Experiencing God

[Muffled]

You seem to be filled with your beliefs. Do you understand the difference between what you believe and what you know?

I am willing to accept the rules of this site that I don't know anything and that everything I think I know is a belief.

 

[psychoslice]

I believe God is willing to represent Himself as a man even though He is not one.

That's easy to say, but where is any proof of this, never has been and never will be.

 

[Milton Platt]

This, coming from a being that is wholly an outcome of the Universe, and which supports you both inside and out on the level of 100%.

What level of intelligence would you require to accomplish even a tiny bit of what the Universe is capable of?...or even that of a blade of grass, which can synthesize its own food?

As far as can be ascertained the requirements are matter and energy directed by the laws of physics.
If you have evidence otherwise a Nobel Prize awaits you.

 

[godnotgod]

As far as can be ascertained the requirements are matter and energy directed by the laws of physics.

No, I am asking what level of intelligence YOU would require (in terms of human capability) to synthesize your own food, or a million other tasks that the Universe can accomplish that you, as you exist, cannot. 'Matter and energy directed by the laws of physics' are insufficient, unless by 'directed by the laws of physics' you mean that there is some conscious force behind the process.

 

[godnotgod]

I am willing to accept the rules of this site that I don't know anything and that everything I think I know is a belief.

Perhaps if you put your beliefs aside you might actually know something. Is it not obvious to you that beliefs stand in the way of such knowledge?

If, as you claim, you truly 'don't know anything', then why on Earth would you proceed to think that you know something?

"Do not seek the Truth; only cease to cherish opinion"

Chien-chih Seng-ts'an
Third Zen Patriarch [606AD]

http://www.mountainman.com.au/hsinhsin.html

 

[Milton Platt]

No, I am asking what level of intelligence YOU would require (in terms of human capability) to synthesize your own food, or a million other tasks that the Universe can accomplish. 'Matter and energy directed by the laws of physics' are not sufficient, unless by 'directed by the laws of physics' you mean that there is some conscious force behind the process.

As far as can be ascertained the requirements are matter and energy directed by the laws of physics.
If you have evidence otherwise a Nobel Prize awaits you.

And my answer was matter, energy and the laws of physics....with lots of time.....seems to be all that is required. My presence would be irrelevant. I would not be needed for the process. I would be part of the process...as has already happened. I guess that if I was incredibly long-lived, I could sit and watch it happen.

 

[godnotgod]

And my answer was matter, energy and the laws of physics....with lots of time.....seems to be all that is required. My presence would be irrelevant. I would not be needed for the process. I would be part of the process...as has already happened. I guess that if I was incredibly long-lived, I could sit and watch it happen.

I think you're misunderstanding my question. If you were asked to synthesize your own food with your own mind and body, could you do it with your current level of intelligence or would you require something of a higher caliber? This question is based on the idea that you see yourself as intelligent, yet do not recognize the Universe as being so.

So what do you mean by 'directed by the laws of physics'?

 

[Milton Platt]

I think you're misunderstanding my question. If you were asked to synthesize your own food with your own mind and body, could you do it with your current level of intelligence or would you require something of a higher caliber? This question is based on the idea that you see yourself as intelligent, yet do not recognize the Universe as being so.

So what do you mean by 'directed by the laws of physics'?

No, I am understanding the question. You are assuming the universe was intelligently created. I am saying it did not require intelligence. I would not have to synthesize the food, it would occur through natural processes given proper circumstances and time. The fact that I cannot recreate these circumstances does not negate the fact that they did occur and life (food) is available. But if you want to insist, my answer still is that I would need the following things, at least:
matter, energy, lots of time, laws of physics.

My point is, it does not require any intelligence...I would be irrelevant.

By directed, it means that the matter and energy functions in accordance with known physical laws. We know matter and energy behaves in certain ways reliably and we formulate laws to describe the behavior. The laws are descriptive and not proscriptive. The laws themselves do not tell matter and energy how to behave, they describe to us how they behave.

 

[godnotgod]

No, I am understanding the question. You are assuming the universe was intelligently created. I am saying it did not require intelligence. I would not have to synthesize the food, it would occur through natural processes given proper circumstances and time. The fact that I cannot recreate these circumstances does not negate the fact that they did occur and life (food) is available. But if you want to insist, my answer still is that I would need the following things, at least:
matter, energy, lots of time, laws of physics.

My point is, it does not require any intelligence...I would be irrelevant.

By directed, it means that the matter and energy functions in accordance with known physical laws. We know matter and energy behaves in certain ways reliably and we formulate laws to describe the behavior. The laws are descriptive and not proscriptive. The laws themselves do not tell matter and energy how to behave, they describe to us how they behave.

Heh, heh, HOW they behave is determined by the contraints of the 'laws'. The laws are not just a description of behavior, but the dictating factor. You used the misleading term 'directed', which implies a conscious presence.

I am not saying that the Universe was intelligently created; I am saying that the Universe is Intelligence itself, manifested as 'The Universe'. IOW, there is no difference between Intelligence and The Universe. Any differences are due to the conceptual frameworks of Time, Space, and Causation, which create the false duality of 'observer' and 'observed', when the reality is that you, the observer, is none other than That itself.

Notice that I use the word 'manifested' rather than 'created'; the former not necessarily implying materiality, while the latter does. You are aware, are you not, that fairly recent discoveries in Quantum Mechanics reveal 'matter' to be not so material in nature after all, yes?

You still fail to understand my question, which is not whether or not the Universe requires Intelligence, but what level of intelligence you, as a human, would require to accomplish the synthesis of your own food without a manufactured technology.

You have to think about it, don't you?

Are you at all aware that the so called 'Laws' were inherited from Christianity?:

 

[godnotgod]

I see no evidence to support intelligence in any way with regard to the universe.

Were it possible for you to create a painting that is a perfect masterpiece, it would be perfect partly because there would be no tell-tale trace within the painting of the artist's identity, since the creation is not about the artist, but about an idea he is trying to communicate. In the same sense, the Intelligence behind what you see as The Universe leaves no trace of its activity. That Intelligence is not concerned with it's own recognition, but about The Universe it is manifesting, and that Universe is none other than YOU, and I, and Everything else.

So is a 'whirlpool' a 'thing'?

 

[Thief]

you know a Creator by His creation

 

[Milton Platt]

Heh, heh, HOW they behave is determined by the contraints of the 'laws'. The laws are not just a description of behavior, but the dictating factor. You used the misleading term 'directed', which implies a conscious presence.

I am not saying that the Universe was intelligently created; I am saying that the Universe is Intelligence itself, manifested as 'The Universe'. IOW, there is no difference between Intelligence and The Universe. Any differences are due to the conceptual frameworks of Time, Space, and Causation, which create the false duality of 'observer' and 'observed', when the reality is that you, the observer, is none other than That itself.

Notice that I use the word 'manifested' rather than 'created'; the former not necessarily implying materiality, while the latter does. You are aware, are you not, that fairly recent discoveries in Quantum Mechanics reveal 'matter' to be not so material in nature after all, yes?

You still fail to understand my question, which is not whether or not the Universe requires Intelligence, but what level of intelligence you, as a human, would require to accomplish the synthesis of your own food without a manufactured technology.

You have to think about it, don't you?

Are you at all aware that the so called 'Laws' were inherited from Christianity?:

Interesting (but not original) point of view. I am not a physicist so plumbing the depths of quantum mechanice is way above my pay grade, as they say. However, i would challenge you to point out a paper from a physicist working in the field that demonstrates (and states in so many words) that the universe is intelligent.

And matter and energy behaved the way it does before we wrote the laws that describe it's behavior.

 

[Milton Platt]

Were it possible for you to create a painting that is a perfect masterpiece, it would be perfect partly because there would be no tell-tale trace within the painting of the artist's identity, since the creation is not about the artist, but about an idea he is trying to communicate. In the same sense, the Intelligence behind what you see as The Universe leaves no trace of its activity. That Intelligence is not concerned with it's own recognition, but about The Universe it is manifesting, and that Universe is none other than YOU, and I, and Everything else.

So is a 'whirlpool' a 'thing'?

You can pontificate all you want, but as Hitchens was fond of saying, "an assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I do not care much about your beliefs may be. It is what you can demonstrate you know that matters.

As to the whirlpool, it is as much a thing as all other things that exist.

 

[godnotgod]

Interesting (but not original) point of view. I am not a physicist so plumbing the depths of quantum mechanice is way above my pay grade, as they say. However, i would challenge you to point out a paper from a physicist working in the field that demonstrates (and states in so many words) that the universe is intelligent.

And matter and energy behaved the way it does before we wrote the laws that describe it's behavior.

You don't need to be a physicist to understand the message of QM, one of which is that all of the mass created by the Quantum and Higgs Fields is virtual in nature, rendering all of reality as virtual. This is essentially what the mystics have been saying for centuries, anyway. It's just that the mystics cut to the heart of the matter first.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations/

No, you won't find such a scientific paper, because that view is one that would be advanced by a physicist who has had some sort of transformative experience in consciousness, such as Amit Goswami, John Hagelin, Fritfof Capra, Freeman Dyson, and even Sir Roger Penrose.


“It is remarkable that mind enters into our awareness of nature on two separate levels. At the highest level, the level of human consciousness, our minds are somehow directly aware of the complicated flow of electrical and chemical patterns in our brains. At the lowest level, the level of single atoms and electrons, the mind of an observer is again involved in the description of events. Between lies the level of molecular biology, where mechanical models are adequate and mind appears to be irrelevant. But I, as a physicist, cannot help suspecting that there is a logical connection between the two ways in which mind appears in my universe. I cannot help thinking that our awareness of our own brains has something to do with the process which we call "observation" in atomic physics. That is to say, I think our consciousness is not just a passive epiphenomenon carried along by the chemical events in our brains, but is an active agent forcing the molecular complexes to make choices between one quantum state and another. In other words, mind is already inherent in every electron, and the processes of human consciousness differ only in degree but not in kind from the processes of choice between quantum states which we call "chance" when they are made by electrons.”

― Freeman Dyson

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/466596-it-is-remarkable-that-mind-enters-into-our-awareness-of

Again, that the Universe is Intelligent is not a matter of proof via Logic, Reason, and Analysis; it is one of direct transcendent experience in which all of the activities of the thinking mind come to a complete halt allowing for the transformation of consciousness in which 'the observer, the observed, and the entire process of observation merge into a single Reality'.

The laws that describe the behavior of matter and energy have now been overturned by what Quantum Physics has revealed about the nature of matter, in a manner similar to how the spiritual experience shows us that what the conditioned mind only thought was the case about Reality, is not actually the case.

And as the philosopher Kant has told us, Reason has ineluctable limits, as is now being revealed on both the micro and the macro scales.

 

[godnotgod]

You can pontificate all you want, but as Hitchens was fond of saying, "an assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I do not care much about your beliefs may be. It is what you can demonstrate you know that matters.

...or if you can go see it for yourself. That is the mystic's view, because what the mystic sees can never be demonstrated via mere science. His view is much larger in scope and fully transcendent of any scientific view, though it recognizes the scientific view as also being valid, but only within the confines of the rational mind. But nature itself is non-rational, and that is why paradox exists, because what the conceptual mind creates can never show us what the true nature of reality actually is.

So, from the POV of the conditioned mind, which includes the scientific mind, this material world is real; but from the POV of the awakened mind, this material world is an illusion.

But now, Quantum Physics is telling us that the 'material' world is nothing more than possibilites.

As to the whirlpool, it is as much a thing as all other things that exist.

A pencil is a fairly static object that can be held up and still remains a pencil. But a 'whirlpool' ceases to be a whirlpool once water stops whirling. So what is wrongly thought of as a 'thing' is instead an action, that of whirling water and nothing more. But it has been scientifically demonstrated that even such a 'thing' as a chair is not a thing as an action in that it moves about imperceptibly. All such 'things' are in flux in the Universe. The Universe is not a thing, but an action. The Buddha took note of this effervescent and impermanent nature of the world and was cause for him to seek something of a permanent nature. What he found was a condition that is conditionless; uncreated, uncaused, unchanging, that does not 'become' something else. This is not a belief; this can be experienced, but what we see as changing reality must be understood as an illusion, just as what we previously thought of under Newtonian physics to be a solid material world is actually virtual in nature.

The Law of Dependent Origination states that there are no such 'things' as such, as all such things arise simultaneously, co-dependently and interconnectedly with Everything else. To the ordinary conditioned mind, it only seems as if such separate 'things' are real. This is the illusion most of humanity labors under.

 

[NewChapter]

I am amazed that so many believers that have had "spiritual" experiences won't share their experiences with others. It ought not surprise me however, as I too have had "spiritual" experiences that I just will not share with anyone. I gather that the telling of such experiences puts one at risk of throwing one's pearls to the swine.

My experience of God has actually brought me to a point where I no longer require faith to believe in God. I am absolutely certain of his existence and presence in my life.

So I guess that leaves me with a question for those who have had God experiences. What do you think it was that you did which enabled you to experience what you experienced? What did you do to invoke God's attention?

It was all done by God's Will. I didn't do anything. He just revealed Himself.

 

[Milton Platt]

It was all done by God's Will. I didn't do anything. He just revealed Himself.

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that you had this experience. How can you definitively know it was any god much less a particular god that maps precisely to your own expectations? You can't just say "I just know". Tnere has to be some way to test the experience. If the claim is unfalsifiable, it is of no value to others, even if you find it gratifying in some way. People who believe in other gods have "experiences" as well. That should tell you something about your experience.

 

[NewChapter]

Let's assume for the sake of the argument that you had this experience. How can you definitively know it was any god much less a particular god that maps precisely to your own expectations? You can't just say "I just know". Tnere has to be some way to test the experience. If the claim is unfalsifiable, it is of no value to others, even if you find it gratifying in some way. People who believe in other gods have "experiences" as well. That should tell you something about your experience.

I saw the signs (to quote the popular song) and how they testified to what the Bible says. Faith means belief Sir/Ma'am, and faith is what I am walking in.

Yes I have seen God and my life is preserved.

 

[Milton Platt]

I saw the signs (to quote the popular song) and how they testified to what the Bible says. Faith means belief Sir/Ma'am, and faith is what I am walking in.

Yes I have seen God and my life is preserved.

You are welcome to believe that, just as others who "experience" a different god do. Faith does not exactly mean belief. Faith is a subset of belief, perhaps. You can have belief and not need faith if you actually have enough evidence for your belief. If you do not, then faith fills the gap. How is it that people generally "experience" the god that is ascendant in their particular culture? I do not question that you have faith, I do question the basis for the faith. I do not do so to offend...this is a forum for discussion of such things.

 

[NewChapter]

You are welcome to believe that, just as others who "experience" a different god do. Faith does not exactly mean belief. Faith is a subset of belief, perhaps. You can have belief and not need faith if you actually have enough evidence for your belief...

Stopped here. Sorry but no time to waste with this.