The Face of God....

[ольга]

What do you mean by these words?

Он имеет ввиду - как вы(ваше сознание) отличает один момент времени от другого? Допустим, мы можем сохранить в памяти(которая тоже непонятно что такое и в виде чего находится) всю поступающую в неё информацию. Но каким образом ваше сознание отсортировывает разные моменты времени? Как оно не путает последовательность событий? Похоже на какую то программу. Кто автор программы?

 

[davewhite04]

He means - how do you (your consciousness) distinguish one moment in time from another? Let's say we can store in memory (which is also unclear what it is and in what form it is) all the information that comes into it. But how does your consciousness sort out different moments in time? How does it not confuse the sequence of events? It looks like some kind of program. Who is the author of the program?

Thanks Olga, but I was after an explanation what the few words at the end meant.

 

[DaveC426913]

Thanks Olga, but I was after an explanation what the few words at the end meant.

Which few words?

About the external world?
Or the humbly yours?

 

[Hapsburg]

I mean, yeah, that's an idea strongly rooted in Platonism, at least when we couch it in Western terms-- similar ideas are present in Daoism, Advaita Vedanta, and even Egyptian philosophy. The physical universe is the terminal register of an outflowing of divine energy, emanating from The One or the Monad. The Monad is prior to all differentiation and prior to all existence, and as such is absolute Unity. I would not call it a god, as that is a category, and the Monad defies all categories. Rather than producing through creation, it emanates by the pure act, or pure actuality. It lacks nothing, and therefore has no unrealize potential, and so we can say that is purely actualized.

 

[James R]

Just admit it James, we don't know and your hallucination theory is just a hypothesis yet you say it as a fact. You are controlled by logic, bad logic in this case as far as I'm concerned with my subjective experiences prove it is fact. Which is more than what science knows.

Subjective experiences can never prove an objective fact.

The conditions under which near-death experiences occur are well documented. A lack of oxygen to the brain tends to be a common denominator in many of the documented cases. Moreover, lack of oxygen does lead to "tunnel vision", including tunnels with lights and the end. And what do people who have NDEs typically report?

How would Dr's or scientists test for a super natural entity? Do you know something I don't know James?

They would wait for somebody to say "Here I have a supernatural entity. I know it's a supernatural entity because of X, Y and Z." Then they would test claims X, Y and Z to see if they can withstand skeptical scientific scrutiny.

Considering all the millions of people in the world who claim they know for sure that their various versions of God are real, don't you find it strange that not one of them has ever come up with suitable objective evidence to support their claim?

 

[ольга]

Subjective experiences can never prove an objective fact.

The conditions under which near-death experiences occur are well documented. A lack of oxygen to the brain tends to be a common denominator in many of the documented cases. Moreover, lack of oxygen does lead to "tunnel vision", including tunnels with lights and the end. And what do people who have NDEs typically report?

They would wait for somebody to say "Here I have a supernatural entity. I know it's a supernatural entity because of X, Y and Z." Then they would test claims X, Y and Z to see if they can withstand skeptical scientific scrutiny.

Considering all the millions of people in the world who claim they know for sure that their various versions of God are real, don't you find it strange that not one of them has ever come up with suitable objective evidence to support their claim?

Джеймс, а почему это существо должно быть сверхъестественным? Почему не естественным?

 

[davewhite04]

Subjective experiences can never prove an objective fact.

The conditions under which near-death experiences occur are well documented. A lack of oxygen to the brain tends to be a common denominator in many of the documented cases. Moreover, lack of oxygen does lead to "tunnel vision", including tunnels with lights and the end. And what do people who have NDEs typically report?

They would wait for somebody to say "Here I have a supernatural entity. I know it's a supernatural entity because of X, Y and Z." Then they would test claims X, Y and Z to see if they can withstand skeptical scientific scrutiny.

Considering all the millions of people in the world who claim they know for sure that their various versions of God are real, don't you find it strange that not one of them has ever come up with suitable objective evidence to support their claim?

Agreed.

I see. Is this a scientific theory?

I think we can both say, it's unlikely that a natural world can gain supernatural evidence. The example you've used is part of your hypothesis? We need evidence as you know. But, you're right in your thinking, but what is the point? Ultimately we'll never get a repeatable test that determines the supernatural is real.

I personally don't find it strange James. I expect it. If the supernatural exists and there're testimonies we have some evidence. I suspect a large % of reported incidents are made up. I posted one of my experiences a few years ago somewhere and have seen it surface written by someone else, they may be telling the truth, people can be strange sometimes.

Bottom line:

NDE's will never be science.


Do you think there is a difference between OBE(Out of Body) and NDE experiences?

 

[davewhite04]

Which few words?

About the external world?
Or the humbly yours?

If you look back, I've paired my question with Opine's section of their post, using Italics.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you look back, I've paired my question with Opine's section of their post, using Italics.

Holy Jeez that's ambiguous. There are a half dozen ways that could have made clear what you were asking - both then and subsequently (since no less than two people have asked for clarity).

I predict that Opine - should they deign to return - will likewise be unable to interpret your ask, and you will not get an answer.

 

[davewhite04]

Holy Jeez that's ambiguous. There are a half dozen ways that could have made clear what you were asking - both then and subsequently (since no less than two people have asked for clarity).

I predict that Opine - should they deign to return - will likewise be unable to interpret your ask, and you will not get an answer.

It was the opposite to what I expected.

 

[James R]

James, why should this creature be supernatural? Why not natural?

Miracles break the laws of nature, Olga. Walking on water. Bringing the dead back to life. Parting the Red Sea. Appearing and disappearing at will. Making burning bushes talk. Creating universes, while existing outside of them. Being all powerful, all knowing and all seeing.

Do you regard your God as a natural being, Olga? What laws of nature apply to your natural God?

 

[DaveC426913]

James, why does this creature have to be supernatural? Why not natural?

This causes it to fall in the category of "advanced alien" by definition.

It obeys the laws of nature, is intelligent, powerful but is not human. And, it goes without saying, is surely not of this Earth.

Many have proposed the idea of God-is-an-alien but it's no more fruitful than any other theory.

 

[ольга]

Miracles break the laws of nature, Olga. Walking on water. Bringing the dead back to life. Parting the Red Sea. Appearing and disappearing at will. Making burning bushes talk. Creating universes, while existing outside of them. Being all powerful, all knowing and all seeing.

Do you regard your God as a natural being, Olga? What laws of nature apply to your natural God?

Это всё не нарушает законы природы. Магниты тоже могут левитировать. К жизни уже сейчас могут вернуть при определённых условиях. Моря тоже могут расступаться при определённых условиях. Частицы умеют возникать где угодно. Ваш телевизор тоже похож на такой говорящий куст. О нахождении вне Вселенной нигде не сказано. Наоборот, сказано, что Бог везде и во всём. Вселенная - единый организм. Любое изменение в ней изменяет одновременно всю систему. Это вам и есть всезнание и всевидение. Вы просто не умеете этим пользоваться, или не хотите. А всемогущество для человека на данном этапе развития, опасно для него самого и других. Что бы вы сделали, если бы вдруг стали всемогущим, Джеймс? Подумайте об этом.

 

[ольга]

This causes it to fall in the category of "advanced alien" by definition.

It obeys the laws of nature, is intelligent, powerful but is not human. And, it goes without saying, is surely not of this Earth.

Many have proposed the idea of God-is-an-alien but it's no more fruitful than any other theory.

Моё богатое воображение может вам нарисовать историю, в которой инопланетяне - это вирусы. Они прилетели на Землю из далёкого космоса, создают различные коалиции и комбинации, в виде различных живых существ, которые выглядят как люди, животные, растения, и пр., борятся между собой таким образом, созидают и разрушают. Вы знали, что ваш геном создан вирусами, Дэйв? Т.е. вы сами - это просто комбинация различных вирусов.

А ещё, подумайте о том, как мы выглядим вне нашего собственного сознания. Волны, излучения, химические реакции - это мы, и наши цивилизации. Так мы выглядим со стороны. Так, как мы видим себя и окружающий мир, его больше никто не видит. Это наша внутренняя программа. Почему кому то ещё должны быть интересны какие то там химические реакции? Это для вас есть радость и печаль, счастье и горе, а для Вселенной, это просто различные комбинации химических реакций.

 

[DaveC426913]

None of this violates the laws of nature. Magnets can levitate too. They can be brought back to life right now under certain conditions. Seas can also part under certain conditions. Particles can appear anywhere. Your TV is also like such a talking bush. There is no mention of being outside the Universe.

Well isnt this perfect!

We have a Christian Believer who, in one fell swoop, waved away all miracles attributed to God!

Usually that's the department of atheists.

We won another one over to the Light Side, guys!

On the contrary, it is said that God is everywhere and in everything.

Well now we don't need him. No miracles to explain. Olga's halfway saved.

 

[ольга]

Well isnt this perfect!

We have a Christian Believer who, in one fell swoop, waved away all miracles attributed to God!

Usually that's the department of atheists.

We won another one over to the Light Side, guys!


Well now we don't need him. No miracles to explain. Olga's halfway saved.

Ха! Так это же в Священных Писаниях написано, что "род лукавый и прелюбодейный ищет чудес, и чудес не дастся ему...". Вы просто невнимательно изучали христианство.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ha! So it is written in the Holy Scriptures that "a wicked and adulterous generation seeks miracles, and miracles will not be given to it...". You simply did not study Christianity carefully.

How is that relevant?

You said that miracles - specifically the ones in the Bible - do not have to be supernatural; they can be natural.
That has nothing to do with what miracles we might or might not see in this day and age - you explained away the very miracles of the Bible - the one allegedly seen by those non-wicked people.

 

[TheVat]

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that some mainstream Christian sects believe in a God as a transcendent being (i.e. not a person or alien) but not a generator of miracles. In other words, the path is to somehow intuit God without requiring such a being to be a magician or blow your mind with supernatural phenomena. If that was the way God reached humans, then faith would be less necessary - that is one popular theological view. Contemplation rather than miracles. So, and this is a subtle distinction for some people, a universal being could be real and transcend the ordinary physical world that is the domain of science, but not a being that generates supernatural events. On such a speculation, I would have to remain agnostic in the original meaning of that word: I have no knowledge of the true nature of such a hypothetical being. Agnostic means literally, "without knowledge."

 

[ольга]

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that some mainstream Christian sects believe in a God as a transcendent being (i.e. not a person or alien) but not a generator of miracles. In other words, the path is to somehow intuit God without requiring such a being to be a magician or blow your mind with supernatural phenomena. If that was the way God reached humans, then faith would be less necessary - that is one popular theological view. Contemplation rather than miracles. So, and this is a subtle distinction for some people, a universal being could be real and transcend the ordinary physical world that is the domain of science, but not a being that generates supernatural events. On such a speculation, I would have to remain agnostic in the original meaning of that word: I have no knowledge of the true nature of such a hypothetical being. Agnostic means literally, "without knowledge."

Теват, мы столько всего не знаем об этом мире, почти ничего. И то, что сегодня некоторые считают сверхъестественным, может оказаться вполне естественным уже завтра. Если бы человеку несколько веков назад показали телефон, то он бы решил, что это говорящий камень. А самолёт - летающая железная птица. Вот представьте себе древнего человека, который увидел будущее. Как оно будет для него выглядеть? Например, танк? Железная саранча с жалом, плюющаяся огненным дождём. Или что нибудь другое в таком же роде.

 

[ольга]

How is that relevant?

You said that miracles - specifically the ones in the Bible - do not have to be supernatural; they can be natural.
That has nothing to do with what miracles we might or might not see in this day and age - you explained away the very miracles of the Bible - the one allegedly seen by those non-wicked people.

А почему они не могли их видеть?