic pan-dimensional beings", or words to that effect. either way, the business with the cheese and the squeaking is all just a front.

I think Quantum Physics is already proving the point that true scientists must be metaphysicians, and that the views of a Plato or an Augustine, Aristotle or Aquinas, is far more 'accurate' to the quantum world, that post-Enlightenment positivist empiricism ...

perhaps more appropriate there than they are to the non-quantum world, but the thing is, there is no evidence that they thought they were talking about the quantum world. plato thought he was bigging up the spartans in his utopia and we all know what a bunch of fascist loonies that lot were. bertrand russell once said that "plato is much admired by those who do not understand what he is trying to say". i don't know from augustine or aquinas particularly, but aristotle, for all that he had an enormous influence on much jewish thought, was, like plato, spectacularly wrong about almost everything. imagine, the teacher of alexander the great and he was still thinking in terms of titchy little city-states whilst his star pupil was creating a universal dominion. i think we've seen rather too much cock-eyed platonic implementation in history, don't you?

there is nothing to prevent God being immanently present to the world in the person of Jesus ... in fact Quantum Physics supports the idea.

i don't pretend to understand quantum physics, but there's nothing to prevent G!D Being immanently Present to the world in you, either, or me, or indeed katie price, muammar qaddafi or a big mac.

It's interesting that God, of itself, is inconceivable, yet the variety of conceptions of God which are propounded as ultimate Truth seems endless. Idolatry of analogy it would seem.

this is why the islamic concept of "shirk" is so clever; we must be careful not to mistake the conception of G!D *for* G!D.

And people are willing to kill for their pet analogical construct. How very odd.

to be precise, certain people seem pretty willing to kill me for their pet analogical construct, while i would probably have to either fight or die as a result, but most of us are not in the business of doing as you suggest in return.

I think that the essential limitation may be that there is no baggage transfer between that expanded dimension and this one. IOW, you can go visit God, but you can't take any baggage and you can't bring back any souvenirs. All you can do is silently dig It.

that's almost exactly what i told the 4-yr-old mini-banana when explaining to him that his grandpa had died. he's not old enough to know it's a conundrum, but he is old enough to understand that his grandpa had to make a choice between staying here in a wheelchair and going to live with HaShem where he could run around and play. it's a childish concept here, but it can transfer well enough into adult discourse without requiring that we infantilise ourselves.

Do remember that Hawkings in trying to sell books, and that God comment got him more publicity than any discussion of the actual content of the book ...

oh, come off it, you think he doesn't also want to teach, to create knowledge? i think you're presuming base commercial motives to an extent you probably wouldn't in the case of, say, the pope's latest blockbuster. i recently saw an interview of him by dawkins, incidentally, where he pretty much told dawkins off by saying, more or less, "why do you bang on about G!D so much, you silly *******?" - this would suggest he is not one to invoke G!D for the sake of marketing.

Having said that, i think we can assert some things — God is rational, because if not, all theology, all science, all structures, are pointless.

i don't see that at all - i would say that theology is on a fundamental level sort of pointless because we can never really know anything certain about G!D, even whether G!D Exists or not and science is pretty pointless when it starts venturing outside its area of competency into theological territory. on the other hand, that is not to say that theology doesn't have a use to get us through life and get us to act in a moral fashion, just as structures built on either theology or science also serve us pretty well in the physical world as long as they are used for what they're meant.

The mystic, the sage, or the philosopher say, 'sees' God and preaches a message of bliss, which translates into the material realm as a moral philosophy of social justice ... trouble is, people want the reward before they do the work ... everyone wants to be a mystic today, nobody wants to put in the moral asceticism to achieve it ... so the message goes down the toilet.

now here we agree, although not so much on the "asceticism" part - "discipline" is the word i'd use.

As above, so below ... the particular is meaningless as a model if it does not conform to a universal model.

hmmm, that's why you lot and the muslims are "catholic" - we on the other hand are perfectly happy to apply our particular model within a universal context. isn't it enough that something works? why does everyone have to listen to the same music?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Joedjr]

i think we can assert some things — god is rational, because if not, all theology, all science, all structures, are pointless.

I guess you could think this if you know how G-d thinks.

Not really ... Depends how aware the language is of its analogous nature. I would say this is more the fault of cultural education, than the language ...

That's the point though, the mental picture becomes the G-d.

As above, so below ... The particular is meaningless as a model if it does not conform to a universal model.

The universal model that you embrace, how would you describe it?

 

[wil]

G!d as rational to me is wishfully anthropomorphizing spirit. The OT has G!d saying and doing many things that seem quite irrational, and in today's society would be the acts of a terrorist.

I feel though Hawkins has a place, introducing people to think and question, what more can we ask for. He is benefitting society with his thoughts, part of our exploration. In my belief we will all return to G!d, return to source, realize our oneness, and all these questions, turns, and contemplations are part of the journey.

 

[Amergin]

Hi Amergin —


Well I would say a couple of things:
The first is that I view God as Creator of all, so the cause of all dimensions ... all universes, and so on, but not bound or conditioned in any way by them.

Everything is bound by its natural properties or essence. Even the Anthropomorphic God of all superstitions is limited. God cannot be omnipotent yet unable to move an immovable object. God cannot make a circle cubical in a three dimensional space. If the personal god is immortal he/she/it cannot kill itself. I view the creator as the yet mysterious force or forces that created 11 dimensions and the two cosmic membranes. I see no reason for us to give that force a human patterned personality and consciousness. As I have stated, consciousness and cognition are animal characteristics that evolved for finding food, finding reproductive mates, and evading predators. You are trying to apply a finite animal survival trait to the creator of the universe. I do not accept that.

The second is that, by virtue of every evidence we have, the universe we know, and those we posit, are rational, that is intelligible to the human intellect, in the sense that they are governed by laws which we can, again, posit mathematically ... so creation (at least this one) is rational, intelligible and communicative.

We lack full knowledge of the universe to say that it is rational. Quantum Physics may be irrational in our three dimensional existence. It is not yet and may never be intelligible because our knowledge is still far from complete. Communicative is a strange thing to say. Most animals communicate to some degree. I fail to see the communicative nature of cosmic rays, neutron blasts, or supernovas. The particle and wave emissions we receive from distant stars or galaxies is only communicative in telling us by scientific analysis and math, the nature of parts of the universe.

There has been no communication from a God. Claims of revelation from God in my opinion are either delusional hallucinations or outright lies.

By implication the theist position then is God wills it so, so from every evidence we have, God would have to be (at least) rational, intelligible, etc. Beyond these, most certainly, but not irrational, chaotic, etc.

There is no evidence that God wills anything, or that God has a mind, consciousness, or personality. These are human traits attributed to gods by early humans who assumed that humans were the greatest thing so far, so the creator must be greater than but like humans. That is not a logical conclusion.

Yes, it is a concept, but it is founded on Revealed data ...

Claims of revealed data are totally unsupported. Much of the content of claimed revelations has been disproven and found to be imagination.

but yes, when one speaks of the Trinity, one is speaking analogically, as the reality transcends human comprehension.

Nobody knows why Indo-Europeans north of the Black Sea some 8000 years ago conceived of a Trinity. People liked it so that the Aryan Trinity was incorporated into the Proto-Aryan Myths to be later inherited by the Iranians, Tocharians, Indians, Greeks, Hittites, Luvians, Scythians, Sarmations, Thacians, Illyrians, Balts, Slavs, Teutons, Celts, Italians, and Ligurians. The last and most durable Indo-European Trinity Myth is Christianity. Christianity is not a form of Judaism as is Islam. Christianity is Indo-European Pagan with use of Jewish names and a few customs.

But we are not speaking of 'humans', rather we speak of 'persons' as defined in the classic sense: 'an individual substance of a rational nature' (Boethius) ... but again, we are talking analogously.

That seems like double talk to me. No offence intended.

One should not rule out the idea that God 'indwells' those words, formulae, sacraments, as a means of making communion with God possible. So man speculates on the nature of God, and God accepts those speculative forms as acceptable, and 'graces' them, and they become sacraments.

None of this is rational because the God hypothesis has never been proven. Being believed does not make it real. The rest is adding the mysterious to the unknown.

Both views — that God is knowable and unknowable — exist sided by side in apophatic and cataphatic theology.

All of it remains human speculation or unprovable brain generated mythology. Theology or the study of God is Mythology to me. It is equivalent to Exozoology or the study of extra-terrestrial animals, who are based entirely on unproven testimonials. Hundreds of thousands of Americans believe in Sasquatch yet not a single hair, bone, or any anatomical piece have been found. Photographs have been shown to be frauds.

But maths is just a construct, physics is just a construct, founded on the data of the senses. Same with the belief in God ...

Belief in God is not based on the data of the senses. It is based on the human imagination (brain generated) and spread to other humans by meme induction or authoritarian claims. There remains no evidence and no proven contact.

Think about it, most people's concept of electricity moving along wires, like water flowing down a pipe, is as naive as a belief in an old grey-beard deity ... the point is however that the image renders the word intelligible.

Electricity flowing through a conductor wire is the flow of an electrical charge (an ampere) which may be electrons flowing like water in a pipe. Many think the electrical current is a charge moving from electron to electron in a relay type of race. iIn alternating current and in the transmission along myelinated nerve axons is a rapid series of charge reversals from one point to another in the conductor wire or a transmembrane ionic flow in segments of axon. In that the positive ions flow out ionic channels over a measured segment. The following segment is of opposite charge, until the ionic flux causes the next nerve segment to pump ions across the membrane to reverse the charge. This traveling wave of + - + - results in signals being transmitted without a forward flow of electrons as in a wire. This was not known until early in the last century.

As I understand it, Newton 'discovered' the law of gravity, but then everyone knew that apples fall from trees, and Newton defined the law as 'attraction at a distance' or something, which is wrong.

The apple falling is a story only. Newton considered the movement of planets and moons in arriving at the laws of gravity. Gravity is indeed an attraction at a distance. The farther the distance the weaker becomes the force of gravity. There is a point in space between the Earth and Moon at which the weakening Earth gravity is neutralised by the Moon's gravity. That is 216,000 miles from the Earth. At that point, an object may float free in that space. Gravitational acceleration does decrease with greater distance from a body. Beyond that point the Moon's gravitational acceleration exceeds that of Earth. There is a formula g=G/6 in which g is Moon's gravity acceleration and G is Earth's.

I think Quantum Physics is already proving the point that true scientists must be metaphysicians, and that the views of a Plato or an Augustine, Aristotle or Aquinas, is far more 'accurate' to the quantum world, that post-Enlightenment positivist empiricism ...

Quantum physics is not from metaphysics (speculation) but from observations of particles popping out of nothing and disappearing into nothingness. A particle split into two particles of opposite charge, one positive the other negative charge. No matter how far apart they travel, if one particle is changed from positive to negative, the other distant particle goes from negative to positive. This is observation not simple speculation.

Well, as I've said before you don't really understand the Christian Trinity, and nor do Christians think that God looks like Jesus — but there is nothing to prevent God being immanently present to the world in the person of Jesus ... in fact Quantum Physics supports the idea.

I totally disagree. God being immanently present to the world is not a rational idea or backed by any evidence.

Air do dheagh shlàinte!

Amergin

 

[Quahom1]

Everything is bound by its natural properties or essence. Even the Anthropomorphic God of all superstitions is limited. God cannot be omnipotent yet unable to move an immovable object. God cannot make a circle cubical in a three dimensional space. If the personal god is immortal he/she/it cannot kill itself. I view the creator as the yet mysterious force or forces that created 11 dimensions and the two cosmic membranes. I see no reason for us to give that force a human patterned personality and consciousness. As I have stated, consciousness and cognition are animal characteristics that evolved for finding food, finding reproductive mates, and evading predators. You are trying to apply a finite animal survival trait to the creator of the universe. I do not accept that.





We lack full knowledge of the universe to say that it is rational. Quantum Physics may be irrational in our three dimensional existence. It is not yet and may never be intelligible because our knowledge is still far from complete. Communicative is a strange thing to say. Most animals communicate to some degree. I fail to see the communicative nature of cosmic rays, neutron blasts, or supernovas. The particle and wave emissions we receive from distant stars or galaxies is only communicative in telling us by scientific analysis and math, the nature of parts of the universe.

There has been no communication from a God. Claims of revelation from God in my opinion are either delusional hallucinations or outright lies.



There is no evidence that God wills anything, or that God has a mind, consciousness, or personality. These are human traits attributed to gods by early humans who assumed that humans were the greatest thing so far, so the creator must be greater than but like humans. That is not a logical conclusion.





Claims of revealed data are totally unsupported. Much of the content of claimed revelations has been disproven and found to be imagination.



Nobody knows why Indo-Europeans north of the Black Sea some 8000 years ago conceived of a Trinity. People liked it so that the Aryan Trinity was incorporated into the Proto-Aryan Myths to be later inherited by the Iranians, Tocharians, Indians, Greeks, Hittites, Luvians, Scythians, Sarmations, Thacians, Illyrians, Balts, Slavs, Teutons, Celts, Italians, and Ligurians. The last and most durable Indo-European Trinity Myth is Christianity. Christianity is not a form of Judaism as is Islam. Christianity is Indo-European Pagan with use of Jewish names and a few customs.



That seems like double talk to me. No offence intended.




None of this is rational because the God hypothesis has never been proven. Being believed does not make it real. The rest is adding the mysterious to the unknown.



All of it remains human speculation or unprovable brain generated mythology. Theology or the study of God is Mythology to me. It is equivalent to Exozoology or the study of extra-terrestrial animals, who are based entirely on unproven testimonials. Hundreds of thousands of Americans believe in Sasquatch yet not a single hair, bone, or any anatomical piece have been found. Photographs have been shown to be frauds.




Belief in God is not based on the data of the senses. It is based on the human imagination (brain generated) and spread to other humans by meme induction or authoritarian claims. There remains no evidence and no proven contact.



Electricity flowing through a conductor wire is the flow of an electrical charge (an ampere) which may be electrons flowing like water in a pipe. Many think the electrical current is a charge moving from electron to electron in a relay type of race. iIn alternating current and in the transmission along myelinated nerve axons is a rapid series of charge reversals from one point to another in the conductor wire or a transmembrane ionic flow in segments of axon. In that the positive ions flow out ionic channels over a measured segment. The following segment is of opposite charge, until the ionic flux causes the next nerve segment to pump ions across the membrane to reverse the charge. This traveling wave of + - + - results in signals being transmitted without a forward flow of electrons as in a wire. This was not known until early in the last century.



The apple falling is a story only. Newton considered the movement of planets and moons in arriving at the laws of gravity. Gravity is indeed an attraction at a distance. The farther the distance the weaker becomes the force of gravity. There is a point in space between the Earth and Moon at which the weakening Earth gravity is neutralised by the Moon's gravity. That is 216,000 miles from the Earth. At that point, an object may float free in that space. Gravitational acceleration does decrease with greater distance from a body. Beyond that point the Moon's gravitational acceleration exceeds that of Earth. There is a formula g=G/6 in which g is Moon's gravity acceleration and G is Earth's.




Quantum physics is not from metaphysics (speculation) but from observations of particles popping out of nothing and disappearing into nothingness. A particle split into two particles of opposite charge, one positive the other negative charge. No matter how far apart they travel, if one particle is changed from positive to negative, the other distant particle goes from negative to positive. This is observation not simple speculation.




I totally disagree. God being immanently present to the world is not a rational idea or backed by any evidence.

Air do dheagh shlàinte!

Amergin

And may God bless you and "keep your health" too...



Q

 

[bananabrain]

There has been no communication from a God. Claims of revelation from God in my opinion are either delusional hallucinations or outright lies.

in your opinion. you're not obliged to believe that Revelation is real, of course. i would even argue that it makes little difference in your terms, but in mine and that of my ancestors it makes a great deal of difference. we believe G!D Spoke to us, three thousand years ago - and we're still dealing with the consequences. you are not dealing with them, because they mostly don't concern you, nor have you studied and delved into them in the way that i have done every day for many years. of course we must be careful not to overclaim in such circumstances; i suspect the universalist claims of christianity and islam have soured you somewhat on the content of Divine Revelation, so i don't blame you for coming to the conclusion you have. nonetheless, were you sitting where i am sitting, you would find such an assertion far harder to make with the assurance you do.

There is no evidence that God wills anything, or that God has a mind, consciousness, or personality.

not other than Revealed documents. of course, you would not accept anything like that as evidence and, indeed, why should you? have you delved into the depths of the Torah? can you encounter it in its original form?

Claims of revealed data are totally unsupported. Much of the content of claimed revelations has been disproven and found to be imagination.

they're supported by experience. if you haven't had the experience, of course you will say it is "unsupported". as for the content, i'm not aware of revelations from the Torah having been "disproved" or "imaginary" - but you are free to name one or two and we'll look at them.

These are human traits attributed to gods by early humans who assumed that humans were the greatest thing so far, so the creator must be greater than but like humans. That is not a logical conclusion.

indeed, what we conclude by looking at Divine Communication is that the Creator has a far larger plan than we can possibly appreciate - the things we are asked to do are not always the sort of thing that humans would be concerned with - why on earth should G!D care whether we wear linsey-woolsey clothing?

All of it remains human speculation or unprovable brain generated mythology.

hence my earlier point about overclaiming. religious people should be careful to avoid making out that Revelation is "obvious", "logical" or "self-evident" - because it clearly isn't, certainly not without long and challenging study.

Electricity flowing through a conductor wire is the flow of an electrical charge (an ampere) which may be electrons flowing like water in a pipe. Many think the electrical current is a charge moving from electron to electron in a relay type of race. iIn alternating current and in the transmission along myelinated nerve axons is a rapid series of charge reversals from one point to another in the conductor wire or a transmembrane ionic flow in segments of axon. In that the positive ions flow out ionic channels over a measured segment. The following segment is of opposite charge, until the ionic flux causes the next nerve segment to pump ions across the membrane to reverse the charge. This traveling wave of + - + - results in signals being transmitted without a forward flow of electrons as in a wire. This was not known until early in the last century.

the transmission and structure of Revelation, as well as the unfolding and emanation of the Divine, is minutely discussed in the mystical sources. if you had studied them, you would find a similar level of complex technical detail and terminology. quite a lot is considered to be known - at least to those who have studied it both theoretically and experientially, but of course we must be careful to avoid the lazy assumption that this is somehow scientifically verifiable - it isn't.

This is observation not simple speculation.

the thing is, the mystical texts are also observational, but not in the same way. you, naturally will respond: "how convenient" and, indeed, you are free to do so. i am not about to demand that you respect someone else's experience any more than i would demand that you like the same music as me.

God being immanently present to the world is not a rational idea

here i think i would disagree. we would argue that the contention that "there is no place empty of G!D", or indeed the Divine Name Ha-MaQOM ("the Place") would indicate that G!D Is In and Of Everything. if G!D, obviously, Exists, that would certainly follow.

b'shalom

bananabrain