GØD IS ? ... IMO, the verb 'to be' is the only verb I can use when I write about absolute being., GØD and the verb 'to be'. Options

[Hey Hey]

How can the eye…
See itself?

Poetical metaphoricals do not make a truth. OK so I can't say look in a mirror as you've done the reflection bit, but how about look at another eye? Science is to do with observing, documenting and interpreting. We get better all the time, and one day........

[Lindsay]

I was just teasing LGK. It wouldn't be the first time!

Is this Mike from Montreal? Welcome anyway!!! If so, perhaps, as a member of the Boomer Forum, you already know I lived in the Pointe Claire area, west of Montreal and Dorval, for three years--1958-1961.

Dianah, what more do you have to say about the role of science, in religion? Have you heard of pneumatology?

[lucid_dream]

I'm familiar with Legos. Does that count?

[Guest]

True religion is the science of inner dimensions, of our being; it is the science of Self, of Self-Knowledge.
It is based on the observation of the inner states of the human being, the very process of witnessing and being aware -- discovering the Consciousness, the Knower behind the phenomena.
Science is concerned with observing and knowing the outside world; religion is concerned with the inner world, with the Self, with the Knower. Who is the observer ? Who is the knower?
What is consciousness ? What is awareness ? What am I ?
Quantum Physics is aware of the importance and role of the observer and her/his consciousness in quantum phenomena -- the observer is the participant who affects the phenomena by the mere process of observing them; the objective and the subjective are one reality, one continuum.
According to Jack Sarfatti ( The Post-Quantum Physics of Consciousness ), consciousness controls and determines the biogravitational field.

[Guest]

The Name of God

El -- God in Hebrew (Eloha; Elohim -- plural of magnitude, majesty)
Elah -- God in Aramaic
Elah/Ilah -- God in Arabic
Elu/Ilu -- God in Akkadian ( Elu -- Lofty Ones, Gods)
In the OT, El is used over two hundred times for God.

[Guest]

"I´ve found God," says man who cracked the genome.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator
and that scientific discoveries bring man closer to God.

wysiwyg://26/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, 2087-2220484,00.html

[OnlyNow]

I'm familiar with Legos. Does that count?

LOL, ld, *I* think it counts!
http://www.amyhughes.org/lego/church/photosfirst.html

[lucid_dream]

I'm familiar with Legos. Does that count?

LOL, ld, *I* think it counts!
http://www.amyhughes.org/lego/church/photosfirst.html

nice! Here's something I wish I had when I was a kid:
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~mihal/zome/metazome.htm
http://www.zometool.com/

[Lindsay]

"I´ve found God," says man who cracked the genome.

Francis Collins, the director of the US National Human Genome Research Institute, claims there is a rational basis for a creator and that scientific discoveries bring man closer to God.
wysiwyg://26/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, 2087-2220484,00.html

Guest (Which one? From where?). BTW, there is a problem with this link.

At this point I will make the assumption that FC is a humble scientist and that what he is really saying is: "I am communicating with God?"--IMO, this is something which anyone, who chooses to do, can do. IMO, all the sciences and all the arts simply provide the ways and means of communicating with GØD--the highest good.

As a human being, this prompts me to ask myself two very basic questions: What is it that motivates me, as a human being, to be interested in philosophy, the sciences, and the arts? To what extent are my interests and motives affected by my moral philosophy? To what extent should they be affected?

BTW, is there a better way to put such questions?

[Guest]

Lindsay,
You can find the interview with Francis Collins, "I´ve found God", on this website: wysiwyg://13/http://www.atlantisrising.com/
or, at: atlantis rising -- front page

And You may find answers to Your questions in Abraham Maslow´s hierarchy of needs -- Being needs or self-actualization needs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow´s_hierarchy_of_needs

[Lindsay]

'Guest' date='Jul 03, 11:25 AM' post='66843']
Lindsay,You can find the interview with Francis Collins, "I´ve found God", on this website: wysiwyg://13/http://www.atlantisrising.com/
or, at: atlantis rising -- front page

The link was not complete, sorry. However, I like what I found at
http://www.genome.gov/10000779

[Guest]

The secret power of the universe and how to use it
http://www.gurusoftware.com/Gurunet/Interviews/TheForce.htm

[Enki]

.

For example, the Hebrew for the personal name of God is, YHWH--all consonants. In English, we translate this as, Jehovah--by adding e,o, and a. For us, the word literally means, I am who I am.

I heard that YHVA is used as well. Is not it? The God has many names. YHVH is frequent too, as well as YHWA, YHWH etc.

I think if it is a signature it should has very simple explanation.

[Lindsay]

......I heard that YHVA is used as well. Is not it? The God has many names. YHVH is frequent too, as well as YHWA, YHWH etc.
I think, if it is a signature, it should has very simple explanation.

As I understand it: It is related to the Hebrew verb for 'to be'. This fits in with what I am saying in my signature, below. GØD--the highest good, as LOVE, is BEING, not a being.
How do you understand it? Give us your thoughts.

[Guest]

Enki,
You will find answers to Your question in Kabbalah.

[Enki]

Enki,
You will find answers to Your question in Kabbalah.

Pardon me but I do not have questions. I just wanted to note that the same abbreviation has different citations in letters.

[Enki]

......I heard that YHVA is used as well. Is not it? The God has many names. YHVH is frequent too, as well as YHWA, YHWH etc.
I think, if it is a signature, it should has very simple explanation.

As I understand it: It is related to the Hebrew verb for 'to be'. This fits in with what I am saying in my signature, below. GØD--the highest good, as LOVE, is BEING, not a being.
How do you understand it? Give us your thoughts.

You see, one can give quite different explanations to those abbreviations.

I think it is quite wrong to concentrate only on Hebrew as a source of reference, especially when we are talking about such a complex category as the God is.

If we suppose that the God is an Omnipresent and very wise creature, then he should consider the reality and the all languages as a part of a united realm of the God, where He is omnipresent (in some way or another).

Let us for a while discard very questionable concept that He is All-Mighty, but concentrate on supposition that he is Omnipresent or Quasi-Omnipresent and can change something in this world but not instantaneously (God exist here and there from time to time [Like Aslan in Narnia comes and goes somewhere …]).

In view of that the well known abbreviation, from point of view of God, can abbreviate words in English rather than in Hebrew: you never know what God himself was meaning under that abbreviation, when was answering to Moses question “What is your name?�

Imagine that you landed on an island and a local would ask you “What is your name?� you had to certainly say “I am Lindsay�. The local would just memorize your name Lindsay but put it down using his alphabet. So you never know what YHVA, YHWA, YHVH, YHWH means in true. If the Universe is a great cryptogram like Sir Isaac Newton was supposing, then abbreviation can mean anything if God has a sense of humor.

It may sound quite absurd because English came along as a language during the last one thousand years while in contrast Hebrew came along many thousand years ago. But let us agree that from point of view of the God the game with time and letters is a quite possible thing (at least in the divine World Simulation Software). And if to consider the abbreviation like a pattern existing in the brain, then the languages does not matter, especially when the meaning is quite unknown and secret.
(!) Besides He can replace the abbreviations and modify the languages to fit the abbreviations in a way suitable for Him (especially if to look at the matter from point of view of the Keys and Clues).

E.g. the word God can be referred as the following abbreviation Great Old Demon (or Democrate). One can state that God himself, as a person having a good sense of humor, have encrypted interesting secrets in interesting places. In the same way, if YHVA, YHWA, YHVH, YHWH is a signature, then you can in the same way suppose that Y means “Yours� so frequent at the end of ordinary letters. Why not? Why not if we deal with God? Certainly the person fitting to such kind of abbreviation cannot be considered to be a reincarnation of God even if he coincidentally was born on 25 December.

E.g. like words God and Good differ by one letter. But does it mean something? If you reverse the word God you will get Dog. Accidental coincidence or the counsel of magicians while inventing Latin and later English languages managed to encrypt something quite interesting?

The game of words. But the game with words is a game with the consciousness. So those who play with words play with human consciousness. Can we suppose that God likes to play in that Game? I think we do not have any ground to say that He does not play in that game.

[maximus242]

Intresting stuff, coinicidences or truths? Can one even define what it means to be omnipotent? I think prehaps instead of trying to decipher words and cryptic means we could try another route. What is omnipotence really? I mean to be all powerful, is an almost lacking of power. Because even if you posses all this power, you lack the power with which to not be powerful. So prehaps omnipotence is much more a perspective and a state of mind than a physical substance? Truely, are we not gods to the dust mites who float around? Do the ants not look up and see us, see a great towering being just as when we look to the stars and see a great towering light? What of the cells that live in ones body? we can influence them, and change them with enough communication, they are within us, are we not gods to them? Maybe instead of looking up to the largest and most earthshattering phenominon to find god, we should look to the tiniest creature, the simpilist proton and prehaps then, gain some insight to what a god really is?

[Enki]

Intresting stuff, coinicidences or truths? Can one even define what it means to be omnipotent?

Who knows maybe the true God is very weak from human point of view, but as he is wise and omnipresent he changes the world by initiating certain very weak bifurcations (fluctuations) in needed places by applying few force and getting maximal effect (Chaos control). From that point of view God masters (operates) 0.0000 …0001 segment of the function of events probability.
So from that point of view He is Quasi-All-Mighty. I mean that on short time distances he not so Mighty , but on long time distances that guy can crush any powerful Empire and rise new one from the Dust. Just like the Power of 1/f noise. It describes very slow process with growing spectral power along with decreasing frequency (increasing time period).

Quite funny, I read somewhere on internet that a guy described 1/f noise as 1/freemasonry chaos. Funny is not it?

[maximus242]

lol the last part is funny. You do make some good points, I think if this god does exist, he would have a more realistic influence over the world as you described.

[Enki]

lol the last part is funny. You do make some good points, I think if this god does exist, he would have a more realistic influence over the world as you described.

Yap, funny. Who knows maybe that realistic influence is shielded by other parties playing in multi-person chess party? So the superposition of all those influences as physical as well as metaphysical comprises the reality.

If man helps the Great Old Democrate in His chess party by his Free Will the outcome can be fantastic, then the influence you are speaking about will be quite realistic. If man does not have Free Will then the Great Old Democrate has to work as hard as he can to change something, because maybe the Forces are balanced. You see …

Speaking shortly, if e.g. I am the Great Old Democrate living and walking among the men I need to find gentlemen who will persuade (but certainly by their Free Will) the common cause. But it may turn so, that the other parties do not relay on human Free Will in their operations on this planet. That is called unfair game. In this respect the Great Old Democrate differs from Selfish Archaic TyrANt.

Who knows, maybe when the United States were created the Great Old Democrate could find and talk with Ben, George, John, and Tom having the Free Will? E.g. like he could find and talk with Solon, Numa Pompilius and Pericles in the old times. Maybe in our days He looks for gentlemen having Free Will to make the world better as well?

Certainly in our days the Internet provides new opportunities for the Great Old Democrate. The Kids must understand that, they must...

Any other questions?

[maximus242]

I like to look at freewill in the way it is already used. Many diffrent sects from government to crazed cults have experimented with freewill. If one has no freewill, functioning is virtually ceased without the permission of the handler, no real insights or knowlege can be gained. This is the conondrum for the government, the reason why I doubt they will ever dare to take away the masses freewill entirely. If they have no freewill you HEAVILY slow down any advances, inventions, insights and possibly kill future geniuses. If Albert Einstine didnt have his freewill to think about relativity, then the Theory of Relativity wouldnt of been brought into existance. This, above all I think is the reason to keep freewill, it is not only the ethical thing to do, but from this freewill great insight can be found.

[Enki]

I like to look at freewill in the way it is already used. Many diffrent sects from government to crazed cults have experimented with freewill. If one has no freewill, functioning is virtually ceased without the permission of the handler, no real insights or knowlege can be gained. This is the conondrum for the government, the reason why I doubt they will ever dare to take away the masses freewill entirely. If they have no freewill you HEAVILY slow down any advances, inventions, insights and possibly kill future geniuses. If Albert Einstine didnt have his freewill to think about relativity, then the Theory of Relativity wouldnt of been brought into existance. This, above all I think is the reason to keep freewill, it is not only the ethical thing to do, but from this freewill great insight can be found.

I do agree with you in many points.

In my opinion the Free Will is a quite specific concept.
I can talk about its peculiarities for days. Whatsoever...
Certainly the Free Will is linked with creativity as well.

But sometimes people are creative not due to their own Free Will but due to some specific options. The matter is that the options can be created by someone to make men creative. Now we come to the most difficult question: does that someone created opportunities or just preconditioned (constrained, confined) the Free Will of men by Mastering the environment men live in?

Speaking clearly who has much Free Will: man born and living in a desert or man living in a city where symbols carved on stones are looking at him every day, where his nature is affected by the architecture of the buildings designed by great masters of the past with certain aim and purpose?

Or if he speaks Language edited my a magician, then does a man possesses a Free Will? These questions are very important philosophic questions.

It was nice to chat with you. I am sorry, I have to go by now. I will be back later.

[maximus242]

Yeah, certainly creativity is biased to environmental factors. For instance, reading a book requires much more creativity and visualization than a movie. Just as imagining you are on a vacation requires more creativity than actually going on one. Other possibilities include how much 'free time' you have on your hands? How much entertainment is available to a person? This is just like increasing or stimulating intelligence, when you have a calculator do math for you, you cause less logical stimulation. Just as when you have a video game entertain you rather than do roleplaying or something to that effect. When there is a lack of entertainment, one is forced to create it themselves, when their is lots of 'free time' one is forced to create something to fill the gaps.

[Enki]

Yeah, certainly creativity is biased to environmental factors. For instance, reading a book requires much more creativity and visualization than a movie. Just as imagining you are on a vacation requires more creativity than actually going on one. Other possibilities include how much 'free time' you have on your hands? How much entertainment is available to a person? This is just like increasing or stimulating intelligence, when you have a calculator do math for you, you cause less logical stimulation. Just as when you have a video game entertain you rather than do roleplaying or something to that effect. When there is a lack of entertainment, one is forced to create it themselves, when their is lots of 'free time' one is forced to create something to fill the gaps.

Exactly.
The roses to grow should be planted in a proper soil, in a proper place protected from winds, in a sunny shiny site near a spring of pure waters.

[Lindsay]

...Can one even define what it means to be omnipotent?...What is omnipotence really?

In answer to these important questions, I will offer the only thing I have the right to offer, my personal opinion.

BASICS PRINCIPLES FOR A CREATIVE DIALOGUE
But, before I do this, I need to state some basic principles I always try to keep in mind whenever I get involved having a dialogue about serious matters with people I do not know all that well. And, by the way, I prefer dialoguing to debating. With this in mind, I
1) try to keep a sense of humour, even about serious matters.
2) I would like for all discussants involved to agree that there is no one among us who is infallible.
3) I would like to think that if there is any dispute about the meaning of words we agree to consult a standard dictionary.
4) I would like to think that we would be willing to do the same regarding generally accepted facts. Let us, generally speaking, agree to accepts facts as reported in a standard encyclopaedia, or, as provided by accepted experts in the field under discussion.
5) Finally, if after a fair discussion of the topic at hand, we still find ourselves in disagreement, let us, even before we start, agree to disagree, agreeably. In this way it is to be hoped that we can learn to accept all enriching differences and rejoice in all satisfying similarities.
===============================000000000==================================
Max asks

...What of the cells that live in ones body? we can influence them, and change them with enough communication, they are within us, are we not gods to them?...

IMO, GØD—note the way I spell the divine name—is not A human-like and personal being who happens to be omnipotent. I like to think of GØD as being omnipotence itself—whatever omnipotence is. Not being omniscient, I do not pretend to know. I use words like 'omniscient', 'omnipresent' and 'all loving' in the same way.

This question is raised: Do atomic particles, atoms, viruses, bacteria, cells, insects, fish, birds, animals, whatever, think feel and act like human beings and look upon us as their "God"? I have no way of knowing, but I do not think of it as plausible, or possible. Therefore, at this point, in the same way that I refuse to think of GØD, anthropomorphically—that is, I refuse to think of GØD as having a body, mind and spirit like we do. In the same way, I refuse to think of atoms, etc., as being human-like beings. However, if anyone can arrange for me to meet a Mr. Atom, I am always ready and willing to be convinced otherwise.

Meanwhile, because I think of mice as sentient beings I treat them with respect. But they are not human beings. Walt Disney's Mickey Mouse cartoons, which give human-like voices and spirit-like emotions to caricatures remotely resembling people and mice, make for good entertainment for the child-like mind in all of us, but surely that is all they are, entertainment. Disney himself called cartooning doing the “plausible impossible”.

[Guest]

3) I would like to think that if there is any dispute about the meaning of words we agree to consult a standard dictionary.

Golden words Mr. Lindsay!

But what if the mind decrypts (translates into its own language of associations and secondary associations within the neurons network in the brain) the words in quite different ways and accepts variations not implying to human Free Will and Knowledge and dictionary.
I mean that in some cases, when the brain decrypts (meaning cited above) words, while eyes read the words, then it automatically, like a ‘machine’, makes decryption (meaning like above) not following the dictionary or common sense?

The usage of word God by itself is quite questionable.

Look, e.g. you yourself use this “GØD�. How can you be sure that the true God likes this “Ø� letter? If I would be the God I did not.

E.g. Where, Why, Who, Whom, Whose, What they look similar, they all start by Wh. It is like a terminal. By choosing the terminals we predispose everything, at least it presets conditions. It is like a spell.

Another example: word Hello differs from word Hell by one letter. So when we say hello to each other does it mean that each time the word Hell (and info associated with terminal Hell) gets in some way activated in our brain? Does it mean that that each time when we meet another person and welcome him by this word we activate the terminal Hell? The same is with word Help. So when people say Help, then does it mean that the terminal Hell may get activated with some probability? So does it mean that when people look for Help they call Hell? Magic? Or what? Percolation of meanings in brain?

The human freedom is confined by the language they speak. But there are languages on our planet which have other very interesting properties. E.g. Lord Byron once named a language (I forgot which one) designed to speak with God. Maybe there are languages which are free from such a magic?

Your five points are excellent indeed. But I guess that each should have option.

[Enki]

The message above was posted by me, I forgot to log in, sorry.

Yours Enki

[OnlyNow]

The human freedom is confined by the language they speak. But there are languages on our planet which have other very interesting properties. E.g. Lord Byron once named a language (I forgot which one) designed to speak with God. Maybe there are languages which are free from such a magic?

I just looked it up. Byron thought Armenian is the language to speak with God:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,...,429355,00.html

'A certain amount of romance has surrounded Armenian culture since the 19th century. Lord Byron went to Venice to study Armenian in the belief that "Armenian is the language to speak with God".'

I've also heard it said that silence is the language of God.

I suspect that any language (including Armenian) impedes us all terribly. Admittedly, it's all we have. Words corral otherwise free, unbridled, boundless thoughts, creating borders, limits. A vast poetic vocabulary helps, but really can't exactly express pure (wordless) thoughts.

[Enki]

I've also heard it said that silence is the language of God.

He remained ‘silent’ for a quite long period of time, so that some gentlemen presumably supposed that He does not exist and that they can do whatever they want.

A new language based on scientifically justified logic always can be designed. I am sure that one day nations of the world will challenge that important task and will grant true freedom to human mind, and who knows, maybe then mankind will overlord in the Universe.

Bests,
Enki