Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Songs of Summer Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

"We do not know what God is. God...transcends being."


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 326-350 of 736 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012 11:19:48 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge what energy is.

Richard Feynman
http://thinkforyourself.ie/2011/07/27/energy-the-most-poorly-taught-concept-in-all-of-science/

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012 11:42:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 29, 2012 11:44:41 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To arpard fazakas:

<<Aha! I've finally found an error in wikipedia.....>>

Good thing it's open for editing to anybody... fix the error, we'll see how long your correction will stay up, and when and if someone decides to put it back the way it was, you'll have a great opportunity to discuss why they thought your correction wasn't acceptable. It's a win-win situation as far as I can see :))

<<I still disagree that energy can be either conscious or dimensionless.>>

I think that "energy" and "consciousness" are just different labels we put on *something* we experience (as well as BE-ing it). And we put those different labels because of the illusory division of that single *something* into "objective", "subjective" and so on which happens inside of *us* (our perception), but in itself is not (the separation I mean) part (or property) of the unified whole we all experiencing and are components of.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012 7:34:55 PM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
Sorry Paul, no ideas. My opinion is that memories are recorded somehow holographically and in precise detail. I have no idea how that is done, but it fits the data I've come across.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 1:03:09 PM PDT
I wonder what he meant by that.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 1:03:50 PM PDT
First statement was facetious.

We speak different languages, you and I. All our disagreements come down to this one simple fact.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012 5:58:00 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
Read the link provided for two ideas, one from a teacher and one from Feynman.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 5:13:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 5:16:06 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
"We speak different languages, you and I. All our disagreements come down to this one simple fact."

Yes, this is true.

Your mistake is saying that there isn't. His is saying that there is.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 5:52:18 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
7 Lessons of Chaos quote:

"Psychiatrists say a dream unfolds in the brain in only seconds, yet those seconds may contain a long and complex story. A dream is a microcosm of the dreamer's life because it can be read as a reenactment of existential issues, or what one dream researcher called the individual's "survival strategies."2 According to neurophysiologists, our brains never remember an event in exactly the same way twice. Each memory is subject to the transformations constantly going on in the brain. Each event in our remembering is both a new event and the same event we've remembered before. Each remembrance of an event connects to the whole structure of our consciousness. As Proust said in his famous meditation on time:

"'When from a long-distant past nothing subsists, after the people are dead, after the things are broken and scattered, still, alone, more fragile, but with more vitality, more unsubstantial, more persistent, more faithful, the smell and taste of things
remain poised a long time, like souls, ready to remind us, waiting and hoping for their moment, amid the ruins of all the rest; and bear unfaltering, in the tiny and almost impalpable drop of their essence, the vast structure of recollection.'

"Might it be that each "event," or even, each moment, in our life is a fractal microcosm of our entire life?"

From Seven Life Lessons of Chaos: Spiritual Wisdom from the Science of Change

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 6:18:03 AM PDT
Well said Nancy. I am the author of a series of three books called "Mystery of the Universes." See the links below. In my third book is a writing called "Understanding Reality" and I quote part of the text:
"We say to you that virtually nothing is truly real, even this universe as well as the other universes. Therefore, is God or Creator even real? Really, yes. There is absolutely no chance, no luck, or whatever word you use to describe something that may have happened to you. Everything is orchestrated through consciousness. Consciousness in and of itself Is. It is existence in its simplest form. It is God/Creator. All of it. It is love in its simplest form. And form comes from this consciousness. Where does it come from? Nowhere. There exists a Nowhere. And through consciousness, there is a Somewhere or a Something just so Nowhere know this. Hmmm...
However, there is a world, there are humans, there are other beings all over the universes. And all of these are real because they are Somewhere and Something made by consciousness into form. Consciousness is Source. The void of all existence is a void until consciousness breathes into it. Well this breath has to come from Somewhere. To undersatnd this phenomenon is beyond humanity's comprehension. Humanity thinks in form and that is how they or you were designed."
There is a lot more said in this writing. Just know you exist because Creator exists.
Mystery of the Universes
Mystery of the Universes, Book Two
Mystery of the Universes, Book Three

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 7:59:11 AM PDT
Saying what is or isn't? You lost me.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 8:00:33 AM PDT
Sorry, I don't have access to that link.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 8:30:15 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
arpard,

Here is Feynman's quote in full context:

There is a fact, or if you wish, a law governing all natural phenomena that are known to date. There is no known exception to this law - it is exact so far as we know. The law is called the conservation of energy. It states that there is a certain quantity, which we call "energy," that does not change in the manifold changes that nature undergoes. That is a most abstract idea, because it is a mathematical principle; it says there is a numerical quantity which does not change when something happens. It is not a description of a mechanism, or anything concrete; it is a strange fact that when we calculate some number and when we finish watching nature go through her tricks and calculate the number again, it is the same. It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy "is." We do not have a picture that energy comes in little blobs of a definite amount. It is not that way. It is an abstract thing in that it does not tell us the mechanism or the reason for the various formulas.

The Feynman Lectures on Physics Vol I, p 4-1

Here is one from the 2007 American Association of Physics Teachers:

When Feynman wrote,

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is," he was recognizing that although we have expressions for various forms of energy from (kinetic, heat, electrical, light, sound etc) we seem to have no idea of what the all-encompassing notion of "energy" is.

The various forms of energy (½mv2, mgh, ½kx2, qV,mcT, ½I2, ½CV2, etc.) are abstractions not directly observable.

2007 American Association of Physics Teachers

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 8:31:10 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
...something more than matter.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 8:42:59 AM PDT
Astrocat says:
"Consciousness is Source". Yes. Thanks, Beverly.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 9:13:29 AM PDT
D. S. Clark says:
I put that one on my wish list. :>)

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 9:29:32 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 1, 2012 9:29:56 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
It's a good one. I opened it yesterday directly to a page that took me right back to some of what Baba D tried to bring across to me over the past year. I'm thinking of copying it and pasting it in the other Love thread (lol) in honor of that love.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 10:48:47 AM PDT
To say one has no knowledge of what something is, when one can define it, measure it, and state that it is conserved, is a little bit disingenuous, in my opinion.

This sounds somewhat reminiscent of the classical physicists complaining that in QM we don't know anything about what the electron "really" is, we just make measurements.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 10:49:09 AM PDT
What is something more than matter?

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 11:56:43 AM PDT
Nova137 says:
af: To say one has no knowledge of what something is, when one can define it, measure it, and state that it is conserved, is a little bit disingenuous, in my opinion.
N: In the spirit of this Discussion and its Title I'd say we found a subject that transcends definition.

af: This sounds somewhat reminiscent of the classical physicists complaining that in QM we don't know anything about what the electron "really" is, we just make measurements.
N: Well, of course. One would be inclined to surmise that Feynman is skeptical in just this very way.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:03:44 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
Well, nothing from a monist as materialist pov. Perhaps we will allow the lack of understanding of consciousness to suggest that consciousness transcends matter. I would say that as matter becomes more and more self-aware, we should allow this fact of nature more and more easily.

In light of this Discussion, then, "God" is matter evolved to such a state of self-awareness that even the origins of unawareness (itself as ever being material) fade in the mists of time.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:14:20 PM PDT
Well, if you're looking "behind" a physical theory for some "deeper significance" or "inner essence" or whatever, and you don't find it, does that invalidate the theory? All a theory is is a model of how some portion of physical reality works, which gives right answers.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:15:48 PM PDT
No, it was a question about what you had said previously, but it's too far back now, so never mind.

Calling matter evolved to a state of self-awareness "God" accomplishes nothing. Just another label.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:25:58 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
af: Well, if you're looking "behind" a physical theory for some "deeper significance" or "inner essence" or whatever, and you don't find it, does that invalidate the theory?
N: Yes. However, when we are dealing with the problem of being human and answering the deeper questions of why we theorize the way we do, objective methods become less helpful.

af: All a theory is is a model of how some portion of physical reality works, which gives right answers.
N: If you have the word "physical" as representative of "reality," you, too, are doomed to failure when it comes to understanding the workings of a human brain. Even more so, the emanations of such a thing.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:30:18 PM PDT
Nova137 says:
af: Calling matter evolved to a state of self-awareness "God" accomplishes nothing. Just another label.
N: It is another label. One that has haunted the mind of both the primitive and the so-called sophisticate. If I AM going to build a theory of human consciousness, it must account for both my psychology and my physiology. Have you seen the Matrix movies? In them, a program called "Agent Smith" tells of a program that was written to provide the brain of captive humans asleep a dream of living in a perfect world. Most humans rejected the dream. If we are going to understand why I use the word, I must learn what makes me tick and what makes others tick. If I am offended by the word "God," I must come to understand where that comes from as well.

In reply to an earlier post on May 1, 2012 12:34:25 PM PDT
No, what validates a scientific theory is whether the predictions it makes are confirmed experimentally or by observation. That's the only criterion.

The human brain is just a physical object, although admittedly a very complicated one. All the progress we have made so far in understanding it comes from investigating it as a physical object. If and when we ever understand it completely as a physical object, we will understand it completely, period.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1650 7 days ago
Art & Spirituality 595 11 minutes ago
Today in Muslim History 8651 35 minutes ago
nondualism 375 48 minutes ago
Life 921 1 hour ago
Even if There Were a 'God,' No Human Could Know It 2825 1 hour ago
What's happening with SSM in the post Prop 8 world? 3298 2 hours ago
Do you support mandatory use of the Oxford comma, or oppose it? 73 3 hours ago
Another 10,000 Quotes... 7023 3 hours ago
atheist church 537 4 hours ago
How can atheism be true or false? 820 4 hours ago
Are there any myths that bind atheists together? 39 4 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  41
Total posts:  736
Initial post:  Apr 17, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 21, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions