NOTE: The new title I give to this thread.
==============================
Dictionary.com defines God, not just in general terms; it also defines God in terms such as that used by the Christian Science faith. My World Book Dictionary, under the word 'Spirit', that is, with a capital, writes that (in the belief of Christian Science) it is the same as God.

Definition number 5 writes about Christian Science as defining God as the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.

This begs the question. when dictionaries attempt to define 'God" are they not attempting to define that whicn is beyond definition?

Also, is it fair for a dictionary to include the definition of God as understood by any one particular religion and to neglect other definitions from any number of other denominations?

BTW, I think the Christian Science concept of God is a rather good one.

It was written by Christian Scientists?

Ha! ha! very funny, Orbz! But I think Lyndsay has a point. Despite of any personal believe regarding the God concept, an objective definition of Him/Iti is a futile atempt. That's mainly because the God concept as humanly understood lies in areas of the concsiousness still not well understood by our present means. I guess it falls back the the Schoringer's Cat paradigm, which underlines the limitations of science when attepmting to define nature at a level outside the present human capacity: It falls short every time.

Note what I wrote in my revised version of my first post:
I think the Christian Science concept of God is a rather good one. I like many of the principles advocated by CS. It just that in denying the practical value of physical medicine I feel they carry some of their principles too far.

BTW, the reason why CS prayer is so often successful is that, as many medical researchers agree: A negative and fearful frame of mind and spirit can be the root cause of many physical diseases.

Some researchers say that as high as 80% of all diseases, physical and mental, are the result of a stressful mental and spiritual state of mind. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the opposite is also true. A healthy spirit and mind make for a healthy body--total health of being. As an old proverbs puts it: "A merry heart is good medicine."

My bad Lyndsay. I was re-dericting the thread more towards your comment about the dictionary definition of God.

In the spirit of dialogue, tell us more so as to clarify what you mean.

BTW, I would like to change the title of this thread to:
The god-concept: OUR concept of 'god'. Is God, GØD, god, a who? Or a what? Or just a figment of the imagination. And these questions pose numerous others. What are your important questions?

For me, GØD means three things:
Physically speaking:
GØD is all-pervasive space/time and gravity, including apparent chaos and evil. GØD is also art--the good, the bad and the ugly.
Mentally: GØD is all philosophies and all science--moral and immoral.
Spiritually: GØD is the highest good--faith, hope and love--IF that is the choice we make.

However, within us we also have the amazing love-based freedom to make choices. We can make choices that will lead us to completely be, or not to be. We are free to be foolish, or wise. And in my humble opinion, we have an eternity of time and an infinity of space in which to do it.

Thanks to GØD--within, around, beneath and above--in my humble opinion we also have the power to be humble, teachable, wise. Following the principles: Do no harm and make no judgements, IMHO, we can do this on our own; or in any social group--small, medium or large.

THE ABILITY TO HAVE FAITH, HOPE AND LOVE CANNOT BE IMPOSED
========================================================
Keeping in mind that the ability to have faith, hope and love cannot be imposed on anyone, the goal is everlasting joy for all people in the whole world who choose it. I have made my choice.

There is one thing that, every now and then, cramps my feeling of joy and gives me twinges of despair. I will mention it later.

I don't know what else to say but just what I said about it. I basically thought you meant that it was futile to try to define God (or the concept of God) in thoughts that were digestible by the humand mind, and I said I cocurred with that. Your concept of God, being different from mine, is the combination of those things you mentioned in your last post combined. But, come to think of it, it's still just that, a concept. Am i right? Whereas my concept of God might mean something different to me. All those things you mention God to mean to you are simply concepts in my mind. Which begs the question: What is it that is so important to you to have all these concepts put together into a definition which you call God (or G-D or G_D, ect)?

If you believe god is beyond definition, would that not lead to saying that god is beyond understanding?
The word god holds no constant coherent meaning. Its meaning is entirely subjective and dependent on the person that holds the notion for it's meaning.




I am confused after reading the first post, why you are (from my point of view) trying to define
GØD .

I find all faith unacceptable, but what can one do but tolerate the deluded until they come around?

Spoken like a true "know-it-all" and brother of GØD
Rick, I hope you realize that this puts you under the great obligation to share more and more of your wisdom with all of us, eh?

THE KIND OF GOD-CONCEPT I FIND UNACCEPTABLE
1. I cannot accept a god-concept which requires me to have a blind faith in one called God, who clothes "Himself in mystery" and demands us to "trust and obey" Him.
2. One who wrote one infallible book, the Bible--or was it the Koran?
3. By the way, the Bible implies that, in the beginning there was nothing but God.

THE FOLLOWING MAY BE GOOD POETRY, BUT NOT GOOD HISTORY
=======================================================
The part of the Bible which we call the Old Testament--which the Jews call the Hebrew Torah, Prophets and Writings--tells us that, out of nothing, God created the heavens, including the sun moon and stars. He also created the centre of the universe, the earth. Surrounding the earth, he created numerous angels, archangels, including fallen angels, demons and the devil, who, under His control, he allowed to visit the earth.

It only took him six days to create all this, including the earth and our first parents, Adam and Eve.

This means that God is the Lord God Almighty, our Heavenly Father who is loving, just and merciful. But then, for some unexplained reason, He did not create an exact copy of His Heavenly Kingdom. He created an earth filled with all kinds of danger.

THE FOLLOWING BOTHERS ME, A LOT,
Especially if we are expected to believe that God is a real person:
===============================
He allowed all kinds of evil and sin to flourish--snakes, talking snakes, even, in the grass--without even informing anyone as to why he did this. Some argue--and this is nowhere stated in the Bible--that God did this because he wanted us to love him of our own free will.

O eventually, after a period of lots of corruption, He tried to make things better by organizing his own holocaust. He sent one humungous flood,which destroyed everything--I presume the fish were happy --except Noah, the numerous air-breathing creatures, of all kinds, plus his family, plus his three sons: Shem, Ham and Jappeth--the first parents of all people, of all races, who exist today.

Women! Did you notice that there is no mention of the names of the women? What does this tell you about the one who wrote the WORD of God?

The Hebrew Bible tells us that most of of the descendents of the family of Noah, with a few noted exceptions, were not much better than those who God destroyed in the great flood. Over the next 4000 years, all over the world, things went from bad to worse. Pious Jews prayed to God, fervently: "Send us a messiah, one who will truly save all of us from our sins." They still pray this kind of prayer to this day. Christians pray for the Messiah, Christ, to come back again. The Muslim pray for the 12th Immam to come. Other religions, or faiths, have their own set of beliefs.

THE FIRST CHRISTIANS WERE REFORMED JEWS
Meanwhile, a sect of reformed Jews, who later called themselves, Christians, came to the conclusion that, eventually, God decided to save the world, this time once and for all. It is recorded in the Christian Bible--in what we call the New Testament--that he had only one son who He decided to send down to earth to save us. According to those who believe this, that happened around 4 BCE.

BTW, does anyone really believe that God only had one son? Surely, he and Mrs. God, with all the rsources they must have under their control, could afford to have millions, if not billions of sons, and daughters! Again I ask, what does this tell us about who it was who wrote the STORY?
Whatever is true, or not true, about the above, the story teller tells us that about 2000 years ago, Jesus was born, in Bethlehem, as the the one and only Son of God.

On this earthly plane. he assigned to be the son of Joseph, a carpenter, and his wife, Mary. Some pious Christians believe that she was ever the virgin wife of Joseph and the virgin mother of Jesus, even though the NT mentions that Jesus had brothers and sisters.

Be that as it may, he grew up in Nazareth, of Galilee. In his late twenties he started to gather together disciples by preaching, teaching and healing people. He preached a gospel--that is, good news--based on love, which offered eternal salvation--physical, mental and spiritual health--to all who chose to follow and were willing to suffer and die, if necessary for this gospel.

Needless to say, a certain powerful few, despite that masses heard him, gladly, refused to accept his message. They rewarded the efforts of Jesus with suffering, pain and death, which Jesus willingly accepted.

Three days after his burial, certain followers of Jesus believed that he actually rose from the dead. Inspired by this belief, they came together and formed the first Christian churches which grew up all over the place, not just in one place. Over the next 300 years or so a lot more pain and suffering was endured by the followers of the way of faith, hope and love. But then, about 325, came Constantine, the so-called Christian Emperor. Thopugh he was a brutal dictator most of his life, he had some good points. He agreed not to persecute the Christians, probably because his mother was one. Eventually some Christians became powerful members of his government. This led to more power, to more war, to more corruption and, eventually, to the fall of Rome powerless to defend itself from the invasions of Goths, Huns and other "barbarians".

When the early leaders of the "one true church of God" picked up the pieces, which were left after the fall of the Roman Empire, it looked like it was on the way to establishing "the one and only Kingdom of God" on earth.

All that was necessary was for Jesus to come back from his father's court, in heaven. When he does he will lead the followers of God, in a glorious victory at the battle of Armageddon. Meanwhile, this belief led to the establishing of the "one, true, holy and Roman Catholic church" and the Crusades against the upstart, Islam. Unfortunately for Rome, it also ran into those who saw it as being the main source of couurption. This led to th Reformation, which also led us into the rise of science.

But let us not forget that many--including some very powerful economic and political leaders, mostly Protestants--today, actually believe that, at any minute, God will send his son, again.

I wonder what odds the bookies are offering as to when this will happen..

Certainly, for you of course. Here goes:

1. We should value and work to improve what we will leave behind us when we die, as death means personal extinguishment. What we leave behind is what is important.

2. Remember that love is what lends value to the world we leave behind when we die. When you are injured by someone, do not focus on revenge. Try to put yourself in the place of the one who does injury to try to understand his view. Try to find a way to increase the influence of love.

3. All living things differ from one another only in their particular circumstances. We all die as individuals. We all live as long as life exists.

If everyone followed those three principles, all of people's desires will become fulfilled in time.

Rick, great stuff!!!!
=============

WARNING! I do not want anyone complaining that Rick is off topic.
====================================================

Since this thread was originated by me, and since this thread is about anything found in the dictionaries: EVERYTHING that is INTERESTING, and is found in dictionaries, IS ON TOPIC, in my humble opinion, anyway, and for what it is worth, etc., and so on and on and on.

GOT IT!!!!!!

If what is said bores you, start your own BORING thread, Okay?

IMO any G_D (your kind of G_D) out there is the product of our creation. What does that make me?

Why does the story bother you, Lindsay?

Wiki:

God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe.[1]

Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the various conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, perfect goodness, divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Augustine of Hippo,[2] Al-Ghazali,[3] and Maimonides.[2] Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God,[4] attempting to wrestle with the apparent contradictions implied by many of these attributes. Philosophers have developed several arguments for and against the existence of God.

1. One thing is clear for many: something exists out there.
2. The Properties of that something is still a matter of debate.
3. We do not have proper communication line for information exchange with that something; and we do not know why it is so.

We need to research that something and shot down those who say that we cannot research that something.

Excellent points, Enki.

BTW, as to # 3, I feel that I do have a "communication line" that works, at least for me. I promise not to impose my feelings on others, but I will gladly share them, and dialogue about them.

Thank you for appreciating my humble rumination related with The Something.

I agree with Lindsay: MOST excellent point, Enki. And I agree with you on everything you said 100%. This is what gives some of us Hope that not everything is lost. Thank you for sharing such wisdom with us. What forms of communication do you think will work at the colective level? Should we go about it by scientific means, or otherwise?

By no means is this thread boring!
When you have the time please have a look at my previous question,
which asks if something is beyond definition, does that imply its beyond understanding?
Its not a rhetorical question and did not mean to sound like one either.

I do not want to rehash the definition problem. I think that perhaps an obstacle in dialogue lies in the fact that a word without a concrete definition, makes it difficult to compare the word God to anything in their minds.

Perhaps the problem lies in the way we naturally think. We usually correlate to understand things and build new concepts based on previously acquired ones. The idea of god is not comparable to anything we know, at least in some way that can be reasoned.

Yes, yes indeed. It is not a problem to share such a great wisdom you know.

Yes you can keep the Hope. It may help. Sometimes.

Let me to abstain from discussing such a sensitive things online.

I strongly keep to scientific form of investigations of the realms of the ridicule.

"Otherwise" variants are dangerous.

Eventually mankind will clarify the matter, sometimes.

The only problem is dealing with the thought that there is a problem or a solution.
Whether one refrains from using a word such as God or devises within their own mind a temporary solution to their dilemma by cleverly arranging thoughts to create an illusion of ascending the manifest, association of spirit to manifest is the same and the personal will have its own choice in memory of it.

If one man says God another will automatically see it according to their beliefs.
If one man says I don't say God I say Gd another man will see according to his beliefs.
If one man says G*D another man will see it according to his beliefs and relative ideas.
If one could by their belief in having a better word or way, actually reach into someones mind and take away their impressions of life and spirituality to replace it with their own personal thoughts and impressions, then one might be successful in having some authority over another's choice to accept a definition, or impression of a word.
Otherwise it doesn't matter what word you use if you use it within the context of the understanding when speaking to another.
If one man says God and another thinks Yahweh then as soon as you say I think God the other thinks To himself "I think Yahweh, he thinks God"
If one man says I think or say Gfd because of this that and the other, then one might say "Wow that's cool maybe I'll think and say that word because I like how it fits into what I already believe about God."

If one man says God means this to me, another man might say I agree but I also think God means this and I call it Homer.
Basically its the ego that tries to find perfection in using a word or not because it is a form of control, a need to be perfect within the thought that there is little or no perfection in the manifest or the representation of God as one perceives their reality.

For those that generally accept a God of any sort the resonance of that thought gives the word power to align themselves with God, and God is the most widely used word representing spirituality in any culture regardless of the variations.
The word itself has no way of supporting God because if God exists regardless of beliefs and variances of connotative identities, changing labels or font size, or even creating an acronym for each letter in the label doesn't change or alter God.
What does/will change is the experiences of free will as it moves in and out of the attempts to redefine the absolute without defining it.
More energy is expended by the ego in trying to capture the absolute in the proper descriptions to exemplify the existence of God than is expended in actually uniting ones self with it.
It doesn't change the relationship of spirit to the manifest by exerting effort to make it more believable or true.
Regardless of any effort, this relationship exists.

God is not ineffable, because if it were we wouldn't exist.
Because God supports humanity and all experience, no one has the definitive word other than God, and that word is without quality.

Once we remove our need to qualify God then God emerges to present itself to the senses which are otherwise searching in small circles in relationship to the ego. Like a fish searching for a drink of water.

If we align ourself with any word are we aligning ourselves with God or the word and its connotations. Does that word have positive of negative connotations?

One might say I don't say God because to most God means some judgmental white haired old man sitting up in the sky causing mankind to suffer, So I'm going to think of God as being something better and give him another name so that God won't mean that.

There is a question that I really like from Vasishta's Yoga. It goes like this. If a crow lands on a coconut tree and at the same time a coconut falls, does the crow light on the tree just as the coconut falls or does the crow dislodge the coconut?

This question is designed to make one think about the effort we put into what we believe we can change and affect. Some things are happening around us that are relative to us at different levels of conscious awareness.
Ultimately if there is one God then God is creating everything and we are being placed in and amongst experience and action thinking we are in control and doing what we do.
From the traditional Teachings of enlightenment man is the reflection of God and the connection we have means that we are intimate with the source or in another description, are the source God.
As our awareness travels along this thread of intimacy from its most gross point in human individuality and separation to the ultimate opposite end actually becoming God then we could and can experience ourselves as being everything and every one we meet becoming the one who says God and the one who says G*D at the same time.
Where we decide to put our energy determines where we are on the thread of intimacy.

Where we choose to be is by the grace of the creator of all that exists, and any name is appropriate if it brings you closer to being cognizant of that relationship and source.
If you don't believe in a God, then the word, any word, will still lead you to your own beliefs, and all roads traveled considering the meaning of the word or non-word, is personal and within the power of your choice to believe.
One wouldn't even try to give it a name or a thought if it weren't within you to give some mind to it.

It just takes some, longer to get to it than others.

Joesus, just a gentle suggestion. Headline your concepts and ideas; then summerize your valuable philosophy.

Wise words from a wise man. You sound like a prophet sometimes, Enki. Did you speak to the Oracle already, or something? Witholding information that may benefit humankind is a crime, you know?

Hahaha. Funny.

I'll tell you a funny story about the Oracle:

Once upon a time there was an Oracle in Delphi, Greece: a group of sexy and extra cute virgin (or possibly virgin) girls under influence of some specific odor were transmitting interesting ideas (in form of irregular words sequence) to common people via some clever and very enterprising guys called priests (who have been dwelling there too ...), who by putting those irregular Words Arrays (Words Matrixes ) into some Poetic Verse were providing consultations to common people of Peloponnesus and the rest of the world; but eventually she/he/it disappeared and the Murmuring Spring possibly shifted somewhere. Since that she/he/it makes biscuits with sultana at her/his/its kitchen here and there on the glob and murmurs fantastic stories to sexy cute guys coming to visit her/him/it hoping to find out the truth. She/he/it makes love with those guys or/and gives them to eat biscuits, and tells them interesting stories as a reward, thus, eventually saving from doomsday the entire mankind. If she/he/it dislikes them sexually, then they have to pay in cash like in any consulting company for consultations. Those who find the Oracle get unlimited power over the course of human events.

So humankind should pay for the information as I still plan to buy dish washing machine, visit some libraries in London and have projects of cosmic importance.



And if the fraternity of Free Pirates prefers to call me criminal then I will make alliance with the Vatican or/and Lord Beckett and eventually all the Free Pirates will suck and the Calypso will get freedom. And then ... things will change forever. You know?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A student, after working several days to prepare a discourse for his Teacher and fellow students stepped up to the podium in front of several hundred of his classmates. He delivered his discourse, and at the end looked outward with his hope for approval, but the entire theater sat without emotion or what appeared any interest, except for his Teacher who sat in the back with a smile.
Frustrated he went back to his room and prepared another discourse, this time in mind to meet the expectations of his peers.
The following day he once again stepped up to the podium to deliver his revised discourse. After presenting the material the theater broke out into applause, but this time his Teacher, who had a frown on his face got up and left the room.

Later when facing his Teacher the student was reprimanded for compromising himself to please the crowd. His Teacher said,"The material you first prepared came from the heart and it was perfect regardless of what anyone thought about it. When you then compromised yourself to meet the expectations of the crowd the connection to your heart was broken, your need for approval drew you outward and away from the surrender to God and your heart. Never compromise yourself to meet the expectations of others."

I can appreciate that you have a structure to your material Lindsay. My interest is in surrendering to something greater than expectation and structure of relative boundaries. If in responding to any topic I don't meet the expectations of others I will assume they have the capacity to find their own respective freedom to express without narrowing ones capacities to fit another's box.
My intent is not to structure God in concept and summarization, regardless of the need to have God stand impervious to doubt and criticism.

No offense taken and none meant, ever.

For those who 'forgot' ...
Early open scientific investigations of the realm of the redicule

Sir William Crookes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Crookes)
President of the Royal Society
1913–1915

In 1870 Crookes decided that science had a duty to study the preternatural phenomena associated with Spiritualism (Crookes 1870). Judging from family letters, Crookes had developed a favorable view of Spiritualism already by 1869 (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 232–233). Nevertheless, he was determined to conduct his inquiry impartially and described the conditions he imposed on mediums as follows: "It must be at my own house, and my own selection of friends and spectators, under my own conditions, and I may do whatever I like as regards apparatus" (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 177). Among the mediums he studied were Kate Fox, Florence Cook, and Daniel Dunglas Home (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 230-251). Among the phenomena he witnessed were movement of bodies at a distance, rappings, changes in the weights of bodies, levitation, appearance of luminous objects, appearance of phantom figures, appearance of writing without human agency, and circumstances which "point to the agency of an outside intelligence" (Crookes 1874).
Crookes' report on this research, in 1874, concluded that these phenomena could not be explained as conjuring, and that further research would indeed be useful. Crookes was not alone in his views. Fellow scientists who came to believe in Spiritualism included Alfred Russel Wallace, Oliver Joseph Lodge, Lord Rayleigh, and William James (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 62). Nevertheless, most scientists were convinced that Spiritualism was fraudulent, and Crookes' final report so outraged the scientific establishment "that there was talk of depriving him of his Fellowship of the Royal Society." Crookes then became much more cautious and didn't discuss his views publicly until 1898, when he felt his position was secure. From that time until his death in 1917, letters and interviews show that Crookes was a believer in Spiritualism (Doyle 1926: volume 1, 169–170, 249–251).

see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Dunglas_Home

No offense taken. It obviously isn't meant for you.

Enki, as one who is a supporter of the scientific study of any phenomenon, for decades I befriended many spititualists and looked into their claims. The result? I found little of real substance and/or practical value.

However, I still keep an open mind regarding the claims of spiritualism, and I am still interested in the whole phenomenon of spirituality.

I always ask spiritualists: If, as you claim, spiritual beings are real and can communicate with us, how come you have not been able to demonstrate this to someone as open as me?

BTW, are there any readers among us who are covinced spiritualists? If so, speak up! And have your spirit friends do some posting on this site. I will be most interested.

Jn 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth.
Actually the correct translation is, "God is spirit" rather than God is a spirit.




Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.

Ohhhh, Joesus, you dug it up. Heheheheh. Well, hehe. Eeeee, you know, I think this quote is not up to place.
What if there are many houses (e.g. there are many houses in Hogwarts and in the Unseen University ). One cannot mix all together.

But now I understand your approach to the realm of the ridicule. I think it is not a wise approach.
It is rather one sided approach. It is White & Black logic but the rainbow has quite many colors.



According to Sir William it is not so easy to select the right people to test the phenomena. Such people are rare. Besides in my opinion, as far as I can guess, in closed Academic cycles the phenomena is well studied and there is a silent agreement not to toss the topic in public too much, because after Her Hitler’s and Comrade Stalin’s cases all understood that the discussions should process in whispering mode, so not to wake up the aggressive dragons.

But, unfortunately, at present, things changed in a way that whispering does not help. And unfortunately we stand on the edge of phase transition in that subject. I mean situation is such that there is no room to hide things. That is why, I strongly keep to the point that all must be done to provide peaceful shift to a new platform of reality perception for the majority.

No doubt that the communication line is not stable (some speak with Isis, some speak with Jesus, some speak with White Rabbit and no one is sure are they are!), but if you just suppose that there something exists, something having intellect, then that something should have security system as well. Maybe something fears that if all start to study something, that something can be damaged. And, so in this very case it is rather a point of Politics rather than of Scientific investigation.

If to consider our world (the entire world) as a fractal, and if to suppose that on that fractal another fractal (or fractals) are grown, partially using elements of our fractal but with varied whirls of some branches and thus the parallel worlds are intermixed with each other, the abrupt changes in one will definitely influence the others. From that point of view, to preserve harmony, such topics should be treated with utmost care.

That is why Human Sensors cannot be trusted, because if those worlds exists, then they become a tool in political games between the worlds rather than Scientific Instruments to study the realms of the ridicule.

And besides if The Invasion from the other worlds during the REM sleep is possible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invasion_%28film%29), then that all turns to be very sensitive subject of independent research. And so, the independent researches out of State funding (so under public control) should not be welcomed.

Hope I reflected your questions in quite a satisfactory way.

Once I have seen a chap who told me that writing some words on stones can help to demonstrate the phenomena, but he failed to tell which.

E.g. open publication of such papers (see below) can be (may be) considered as direct declaration of War to that SOMETHING. Especially if to view the DUST related things from the point of view of Philip Pullman’s trilogy His Dark Materials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_%28His_Dark_Materials%29) which movie will emerge on 7 December 2007.

And the guys from the New Journal of Physics must know, that the SOMETHING may read even their Journal. Because the ways of EVHOVHA and Lord Asriel are unknown.

Could alien life exist in the form of DNA-shaped dust?
18:09 10 August 2007
NewScientist.com news service
Stephen Battersby
http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12...haped-dust.html

Could alien life exist in the form of dancing specks of dust? According to a new simulation, electrically charged dust can organise itself into DNA-like double helixes that behave in many ways like living organisms, reproducing and passing on information to one another.

"This came as a bit of a surprise to us", says Gregor Morfill of the Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics in Garching, Germany. He and colleagues have built a computer simulation to model what happens to dust immersed in an ionised gas, or plasma.

The dust grains pick up a negative charge by absorbing electrons from the plasma and then this charged 'nucleus' attracts positive ions, which form a shell around it.

It was already known that this system can produce regular arrays of dust called plasma crystals, and some experiments have also shown hints of spiral structures. Now, Morfill's simulation suggests that the dust should sometimes form double helixes.

Like DNA, the dust spirals can store information. They do so in the scaffolding of their bodies, as they have two stable states – one with a large diameter and the other with a small one – so a spiral could carry a series of wide and narrow sections.

The specific order of these sections can be copied from one dust spiral to another, like a genetic code. The researchers aren't sure how it happens, but they think each narrow section of spiral creates a permanent vortex of moving dust outside it. So if another spiral drifts alongside it, that vortex pinches the same length into its narrow state.

Genetic code
The spirals even feed, in a sense, as they need fresh plasma to survive and grow, suggesting they may compete with one another for food. Since they are also capable of passing on their genetic code, then perhaps they could evolve into more complex structures.

But that is very speculative, says Morfill, explaining that the simulation is far too simple to include such complex processes as evolution. "It has a lot of the hallmarks for how we define life at present, but we have not simulated life," Morfill told New Scientist. "To us, they're just a special form of plasma crystal."

"It's interesting," agrees astrobiologist Chris McKay of NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, California, US.

"Some people have argued that life is a self-organising system [that is out of equilibrium], but you could say that of a hurricane," he told New Scientist. "What these guys have done is one step up from pointing at a hurricane and saying it's a living organism. They argue there's a way this can store information, which is a central feature of life. But it's somewhat disappointing that this is only theoretical work."

Life in Saturn's rings?
The team is now setting up an experiment to find out whether real dust spirals exist. It's tricky, because gravity will tend to disrupt the delicate dust structure, but they can get around that to some extent by compressing the dusty plasma, increasing electrical forces within it. To go much further, they will have to find another way to counteract gravity – perhaps by using magnetic fields, or by putting their experiment in free-fall on the International Space Station.

Alive or not, these dust structures could exist in nature. There are many places in space where small grains of material are immersed in a plasma.

"In our solar system, the places most likely to have the right conditions are planetary rings, especially the rings of Saturn and Uranus," says Morfill. There the "dust" would actually be fine ice grains, and the nourishing plasma would be supplied by the solar wind, channelled by planetary magnetic fields.

For any ice-grain creatures roaming the rings of Saturn, the pace of life would be leisurely, because plasma-crystal processes run more than a hundred thousand times more slowly than the biochemistry of Earth. So even if they are alive, there's no need to worry about them possessing malign alien intelligence. They probably won't have had time to evolve very far.

Leave your comments about this story – and suggest names for these dust 'creatures' – in our space blog.

Journal reference: New Journal of Physics (forthcoming)

So, re-quoting and paraphrasing myself in matters related with the Global Warming I should note again that if hurricanes are intellectual beings (and who knows maybe even the clouds are), then pigs definitely can fly not only over California but over Yorkshire, Success and Essex. And even Surrey.

And I do really hope that the BrainMeta community is slowly approaching to understanding of very complex things related with the SOMETHING. Me too.

Wish you all to have a good summer, hope will read you all by the September.

DUST. Ah yes, dust! What is it?

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S547.htm

I remember first reading this essay in the 1940's, in high school: For the complete essay check out, and I repeat:

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/wallace/S547.htm

You too, child of the cold war! Speaking of which, it's hot as hell down here in Texas in August. What's it like whre you are?

Sun is shining,
People happy,
What else they need,
These dusty monkeys?

Unknown writer.

You have been mis'informed': I am not a child, moreover a child of the cold war. I just use bad grammar and use cinematographically created new patterns for generation of new categories of thinking in a brain to express in short some new ideas.

One Russian verse about Veda in the tpoic above and you made me a child of the cold war. Amassing indeed. I know not only Russian btw.




Generally it is hot here.

Have a nice summer Code Buttons.

The SOMETHING will definitely kiss the Kids back.

Again thanks for posting this thread, it has led me to the following

This has been a refreshing intelligent discussion on much talked about topic. It would be foolish of me to simply discount everyones thinking that opposes mine. And I wonder how people accept a proposition about how reality is without empirical grounds backing the proposition?

I am able to see the appeal of religion/god and the advantages it offers.
Lindsay and Joesus I can see the reasoning behind your thinking (thanks for making a few things clearer for me) But I do not personally think that they are good reasons believing any of it is true.

Enki: I support the idea that one should always question, its a wonderful approach to life,
So I want to make it clear that I do concern myself with the consequences of failing to believe in a claim that may later prove to be true. And at the same time hope that the question also encourages others to examine the reasons for their beliefs and see if they are really consistent with what they consider makes a belief and actions based on that belief justifiable.

Thanks for your comment, Culture. BTW, 'culture' refers to fineness of feelings, thoughts, tastes, manners, etc. We have it in the word, 'cultivate'. It is also the French for one's 'religious denomination'. In a very real sense, every religious denomination is a cult. Some are narrow and dangerous cults; most are not.

I PREFER DIALOGUE TO DEBATE
===========================
I trust you understand that I have no intention whatever of imposing my cult beliefs on anyone. I even refuse to impose my beliefs on myself. This is why I examine them everytime I think about them. I always keep my options open. This is, also, why I like to dialogue, not debate.

LIFE IS A PILGRIMAGE
==================
As you are perhaps aware, I try to make it clear, as often as necessary, that, for me, life is a pilgrimage. It is not about having an ultimate destiny in mind, but about being a pilgrim among pilgrims in an eternal process.

I have the strong feeling that I would not enjoy the kind of heaven of "peace, perfect peace", preached by most cults. Imagine watching any game of sport--hockey, baseball, basketball, whatever--in which every athlete was a star, who played the perfect game, and every game ended in a tie of 0 to 0! For basketball that would be 100 to 100. No one would watch perfect golfers all play perfect golf.

By the way, this coming Sunday, at the weekly meeting of the 'cult' which I presently attend, there will be A DIALOGUE ON THE HUMAN PREDICAMENT & THE HOPED-FOR HUMAN DESTINY. Keep in mind what I said about destiny.

We a planning to have a humanist present what humanists believe.
http://humanist.toronto.on.ca/events.html#monthly

As a Pathwinian, I will present what I believe:
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=2
http://www.pathwayschurch.ca/
And there will be lots of time to question and dialogue.
========================================

Yey Enki reads Discworld. You may be interested to know they're filming Color of Magic in the UK right now, and it should be ready for Christmas.

Its quite amusing how Pratchett deals with religion - the Gods are real but only as long as people give them power through belief.

======================
This exciting new information:
Check out BLACK MASS--Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia, the latest book by John Gray
=======================================================
About the British academic, philosopher, professor, writer, social critic, and a broad-brush skeptic, John Gray. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray

He, a self-described skeptic, calls this age as, "an age of the crusading atheists..."

He refers to Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett, and others like them, "as evangelists for atheism...secular believers with faiith in their own set of creeds and myths...They are militant, vehement, dogmatic...which point to the religious origin of their faith." His words, not mine.

RELIGION
========
Keep in mind, the root meaning of religion comes from the word 'ligament'. Ligaments hold the physical body together. Philosophically speaking, religion is that which can hold people together as a community, or group.

Broadly speaking, any social institution that includes a set of commonly held beliefs can be called a religion, even when, like superstition, such beliefs are contra to common sense and reason.

BTW, there is, also, such a thing as a non-theistic religion. For example, Buddhism is a non-theistic religion.

Theologically speaking, religion, as it is commonly understood, is based on a fixed set of theological beliefs--in a god, or gods--as set forth, by a founder, and/or in a book or in a collections of sayings, and passed on to disciples and followers. Christians and Jews have what we call the Bible. Muslims have the Koran. The practice of such religions usually involves prayer, ritual, ethics and morality--laws of personal behaviour.

Religion can encompass ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experiences. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared convictions.

THE DEMOCRATIC FREEDOM OF, AND FREEDOM FROM, RELIGION
=======================================================
Personally speaking, as one who believes in democracy, I even refuse to impose any fixed-position kind of religion on myself. I want to be free to thnk, at all times. Therefore, I feel that no society should ever have the right to impose religion on any other individual.

FREEDOM, FREEDOM, FREEDOM
=========================
You and I must have the freedom of religion and freedom from religion, if we so choose. I will write more on this. Meanwhile, your input will be welcome.
==============0000000000000000000000=================