What is better in gods universe?

none that i've read

what i have read of quantum physics suggests that there's a lot of strangeness out there, some of which may parallel some of our ideas about "the supernatural"

[of course there is nothing that is actually supernatural; if it exists, then it is natural]

and when the name god is discussed, with a capital 'g', then we all know what we're talking about, no?

 

Not neccessarily, we all have our own definitions of God, if we define it at all. when I think of god with a lowercase, I think of mythological gods that were given human traits. When I speak of God, i speak of something mysterious and greater than human understanding. but that is just semantics..

Most physicists agree upon what they call a God-force, which is nothing supernatural, it is just a point of origin. A force that breathed life, or at least provided the force set off a chain of events that eventually breathed life. I saw a picture the other day of a black hole that blew a gas bubble that is already 1000 x greater in size than the black hole. The implications of this, to me, are HUGE. Maybe God is merely a black hole, nothing supernatural but instead a force so strong that nothing can escape it...except, appearantly, gas. Which could eventually fuel a planet that supports life, no? yes?

Have you read anything concerning quantum entanglement? That is something that turned the way I view the universe completely on its head. This is why i choose agnosticism over atheism..the mystery of the universe, and the infinite number of universes beyond that, is too great to decide anything with pure absolution.

 

many atheists merely refute the god of the torah, bible and quran

others go full-tilt rational [sometimes as blindly as any theist]

i used to call myself an agnostic until i realized i could just be anti-book and go by the name that inspires hatred from sea to shining sea

but i like to think that souls exist, and i'm not sure exactly where that leaves me . . .

[still godless though]

 

sounds like it leaves you right about where i am i also believe in the soul, I think if there is a god, God, its simply the force behind the soul....

 

Any argument devoid of any scientific empirical data would be about as pointless as watching an episode of '18 Kids and Counting'.

 

A common Soul and no God can go capoof into never having existed.

But then separate souls and God can mean we really don't exist now.

 

You're right, but I could argue it from a scientific standpoint.... It really depends on how abstract a person is willing to stretch their definition of God. Einstein believed in God, i would like to hear his argument

 

Sorry but there's not one shred of credible empirical data that suggests a God or a higher singular consciousness. Aside from piles and piles of pure bullshit that druggies, dreamers, and data twisting creationist retards are constantly barfing out of their delusional orifices.

 

two pages on einstein and god:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/quotes_einstein.html

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/albert-einstein-god-religion-theology.htm

 

i'm neither a druggie, a dreamer, or a data twisting creationist retard, and yet when I study certain quantum physics theories I feel as if they support the notion of God...as in, a life-force. A point of origin.

I'm not religious. I don't believe in God in the sense that those data twisting creationist retards believe in God. And I'm certainly not saying that there is empirical data that supports 100% the idea of a God that made man in his image. fuck that shit...However, science does lead me to believe that there is something out there that is much greater than anything the human mind is even capable of comprehending at this step in our evolution, so while empirical data doesn't neccessarily support the idea of God, I wouldn't say it refutes it either.

 

you're right, and I started reading more on his religious views after I posted that..I did jump the gun a bit. However, I was basing my statement on this quote:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

so I was not entirely off-base.

I also looked up Spinoza's thoughts on God, to get a clear understanding of what Einstein meant. This is what Wikepedia had to say:

Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same reality

which is exactly what I think also, and this is why i can look at certain scientific theories and think that it supports my idea of what God is, while other people look at the same theory and think that it doesnt support the idea of a God at all.

 

The UNIVERSE is exactly how we CREATE it. We are creating the universe every single moment of every conceived idea of existence.

We create it by how we come into contact with what we see, the feelings experienced on this seeing, the perceptions formed on these feelings, the ideas we fabricate from these perceptions, and the awareness we experience as a result of our seeing.

We create it by how we come into contact with what we hear, the feelings experienced on this hearing, the perceptions formed on these feelings, the ideas we fabricate from these perceptions, and the awareness we experience as a result of our hearing.

We create it by how we come into contact with what we smell ... contact with what we taste ... contact with what we touch ... contact with what we think, the feelings experienced on this thinking, the perceptions formed on these feelings, the ideas we fabricate from these perceptions, and the awareness we experience as a result of thinking.

Non-stop, moment-by-moment [moment-to-moment], we are creating reality around us by our continuous establishment of contact, fixating on what we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think to the point where we convince ourselves that what we are in ceasless contact with is real. Even of trying to convince whomever or whatever we communicate this idea to that it is real and influencing their sense-contact {feelings, perceptions, fabrications, awareness} to making it real as well.

Fixation is inevitable for all sentient beings. It's what we do best. It is all we know how to do. It's what defines the parameters of the universe we are continually creating.

Our creation of the universe is EXACTLY LIKE, but not the SAME as the one everyone else is creating. We share information with each other in order to identify and communicate the experience(s) we are having, i.e., what we are seeing, what we are hearing, what we are smelling, what we are tasting, what we are touching, what we are thinking. But the experience is not the same. The methods and instruments used are the same, but the experience itself is not.

Language is by far the most influential means of communicating these experiences. Language comes in two flavors, verbal and physical, and is a result of what actions are being experienced in the mind the one doing the experiencing.

Let's be practical, experience itself is a result of the ceasless sense-contact we are continually engaging in. It is this action of engaging, and the results of those actions that bring about the condition of experience. What is being experienced is what is being communicated, i.e., the feelings, the perception, the ideas, the awareness.

However, through language we can only communicate the relationship between us and what we contact as experience, and the one being communicated to either agrees or disagrees that what they are experiencing is the same, or near as can be reasoned.

Because of our innate ability to fixate, most often we alter our creation to match that which is being communicated to us so that what we are experiencing is as close to exact as the one being experienced by the one doing the communicating. And so, we usually end up saying that I see what you see, or I hear what you hear, or I smell what you smell, ... or I think what you think.

No one and no-thing GIVES us feelings. We experience feelings as a result of our own contact with what we see, hear, smell, taste, touch and think. We produce, create, establish, our own feelings as a result of fixating on the contact we are maintaining through our senses. Feelings are not an object that can be sold, or handed out freely to anyone wanting to receive them.

Joy and happiness as a result of feelings are fleeting and never last. Since feelings are a result of maintaining continual contact with some object, then they are always changing, and as a result so are the experiences themselves. That is, joy as a result of feelings are always changing and never the same from one moment to the next, happiness as a result of feelings are always changing and never the same from moment to the next.

And what we end up with is a non-stop continuation of having to intentionally maintain contact with whatever it is that we experience joy or happiness through. Not sure how others perceive this, but to me this is an awful lot of work in order to keep experiencing joy and/or happiness resulting from feelings.

Faith and worship are only experiences in that we intentionally undergo actions that maintain our ideas and awareness of what we are experiencing through our perceptions, through our feelings. Once an action has begun and begin producing results, we use our feelings to perpetuate the actions necessary to produce the feelings which bring about faith. Same for worship.

Many people are comfortable in the feelings they derive from their faith and even feelings from belief that they never go beyond because of their complacency to experience anything else outside this comfort zone. When all it is is an addiction to the particular feelings they get out of their faith, belief and worship. For them, nothing else exists outside this / these.

You ask, "Why do people think that way?" It is because this is all they know. This is the TOTAL sum of their experiences. This is how their reality has been influenced into creation, and anything outside this is not real, when reality itself is nothing more than the amount of fixation we do, and how much we convince ourselves that the experiences themselves are real rather than momentary fleeting actions. Fixating is an action whose result is a conditioned reality. Seeing is an action. Hearing is an action. Smelling is an action. Tasting is an action. Touching is an action. Thinking is an action. We are continuously, non-stop acting. And all actions have results ... including creating the universe ... including creating a God because it's completely unfathomable to realize that thoughts create reality, let alone understand this.

Feelings are self-produced, not given. Beauty is a result of identifying A specific feeling we find pleasure in. Joy and happiness as a result of feelings are causally produced in relation to what one experiences as pleasurable. Joy and happiness not a result of feelings are the true nature of all sentient beings when one is not engaged in continuous contact between sense and sense-object.

Again, neither God nor nature can GIVE feelings to anyone, or any sentient being. Feelings are causally produced, conditioned, and the specific experience we call Joy and/or Happiness result from taking pleasure in the experience. They (joy and happiness) are results of feelings, which is a result of continuous contact between sense and sense-object.

You had me going along with you here till you said "live in the same universe." We all create the universe around us as a result of the contact we have with specific objects associated with specific senses. For instance, NO ONE SEES a tree! The Eye does not see wood, it does not see leaves, it does not see branches, it does not see roots. The Eye ONLY sees LIGHT. It does not hear, it does not smell, it does not taste, it does not touch, and it does not think. Yet we always say we SEE things not associated with the eye. So we all create a specific universe not associated with anyone elses universe outside the idea we are shareing information with each other on the experiences we are having with the things we create in this universe

When I pass away from this particular universe, for me it will no longer exist, yet your universe will continue on without me. In essence I don't really die, I just stop creating this universe and begin creating another one based on the actions I perpetuate through contact with the results of previous actions.

We are continually talking about the universe we create with other beings and they are relating your experience to theirs in how they create their own universe. We are all TRYING to bring about a collective-universe by agreeing that what I see is what you see, is what he sees, is what she sees, is what everyone else is seeing ... but it's nothing more than an agreement that my experiences are JUST LIKE yours, so therefore we MUST be in the same universe.

We create the IMAGES as methods of communication in describing our universe to other sentient beings who are capable of understanding. God is an image created because we lack understanding that WE are the creators.

I agree with "thedope" on this. The feelings experienced that we relate as suffering is special and unique to the experiencer, but the method for the experience is not unique and special. Feelings are a result of continuous contact.

Everyone, and everything considered sentient, experiences feelings as a result of contact between sense and sense-object. That particular experience is unique to the one doing the experiencing, yet feeling as a result of contact is not. So the suffering one experiences as a result of not liking, or not finding pleasure in the feeling is also not unique or special.

The only thing unique or special is the experience itself. Every sentient being that is different have various "different" qualities of experience based on the differences unique and inherent in each particular sentient being. Each one acts according to whether the experience is pleasant, unpleasant or uncertain, and since all actions have results (consequences) then the action itself is different, which makes the results different. yet the mechanism for acting is exactly the same.

a billion different God(s).

Personally, I don't believe ... BELIEVE ... in God.

If I had any kind of idea related to a belief in a God it would be ...

--> This <--

It would be every individual component, no matter the quanta of the component, that is that which we individualize as being separate from that which we call ourselves, to include ourselves. However, since we are creating the universe anyway, then that makes us God, but in order to relate to people who don't understand this nor the entire creation process, then the best I can do is to say I don't believe in God.

However, for those that do believe in God, then God is part of their reality ... part of their Universe. To them, God exists, but only as a construct of the universe they are creating moment-by-moment. And to refute their belief is to refute the reality they exist in, which becomes a source of discomfort and they react to this discomfort defensively.

We make a lot of choices. Every single moment we make a choice which influences the actions we take, which create results, which we make a choice regarding, which influences the action we take, which create results ... literally defining who we are and the reality we create.

HTML:

 

My experience is a flow of sensational intensities some of which I call pleasant and some not so, or maybe not comment on at all. The I am I call myself is the same I am you call yourself.

 

freaky ... how appropriate ...

HTML:

 

We are in fact communicating though, and thats proof of our unification.

We have these words and symbols called language to transport meaning to one another. To act as a bridge between multiple instances of consciousness.

These sound waves and symbols exist somewhere in between when they aren't being processed by our brains. I call this place the universe, because the word to me represents everything that is.

How you see or create your universe doesn't concern me (for this point at least), because the fact that we are communicating tells me that there is something there. Otherwise, what is the language bridge travelling over?

 

I don't see any PROOF of unification.

I don't hear any PROOF of unification.

I don't smell any PROOF of unification.

I don't taste any PROOF of unification.

I don't feel (touching) any PROOF of unification.

PROOF of unification is not in my thinking.

Therefore, PROOF of unification does not exist in MY universe. Just like GOD doesn't exist in MY universe.

I am, after all, creating THIS particular universe I live in every moment I posit existence here.

Communication offers no PROOF.

Language does not transport meaning. Language describes level of ones contact with their reality. Language describes the feelings of the one using it. Language describes the perceptions one has regarding their universe. Language describes the ideas one fabricates within their universe. Language describes ones awareness in their fixation on reality. Language reveals the contents of ones mind. What one says with their mouth, or through their actions (btw: speaking is an action too) ARE the contents of their mind. Sometimes one says with the mouth one thing, but with the body another.

Communication is a product of the universe one creates and is subject to the rules, laws and limitations one imposes on their reality. And as such, is most times subject to a lack of accuracy and reliability.

HTML:

 

Okay, I realize that last post looked argumentative and confrontational. It's not. Please don't take it out of the context in which I was attempting to convey it. The context is that I, and everyone, use words, or whatever medium to communicate a description of their experiences ... nothing more. There is nothing more to be obtained out of defending our own ideas except as a means to describe how uncomfortable we feel when our views are being brought into question.

Hopefully, my participation in this dialog will be taken in a spirit of peace and friendship.

HTML:

 

The cheeseburgers

 

Knowledge is, being shared. Without unity there is no communication.

 

Evidence and proof are to be understood in what you are reading here, though. By acknowledging that i am writing to you and considering the fact that you responded with coherence I have to assert understanding on your part and mine, else I cant respond.

Communication requires understanding, even if its an understanding that nothing is being communicated. I would say communication is an understanding between two beings.

This is possible because there are things that can be understood.

Since we understand that we don't understand all things that can be understood, we can assert that the universe does not need observers to be.

Instant external reality