The biggest and the greatest evidence of the existence of God???

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

The wave/particle duality is a fiction . . . there are no "particles" . . . only wave events based on interference and dissonance/resonance.

I am aware of what you mean by duality. Again, what does it have to do with a bias about conscious vs unconscious nature? It seems that one can independently have a bias about each.

You remember correctly . . . god is directly concerned ONLY with the state of our consciousness (Spirit) . . . the design and process parameters take care of the production facility or the physical world.

So, the 'design and process parameters' are not God, is what you have just said.

But you also seem to be saying that they are not unconscious.

Your assumption that the "unconscious probability" is a real aspect of reality. . . is wrong. We are simply ignorant of all the design factors involved in the causal chains, period.

Your assumption that this is my assumption, is wrong. It is only a methodological practice, as I'm sure even you use probabilities. I understand that if we were omnipotent we would see every reason why every event occurs in the world, eliminating the need for probability. But the fact that there are actual reasons why things happen if we were able to look close enough, doesn't mean they were necessarily put in place by a conscious being.

Or, maybe you aren't saying that, if you are saying that God is not concerned with the 'production facility' or the physical world. If God is not concerned with the physical world, then it is not being controlled consciously, correct?

Consider for a minute that I am absolutely certain that God is real . . . something you cannot probably fully empathize with. Why would I abrogate the apparent need for lack of certainty that is built-in to the process of belief in God and the mental processes for producing the kind of consciousness God desires.

I'm unsure what you mean - are you trying to say that uncertainty is necessary in your 'perfect resonance' experiences?

Do I feel fortunate to have been given this certainty and the motivation to develop my synthesis . . . absolutely. But that's it. The path I took to that certainty requires the development of right brain skills that either were lost as our left brains became more and more dominant or are simply essential to truly know God. Either way . . . it is available to anyone who wishes to follow in my footsteps and achieve the same certainty for themselves . . . no short-cuts. No need to misrepresent or lie, Logic. Download all my posts and sort through them . . the ones responding to the incessant attacks and ridicule will fit your description . . .but not the substantive ones. I have promised Gldnrule a written summary. Given the amount of high school knowledge I have had to provide here . . . it is not going to be easy to target the intellectual level of the science explanations . . . the spiritual ones will be much easier.

I eagerly await your written summary. But I suggest you target the scientific community, not high school.

[ovcatto]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

If you can connect the dots scientifically explaining the existence of God . . . I suggest you do so.

You've done such a wonderful job so far, why would I duplicate the effort?

Seriously, the point that I was making, and demonstrated by you and the ID/creationist crowd is that connecting the so called dots, isn't that difficult when all you do is come to a conclusion and then pick and choose, or just make up, the evidence required to support said conclusion.

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

I am aware of what you mean by duality. Again, what does it have to do with a bias about conscious vs unconscious nature? It seems that one can independently have a bias about each.

Until we lose the "particle" focus and the effort to find the Higgs (God particle) . . . we have zero chance of finding the truth about our reality (and hence God). All our "measurements" (and the "objects" of them) discretize what are NOT discrete . . primarily because our mathematics requires it.

So, the 'design and process parameters' are not God, is what you have just said.

But you also seem to be saying that they are not unconscious.

You really need to lose this "either or" mentality, Logic . . . when dealing with our reality.

Your assumption that this is my assumption, is wrong. It is only a methodological practice, as I'm sure even you use probabilities. I understand that if we were omnipotent we would see every reason why every event occurs in the world, eliminating the need for probability. But the fact that there are actual reasons why things happen if we were able to look close enough, doesn't mean they were necessarily put in place by a conscious being.

You have not given very much philosophical thought to the problem of organizing principles and how or why they exist, have you?

Or, maybe you aren't saying that, if you are saying that God is not concerned with the 'production facility' or the physical world. If God is not concerned with the physical world, then it is not being controlled consciously, correct?

Think about us as "God" over our own bodies and every cell therein. How frequently does OUR consciousness focus on any particular cellular function or set of cells . . . yet they are US and we are the organizing principle coordinating all their functions in concert. However, when pain signals or other "symptoms" alert us to issues . . . then we focus our consciousness on them.

I'm unsure what you mean - are you trying to say that uncertainty is necessary in your 'perfect resonance' experiences?

I have not achieved perfect resonance by any stretch. The feat is reserved for the figure the "spiritual template" has presented to us as Jesus. Ask yourself, who would have provided certainty for God's consciousness? If we are to develop a comparably independent consciousness . . . how would certainty help?

I eagerly await your written summary. But I suggest you target the scientific community, not high school.

Interesting. Way too much work at my advanced age. Someone else will probably follow eventually . . . and perhaps at a younger age. Evolution does not apply only to the physical, my friend. I think a broader target audience and less rigorous presentation would be more appropriate given that I am already past my expiration date based on my parents' life spans.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Until we lose the "particle" focus and the effort to find the Higgs (God particle) . . . we have zero chance of finding the truth about our reality (and hence God). All our "measurements" (and the "objects" of them) discretize what are NOT discrete . . primarily because our mathematics requires it.

If your hypothesis is the truth about reality, I don't think there is zero chance of finding it even by searching for the Higgs Boson. You are underestimating the scientific pursuit. Even if scientists have a bias to begin with, the conclusions of rigorous tests will be what matters in the end.

You really need to lose this "either or" mentality, Logic . . . when dealing with our reality. You have not given very much philosophical thought to the problem of organizing principles and how or why they exist, have you?

It seems you are hinting that if I spent enough time thinking about 'intelligent design' I would see the universe as necessarily controlled by a god consciousness...

Think about us as "God" over our own bodies and every cell therein. How frequently does OUR consciousness focus on any particular cellular function or set of cells . . . yet they are US and we are the organizing principle coordinating all their functions in concert. However, when pain signals or other "symptoms" alert us to issues . . . then we focus our consciousness on them.

We only receive pain impulses if the area is connected to the nervous system by physical pathways. Are you implying that the universe has a physical nervous system?

Even so, I did not put my cells in order consciously, it was an automatic biological process. How much of the universe do you give credit to deliberate decisions by the god consciousness?

I have not achieved perfect resonance by any stretch.

I guess I meant your 'connection' state.. whatever you call it. Uncertainty is necessary to reach that?

The feat is reserved for the figure the "spiritual template" has presented to us as Jesus. Ask yourself, who would have provided certainty for God's consciousness? If we are to develop a comparably independent consciousness . . . how would certainty help?

How would I know "who would have provided certainty for God's consciousness"? To me, a likely candidate is your subconscious self. Which is why I see the importance in testing your a priori assumption of certainty.

Interesting. Way too much work at my advanced age. Someone else will probably follow eventually . . . and perhaps at a younger age. Evolution does not apply only to the physical, my friend. I think a broader target audience and less rigorous presentation would be more appropriate given that I am already past my expiration date based on my parents' life spans.

You've had 30 years to work on this, I thought. I figured you would have it all squared away by now...

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend

If your hypothesis is the truth about reality, I don't think there is zero chance of finding it even by searching for the Higgs Boson. You are underestimating the scientific pursuit. Even if scientists have a bias to begin with, the conclusions of rigorous tests will be what matters in the end.

You do NOT get it. When we "measure" we create a "composite event" that only exists during the "measurement" . . . and we quantize it as a single "something" with a name and other "measured" attributes. We mathematically model the relationships among these "measured composite events" as if they were discrete components of reality. This works just fine at the macro level of experience in the middle world of perception. But it is why we get the uncertainty results, probabilities and absurd speculations and interpretations at the quantum scale. Our vantage point in the "middle world" of sensory experience and "measurement" . . . (determined by the molecular vibratory composition of ourselves and our instruments) . . . distorts our perspective and understanding.

It seems you are hinting that if I spent enough time thinking about 'intelligent design' I would see the universe as necessarily controlled by a god consciousness...

Try to ditch your prejudice against the frauds in the ID and Creationist movements . . . and focus on the undeniable existence of control and the possible sources for it. Your "we don't know" and "it just is" may suffice for your personal views . . . but they do NOT remove the undeniable existence of the control and organizing principle behind it all. The existence of limited codified possibilities in the designs (however extensive) and the constraining processes invoking them has to be explained. The sheer scale, ubiquity and inviolability is sufficient to be accorded the term God.

We only receive pain impulses if the area is connected to the nervous system by physical pathways. Are you implying that the universe has a physical nervous system?

Even so, I did not put my cells in order consciously, it was an automatic biological process. How much of the universe do you give credit to deliberate decisions by the god consciousness?

::Sigh:: The strength of the materialistic conditioning in the middle world of perceptions seems impossible to penetrate with pure thought and logic . . . despite your screen name. I truly give up.

I guess I meant your 'connection' state.. whatever you call it. Uncertainty is necessary to reach that?

No.

How would I know "who would have provided certainty for God's consciousness"? To me, a likely candidate is your subconscious self. Which is why I see the importance in testing your a priori assumption of certainty.

You've had 30 years to work on this, I thought. I figured you would have it all squared away by now...

I was NOT doing it to write a book, Logic . . . I was trying to understand what I was experiencing and what it meant. I am all squared away. You and your cronies are the ones with issues about it all.

[LogicIsYourFriend]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

You do NOT get it. When we "measure" we create a "composite event" that only exists during the "measurement" . . . and we quantize it as a single "something" with a name and other "measured" attributes. We mathematically model the relationships among these "measured composite events" as if they were discrete components of reality. This works just fine at the macro level of experience in the middle world of perception. But it is why we get the uncertainty results, probabilities and absurd speculations and interpretations at the quantum scale. Our vantage point in the "middle world" of sensory experience and "measurement" . . . (determined by the molecular vibratory composition of ourselves and our instruments) . . . distorts our perspective and understanding.

Hello - I understand what you are saying. And you underestimate the scientific pursuit. We are still in 'primitive' times, but are crawling out slowly. Too bad you, with all your alleged knowledge, aren't doing anything to nudge them along.

Try to ditch your prejudice against the frauds in the ID and Creationist movements . . . and focus on the undeniable existence of control and the possible sources for it. Your "we don't know" and "it just is" may suffice for your personal views . . . but they do NOT remove the undeniable existence of the control and organizing principle behind it all.

yes things exist, and yes the world is organized the way it is. This doesn't lead me to conclude it was all a deliberate decision by a god consciousness.

The existence of limited codified possibilities in the designs (however extensive) and the constraining processes invoking them has to be explained. The sheer scale, ubiquity and inviolability is sufficient to be accorded the term God.

Bringing up that semantics opinion again, eh? I clearly said "God consciousness" so don't try to weasel in ambiguity.

::Sigh:: The strength of the materialistic conditioning in the middle world of perceptions seems impossible to penetrate with pure thought and logic . . . despite your screen name. I truly give up.

You never tried. You make statements that beg more questions and then ridicule when asked those questions. Sorry if my questions are too tough for you, since it seems you haven't worked things out enough to be able to express any answers.

Why won't you even answer this question? - "How much of the universe do you give credit to deliberate decisions by the god consciousness?"

No. I was NOT doing it to write a book, Logic . . . I was trying to understand what I was experiencing and what it meant. I am all squared away. You and your cronies are the ones with issues about it all.

But, if you have it all squared away, then it should be cake to just write it out. The way you're talking, it seems you will have to spend years researching and compiling just to write something worthy of the scientific community. That doesn't sound like something already 'squared away'.