Dr. Eben Alexander, NDE Science Wins Out |504|

Alex

Administrator
#41
Has any one out there used Binary Beats? If so to what effect?
I purchased a track from Karen. I listen to it all the time. I'm sure the effect varies from person to person. for me, it's a mild effect, but pleasant... and if I'm in the right metal space it seems to help move me to a "deeper meditative state." but I'm pretty dense... not much gets thru :)
 

Alex

Administrator
#42
There's no doubt that there are unconstructive skeptics. I've been through the fire with them many times and been well tempered in the process. I've also seen too many instances to count of people who believe in nonsense based on the notion that everything is an opinion, and therefore their opinion is as valid as anyone else's, so if it makes them happy to believe it, then that's their reality, even if it's a complete delusion to anyone else. The irony of their paradigm is that it's 100% total egocentrism, but they project that as a defense mechanism onto anyone who questions them.
nice. agreed. but it's tricky, eh? I mean, everything is kind of an opinion... we are the observer who is affecting the experiment :) but I get, and agreed with your point... we got to try and be precise as possible... nudge a little closer to the truth... relativism is BS :)
 
#43
I left all the copies of that in Texas when I moved to China to teach English, so I'd have to re-write it. I have been meaning to b/c it's one of my best that I did in a burst of creativity went poof w/ the move to China. So, I will start on that ASAP. Thanks for your interest & encouragement!
For sure, man! Totally cool that you are bilingual and a teacher as well. Much respect!
 
#44
What worries me, is that they don't seem to receive a 'correct revelation' - which lowers their credibility a bit. I would make an exception for Rupert Sheldrake because he doesn't claim to have accessed non-local information, nor I think has he explored the CO2 issue much.

I suppose that for people like RS, they respect the general idea of preserving nature, and feel an aversion to poking into the one area that mankind seems to take as being supremely important!

Maybe Eben just uses the warming argument as a handle to refer to environmental degradation - I don't know.

David
Maybe you should also worry about the possibility that Eben in fact receives an entirely correct revelation and that it’s you who are entirely wrong about global warming.
 
#45
Maybe you should also worry about the possibility that Eben in fact receives an entirely correct revelation and that it’s you who are entirely wrong about global warming.
Well the entire claimed warming since 1880 - 140 years ago - is only about 1 degree centigrade, so how it is supposed to have caused the forest fires in California or Australia (or any of the other tragedies it is supposed to have already caused) is beyond me. Of course the decision to let dead wood accumulate in those forests, does explain what happened. Indeed a forestry expert predicted this would happen for exactly that reason.

I don't really want to divert this thread too much, so I'll leave it at that.

David
 
#46
I left all the copies of that in Texas when I moved to China to teach English, so I'd have to re-write it. I have been meaning to b/c it's one of my best that I did in a burst of creativity went poof w/ the move to China. So, I will start on that ASAP. Thanks for your interest & encouragement!
Surely if the text is still on a computer somewhere, you can acquire it again?

David
 
#47
No nuanced version of idealism, so far as I'm aware, espouses the idea that "everything is alive". There are versions of panspsychism, however, that approach idealism, as BK says.
Panpsychism does sort of say that. But regardless... idealism says everything arises from mind, and mind is the subjective aspect of reality. From Wikipedia on mind: "...it is generally agreed that mind is that which enables a being to have subjective awareness and intentionality towards their environment..."

The principal problem seems to be that people confuse consciousness with metaconsciousness. If one believes one's God is metaconscious, then one's notion of that God becomes Abrahamic, and dualism likely becomes the order of the day.
And the principle problem I have with Kastrup is the unnecessary invention of new vocabulary like "metaconsciousness" and "Mind at Large" or "[email protected]". The invention of new vocabulary means you first have to define your words in terms of already known vocabulary in order to communicate with someone else, and from a marketing perspective we know that such barriers to entry are no bueno. I prefer metaphors involving common vocab or well used symbols.

OTOH, if, as Bernardo hypothesises, [email protected] isn't metaconscious, but only its dissociated alters (living beings) have the potential to be so, one can see how everything might be in universal consciousness rather than being (meta)conscious.
And I don't like how he calls us "dissociated alters" which has the associations with mental illness. More bad marketing.

Idealism doesn't always emphasise the subjective.
I'm contrasting it with materialism so speaking in generalities. It is not that idealists deny such a thing as an "object" it is just that the object is dependent upon the mind which is subjective.

Bernardo himself, whilst tailoring his version more towards objective idealism (which particularly appeals to the modern analytical mind), claims to be simultaneously both a subjective and an objective idealist. There are things outside our seemingly localised metaconsciousnesses (i.e. "things-in-themselves" that objectively exist) but at the same time we can't help but experience them subjectively.
This seems to me like creating epicycles to explain planetary motion. I'm trying to reduce and simplify terms to find the simplest pattern that universally fits all others.

Unfortunately, and if it's because I'm dense, apologies, but I don't really understand your trinitarian idea of pattern. Subject and object mean something to me, but how does choice come into it? The choice between what and what? Object and subject? I don't get it.
Let me try a few different ways to illustrate the idea.

Imagine there is ONE thing. Perfect unity. No boundaries. No distinctions. How can we symbolize this or express this idea? Infinite light? Infinite blackness? Let's pick one. Doesn't matter which one. Infinite white? No, let's not be racist and let the Whities be privileged again. How about infinite darkness? Sounds good.

So in the beginning there is nothing. Infinite void. Infinite blackness. There is only ONE thing so there can be nothing else. There is not even any concept of darkness or light. Since there is nothing else to compare this infinite void we have no way of knowing whether it is infinitely large or infinitely small, infinitely bright or infinitely dark. There is no similarity and no difference because such concepts require comparison which require more than one thing.

In order to create something from nothing, something must change. Change creates a difference. The Oneness splits into two, but once it splits it cannot stop there. It starts a chain reaction of splitting into opposites. So what is the opposite of difference? Similarity. Similarity and difference come as a package deal. Pick anything and in some ways that thing is similar to and in some ways different from anything else. This is why I say everything real is a metaphor.

So we can represent this symbolically as black splits into white and black representing a change or a difference which then immediately turns into a grayscale spectrum from black to white (because both similarity and difference come as a package deal).

So now we have two legs of our three-legged stool installed, and here comes the third: choice.

Choice determines whether the differences are great enough to be considered different or whether the similarities are great enough to be considered identical. Choice is like a line drawn upon the gray scale spectrum which turns everything on the darker side black and everything on the lighter side white. It is like truncating an analog signal to a digital one and from this pattern or structure will arise.

How do you decide where to draw the line between light and dark, black and white? The choice is arbitrary unless you have a purpose. Purpose implies you have a goal. A goal implies the goal has not been fulfilled yet which implies a frustrated desire.

But without drawing a line on the spectrum, it is not established whether there is any difference or any similarity at all so there is no way to tell whether it is infinitely white or infinitely dark and thus the primal spectrum dissolves back to Oneness. In order for you to make a choice there must exist objective similarity/difference as well was subjective perception of similarity/difference which is a choice.

A second way to illustrate this geometrically: we all know that two points define a line, right? Wrong. It takes 3 points. If you only have two points you have no ratio, no comparison of spaces so you have no way to determine that the points are not infinitely close together and therefore the same point. All ratios which are comparisons of similarity/difference require three points.

The simplest way to illustrate this graphically is to draw three equidistant points. Why equidistant? This represents the smallest difference with the greatest amount of similarity and therefore it is as close as you can possibly get to the UNITY or the ONENESS without falling into that void where all distinction disappears. This is probably the origin of the triquetra and the flower of life symbols.

--------------------

Okay if that's not clear maybe the level is too granular.

Consider instead a neural network trained to recognize an image. You feed it pixels which have various values representing shades from black to white. How does it decide where the edges are? It assigns edges (which are a kind of boundary) based on what has the highest probability of being useful. Is the network perceiving objective edges or is it subjectively assigning the edges? It is doing both. The edges are both an objective gradient of values and a subjective choice about where to differentiate white from black so as to assign a useful boundary. If it chooses poorly and assigns the boundary in the wrong place it will not be as useful and may fail at its task.

Consider a human optical neural network observing subtle shadings and subtle gradients in color and light value of the swaying tall grass on the savannah trying to decide whether a lion has been observed or not. The neural network in the human is making a choice about where to assign edges and identify shapes based on what is most useful in staying alive. Those who fail are painfully eaten and this is a type of feedback which improves the functioning of the neural network making it more likely to assign boundaries upon gradients in a useful way in the future.

Consider 6 apples on a table. How many apples are there? Well I told you 6 so there must be 6. But suppose you were observing rather than listening to me: how do you know there are 6? Because there are enough similarities between the 6 objects to apply the same label to them and there are enough differences to consider them to be separate objects. Every set consists of similarity, difference, and boundary which is a matter of choice and that choice is arbitrary or random if there is no purpose and if there is a purpose, there is a goal behind it which makes it meaningful.

What if one of the apples on the table is a crab apple? What if one of them is an Adam's apple? What if one of them is an apple core? What if one of them is partially chewed? How you choose to define the set of apples depends on your purpose. Is your purpose to eat a fresh un-chewed fruit? You would draw that boundary differently than if your purpose was to count every object that could possibly have the label "apple" applied to it.


To me, the standard trinity comprises 1. Father - 2. Son - 3. Holy Spirit (to use Christian terminology).
These are just different labels for the Holy Trinity I have described.

The Spirit or Pneuma (great Tool song!) is equivalent to Choice. Father and son are the similarity/difference duo. A father is both similar to and different than his son. The father has a purpose which implies a goal which implies the goal has not been fulfilled yet which implies a frustration (which in humans manifests as sexual frustration) which drives action. Spirit is the active element. It is choice. In making a choice the boundary is set which establishes difference/similarity.

Genesis 1, the Spirit moved over the surface of the deep. Why the surface? The surface is the boundary. Why the deep? It is the void, the abyss, chaos. If there is a surface there must be the opposite: the light, the logos, structure. Like father like son: Jesus (Logos, Word, Structure) moved by the Spirit walked on the water (surface of the deep) by faith (by choice).

In idealistic terms, one might posit the trinity as being:

1. [email protected] (the instinctive, first-person perspective of the universe, or what it's like to be the universe).
I don't know what this means.

2. Life (the potential for awareness of awareness, "self refectivity", or "metaconsciousness" that has become so well developed in the alters we perceive as human beings).
Awareness of awareness is a feedback loop. Feedback loops are an essential element of consciousness at all scales of existence which is why I think it is so important to recognize the life review as a feedback loop which indicates the existence of a consciousness on a larger scale than one lifespan.

And that's all the time I've got now.
 
#48
The saga that it is fossil carbon that is responsible has lead environmentalists badly astray. For example, in Britain we have a large power station, called DRAX, which used to burn coal but now burns 'biofuel'. This biofuel is obtained by felling trees in North America, converting them to wood pellets, which are shipped across the Atlantic and fed into the furnaces at DRAX. IMHO it is never good to pander to a false scientific argument because of some ancillary reason.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/carb...ail&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-3e1bb88511-20174325

David
Right! A ridiculous attempt is made to burn a 'clean' fuel which ultimately is bad b/c the trees processed would have been, if left alone, removing CO2 from the atmosphere; wood burning still produces CO2 & CO. Who knows what kind of energy source was used to process the pellets or the chemicals (probably acids & other nasty ones) & possibly polluting residue was left over. This quandary is like the outcome of an intended good action actually causing harm, which spawned wuwei, or non-attachment to the results of one's actions. My position is that fossil fuels & the conveniences that run on them, like power plants & autos, are the unintended bad results of good intentions, so we must re-evaluate them. Wuwei won't work to stop the mass extinction of plants, animals, & ultimately, us.
 
#49
Right! A ridiculous attempt is made to burn a 'clean' fuel which ultimately is bad b/c the trees processed would have been, if left alone, removing CO2 from the atmosphere; wood burning still produces CO2 & CO. Who knows what kind of energy source was used to process the pellets or the chemicals (probably acids & other nasty ones) & possibly polluting residue was left over. This quandary is like the outcome of an intended good action actually causing harm, which spawned wuwei, or non-attachment to the results of one's actions. My position is that fossil fuels & the conveniences that run on them, like power plants & autos, are the unintended bad results of good intentions, so we must re-evaluate them. Wuwei won't work to stop the mass extinction of plants, animals, & ultimately, us.
Right, now Wikipedia reports that "Carbon monoxide is short-lived in the atmosphere (with an average lifetime of about one to two months), and spatially variable in concentration. ", so provided the power station is not situated too close to people, CO is not a problem. CO is not the reason we are bending over backwards to eliminate CO2, which is in fact necessary for plants to grow. In fact, if we tried too hard to get rid of atmospheric CO2, and lowered it below a threshold of about 170 ppm, we might find ourselves in real trouble.

Maybe the truth is that Eben sensed out there a concern for the planet, that he later interpreted in terms of CAGW, I don't know, but I wish he were here to ask. This is not that big an issue for me, because he has certainly stuck his neck out just by emphasising the inconsistency between spiritual phenomena and conventional neuroscience. Conceivably he even put in the global warming plug just to placate some of his enemies.

As for the mass extinction of species, even that gets seriously questioned, but it is obvious that if we keep expanding our human populations, habitats will shrink and ultimately we will all be in bad trouble.

However, the grotesque DRAX solution illustrates the folly of telling white lies in science. If you tell a lie, that the problem is CO2 concentrations because you think limiting fuel will ultimately limit population growth - well you are setting yourself up for a perverse result.

Above all, I think the green movement must be honest. As another example, recycling of plastics, is only possible if:

1) There are some products that can be made out of mixed plastic refuse.

2) There is a real demand for this 'raw material'.

2) You don't consume too many resources collecting and separating the plastic.

For a while a lot of Europe recycled plastics by passing them on to specialist plastic recycling companies, who in turn passed them on to third world countries to do the actual work of........ tipping the lot into the sea!

A really honest approach might have been to admit that plastic can't be effectively recycled and relied on incineration or intense efforts to reduce the actual manufacture of plastic. The problem is, that it is easy to see that plastic often saves other things. Frozen fish is often sealed in plastic, and clearly without the plastic, more fish would be wasted - there is a complicated tradeoff.

David
 
#50
I remember, as a child in grade school, when we were being taught the "mathematics" of language: subject, object, noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, etc. For me, it was the equivalent of a molecular physicist telling Bob Ross how to paint a forest, because the physicist understands the periodic table that makes up every element touching the brush far better than Bob Ross does.

I think that life, like God, is beyond categorical imperatives. Also, I don't think that God is hidden from us, but rather intricately woven into all of us. I only know this because I could be an idiot, and be absolutely wrong. Also, I still may be an idiot, but absolutely right!
God as in "God", is simply a title ( a name ), for the figurehead of a religious belief system. It's not that mysterious. People make it mysterious to give it power that cannot be proven not to exist, which gives them hope that it does exist. I take this to a whole other level. First of all, for the believer, your God exists in your mind. It might not exist anyplace else, but for the sake of argument, let's assume there is some entity out there beyond you that you have assigned this title to.

My question is, Why deify it? In other words, so what if there's a universe maker? That doesn't necessarily make it deserving of people's worship. Making universes is a power based attribute. Is it power that makes it worthy of worship? If not, then what? If you use your brain and follow the breadcrumbs, ultimately you'll reach the conclusion that any God worthy of being worshipped would neither require or want to be deified. This what I call the Godhood Paradox.
 
#51
God as in "God", is simply a title ( a name ), for the figurehead of a religious belief system. It's not that mysterious. People make it mysterious to give it power that cannot be proven not to exist, which gives them hope that it does exist. I take this to a whole other level. First of all, for the believer, your God exists in your mind. It might not exist anyplace else, but for the sake of argument, let's assume there is some entity out there beyond you that you have assigned this title to.

My question is, Why deify it? In other words, so what if there's a universe maker? That doesn't necessarily make it deserving of people's worship. Making universes is a power based attribute. Is it power that makes it worthy of worship? If not, then what? If you use your brain and follow the breadcrumbs, ultimately you'll reach the conclusion that any God worthy of being worshipped would neither require or want to be deified. This what I call the Godhood Paradox.
Nevertheless, a lot of people come back from their NDE's with God stories. I hate to just contradict NDE's because that is the way materialists behave - just take the evidence and alter it!

One problem is that when someone says 'God' a lot of people think of the Christian God, who wasn't portrayed as very loving at all.

I don't think the afterlife that NDE survivors and other explorers of the extended realm describe is anything like the Christian heaven.

David
 
#52
Panpsychism does sort of say that. But regardless... idealism says everything arises from mind, and mind is the subjective aspect of reality. From Wikipedia on mind: "...it is generally agreed that mind is that which enables a being to have subjective awareness and intentionality towards their environment..."



And the principle problem I have with Kastrup is the unnecessary invention of new vocabulary like "metaconsciousness" and "Mind at Large" or "[email protected]". The invention of new vocabulary means you first have to define your words in terms of already known vocabulary in order to communicate with someone else, and from a marketing perspective we know that such barriers to entry are no bueno. I prefer metaphors involving common vocab or well used symbols.........
Idealism may well be an ultimate explanation, but it is still a lousy scientific theory!

I mean, if consciousness does everything, then presumably planets do not need to keep to predicted orbits - they could just do anything - e.g. clear off into deep space! Where do the constraints come from that we normally call Newton's laws (leaving GR out of the discussion)?

I think you absolutely need one or probably several theories of progressively deeper subtlety before you get to Idealism.

David
 
#54
Has any one out there used Binary Beats? If so to what effect?

The abandonment of Common Sence by science would also explain apparent lies and smearing Not to be confused with logic which can and does dead end, creates non progressive closed loops.
We would have to have some abandonment of Common Sence to desregard Dr. Ebens account but we could say they do have a logic.
On the other hand it could just be malice, and egotism with out complicating things any further.
In the late 80s I participated in the Gateway program at the Monroe Institute. Their version of 'binary beats' is called Hemisync. Yes, I'd hoped to have an OBE, and no, I wasn't successful in that endeavor. The farthest I got was the 'body asleep, mind awake' state and it was quite powerful.

I'm not sure Eben really explained all that well how it works. To make it super simple, if you've ever had experience tuning one musical instrument to another, you'll notice that when the two pitches get extremely close, like if one instrument is playing A 440 and the other is at 442 (cycles per second), it will set a 'beat' of 2 per second, the difference between the two frequencies. So, the way all the binaural beats work is to put one note in the left ear, and another slightly different pitch in the right ear so the two brain hemispheres co-ordinate to the 'beat' or difference between the two pitches, thus bringing your brain into alpha, delta or theta brainwave state, whatever might be desired.

In practice, of course, it's much more complex than just one pitch in one ear and a slightly different one in the other. But that's the basic principle of it.

I enjoyed my experience at the Monroe Institute, not at all sorry I went even though I never had an OBE. But all in all, I have to say, I'd really just rather just do my own meditation. And as far as the 'body asleep, mind awake' state, I do that all the time anyway while 'napping'. It's great for creativity and I highly recommend it, and no, I don't need any binaural beats for that.
 
#55
Panpsychism does sort of say that. But regardless... idealism says everything arises from mind, and mind is the subjective aspect of reality. From Wikipedia on mind: "...it is generally agreed that mind is that which enables a being to have subjective awareness and intentionality towards their environment..."

...etc
Well, Hurm. I still don't have much of a clue what you're trying to say. I still don't understand where choice comes in. "Choosing" is something that only consciousness has the potential to do. If it's part of your trinity, it implies consciousness has always existed, perhaps is even coterminous with the "void". Or alternatively, consciousness had to be the first thing to arise in the void before anything else could happen. Either way, consciousness had to come first, and every subsequent thing had to depend in its prior existence. Which is kind of part of what idealism posits, so I don't quite see why you seem so against it.

Subject and object can only come to be differentiated when there is a consciousness able to make the distinction. No consciousness -- no subject/object distinction, or distinction of any kind for that matter. So again, consciousness had to come first.

Actually, I doubt that consciousness had a beginning; it's always existed, and is the origin of everything, so that every apparent "thing" must be a process occurring in [email protected] - apparent time, space and matter, object and subject, gargoyles and bunny rabbits, you name it. It's all mental, but not at its root metaconscious (aware of its own awareness). Metaconsciousness (self-reflection) is what arises when it dissociates. You might not like that word, "dissociation", because of its association with mental illness, but BK does stress that it's used analogically.

Looks like we'll just have to agree to differ and leave it at that.
 
#56
Idealism may well be an ultimate explanation, but it is still a lousy scientific theory!David
If it's a lousy scientific theory, why are its tenets increasingly supported by scientific evidence?

I'll give you a truly lousy scientific theory -- the multiple worlds hypothesis. I know you don't accept it, but ask many people and they will say it's a scientific theory rather than the outrageous speculation it really is. It's only considered seriously because it's materialism's last stand against what is becoming increasingly obvious: the fundamental "stuff" of the apparent universe is mental, not physical.
 
#57
I
In the late 80s I participated in the Gateway program at the Monroe Institute. Their version of 'binary beats' is called Hemisync. Yes, I'd hoped to have an OBE, and no, I wasn't successful in that endeavor. The farthest I got was the 'body asleep, mind awake' state and it was quite powerful.

I'm not sure Eben really explained all that well how it works. To make it super simple, if you've ever had experience tuning one musical instrument to another, you'll notice that when the two pitches get extremely close, like if one instrument is playing A 440 and the other is at 442 (cycles per second), it will set a 'beat' of 2 per second, the difference between the two frequencies. So, the way all the binaural beats work is to put one note in the left ear, and another slightly different pitch in the right ear so the two brain hemispheres co-ordinate to the 'beat' or difference between the two pitches, thus bringing your brain into alpha, delta or theta brainwave state, whatever might be desired.

In practice, of course, it's much more complex than just one pitch in one ear and a slightly different one in the other. But that's the basic principle of it.

I enjoyed my experience at the Monroe Institute, not at all sorry I went even though I never had an OBE. But all in all, I have to say, I'd really just rather just do my own meditation. And as far as the 'body asleep, mind awake' state, I do that all the time anyway while 'napping'. It's great for creativity and I highly recommend it, and no, I don't need any binaural beats for that.
I had read recently that absolute zero sound desorietes the mind/brain to
massive extent, basic function like walking , equalibrium...given this a zero sound environment with Monroe hemi-sinc tech, and total darkness...theoretically this should shift the state of awareness into drawing on interior realms, or rather induce altered states. Does not sound like you need this assistance but others like me it could be useful.

Nothing-ness is a antithetical state to consciousness. A state in which it will not abide by.
Too the unprepared ego this could produce terror or extreme comfort.
 
Last edited:
#58
If it's a lousy scientific theory, why are its tenets increasingly supported by scientific evidence?

I'll give you a truly lousy scientific theory -- the multiple worlds hypothesis. I know you don't accept it, but ask many people and they will say it's a scientific theory rather than the outrageous speculation it really is. It's only considered seriously because it's materialism's last stand against what is becoming increasingly obvious: the fundamental "stuff" of the apparent universe is mental, not physical.
OK If I put on a materialist hat, I can best explain what I mean. If everything is consciousness - like an immensely detailed daydream - then the dreamer can choose it intervene and change the daydream at any point - saying that something is produced by consciousness seems to imply that.

Now that makes idealism a lousy scientific theory, because whatever happens can be explained as being a whim of consciousness!

Science can only work with theories that are falsifiable, and in its simplest form Idealism can't be falsified.

Now it could be that the massed efforts of consciousness could produce something awfully like the laws of physics, and whims such as I mentioned are very rare - for example people very rarely take off all their clothes in the street, but that is clearly an outcome of consciousness - so consciousness can look like physical laws - particularly if we ignore the occasional exceptions (now and again people do strip off in the street, though I have never seen this happen).

Thus I feel an intermediate theory is essential - something that gives consciousness more properties that can be explored scientifically. If lots of scientists were exploring some of the phenomena discussed in (say) Irreducible Mind we would be further forward.

David
 
#59
Well the entire claimed warming since 1880 - 140 years ago - is only about 1 degree centigrade, so how it is supposed to have caused the forest fires in California or Australia (or any of the other tragedies it is supposed to have already caused) is beyond me. Of course the decision to let dead wood accumulate in those forests, does explain what happened. Indeed a forestry expert predicted this would happen for exactly that reason.

I don't really want to divert this thread too much, so I'll leave it at that.

David
Well maybe I'll add one more thing. I think there are some amazing examples of revealed truth - for example Ramanujan, who produced some extraordinary mathematical results that he claimed were revealed to him by an Indian goddess. Because he believed the source, he wasn't really interested in proving them, but he and others did provide a lot of proofs and people are still at work trying to prove some of his ideas (or maybe the goddess ideas!).

Thus I don't want to give anyone the impression that I am dismissing the knowledge given to Eben, or the idea of downloaded knowledge in general - the genuine revelations way outweigh the mistakes. Indeed I have read that even Ramanujan produced a few false results.

David
 
#60
God as in "God", is simply a title ( a name ), for the figurehead of a religious belief system. It's not that mysterious. People make it mysterious to give it power that cannot be proven not to exist, which gives them hope that it does exist. I take this to a whole other level. First of all, for the believer, your God exists in your mind. It might not exist anyplace else, but for the sake of argument, let's assume there is some entity out there beyond you that you have assigned this title to.

My question is, Why deify it? In other words, so what if there's a universe maker? That doesn't necessarily make it deserving of people's worship. Making universes is a power based attribute. Is it power that makes it worthy of worship? If not, then what? If you use your brain and follow the breadcrumbs, ultimately you'll reach the conclusion that any God worthy of being worshipped would neither require or want to be deified. This what I call the Godhood Paradox.
God would not be an "entity," as God would have to be all things at the same time. An entity would only be a particular manifestation of God. If God exists, there would be nothing "particular" about the total of what God is. Unfortunately, humans have a bad habit of "anthropomorphologizing" God.

Deifying takes place because there are a myriad of levels to existence, as we all can see. A lot of assholes want to be thought of as better than other assholes. This comes back to a lust for power, or rather, a knee jerk reaction to not wanting to feel powerless. If we saw ourselves as expressions of the Creator, and not suppressors of creators, then we would see that we are the one and the same as God.
 
Top