A better term for God Options

[Chip]

Would you apply "nature" to a vacuum?

Hmmm. Kirby, Hoover, Dust Devil...?

Seriously now, some people see nature as separate from something else, in fact, a lot of people. We've got "artificial lighting," "artificial intelligence" and other so-called man-made items. I see those as confused, myself, but some do think nature is only a part of all. KISS, (keep it simple smarty) just plain ole "all" suffices.

[lucid_dream]

A better term for God is "I'll risk it"!

Spinoza defined God as "that which there is none greater." My definition is "all that there is." Therefore, a better term for "God" is "nature."

According to Spinoza in his Ethics, "God is a being absolutely infinite--that is, a substance consisting in infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality." According to Spinoza, God is the only being whose essence necessarily involves existence (which he takes as one proof for God's existence).

[Rick]

Would you apply "nature" to a vacuum?

Intersteller space is the hardest vacuum known and it contains about one atom per cubic meter. Hard vacuum is generated on Earth in chambers for testing spacecraft and other devices. The vacuums of which every person (except astronauts) has personal experience are artificial. However, even the artificial is part of nature in the sense that "nature" is all that is. If one accepts that mankind arose via a natural process (evolution), then one must accept that man's artifacts are part of nature too. The distinction of the "artificial" is one of convenience.

[Chip]

I totally agree with you Rick. The thing is if we are to come to a useful term we will need to communicate with others. The clients on this forum seem to be pretty perspicaciously exceptional but still you get that question suggesting that "vacuum" might not be a part of "nature."

I pretty much avoid studying philosophy mainly because I find those that involve themselves with it are seemingly lost in the broohaha. Still, what I learned from the "Beyond Belief" conference and your reference to Spinoza almost makes me want to seek out some writings of his, almost. I have this idea that sticking to science will cause me to evolve my own philosophical ideas though much of what passes itself off as "science" is arguably philosophy. I'm working on developing those arguments at present. The ability of one's perceptions to come to useful teleology is dependent on the validity of their infrastructure, me thinks.

[rhymer]

...just in case...

another better term for God is 5 to 1

[Lindsay]

MAX, I JUST BECAME AWARE OF THIS THREAD suggesting, "A better term for God". Perhaps what we are all discovering is: there are any number of terms other than god, God, or GOD--all that is good orderly and desirable. See my signature.

It could also be G?D. The point is, I am talking about a concept, not a person. In my theory of god I do not talk about a heavenly father called God, or a person-like super being.

Rick calls it Nature.

Could we think of human beings then as nature in a conscious and very fragile form. However, if we are willing to get rid of our arrogance, our ego, and to become humble enough, we have the amazing opportunity and ability to work in close cooperation with the vast and seemingly all-powerful, all-knowing and everywhere-present unconscious. From the point we make the choice, that is express our good will (Love) to be at one with the ALL, the human potential is limitless.

This leads us to the comment by Max:

... Milton Erickson...thought that the conscious was overrated and we should allow our sub-conscious - which is much more powerful, to do the majority of things. He thought that the conscious mind tries to control everything and stops the sub-conscious from using its full potential.

BTW, Max, did ME think of the conscious as the same as the ego? I presume he did. I presume you are familiar with his use of
Therapeutic Metaphor
The legendary Milton Erickson, the famed Hypnotherapist, was renowned for his ability to assist people in making dramatic personal changes. For people who didn't recognize what he was doing, Erickson simply told stories, parables, or jokes. Others recognized there were deeper patterns at work.

Erickson made it look so easy he even fooled the experts. Erickson's student Ernest Rossi watched Milton work with a client and recorded the hypnotic induction step by step in his book, "Hypnotic Realities."

BTW 1, I have Rossi's book. I also have: Advanced Techniques of Hypnosis and Therapy--Selected Papers of Milton Ericson, M.D." by Jay Haley (Grune and Stratton, 1967). A client, who became a friend and, later, helped me teach the pneumatology course gave the book to me. He found in a used-book store. And I have used ME's methods, on myself and on others, since I first became aware of them in the 1970's. I presume my unconscious mind led me to ME and his writings.

BTW 2, Max, I agree with you, this apporach--that is, the bringing of the unconscious and the conscious to work together, in harmony, can be, "an empowering philosophy, not a crushing one."

[Joesus]

Could we think of human beings then as nature in a conscious and very fragile form.

You could but you would be shortchanging human potential to accept the form as limited.
If Man is created in Gods image then Human beings are without limits.

[Lindsay]

Check what Shawn quoted in
http://brainmeta.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13541&hl=
"Ancient Indian philosophy (as contained in the Bhagavad Gita and the Upanishads) has long maintained that the Self is one and the same in each of us, and that individuality is an illusion. We are all one and the same Self, we are the Universe conscious of Itself, but many people believe otherwise due to conditioning and memories. Shawn, the host of this forum wrote:

One of my favorite quotes from Einstein nicely states this view :

"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."

If we really are the universe conscious of itself (individuality and the ego being an illusion), and if the universe is infinite (an infinite multiverse, universes within universes ad infinitum), then what does that say about consciousness and the true identity of 'I'?

[Joesus]

So you're willing to give up the "fragile form" part, as the illusion?

[Lindsay]

Rick tells us:

Interstellar space is the hardest vacuum known and it contains about one atom per cubic meter. Hard vacuum is generated on Earth in chambers for testing spacecraft and other devices. The vacuums of which every person (except astronauts) has personal experience are artificial.

Questions:
Is this is a statement of fact, or is it just one of faith?
If it is a proveable fact, how does one go about proving it to be such?
Is there is such a thing as an absolute vacuum, that is, one which contains no atoms at all?
If so, can this phenomenon be measured and proved to be as claimed?
What is a soft vacuum?

[Joesus]

What is an atom? 99.99% empty space?

[Rick]

[vacuum is emptiness] Is this is a statement of fact, or is it just one of faith?
If it is a proveable fact, how does one go about proving it to be such?
Is there is such a thing as an absolute vacuum, that is, one which contains no atoms at all?
If so, can this phenomenon be measured and proved to be as claimed?
What is a soft vacuum?

1. It's an empirical fact. See various astronomy references.

2. Yes. Take a cubic meter with one atom in it and divide it in half. One half will have a 50-50 chance of having no atoms in it.

3. If you wanted to spend a lot of money, you could produce a total vacuum and spend some time proving it was empty by scanning it with a fine laser.

4. A soft vacuum is less costly to produce than a hard vacuum. Soft vacuums are used for various test and research purposes, and also in Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) and magnatrons. Soft vacuum is measured in torr. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torr

[Rick]

What is an atom? 99.99% empty space?

I think that's a rather naive view that is often erroneously "taught" to beginning science students. The atom is quantum shells, the structure of which is determined by the nuclear structure. Electrons reside in the energy levels of the shells. The shells are probability distributions. You could not access that "space" in any meaningful way so to compare it to a macroscopic vacuum is erroneous.

[Joesus]

99.99% Non accessable meaningless space....?

[Rick]

99.99% Non accessable meaningless space....?

You got it. Take for example a lump of metal such as lead or gold. The atoms are "touching" each other, and there is no way to squeeze more atoms into the metal matrix. Therefore, whatever "space" there may be in there, there is no real way to access it.

[Joesus]

Therefore, whatever "space" there may be in there, there is no real way to access it.

No way, or no known way?

[Rick]

Known physics precludes any meaningful access, unless one happens to be a gamma ray photon.

[Lindsay]

[vacuum is emptiness]
1. Is this a statement of fact, or is it just one of faith?
2. If it is a proveable fact, how does one go about proving it to be such?
3. Is there is such a thing as an absolute vacuum, that is, one which contains no atoms at all?
4. If so, can this phenomenon be measured and proved to be as claimed?
What is a soft vacuum?

1. It's an empirical fact. See various astronomy references.

2. Yes. Take a cubic meter with one atom in it and divide it in half. One half will have a 50-50 chance of having no atoms in it.
3. If you wanted to spend a lot of money, you could produce a total vacuum and spend some time proving it was empty by scanning it with a fine laser.
4. A soft vacuum is less costly to produce than a hard vacuum. Soft vacuums are used for various test and research purposes, and also in Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) and magnatrons. Soft vacuum is measured in torr. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torr

As one who did some basic studies in physics, decades ago, and who is still very interested in it, Rick, I really appreciate you taking the trouble to answer my questions which I just got around to reading. I found your answers very congruent with my philosophy of religion.

In the Spirit of dialogue and of the new thread, ON RELIGION, started by Max, here, at this point--I am always open to change-- is what I believe this has to do with what I call GØD, or, as you term IT, Nature:

Our very ancient and unsophisticated ancestors, IMO, sensed gods in almost everything and everywhere. And, loving to fight, they warred in the name of their gods.
Later, the more sophisticated ancients simple lumped all the gods into one. The semitics called Him:
Elohim (the highest power),
Allah (the highest power),
The Greeks and Latins called Him, Theos (the highest idea), Deus, Deos, Dieu (the highest idea),
We anglos called Him, God (the highest Good, Love). All, loving to fight, and claiming to have God on our side, added politics and economics to the mix and continued to "enjoy" the glory of battle.

Certain wise people among the ancients, including Jesus, sought to speak of GOD in a way other than in terms of matter, space and time.
The Semites called it Ruach, Rooka, Ruh--meaning air, wind, breath.
The Latins called it Spiritus, Spirito; the Greeks callled it Pneuma.
We Anglos call it Spirit.
If as you say, there is such a "thing" as vacuum--space without matter, or atoms, then I can just as easily call it Vacuum.
For me, this means that I can say that Nature, or G0D, is ALL Vacuum, plus all measurable matter within it. I cannot imagine anything beyond that. God, or gods, less than that are, for me, too small. For me, it is the One Unifying factor.

[hello12]

hi, i just wanted to ask a question. what are some inconsistencies of Einstein's universe and the quantum world

[Rick]

For me, this means that I can say that Nature, or GØD--IMHO, G?D is also an acceptable of writing the god-idea--is ALL Vacuum, plus all measureable matter within it. I cannot imagine anything beyond that. God, or gods, less than that are, for me, too small. For me, it is the One Unifying factor.

In addition to mass-energy, there exists consciousness, which nobody yet has been able to explain.

[Lindsay]

...In addition to mass-energy, there exists consciousness, which nobody yet has been able to explain.

Neither can I explain consciousness. But I can and do experience it. I take consciousness as being a self-evident phenomenon; that it can be used to do great good, or great evil. Because I cannot explain it I simply accept it as part of the mystery of life. Naturally, I continue to explore ways of working with consciousness, for my own needs and for the greater good.

BEING BORN AGAIN
Looking back, I remember a point when I became consciously aware that I was aware. I remember that life--probably because of the death of my mother--became a serious struggle and not all fun and games. I think I was about five (1935). Not long after that, I came to the realization that it was up to me use my awareness to do good or evil, for myself and others. The struggle continues to this day.

Then--I was twelve at the time--right in the midst of WW 2, I witnessed two attacks--one in the spring and one in the fall--on Bell Island, NL, by enemy subs. There was a loss of the lives of 69 young merchant seamen. At that point, I finally decided, that despite the risks and possible poverty involved, to opt for doing as much good as I possibly could.

Based more on reason than on emotion, I define that point as the time I was "born again".

I actually decided: If possible, I would like to become a minister. Thanks to my ministers--especially the one I met in 1942--teachers and family I was never pressured to believe in a narrow religionism, or fundamentalism.

BTW, for a video of Bell Island, and the role it played in WW 2, check out http://www.bellisland.net Watch for a picture of one of the two coastal guns, not far from the King house, which saw action in the summer of 1942. The subs escaped getting hit, at the time. However, I think that one of them, or one like them, was captured near the end of the war, off St. John's.